Sunday, December 25, 2005

Kong-ed

I'm waiting for the post-mortems on King Kong. Should be interesting. Will any of them offer any real insight? Hopefully. It's heading to 100 mil easily enough as long as you don't take into account the 300 mil spent on making it and promoting it.

What went wrong? Great reviews for the most part, plenty of pre-opening slots on news and Hwood shows, and an almost communal sense of good will for this picture that just might turn Hwood's fortunes around. The girl is pretty and a fine actress (if that matters); Kong is spectacular; and the scenery is singularly stunning.

The criticism seems to focus on a slow first act. That's about all I've heard by way of carping.

But I wonder--and hope--if something else isn't happening here. Maybe a good segment of the movie audience is just plain tired of special effects pictures. I've seen a few of them this year and you know what? Special effects seem to have hit a wall. They've begun to repeat themselves. The technology, at least for now, seems tapped out. It doesn't help that most special effects are written around moronic scripts.

Yes, I know Narnia's doing well, but it's also being pitched to a born-again audience, a block of attendees grateful for just about any kind of recognition (hence the feel good vibes it managed to take away from Mel Gibson's sado-masochist telling of the Crucifixion).

Be fun to see what far wiser heads than mine come up with to explain the merely middling success of Kong. It's clearly going to make its money back; DVDs and foreign guarantees that. But why not Harry Potter success? Stay tuned.

Holiday wishes everyone.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home