Change Your Image
Pgjwk
Reviews
Living in the Time of Jesus (2010)
Well done, informative, regardless of one's beliefs
This is a very well done introduction to an extraordinary historical period.
Whether you are a Christian or not, this offers some very welcome information about what it was like to live, deal with illnesses and suffer punishment as a "criminal" during this time. In addition to people native to the area it additionally touches on how Romans lived and interacted with the "locals".
I've always loved history and have long been frustrated by the lack of books and documentaries out there that delve into the actual day to day lives and activities of people living in this pivotal period in human history.
While I'd love to have seen them go into much more depth, I realize many people might not share my passion for historical detail. This seems to be a decent introduction to the subject. I highly recommend it to any history buffs interested in this period.
King Kong (2005)
What was Peter Jackson thinking?
I have been an admirer of Peter Jackson ever since seeing his wonderful Lord of the Rings Trilogy. When I bought the recent DVD release of the original King Kong I was really excited to see the extra features on Peter Jackson and his upcoming remake of this classic. He went on and on about how much he revered the original, how it had influenced him from childhood and how he wanted to create a tribute to it. Then I saw his remake of it. I couldn't have been more disappointed. I actually got up and walked out during the scene where Kong is being captured. For some reason Mr. Jackson, after spending at least two hours getting us to care about this animal, decides to make us watch the animal being skewered by three-pronged hooks and finally shot with harpoons while having large chloroform bottles shattered in his face and, apparently, eyes. Now I'm no raving animal rights activist, no member of PETA or anything like that, but I really don't appreciate spending good money to see an animal graphically tortured. I know in the original, Kong was shot with spears and gassed, but in no way, shape or form was it depicted in this manner of cruelty. This, to me, just illustrates how modern filmmakers who try to emulate past great filmmakers, instead show, over and over again, that they just don't get it. Directors like Brian De Palma who tries to emulate Hitchcock only show how he towers over them. Sadly, Mr. Jackson has now put himself in this category. Maybe in New Zealand it's seen as good fun to torture animals, but it doesn't fly with me. (I don't mean to judge all New Zealander's this harshly, but I'm so stunned by Mr. Jackson's creative decisions here I'm just grasping at straws to find an explanation). Yes, I realize it's not a real animal and it's only a movie, but when a director uses his considerable talent, an amazing special effects studio and about 200 million dollars to create the illusion that it's a real animal, it does achieve the visceral effect of watching an animal being tortured. I can only assume if he thought he could "improve" on the original during the capture sequence by this degree of torture, he might have really gone crazy for the finale where Kong is actually killed. Sorry, I don't need any visions like that bouncing around in my head.
Now the cruelty aside, I have about a hundred other jaw-dropping head-shaking issues with this film. In the original, the relationship between Kong and Ann was marked by pure affection and gentleness from Kong towards Ann. In this one Kong is swinging and yanking her around so violently she would have been dead in seconds. In the original, Kong had a breathtakingly suspenseful battle with ONE Tyrannosaurus Rex after gently setting Ann down. In this one, Kong ludicrously fights THREE T-Rexes while holding her in his hands and, again, violently swinging and dashing her about some more. And by the way, the T-Rexes would have snapped Kong's arms off about three times where they are shown biting down on Kong. The part of the film that takes place on the island was always my favorite part of the original, but Peter Jackson has turned it into an utterly absurd over-the-top cartoon sequence with thousands of gut-churning insects, parasites, leach-like creatures and over-sized bats (instead of pterodactyls- another great scene from the original "improved" on by Jackson). Oh, and let's not leave out how he turned the islanders into some sort of unspeakable pseudo-human monstrosities out of the depths of Mordor. Again, why?
The choice of Jack Black to play Carl Denham was also bizarre. Robert Armstrong played a strong, authoritative (albeit eccentric), successful filmmaker and leader. Jack Black plays an unsuccessful, wimpy loser with dreams of making any film that's half way successful. He has no presence or authority and couldn't lead a cub scout troop. Again, one of Mr. Jackson's "improvements" over the original.
I have never been so disappointed by a film in my life. I doubt if I'll ever pay money to see a Peter Jackson film again.