|
Author
|
Topic: King Kong 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Scott G. Bruce
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 229
From: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Registered: May 2005
|
posted December 28, 2005 11:34 PM
OK, I finally saw KING KONG this evening and even with fairly low expectations I found it to be a very disappointing outing. I don't want to rant, but several points are worth mentioning.
1. The film should have been called KING LONG. Peter Jackson has now reached that stage of mega-stardom (or megalomania) where no one is going to tell him when he's making a mistake. The film is simply too long, especially the first hour, where several shallow characters receive significant "development" time but in fact never really develop. In contrast, the original 1933 film had a much better narrative economy that keep the movie rolling along at a good pace.
2. Most of the CGI scenes (bronto chase, allosaur fight, spider pit) were simply gratuitous and lacked any hint of subtlety. Here I am reminded of the cave troll fight in the Mines of Moria in FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. Where the book builds tension and menace (you don't even see the cave troll, except for its foot -- knowing that it is there is frightening enough!), Jackson interprets the scene as an all-out battle royal. Same with the big CGI sequences in KONG -- there is simply no subtlety. They are either completely unbelievable and silly (especially the bronto chase, which has not even a hint of credible menace to the characters) or extremely disgusting (the spider pit scene in particular -- what was the point?). On the whole, I didn't feel like I saw anything tonight that I didn't see years ago in JURASSIC PARK.
3. On the plus side, I'll admit that Kong himself looked very nice (but the camera tended to linger on him too long, as though the director was admiring himself). And the stunning Ms. Watts put on a great performance. On the whole, however, it's my opinion that the characters took a back seat to the CGI virtuosity with the result that I felt like I was sitting through an elaborate, expensive, and ultimately very boring video game.
I'm too young to feel like I'm getting too old for this kind of film. That said, where is Ray Harryhausen when you need him?
Good night and good luck, SGB
--------------------
"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas Meltzer
Moderator
Posts: 4554
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted December 30, 2005 11:07 AM
I like the new Kong. Not as compact or economical as the wonderful groundbreaking original, Peter Jackson's film has more emotion and character development. I enjoyed the leisurely paced set up in the first half. The CGI creation of Manhattan in the 1930's is almost as spectacular as Kong himself. Too long? Although I wasn't squirming in my seat, there's a good 45 minutes that could've been trimmed. Maybe Jackson was going for a LOTR ensemble by giving the secondary characters their own dramas (the relationship between Hayes, the first mate, and Jimmy) but much of that wouldn't be missed if removed.
The stampede goes on way too long and really strains credibility. Kong vs. three dinos was over the top but totally thrilling. I was wondering if Jackson would include the missing spider sequence from the original but he went overboard with the buggy creatures.
However, the relationship between Kong and Ann makes up for all that. To me, Kong is the first CGI figure that actually has weight (TriStar's Godzilla seemed light as a feather) and his expressions are a joy to watch. Naomi Watts deserves an Oscar for being the anchor of the whole film. Every close up, every reaction shot of her makes you believe the whole thing is really happening. The scene on the ice in Central Park is just wonderful. It makes the inevitable conclusion much more poignant.
I agree with Jan about Jack Black's reading of the final line. He disappears after Kong breaks loose and shows up at the end to deliver a lifeless interpretation of that classic phrase. What a bad way to end a good movie.
Doug
--------------------
I think there's room for just one more film.....
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott G. Bruce
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 229
From: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Registered: May 2005
|
posted December 30, 2005 05:25 PM
I agree with you, Jan, that Doug has pinpointed the best aspect of the movie. Ms. Watts really did put in a fine performance. Unlike the sailors fleeing from the brontosaurs, she rarely looked like she was acting in front of a blue screen. She is really quite talented. And Kong himself was certainly the CGI hit of the movie. Wonderful expressions and some dynamic, realistic movement. Was their "relationship" all that believable? Her indebtedness to Kong was certainly compelling and a refreshing innovation. It did, however, completely water down her relationship with Driscoll, who weirdly always played second fiddle to Kong. Poor Adrian Brody. Move over, leading man. Here comes leading primate!
On another note, I was quite surprised at how shoddy the CGI looked in places. The native pole-vaulter looked particularly bad. I wonder how that slipped through?
SGB
--------------------
"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael De Angelis
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1261
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted December 31, 2005 10:55 PM
I saw Kong. Regardless of the many flaws as everyone has very well stated, the film is phenomenal. This is all due to the inspiration which is drawn from the original '33 film. Jackson has created an enjoyable feature which I have not experienced on this level in years.
I especially enjoyed the references which were extracted from the original.
Bruce Baxter is being filmed next to Ann Darrow by Carl Denham, and he is speaking about women being a 'nuisance.' This dialog is the same between Fay Wray and Bruce Cabot as He-man Jack Driscoll.
As Scott pointed out, it is rather strange that Adrien Brody plays '3rd banana' ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
next to Kong and Naomi Watts.
The stage reenactment in NY is perfect, as the costumed tribe people and sacrifice act are recreated from the '33 version.
Look and listen closely and the orchestral cues are from Max Stiener's original compositions. The conductor in the pit is a look alike for Stiener, with the glasses.
The acting is what I expected by 2005 standards. It was very good. I just favor Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot and Fay Wray over today's cast.
Fay Wray was a classic silent screen actress, and she brought all of that facial emoting that cannot be compared by today's actors. It's all in the eyes.
But I guess I'm chewing on the past again.
Michael
P.S. I only wonder if I would fathom to appreciate this version if the original had ever been made? I guess the Cooper / Schoedsack teaming with O'Brien's ingenuity deserves the credit it is due today as a monumental film. Otherwise this could have only amounted to monkey business.
[ January 01, 2006, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Michael De Angelis ]
--------------------
Isn't it great that we can all communicate about this great
hobby that we love!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott G. Bruce
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 229
From: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Registered: May 2005
|
posted January 02, 2006 07:20 PM
I've got the three movie set, but KONG does have an extra disk of, well, extras, including "I'm King Kong! The Exploits of Merian C. Cooper"; a new 7-part documentary "RKO Production 601: The Making of Kong"; and original CREATION test footage with Ray Harryhausen commentary. Now if I sat down and actually watched these extras, I might actually find the Spider Pit footage . . . Does any of this sound familiar, Jean-Marc? Is it part of these extras?
SGB
PS Sent you a PM just in case, Jan!
--------------------
"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
....'When Gone With the Wind came out, it was practically three hours.' 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
