How is Munich faring so far with the critics? The big weigh-in happens on Friday, 12.23, with the limited opening…but right now it’s got an overall 70% favorable Rotten Tomatoes rating (not bad but not wonderful), and a 55% favorable with cream-of- the-crop critics. The thumbs-up crowd includes Entertainment Weekly‘s highly respected Owen Gleiberman, Ebert and Roeper‘s Richard Roeper, Rolling Stone‘s Peter Travers (renowned for being an easy lay), the New York Post‘s Lou Lumenick, the Hollywood Reporter‘s Kirk Honeycutt and Reelview‘s James Berardinelli. The thumbs-down contingent includes The New Yorker critic Anthony Lane, Variety‘s Todd McCarthy, New York Observer critics Andrew Sarris and Rex Reed, and the Village Voice‘s Jim Hoberman.

I don’t want to start off on the wrong foot here. I’m a fan of Peter Jackson’s King Kong…after the 70-minute mark. A modified fan, I should say, because I’m not over-the-moon about it. I liked the rousing CG stuff and the emotional stirrings during the scenes between Kong (i.e., Andy Serkis) and Naomi Watts…but let’s not get carried away.

The point is that this 187-minute movie is full of bits that drive me up the wall, and now that Kong has run into a slowdown at the box-office and I’ve gotten my Jack- son mea culpa out of the way, it’s okay to be cut him down again. I felt a certain muted admiration for Jackson in early December after I’d first seen Kong, and I have to admit it feels more comfortable and natural being in a bash mode.

The once-celebrated, now-being-scrutinized Bronto run sequence in Peter Jackson’s King Kong

How do I vaguely detest thee, Kong? Going from the top…

* Jackson should have included an overture of Max Steiner’s music as a soundtrack-only supplement on the front of the film, to be heard in semi-darkness before the Universal logo and the credits come on, etc. This happened when I first saw Kong at the Academy theatre on the evening of Sunday, 12.4, and Steiner played like gangbusters.

* Captain Englehorn is an Idiot, Part 1: The German-born skipper (Thomas Kretschmann) presumably knows Jack Black’s Carl Denham desperately needs a fetching actress to come along on the voyage and presumably wants Denham to succeed so he’ll get fully paid, and yet the first thing he says when he meets Naomi Watt’s Ann Darrow is to express surprise that she “would take such a risk.”

* The ship is pulling out of the harbor and Adrien Brody’s Jack Driscoll is so keen on getting paid that he doesn’t feel the engines rumbling and the ship moving? He doesn’t say anything to the check-writing Denham as the ship is obviously leaving the wharf?

* Captain Englehorn is an Idiot, Part 2: Since he tells Denham that the first check bounced, it can be assumed that he hasn’t been paid a dime. And yet he’s taking his ship and crew on a long and very expensive sea voyage, trusting that a guy he obviously doesn’t trust will cough up later on.

* That ominous music on the soundtrack and that dumb-ass look of alarm on that actor’s face (is it Evan Parke’s or some other guy’s?) when those bottles of chloroform roll out from the animal cage in the ship’s storage area.

The completely idiotic Capt. Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann, second from left with hat) contemplating the Big Wall

* All of that prolonged bonding crap between Evan Parke and Jamie Bell, and those mentions of Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”…a complete bore and a waste of time.

* Captain Englehorn is an Idiot, Part 3: As they sail the Indian Ocean he tells Denham he’s going to drop him off at the nearest Asian port since he’s just gotten a radio message that there’s a warrant out for Denham’s arrest…which will make certain that Englehorn will never get paid and will be stuck for the cost of the voyage out of his own pocket.

* Captain Englehorn is an Idiot, Part 4: As they approach Skull Island Engle- horn is told that the depth is getting shallower and shallower, and yet he proceeds right ahead and smashes the ship into the rocks.

* The area of Skull Island protected by the big wall is all rock even though the rest of the island is all prehistoric flora…green, fertile, covered in overgrowth. How does that work exactly? I’ll tell you how it works. Jackson and co-screen- writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens decided that the villagers live on a barren rocky peninsula.

* The Skull Island natives are ridiculous gargoyles trying to act as deran- ged and bizarre as possible because Jackson told them to do this. (Being unencumbered by matters of taste and restraint allows for all kinds of creative decisions.) I mean, some of the islanders are obviously white New Zealanders with blue or gray eyes and brown-skin makeup, and some look African-American…and it’s all bullshit.

* A Skull Island native is going to pole-vault from the island to Englehorn’s ship in order to abduct Darrow?

* The Skull Islanders are going to use a sophisticated cranking-crane system made of wood and vines and crude rope in order to lower human sacrificial offerings to Kong over the gorge behind the big wall?. Jackson came up with this idiotic contraption because he didn’t want to copy the sacrifice sequence in Merian C. Cooper’s original film too closely…period.

* The more I think about the Bronto run sequence, the more absurd it seems. This bit was cool the first time and I went with it, yes, but there’s no way those guys running under the bellies and legs of the dinosaurs wouldn’t be ketchup.

* Jackson portrays Kyle Chandler’s Bruce Baxter character as a narcissist and a coward in the early stages of the hunt on Skull Island. His defining act is to return to the ship early after chickenheartedly rationalizing that Darrow is almost certainly dead. And yet he switches gears a half-hour later by convincing Englehorn and a few others to return to the treacherous jungle terrain to help Driscoll and the survivors of Kong’s attack, and they arrive just in time to start shooting at the bugs in the pit.

* Jackson’s two snotty references to the 1933 Merian C. Cooper film. He has Darrow and Baxter say the dialogue from a romantic scene in the ’33 film as a way of saying to the audience, “Listen to that hokey dialogue.” And in Denham’s New York stage show in Act Three he recreates the look of Cooper’s Skull Island char- acters and has them do that bent-over Kong sacrifice dance.
There is no inspiration in the context of the film for this — it’s just another indulgent Peter Jackson wank. And he’s clearly making a point that Cooper’s film is hokey and antiquated, and that his is far more on top of it.

And Yet…

A guy named Steve Clark wrote last week insisting that Kong “is not a master- piece but jeez, I guess that very lack of discipline helps push it to greatness. It is a great film partly because it is so out of control, imperfect and undisciplined.
“My friends think I’m retarded. They said it was all ‘too much’ and ‘too long.’ But if this Kong weren’t too much, something would have been seriously amiss. Or at least routine. Though when I say this all I feel are people wincing at me. I feel like Armond White!

“This film is an orgy of excess and if it weren’t three hours long with too much action, it would be a lesser film. It needs to be too much but only in the right way. I think the movie is a bloated, brilliant fucking mess, but it’s a great film.
“Why? Partly because it goes semi-meta toward the end, critiquing itself, replay- ing itself as a horrible Broadway production; it lashes out at the audience for swallowing it whole.
“But most importantly, its corny old controlling idea works wonderfully. The rela- tionship between Naomi Watts and Kong is a heartbreaker. This is Peter Jack- son’s Apocalypse Now…and it’ll be all downhill from here on. (I’m speaking as a fan who thinks the LOTR films are his Godfather trilogy…sorry.)
“Jack Black = psychotically super-indulgent, obsessive filmmaker = Peter Jackson!”

Decision

Tuesday Trek

The only thing stopping me from seeing Terry Zwigoff’s Art School Confidential at an uptown screening room in Manhattan on Tuesday (12.20) was the transit strike…but of course, it didn’t.
I decided to leg it or hitch it, so I started walking from Montrose and Bushwick around 3:45 pm, and I made it to Sony headquarters at Madison Avenue and 55th Street by 5:15 pm…piece of cake.
And then I walked back with two stops and made it home by 9:30 pm. About 140 blocks, give or take. I wouldn’t like it, but I could do this every day.
It was a little over a mile from my place to the Williamsburg bridge. It was brutally cold, in the mid 20s, and at first I was thinking that I might wimp out. But speed- walking kept me warm and I soon got used to it.

A lot of places claim to sell the world’s greatest burgers but Paul’s Burgers, on the east side of 2nd Avenue just south of St. Mark’s Place, is no pretender.

A dozen or so carolers on East 3rd Street near 1st Avenue, around 9 pm. People watching from their open apartment windows cheered when they finished. The group has no name — they’re just neighborhood locals, and they do this every year.

There were no empty cabs so I thumbed a ride because it can be murder walking over a big river with the icy wind and everything. A couple of guys driving a van for a Lower East Side bakery picked me up and dropped me at 1st Avenue and 3rd street. I also caught a ride over the bridge back to Brooklyn around 9 pm.
Crisis brings out the charity in people, and you can’t do better in a crisis than be in the company of New Yorkers.
The first ride put me ahead of schedule so I stopped for a quick one at Paul’s Bur- gers on 2nd Avenue just south of St. Marks Place.
On the way back on East 3rd Street I came upon a group of Christmas carolers singing “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing.” I took some shots and fell instantly in love with these guys. Others were stopping and, I gathered, having the same reaction. It sounds like a holiday cliche to say this, but it was a truly beautiful moment.

The two guys who picked me up on the Brooklyn side of the Williamsburg Bridge on Tuesday, 12.20.05, around 4:10 pm.

Looking up from northwest corner of Park Avenue and 38th Street — Tuesday, 12.20.05, 4:50 pm.

Big Daddy’s Diner, 239 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017

South-facing facade of Grand Central Station — Tuesday, 12.20.05, 4:45 pm.

Called on the Carpet

The New York Times‘ “Carpetbagger” blogger David Carr ran an item at 8:45 this morning (12.21) titled “Have the Terrorists Won?”
It read, “Munich, which got pounded coming out of the gate, seems to be enjoying a bit of a bounce. The L.A. Times columnist Patrick Goldstein still favors Broke- back, but says that Munich has a shot, in part because people are starting to see the movie instead of just the controversy.”
To which I have two things to say: (1) Munich is a pretty good film that hasn’t a chance because of all the people slamming it for being repetitious and tedious and all the politicos trying to kill it for its views about dealing with terrorism, and (2) Is the Carpetbagger me a “terrorist” and if he is, what the fuck?

I’m guessing that Carr is probably referring to the people who’ve written political attacks on Munich. But on the chance he might have been referring to me, I wrote Carr and said…
“So people taking the pulse of this town and setting their insect antennae to high-sensitivity mode and determining that the general response to Munich will not result in a Best Picture Oscar (and perhaps not even a Best Picture nomination) are ‘terrorists’?
“I get the inference (or I think I do) because you started out with a mention of the Goldstein column, which seemed to mainly address the Hollywood side of the rumpus.
“All I know is that I’m trying to read the situation as clearly as possible. I found Munich to be a pretty good film with a cruddy third act, but more importantly I’ve heard from the get-go that (a) others are less taken with it, (b) some Jewish Academy members are TRULY DOWN ON IT and loathe the political message it’s sending, (c) that the words ‘repetitive’ and ‘self-important’ apply.
“I am also one of many who recoiled in distaste (and continue to recoil in distate) from that obnoxious Time magazine proclamation that Munich, lo and behold, is ‘Spielberg’s Secret Masterpiece.’
“Am I a terrorist-minded observer for — okay, I admit it — chuckling with satisfaction over the news media spectacle of a pseudo-legendary director with a massive ego…a legendary industry figure famous for commanding obeisance gestures from other primates with a mere arching of his eyebrows…being hit and possibly (who knows?) brought down?

Mathieu Kassovitz, Eric Bana in Steven Spielberg’s Munich

“Am I a terrorist at heart because it frankly feels good inside to see Spielberg, a gifted director but also, his few excellent films aside, the most successful hack in Hollywood history…a man of obviously limited intellectual vigor with more money than God being tackled and taken down by guys in the trench? That’s a bad thing?
“We’re living in a very skewed, cynical and twisted world.
“All I am, really, is a man of constant sorrow whose days are sometimes briefly brightened when Munich implodings happen…and they don’t happen enough.
“This reasonably good movie has never been Oscar calibre, not really…and I hate it when people reflexively bend over to smooch Spielberg’s ass.
“Munich is a fairly thoughtful, passably good film that says the right thing, agreed, but in a lot of journalist minds it has been a big presumptive Oscar pick from the get-go because it’s a Steven Spielberg film, because the subject is ‘important’ (i.e., about the fate of Israel), and above all because it’s being released in late December.
“And now there’s a backswing in its favor because people are taking a second look and…what?…feeling sorry for it because ‘terrorists’ have been over-zealous in their attacks?

Geoffrey Rush, Bana

“I guess I can confess the truth now. I’m actually a triple agent working for Univer- sal. The plan all along was to try and create a sympathy backlash for Munich by people like calling a spade a spade and predicting its downfall.
“Like the plan hatched by Marlene Dietrich to save Tyrone Power in Witness for the Prosecution, I told my Universal brown-bag employer (a guy I met after-hours in an underground garage in Century City) just after that disastrous Time cover that the ony way out would be for bloggers like myself to over-play the ‘Munich is toast’ card…only then would industry and media opinion eventually swing back in its favor.”

New Logo

It used to be Lions Gate — now it’s LIONSGATE. The change was announced last week at a pleasant press breakfast held at Lion’s Gate…I mean, LIONSGATE headquarters in Santa Monica.

Kong Shortfall

“I am from Mexico and the King Kong opened here last Friday. I went to see it on Saturday and expected a big line in a theater were you usually have to wait about an hour in line if you want to get a good seat for a tentpole flick. Anyway, I arrived an hour early and only half the seats had been sold, with the theater opening its doors with no line at all about half hour before the movie started.
“Eventually, I have to say, the theater did fill up, but it was kind of weird to see such a big movie performing like this in that theater during opening weekend.
“I’ve been kind of testing friends of mine about their eagerness to see this movie and the consensus is pretty discouraging. Most of my female friends just don’t care about it. And while some guys are certainly excited, most of them said that they would see it because it was the movie for the holidays, meaning that I got a vibe leaning more towards the likes of having to watch the movie instead of just wanting to.” — Pepe Ruiloba

Del Mar Nation

“I agree with your thoughts on Ennis Del Mar-ism. I’ve been and still am to a certain degree guilty of it, staying in a job that I like but not risking failure with something that I love. But I disagree that straight couples or straight people in general won’t be able to relate to this movie.
“The same thing that Ennis Del Mar wasn’t able to overcome in the movie is the same reason I think the general population might not want to see this movie or relate to it. Fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of caring about or relating to people who engage in acts seen as a sin in the eyes of God.
“But the theme of love is universal. Our search for meaningful relationships is universal. We all do it. Sometimes searching our whole lives. And I’d venture to say that most of us have been in the position of one or both of these characters; loving someone so wholly who couldn’t love you back or being in a relationship with someone who you couldn’t give what they wanted. Everyone has loved. And anyone who denies it is a liar.

“The thing that hit me hardest and what grieved me the most, though, is how legitimate I felt Ennis Del Mar’s fear actually was. The flashback sequence of him as a child seeing what he saw. Living in a time when being gay was kept totally in the closet. Not to mention being in Bumblefuck, Wyoming, where I’m sure there isn’t much if any of a gay community. And being in a place where people STILL aren’t too accepting of that lifestyle.
“My sadness came not because I can personally relate (I’m a straight white male), but because I feel empathy for people who have to live with this kind of conflict. Growing up to believe it’s wrong and yet still feeling it. Feeling such a strong connection for someone but being afraid you’ll be outcast or worse beaten or killed. This shit happens for real. Can we say Matthew Shepard just to name one?
“And it’s not fair. What do I have to deal with being a white, heterosexual, middle-class male? Practically nothing. I can love who I want to. I won’t be judged by the color of my skin or who I choose to have sex with. I won’t be compromised because I’m female. I’m priveleged. But that doesn’t mean I think it’s right and don’t feel or think about the people who aren’t.
“If people can get over their own fears relating to homosexuality and put those aside, and to see the movie for what it really is — a tragic love story — then they can easily relate to the themes in this movie and be moved by it.” — Josh Bihary

“p.s.: I think the Brokeback Mountain numbers speak for themselves and I hope this movie does well and gets the support it deserves come Oscar time. Super high per screen averages over two weekends. $2 million from 69 screens! That’s pretty impressive if you ask me.
“I personally went to see it Sunday evening in Seattle and at the Egyptian theater for the 7pm show the line was literally down the block and around the corner. We went to the other theater it was playing at, the Harvard Exit, and immediately got in line. Within 15 minutes, the line was nearly as long.
“I even saw older folks in line as well. If it can keep this kind of interest up, it will easily make its money back and then some.”

Grabs

Former Hollywood Elsewhere columnist Jett Wells, a senior at Brookline High Schhol, during track meet in indoor Roxbury track stadium — Sunday, 12.18.05, 1:15 pm.

Poinsettias on front porch area of Le Pain Quotidien at Melrose and Westbourne

The great Werner Herzog (Grizzly Man, The White Diamond) during chat at Director’s Guild last Friday, 12.16.05, 12:45 pm.
Audio chat will run on Elsewhere Live Thursday evening at 5 pm Pacific, and reside thereafter in the archives.

I’m the last guy to run this but yeah, I see it…a subliminal flash-frame of bearded Apocalypto director Mel Gibson on the just-up preview trailer for the film on Apple’s movie trailer site. The movie looks intriguing….very high-end spooky stuff. But it’s wacko Mel’s appearance that’s getting all the media attention. Pause the trailer about 3/4 of the way through and start pushing along bit by bit, and suddenly there’s Mel, standing next to a couple of extras covered in white body paint and looking like a mad prophet from the outback on Ecstasy. Nutso smile, lit cigarette, eyes a-poppin’, wild-ass hair, unbuttoned plaid shirt. And it’s not a joke. The key thing for me is the film’s marketing slogan: “When the end comes, not everyone is ready to go.” So now we have the film’s central religious allusion — End of Days, the Rapture, Judgement Day, etc. A civilization (i.e., ours) destroying itself from within. Give me Michael Tolkin’s The Rapture and spare me another foaming-at-the-mouth right wing God-rant…please.

I actually agree with the Broadcast Film Critic’s Association’s decision to give special Distinguished Achievement in Performing Arts Award to ape impersonator Andy Serkis and the King Kong special effects gang on 1.9.06 at the 11th annual Critics’ Choice Awards gala. The group is creating the award to recognize “the singular achievement in creating this character, representing a revolutionary leap forward in synthesizing visual effects with an actor’s performance,” said BFCA president Joey Berlin . The award will be accepted by Serkis and Kong animation guys Christian Rivers and Joe Letteri.

Reader Tom Van watched the Brokeback Mountain discussion on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” last night and didn’t think it amounted to much. “The main push of this piece was Bill’s assertion that the left-wing media constantly pushes films on people that support the liberal political agenda, and in the case of Brokeback the gay movement and gay marriage,” Van reports. “O’Reilly said that a paper like the New York Times does it all the time through ‘stealth’ methods and yet the at same time he said it’s constantly ‘in your face.’ Conservative film critic Michael Medved agreed, of course, and said that Narnia made more in a weekend than Brokeback will make overall. (He must understand the concept of per-screen averages, so I don’t get it.) He followed that gem up with ‘Why isnt’ the New York Times pushing family films like that?’ Fascinating stuff. He also mentioned Brokeback is destroying the legacy of John Wayne. Uhhm….okay. Critic Jeanne Most tried to bring up the box-office discrepancy and inject the notion that Brokeback Mountain is first and foremost a quality film, but she didn’t have the chutzpah to compete against Medved and O’Reilly. It was a pretty silly piece and nothing surprising but as always, good for a few laughs.”

Munich supporters will probably curse me for saying this, but I think it’s entirely fair to observe that after today’s “Big Picture” Patrick Goldstein column in the L.A. Times about the media’s pre-release bashing of Munich that the game is all but over. Munich was hurting already but this is the crashing left hook to the jaw. Munich has not fallen to the canvas, but — quickly pop in a DVD of Raging Bull and chapter-search to the final fight between Jake La Motta and Sugar Ray Robinson — this pretty good movie that has won the admiration of several critics and some Academy members…this decently-made film with a tedious third act is against the ropes and bent over and bloodied with a swollen left eye. And its manager-director, Steven Spielberg, isn’t even at ringside, and seems to be a little bent-over himself. He was described a few days ago by L.A. Times writer Rachel Abramowitz (in the one non-Time magazine interview Spielberg has given to help support the film) as “slumped — almost curled up against a pillow — on a banquette by a window overlooking the Pacific…his hair is gray, his face pale, his manner muted. He seems tired — soul-tired — almost emptied out, as he talks.” And the publicists are still in a hunker-down mode. There have evidently been no interview pieces about Munich star Eric Bana in newspapers. There are no interviews with screenwriter Tony Kushner I’ve run across. Munich costar Daniel Craig, the new James Bond, isn’t doing any press as far as I know. (I’m told there will be forthcoming features about one or two of these guys, but appearing more in concert with the nationwide 1.6.06 opening rather than the 12.23 limited break.) And Spielberg, Kushner and Bana won’t be doing the standard q & a thing after Munich plays this evening at the Variety Screening Series…even though this series is considered an essential by Oscar-consulting publicists all over town. (This is due to a conflict with an industry screening this evening with Spielberg, Kushner and Bana attending, but such conflicts can always be finessed if there’s a will to do so.) I want to be fair and even-handed, but add all this mishegoss to what my Manhat- tan-based Academy friend told me about Munich this morning [see the 12.20.05, 9:17 am item below], and it seems that even the doggedly-Munich-supporting David Poland would have to admit that the crowd, sensing defeat, is on its feet in anticipation of what appears to be a fait accompli.

Carmike Cinemas Inc. has pledged to install 2300 digital projection systems in its 37-state theatre chain by October 2007….good. Carmike is the first U.S. exhibitor to step up to the plate, dig deep and start rolling with this. The investment will cost them about $150 million. There are currently only about 100 screens in the entire country capable of showing digitally-projected movies. There are roughly 36,000 movie screens in the U.S., so this is only a small first step.

Words about Steven Spielberg’s Munich from a Manhattan- dwelling Academy member: “I have not seen it but I know several people who have and they are unanimous — it is too long, it is repetitive, it is pretentious, and they all wondered if anyone would have the guts to say that. I mean, Jeffrey…I have not heard more negative responses on what is supposed to be a quality film this year.”

That mention by my Manhattan friend about whether people will “have the guts” to critique or give a general thumbs-down to Munich is indicative of a lingering notion that Spielberg is a dispenser of great tribal power, and to say anything against him or one of his films could conceivably result in a negative reaction down the road. You have to at least consider that this psychology was part of the reportedly positive reactions to Munich at the Beverly Hills Academy screening last Sunday night. Take it with a grain of salt, but that’s what The Envelope‘s Steve Pond reported yesterday.

And I love, by the way, that boldfaced photo caption that ran with Pond’s piece: “Munich” was definitely not a bomb with the academy audience. It reminds me of that very-first-reac- tion to 1995’s Waterworld that got around after the first junket screening: “It doesn’t suck.”

The NYC transit strike began this morning, but this will not interfere with Hollywood Elsewhere’s plans to see Terry Zwigoff’s Art School Confidential, which is screening this evening at 6 pm at Sony headquarters on Madison and 55th. That’s right — I’m prepared to leg it both ways because I doubt I’ll be able to get a cab. From my Brooklyn apartment, which is near the corner of Montrose and Bushwick, I’ll have to walk a mile and a half west to the Williamsburg Bridge and then hump across the damn thing (which will not be pleasant due to the extreme windy cold), and then comes a 65 block walk north to Sony and after the screening comes another 65 blocks south and back over the bridge, etc. With the subways running I usually figure about 30 minutes to get to uptown Manhattan — now it’s at least two hours. I’m figuring I’ll have to leave at 3:45 pm, and after the screening ends at 8pm I’m figuring another two hour walk back…at least. If anyone is reading this and wants to try and share a cab, get in touch.

I don’t mind the transit strike. Walking is good for your mind, body and soul. Hardship is always a good thing when it comes to friendliness and community relations and people actually treating each other with caring and good cheer. Manhattanites are famous for coming alive when things are really tough. I wonder if anyone will be hitchhiking? So today’s forthcoming four-and-a-half-hour walk isn’t just about seeing the Zwigoff film. If nothing else, it’ll be about (hopefully) taking some good pictures.