No makeup for Kong's black eye
Sorry, Kong! Roars of praise from the L.A. Times, Washington Post, Entertainment Weekly and Roger Ebert plus $465 million b.o. worldwide just ain't enough — you're still considered a failure by Oscar voters, for some insane reason I can't figure out. Now matters just got worse. Last week we considered the possibility that, even though Peter Jackson's blockbuster probably won't be nommed for best pic, it might still become the first film ever to receive the most Academy Award nominations without a shot at the top prize. Not anymore.
This email just arrived from kudos guru Pete Hammond: "With the release today of the Academy short list for Makeup and no 'King Kong' on it, 'Kong's' chances of being the nom leader just took a hit. Now it's down to 8 likely possibilities and that's wobbly."
I think "King Kong" is one of the 5 best pictures of the year and deserving of a Best Picture nomination. It may be considered a failure by some in the Academy because of the great expectations that preceded its release. Some even thought it might challenge "Titanic" at the box office. Academy members should simply consider how good a film "King Kong" is, not be locked into preconceptions that did not come true,
Posted by: Jim | January 12, 2006 at 10:17 AM
When I said "junk art" in reference to "Kong," perhaps I should have said "kitsch," to get to the heart of exactly why the movie isn't being showered with accolades. Fun plus entertainment is not a combination that usually merits critical and community respect. The movie is a skillfully re-vamped relic; for my part, highly enjoyable but soulless, a juicy diversion from the country's current state of emergency in regard to political corruption, human rights , war, and natural disaster.
Posted by: b signor | January 12, 2006 at 08:37 AM
I saw it with a group of Seniors locally and all of us were enraptured by it: possibly becuase most of us saw the origninal with Faye Wray. Long it is, one dull spot in middle, entertaining yes in spite of minor flaws and enough to keep Seniors in their seats tightly for 3hrs22mins.
Somewhere there should be an award in some category: Good Show!
Posted by: Marius | January 12, 2006 at 07:14 AM
The poster below says in reference to KING KONG: The movie is junk art, and not even a brilliant performer can lift it much above the level of well-timed thrills and chills braided with silly, erotic fantasy.
This narrow minded discription can be used for "brokeback mountain", "Goodnight and Goodluck", "MUNICH", "crash", "History of Violence" and "Capote" . Art is in the eye of the beholder, and many more qualified people has said it is a brilliant work. So what else do you have to say.
Posted by: saltydog | January 11, 2006 at 05:57 PM
Kong will NOT be nominated for Best Picture. No way. It'll get some tech nods but thats it.
Posted by: Ricky0101 | January 11, 2006 at 05:20 PM
I'm with Armando from Caracas when it comes to "King Kong." Why all the fuss and effort to drum up support for a funhouse movie? Jack Black is entertaining, and the New York scenes are mostly snappy and effective, but then there's that long, abysmal island section to contend with, and the most embarrasing depiction of "native people," since, well, Original Sin! Despite the hype, there is nothing especially prize-worthy about this movie. Naomi Watts is a great, risk-taking actress, and as big a fan as I am of her work in Mulholland Drive and 21 Grams, I don't think she merits an Oscar nomination for "Kong." The movie is junk art, and not even a brilliant performer can lift it much above the level of well-timed thrills and chills braided with silly, erotic fantasy.
Posted by: b signor | January 11, 2006 at 02:04 PM
I agree that Kong will be nominated for Best Picture.
Every year, the Academy throws us major curveballs that nobody sees coming. We can't all know exactly how it is going to pan out, because most times, NOBODY is 100% correct in their predictions for this category, especially in a year like this one - very unpredictable.
I really believe that Kong will make it in for Best Picture.
Posted by: Robert Licuria | January 11, 2006 at 01:20 PM
Yeah you must of seen the original not the Peter Jackson remake which is downright brilliant.
Well let see, yesterday Hammond says KING KONG got a black eye because it didn't receive the MAKEUP NOD FROM THE GUILD OF ALL THINGS. Well, Today its gets a NOD FROM THE SOCIETY OF CINEMATOGRAPHY so I suppose that means it is back in the race. Why do people continue to beat down on this excellent brilliant critical fave film. From boxoffice results (even though it has excellent boxoffice) to whatever. Is it they are afraid it will win Best Picture over their favorites. Enough. GIVE KONG IT DUES.
Posted by: saltydog | January 11, 2006 at 12:07 PM
"Sorry, Kong! Roars of praise from the L.A. Times, Washington Post, Entertainment Weekly and Roger Ebert plus $465 million b.o. worldwide just ain't enough — you're still considered a failure by Oscar voters, for some insane reason I can't figure out."
What is it with this "King Kong" movie? I've seen it. I thought it was a good, fun movie, but nothing to write home about... I wonder if I saw the same movie.
Posted by: Armando (Caracas, Venezuela) | January 11, 2006 at 09:01 AM
Yes it a bad sign if it can't get a nod here and AHOV has a shot Ed's scar
Posted by: Paul8148 | January 10, 2006 at 11:20 PM
One other fact on "KING KONG". Do you all know that the CONSERVATIVE BLOG have "KING KONG" on their hit list, the boycott list, becaue it has as its star JACK BLACK. Now how ridiculous is this. Aren't these the same people who cry out for family type pictures and when they get one they are out there on the internet BOYCOTTING IT.
Posted by: saltydog | January 10, 2006 at 10:58 PM
I just have this feeling that "KING KONG" is being underestimated. As I written before it is the only film of those being thrown about as BEST PICTURE nominees that have the populace following. And if the ACADEMY want to promote a picture that they can claim as a quality and highly praised boxoffice blockbuster for the year than its should be "KING KONG". KING KONG should be one of the top five or the people will revolt at the boxoffice and theaters will surely continue to digress into becoming ghost theaters. Like in "Ghost town". HEHE...
Posted by: saltydog | January 10, 2006 at 10:49 PM
That was never gonna happen. Kong will get like 5 or 6 noms.
Posted by: Adam Keller | January 10, 2006 at 10:09 PM