Change Your Image
historybowler
Reviews
King Kong (2005)
Only A Few Complaints, But An Amazing Accomplishment
I had watched the original King Kong and knew it was a masterpiece of the early talkies. Then, yesterday, I saw Peter Jackson's version of it and I just have to say it doesn't try to replace the original. It just tries to expand on it. You get a little more back story on the characters, a little more action and a little more romance. As you would expect from Peter Jackson, it also ups the ante on visual effects.
Now to notable praises, Andy Serkis gives a heartfelt performance as Kong. This could be remembered as the pioneer in CG acting. Naomi Watts was a wonder as Ann. She made Fay Wray proud. My man Jack Black actually surprised me by playing a relatively straight performance as a producer with good intentions but good things never last according to Ann. Colin Hanks turns in a memorable supporting turn as Preston, Carl's naive assistant who learns too late about Carl.
Now, the flaws. First off, Adrien "I kissed Halle Berry" Brody as Naomi Watts's love interest? I can kinda see it. Adrien Brody as action hero? Nah. From the time they start exploring the island to when they finally capture Kong as over an hour long. I understand why Peter Jackson did this (to show off the dazzling visual effects), but I'm not a patient woman. Overall, though, great movie! I highly recommend it.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
"Bad Plot, but Action and Actors Make Up For It"
Roland Emmerich has created another special effects bonanza with "The Day After Tomorrow". The plot is basically how global warning causes a New Ice Age. Chaos ensures, of course. But, after this happens, the movie loses its momentum. The storyline is "Robert Altman Lite" with all these story lines sort of fitting together. The scientist trying to save his son and redeem himself for a lifetime of not being there. The son falling in love in a library in New York. The mom, a doctor, stuck in Washington with a sick patient. (Will they get out alive? Of course.) The president is also stuck in Washington (Will he get out alive? No. Because the mean V.P. has to be in charge of the country. DUH!) The scientist's Scotish colleague and his team who end up dying. (AWW!) I have to admit that the main reason I got this movie was that Jake Gyllenhaal is in it. I love Jake Gyllenhaal and I'm happy for his Oscar nomination. In this movie, he is pretty good as is Dennis Quaid and Emmy Rossum (woefully underused in the third act because of her sickness which you knew was coming). Sela Ward is also underused because of her main job in the plot is to be Dennis Quaid's love interest and that is done with in the first act. So, good action, good action, but bad plot. It's a good popcorn movie and definitely worth the money.
Man of the House (2005)
"What Was THAT!?"
I expected to kind of suck, since we have seen the plot about a million times. But, come on! I want my 3.50 back from the movie rental place. Here are my complaints about this movie in no particular order. 1) Their ad campaign made Cedric the Entertainer's character like a second banana to Tommy Lee Jones. WRONG!!! Cedric's main point in movie is randomly bounding around for comic relief when the movie needs it (And trust me, it needs it!) 2. Was just me or did some of those cheerleaders look like? Except for the black girl, there was two ditzy blondes and two feisty Hispanics. Isn't this stereotypical? 3. Speaking about the cheerleaders, they couldn't cheer if their life depended on it! 4. Tommy Lee Jones, a respectable actor, shouldn't be in crap like this (let alone produce it) 5. Finally, the love subplot sucked. Thank you for my time. For those you have seen this movie, my sympathies.