|
Author
|
Topic: King Kong 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Del Phillipson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 679
From: Derbyshire, England
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted December 19, 2005 02:04 PM
I went to see the film last Thursday, the first preview time available, you see the original King Kong is in my top 2 films of all time. I went a little apprehensive because of the CGI and the trailers I had seen I wasn't that impressed with, but I thought what the heck, Jackson loves the film so he ain't gonna destroy it. I walked out at the end with a lump in my throat, to put it bluntly, it was superb, not as good as the original, but nothing ever will be. I loved it when he paid homage to the original, when he first unvails Kong in New York with around 10/15 minutes of original Max Steiner music and the original native war dance. There was a couple of down sides, but too many good points to spoil it, for anyone out there who hasn't yet seen it, go and get it watched, you won't regret it.
Del.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Bister
Darth 8mm
Posts: 2629
From: Ohio, USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted December 24, 2005 03:07 AM
So I've finally seen KING KONG 2005... not without watching the 1933 original at home first. And I'm ready to share my impressions...
Is the 2005 movie good? Yes. Perfect? No. Too long? Yes. Some scenes are indeed just too long, and the whole film in general could benefit from some editing - this would be one case where taking the term director's cut more literal could be a good thing. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I thoroughly enjoyed it, even the over-the-top action sequences. (And some people DID get stampeded to death by the dinosaurs, but what had me shaking my head was the dinos falling over themselves as if they'd totally lost their minds. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) Ann Darrow and Kong are indeed great together and almost develop something like a romance, which is one big difference to the 1933 original - Fay Wray remains terrified of Kong all the way to the end, although she understands that he just wants her company.
I loved how Peter Jackson lifted entire scenes and lines of dialogue from the original, though - right down to the camera angles and framing. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Speaking of camera, though... you know what really broke my heart?? When they all wake up in the spider pit, and Carl Denham (Jack Black) finds the shattered remains of his film camera with all that beautiful 35mm film laying over the place, ruined. Sniffle ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
(That camera was the exact same one that 1933's Carl Denham used in the original film, by the way... I love all those details!)
Jack Black himself played his role rather well, I thought... all the actors did, at least none of them was horrible... but it is true: his delivery of the final line of dialogue at the end is surprisingly lackluster. The words are fine, it's the intonation that disappoints. Hopefully they'll re-dub that part in the studio before releasing the inevitable collector's edition DVD. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
All in all... the 2005 King Kong is well done, with a few flaws... worth seeing, whether or not you're familiar with/a fan of the 1933 version.
--------------------
Call me Phoenix. *dusts off the ashes*
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jan Bister
Darth 8mm
Posts: 2629
From: Ohio, USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted December 24, 2005 02:12 PM
True, Adrian, I agree - and while we're on the subject of believability, that wasn't the only flaw I found with the film. How about Kong jerking tiny, fragile Ann Darrow around like mad (i.e. during a fight with a T-Rex), even tossing her from one hand to the other? All she kept doing was "ugh" and "ohh," but certainly in real life the incredible G-forces would have seriously injured her, if not killed instantly.
But then, Kong himself and all the large animals moving as quick and swiftly as they did is unbelievable in the first place. Sadly, this "phenomenon" afflicts a whole lot of modern films with CGI animation - an utter disregard (or lack of knowledge?) on the part of filmmakers about things such as mass inertia, velocities and acceleration. In short, physical laws that wouldn't allow Kong to do these ultra-fast moves in real life.
I guess it comes down to trading aforementioned believability for simple thrills and over-the-top action scenes designed to entertain today's audiences. If George Lucas (Star Wars) and Steven Spielberg (War of the Worlds) aren't immune to making that mistake, then how can we expect Peter Jackson to be? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Call me Phoenix. *dusts off the ashes*
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
