I just re-watched Batman Begins on DVD. I had watched it in the theater when it first came out, and had been impressed. Not only did it have a compelling story, but it also had an excellent cast that fit. Michael Caine, Rutger Hauer, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, etc etc. The story was much darker in theme than the last few Batman movies, but it did an excellent job of establishing the backstory to Batman. Even if you don't like comic based movies, I think you may like this.
In contrast, I'm still upset about how bad King Kong was. Forget about the special effects, they were fine, even outstanding in instances. But I always felt like I was watching computer generated graphics. The story is so feeble and short, with cliche'd characters, that you really don't care about them. And the casting was atrocious. I don't know why Naomi Watts was cast, but her performance was poor, only surpassed in ineptitude by the miscast Jack Black. It seemed that Black's acting reportoire consisted of a cross between quizzical scowl and raised eyebrow. Being fair to Black, it's not as if his role was something that an actor could sink his teeth into.
When I watched King Kong in the theater, I was still recovering from my surgery. When I sat for too long in the same position, I experienced a lot of pain. At the time, the length of King Kong exacerbated this pain, and I thought perhaps I was hard on it for no justifiable reason. Yet looking back, I still think that Peter Jackson was exercising too much self-indulgence in having the movie run so long. We don't even see Kong until 90 minutes into the movie. Some movies deserve to be long (any of the LOTR movies for example), yet there's a disturbing trend. When a director is successful and in high demand, there are less and less restrictions placed on them by the studios and producers.
Restrictions and constraints are important for successful movies in my opinion. if money's no object, then the director will spend a lot of time doing reshoots until the scene is "perfect." Yet many scenes are actually better when the pressure is on to get the shot in the can. Pressure is a good way of forcing directors to focus on what's really important, instead of indulging in excess shots and scenes that don't propel the story. I think a perfect example of this is George Lucas. When he was filming Star Wars, he was beholden to 20th Century Fox for money and script approval.
This led to him having to make hard decisions about which scenes to shoot, and which to include during editing. The result: his best movie. Fast forward twenty five years, and look at Episode 1-3. Now I'll grant that the special effects are much better, but these movies have little heart. Lucas is surrounded by yes-men and sycophants who won't tell him no. Gary Kurtz who was the producer for Star Wars and the Empire Strikes Back left Lucasfilm partially because Lucas didn't want to hear what Gary was telling him. Now Lucas indulges himself in jokes about flatulence, camel excrement, and senators run amok. All because he financed the movies himself. All because he has no restraints, no real pressure, nobody to answer to.
I don't begrudge Lucas the right to do so. It's his universe, so he can play with it as he wants. But I don't think anyone will be discussing the cinematic merits of his last three movies in 30 years. The financial return will be well remembered, but for most people, the vision of Jar Jar Binks has tarnished what was once a promising director's legacy. This should be a cautionary tale for any of the new breed of directors.
love,
Cj
