NeonKnight
December 10th, 2005, 11:23 AM
I've been anticipating Peter Jackson's "King Kong" for quite a while now. I loved the original, and so did Peter, and that why I'm thrilled he concentrated on the original premise of the movie, not that terrible 80's remake.
Well, the reviews are already piling in, and "Kong" does appear to be a fantastic movie. I'm pumped up just to see the exquisitely detailed 1930's era NYC, which is supposed to be awe-inspiring! Kong himself and the whole Skull Island sequence are supposed to be ultra cool, and I hear Jack Black does a great job too!
And the more I hear about "Munich", the more I'm getting excited about this flick as well. I remember watching the 1972 Olympics as a kid pretty well, and I also remember being pretty damm pissed at the PLO.
It soesn't sound like I'm going to like the conclusion that Spielberg comes up with, but thats alright. As long as he sticks to making movies fine with me, just another opinion.
Both of these movies are surefire Oscar winners. Here is a brief preview of both:
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/58453.htm
LOOKS like "King Kong" will be crashing Steven Spielberg's Oscar party. Earlier this week, I spent nearly six hours in the dark riveted by back-to-back screenings of Spielberg's gripping, morally complex thriller "Munich" and Peter Jackson's gloriously triumphant re-imagining of "Kong" - the last major contenders shown to the press.
To this bleary-eyed veteran Oscar watcher, it was clear these two masterpieces from the world's greatest directors - which couldn't be more different - are both going to be up for Best Picture when Oscars are handed out on March 5.
Awards season kicks off in earnest tomorrow with a list from the National Board of Review, followed next week by Golden Globe nominations and kudos from three key critics' groups - and this looks like the most interesting race in years.
"Munich," depicting the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes by Palestinian terrorists - and a team of Israeli assassins dispatched to Europe to exact retribution - has been topping Oscar touts' lists, sight unseen, for months, if for no other reason than Spielberg's track record with serious themes.
Indeed, "Munich" turns out to be a very worthy successor to Spielberg's 1993 Best Picture winner, "Schindler's List," and his 1998 "Saving Private Ryan," which should have won the Oscar.
But unlike both of those World War II movies, there are no clear-cut heroes.
The leader of the hit squad (a terrific Eric Bana) and his men (including Daniel Craig, the new James Bond) come to question their mission - covertly sanctioned by Prime Minister Golda Meir and indirectly supervised by a shadowy government spookmaster (Geoffrey Rush).
What are the motives of the people who provide them information? Were their targets actually involved in the Munich massacre? What about the collateral damage from their unreliable bombs? And is the hit squad itself being targeted by the Palestinians, the CIA, the Israeli army, or all three?
The movie offers no easy answers, only nail-biting suspense - such as a chilling sequence when a Palestinian target's daughter in Paris picks up a telephone rigged with explosives.
Spielberg's controversial conclusion that any all-out war on terrorism is only going to beget worse terrorism is bound to resonate with the left-leaning Academy.
The bigger surprise this week was "King Kong," which was widely expected to be this year's top-grossing film - but whose Oscar prospects were believed to be primarily limited to the craft categories (for its awe-inspiring depictions of Skull Island, 1933 Manhattan and Kong himself).
Much like "Titanic," Kong is the kind of popcorn movie that will claim the Academy's attention because its central love story - between the doomed Ape and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) - is so powerfully credible and involving.
In many ways, Jackson outdoes his Best Picture winner "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" with a dozen astounding set pieces - including Kong battling to save Ann from three T. rexes while all are falling on vines into a chasm and a magical sequence of Kong sliding across a frozen Central Park Lake.
Well, the reviews are already piling in, and "Kong" does appear to be a fantastic movie. I'm pumped up just to see the exquisitely detailed 1930's era NYC, which is supposed to be awe-inspiring! Kong himself and the whole Skull Island sequence are supposed to be ultra cool, and I hear Jack Black does a great job too!
And the more I hear about "Munich", the more I'm getting excited about this flick as well. I remember watching the 1972 Olympics as a kid pretty well, and I also remember being pretty damm pissed at the PLO.
It soesn't sound like I'm going to like the conclusion that Spielberg comes up with, but thats alright. As long as he sticks to making movies fine with me, just another opinion.
Both of these movies are surefire Oscar winners. Here is a brief preview of both:
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/58453.htm
LOOKS like "King Kong" will be crashing Steven Spielberg's Oscar party. Earlier this week, I spent nearly six hours in the dark riveted by back-to-back screenings of Spielberg's gripping, morally complex thriller "Munich" and Peter Jackson's gloriously triumphant re-imagining of "Kong" - the last major contenders shown to the press.
To this bleary-eyed veteran Oscar watcher, it was clear these two masterpieces from the world's greatest directors - which couldn't be more different - are both going to be up for Best Picture when Oscars are handed out on March 5.
Awards season kicks off in earnest tomorrow with a list from the National Board of Review, followed next week by Golden Globe nominations and kudos from three key critics' groups - and this looks like the most interesting race in years.
"Munich," depicting the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes by Palestinian terrorists - and a team of Israeli assassins dispatched to Europe to exact retribution - has been topping Oscar touts' lists, sight unseen, for months, if for no other reason than Spielberg's track record with serious themes.
Indeed, "Munich" turns out to be a very worthy successor to Spielberg's 1993 Best Picture winner, "Schindler's List," and his 1998 "Saving Private Ryan," which should have won the Oscar.
But unlike both of those World War II movies, there are no clear-cut heroes.
The leader of the hit squad (a terrific Eric Bana) and his men (including Daniel Craig, the new James Bond) come to question their mission - covertly sanctioned by Prime Minister Golda Meir and indirectly supervised by a shadowy government spookmaster (Geoffrey Rush).
What are the motives of the people who provide them information? Were their targets actually involved in the Munich massacre? What about the collateral damage from their unreliable bombs? And is the hit squad itself being targeted by the Palestinians, the CIA, the Israeli army, or all three?
The movie offers no easy answers, only nail-biting suspense - such as a chilling sequence when a Palestinian target's daughter in Paris picks up a telephone rigged with explosives.
Spielberg's controversial conclusion that any all-out war on terrorism is only going to beget worse terrorism is bound to resonate with the left-leaning Academy.
The bigger surprise this week was "King Kong," which was widely expected to be this year's top-grossing film - but whose Oscar prospects were believed to be primarily limited to the craft categories (for its awe-inspiring depictions of Skull Island, 1933 Manhattan and Kong himself).
Much like "Titanic," Kong is the kind of popcorn movie that will claim the Academy's attention because its central love story - between the doomed Ape and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) - is so powerfully credible and involving.
In many ways, Jackson outdoes his Best Picture winner "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" with a dozen astounding set pieces - including Kong battling to save Ann from three T. rexes while all are falling on vines into a chasm and a magical sequence of Kong sliding across a frozen Central Park Lake.