This is topic King Kong 2005 in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000210
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on December 08, 2005, 07:33 AM:
I saw the film this morning, since my lovely better half was kind enough to take me to the advance screening.
Being a great fan of the original film and of the original character (and - I confess - with a soft spot for his various incarnations through movie history), I was both excited to see a new "Kong" and apprehensive...
I am not disappointed. The film is wonderful. It is not the original 1933 picture, nothing will ever surpass it. But it is very close. Probably the best tribute ever. It didn't feel like 3 hrs & 8min long, as it is packed to the gills with great action scenes. It is also very faithful to the original story (and full of in-jokes and references). I really had a great time.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on December 08, 2005, 08:37 AM:
One for the 8mm format??? Would it make a good super 8 release perhaps. Maybe we should get Derann to do this one next for the 8mm collector.
Kev.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on December 08, 2005, 08:53 AM:
Kev, that would be a 10 or 11 x 400 ft release. I doubt many people would be able to afford it.
But the Bronto stampede, the T-rex fight or the NY car chase would make excellent extracts.
Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on December 08, 2005, 05:36 PM:
Maybe we will have to work on Derann over the course of 2006.
Kev.
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on December 10, 2005, 10:48 AM:
What an idea!
If this one comes out on super-8, I may just go for a copy of it... unlike Master & Commander which I just couldn't warm up to enough to justify spending the money... but the new King Kong... now that's different. I've yet to even see it but I can hardly wait. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on December 10, 2005, 12:45 PM:
Well those of us who are married, will have the significant other going "bananas" after we pay for such an expensive film.
It's a good thing I'm single.
taa-boom-tish
Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on December 10, 2005, 02:02 PM:
I can see the similarity between myself and King Kong.............
Ape like with a penchant for Blondes ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on December 10, 2005, 06:54 PM:
Oh, that's alright Chip - I got my spouse to the point of merely walking away with a headshake and a sad sigh, knowing that I'm well beyond hope
Posted by Roger Manning Jr (Member # 321) on December 19, 2005, 11:06 AM:
Well, My wfe and I went last night to see this and and all I can say is bad movie. Bad acting, Bad actors,Way to long and draged out, could of been a two hour movie at the most, I sat their watching it thinking is this sceene ever going to end? over and over again.
I think Peter Jackson was trying to hard after coming off of Lord Of The Rings thinking he had to make another three plus hour movie. We almost walked out but after paying $30.00 for the two of us we stayed.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on December 19, 2005, 11:49 AM:
I haven't seen the film yet, but I've been following the reviews and found it interesting to hear some people complain both about the excessive length and about the fact that Jackson's KING KONG isn't doing anything that Spielberg didn't do years ago with JURASSIC PARK. Would those of you who have seen the film agree?
I'm planning on going (hell, I'll see almost any movie with dinosaurs in it), but I've lowered my expectations somewhat. The original with Fay Wray is just so magical, for want of a better word, that I can't really see how a modern CGI-driven movie could top it.
SGB
Posted by Barry Attwood (Member # 100) on December 19, 2005, 12:15 PM:
Yes it is a little too long, but I found it enthralling, and the CGI acting of "Kong" is breathtaking, and Naomi Watts really is believable in the pivotal role of Ann Durrow. Mind you it's worth going just for the "Kong" Vs. the Dinosaurs fight alone, spectacular!
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on December 19, 2005, 12:54 PM:
*cough*cough* Apparently I was so star-struck by the thought of the CGI allosaurs that I forgot to mention the visual appeal of the beautiful Ms. Watts. What the hell is wrong with me?!? SGB
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on 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.
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on December 19, 2005, 03:54 PM:
References to the original are a-plenty. Some entire dialogues are even picked-up from the 1933 film. But did you spot the missing scenes?
The whole "you're feeling uneasy, Ann..." shooting sequence, that you see in the trailer, for instance, is missing from the film.
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on December 19, 2005, 04:17 PM:
Jean-Marc, remember this is Peter 4 disc Jackson we are talking about, the king of directors cuts. Expect a 4 disc directors cut around 6 months after the initial dvd release lasting around 4 hours can't wait.
Del.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on December 19, 2005, 04:44 PM:
YES! More allosaurs! I mean, more Ms. Watts!!! SGB
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on December 20, 2005, 03:09 AM:
Del, I'm really looking forward to it. His "Kong is King" journal is already available on DVD. I don't like Lord of the Rings but Jackson has directed "The Frighteners", one of my favorite films ever, the extened collector edition of which is finally being released on disc...
Posted by Del Phillipson (Member # 513) on December 21, 2005, 11:36 AM:
yes didn't buy the journal, I'm expecting it to be part of the 4 disc ultimate special extended directors cut edition to be released sometime soon. Will look pretty good through the 12ht.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 21, 2005, 08:33 PM:
I've just seen it with 2 friends. We all thought it had some great moments, but it was frustrating in some respects. Kong and Naomi Watts were very impressive and they have some good scenes together, but I thought that the middle section had too much 'action movie' type overkill. It lost credibility with some totally ludicrous scenes - particularly the one when people are running in the midst of a herd of massive dinosaurs; even if they could have kept up, they would have all been knocked over and trampled to death!
I don't have any objection to films that are long and not fast-paced, but in this instance I really do think that a significantly better film could be made by carefully reducing the length by about an hour.
Posted by Mike Peckham (Member # 16) on December 24, 2005, 12:41 AM:
quote:
in this instance I really do think that a significantly better film could be made by carefully reducing the length by about an hour.
Perhaps we should get the nice Mr Wilton to dust off his editing shears and whittle King Kong down to make a nice 8mm release?
Mike
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on 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. ) 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.
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.
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 24, 2005, 12:55 PM:
"And some people DID get stampeded to death by the dinosaurs"
There were one or two, but in 'reality' I'm sure they would have all died - or got left behind after a few seconds! I realise that some will consider this nit-picking, but I can't help finding that I start losing interest in a film if we are asked to believe something that is totally impossible - even within the context of the story. If you think of how many steps each human would have to take to cover distance covered by just one step of an enormous running dinosaur, I feel a scene like this insults the intelligence of the audience. And that wasn't the only scene in which people show amazing ability to run away from whatever massive thing is after them. I later read some quotes from Peter Jackson in which he emphasised how important it was to make the audience find the film believable!
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on 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)
Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on December 24, 2005, 04:25 PM:
Jan - I'm pleased you pointed out the matter of G-forces and such like, which is another 'modern action film' pet hate of mine! The scene where several people are hanging on to the tree trunk, and manage to keep on doing so despite the way it moves around is a good example.
Anyone growing up watching such films could have a nasty shock; if they fall off a cliff, and think that they will survive by grabbing a rope or some vegetation that's within reach about half way down!
[ December 24, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]
Posted by Kurt Gardner (Member # 440) on December 24, 2005, 07:42 PM:
It does go on and on and on and on...
I appreciate the technology that went into it, but it didn't have the narrative drive of the "Rings" films to keep it going. The story is so familiar. And the scenes on Skull Island went on for-bloody-ever! What a strange combination of Spielbergian wonder and outright horror. Most telling of all is that I couldn't let my mind get away from the fact that I was watching a completely computer-invented world populated by digital creatures.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm a fan and I discovered Jackson when Magnum Video here in the States released "Bad Taste" in 1989. He has definitely become quite accomplished over the years, but this is a case of a studio (Universal) throwing tons of money at a successful filmmaker, allowing him carte blanche to fulfill his childhood fantasy, which was to make a very reverent, technically accomplished, very expensive and very L-O-N-G tribute to the movie that changed his life.
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on December 25, 2005, 01:14 AM:
This is all very well stated.
For me, the Spiderman movies were enabled by CGI, and they moved too fast in the action scenes. I remember seeing Spidermans close-up, as he passed in front of the camera. He was just a digital image flying around. The film was enjoyable, but over stimulated. This broke the illusion of belief for me.
The film TV film critics Ebert & Roper, commented that the Spiderman GGI, needed more 'weight' as he soared from building to building.
Although I will see Kong this week, I am curious as to how Bruce Cabot's original role of he-man sailor will translate to screenwriter in the form of Adrien Brody.
Merriam Cooper and Walter Schosdack, were big time game hunters.
Is Jack Black also the adventurous macho he man character of Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong)?
Michael
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on December 25, 2005, 03:14 AM:
Jack Black actually comes across as more of a coward than the 1933 character did... Adrien Brody's role as Jack Driscoll the writer is definitely different from the original, and he's charming and works well in the 2005 movie.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on 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
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on December 29, 2005, 07:53 AM:
Scott, you brought up some very good points... and at least two witty comments. Love the KING LONG moniker. And the Ray Harryhausen comment just earned you a spot in my signature.
I agree that the CGI was too overboard, though... this is another oft-repeated mistake in today's films... while being able to show anything on film is nice, it tempts you too much to indeed try and show everything, rather than leave things to the viewer's imagination.
Your comparison to this film to a videogame was interesting as well, seeing as that there IS a game which was released simultaneously with the film, and (from reviews that I've seen) looks spectacularly alike. I wonder if movies and games are just becoming too much alike nowadays... wouldn't surprise me.
Next step in blockbuster movie making: 1. Create game. 2. Play a round and capture it to high-def video. 3. Print video to film. 4. Release to theatres and rake in the cash.
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on December 30, 2005, 12:33 AM:
I finally saw this film over the holidays. All I can say is...Naomi Watts..Naomi Watts..Naomi..oops! This film was about King Kong wasn't it?
I found the film to be very good but a little too long as others have stated. It never stopped once it got down to business after she is taken but the build up was lulling me to close my eyes every now and again.
I really liked the way that the relationship was built between the Beauty and the Beast. This to me was better than the original where Fay pretty much was terrified of Kong the entire time. Kind of makes you wonder why he wanted her in the first place!
I really didn't like Jack Black in the role of Denam. Every time he spoke it looked like he was going to raise his eyebrows and say something else. I never believed him as a filmaker.
Would I see it again? Probably not...I'll wait till it comes out on DVD and make a little Naomi Watts collage. Lets say it again...Naomi Watts..Naomi Watts..
Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on 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
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on December 30, 2005, 01:44 PM:
Doug, you nailed it on the head...couldn't agree more! Even with its rather many flaws, King Kong 2005 excels in depicting the (dare I use this word) relationship between Ann Darrow and Kong... that made it all worth seeing. And, of course, you know you cared about these two characters when you can't help but shed maybe one little tear at the end, when he is too weak to hold on any longer and slides off the top of the Empire State building, with Ann watching helplessly. (Sigh.)
So, Mr. Jackson - we're all waiting for your director's CUT.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on 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
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on December 30, 2005, 06:28 PM:
Doug: Jackson and his gang did recreate the spider sequence, in traditionnal stop-motion, with miniature sets and paintings. It is included as a bonus on the new dvd of the 1933 version.
Side note: this is the best edition since the Criterion LD, the original film is complete, quality is top-notch and supplements (produced by Jackson) are simply jaw-dropping.
The final "beauty killed the beast" line was originally supposed to be delivered by Fay Wray herself but she died a few weeks before her cameo could be shot.
I've been a fan of Jack Black since the early days of Tenacious D (his band) and if you haven't seen "School of Rock" yet, just drop what you're doing and rent the DVD!
I think his approach of the character as a poor man's Orson Welles is quite interesting.
Got the video game for Christmas. It's way cool, especially the parts where you can play Kong.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on December 31, 2005, 04:13 PM:
What, what, WHAT?? Jean-Marc, I looked at the menu of special features on my new Kong DVD, but I don't see any reference to Jackson's recreation of the original spider pit scene. Where, oh where, can I find it??
SGB
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on 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'
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 ]
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 02, 2006, 02:49 AM:
Scott, it's on the Warner version, the one sold in the big tin box.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on January 02, 2006, 09:30 AM:
Oh crap, it figures. I bought the King Kong Collection box set (DVDs of Kong, Son Thereof, and Mighty Joe Young) during the presale (who could resist 50% off?). Didn't think to buy the tin. Dare I ask what else I'm missing?
SGB
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 02, 2006, 10:55 AM:
Scott, did you really check the content of your 4-discs boxed-set?
Disc#1 is the 1933 film, #3 is for Son of Kong and #4 is Might Joe Young.
Have you looked at what's on disc#2?
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on January 02, 2006, 07:08 PM:
If you REALLY want to see the recreated spider pit sequence for the 1933 film, and you REALLY don't have it on your DVD set - I thought there were two different sets with 3 discs each, not one with 3 and one with 4... - then you could, ahem, download that sequence (by itself) and watch it on your computer. That is what I did after watching the 1933 film from a rental DVD (NetFlix). The file I had was a high-quality MPEG file so just about anything should play it... It was pretty well done, too Now I'm not advocating online piracy here, not even on a small scale, but if you must see the sequence "now" then... well... send me a PM.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on 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!
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 02, 2006, 08:19 PM:
Yes...
It's part of the extras. Included in "Production 601" but can also be accessed as a stand-alone sequence.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on January 02, 2006, 10:32 PM:
Found it! Jeez, what a maroon I am! I was one click away from the menu. Thanks for giving me that extra hint, Jean-Marc.
Just watched the documentary and the recreated Spider Pit scene. It is pretty cool (and I dare say much more enjoyable than the CGI version in the new movie!) and the amount of research that went into this 6 minute scene is truly impressive.
Definately worth a look, if you, like me, love the feel and idiom of stop-motion animation.
SGB
Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on January 02, 2006, 10:39 PM:
For what it's worth, the movie file I was talking about is in XviD format, not MPEG. Meaning it's close to DVD quality.
Scott, I agree...the recreated 'classic' scene is great, the modern CGI spider pit sequence is downright yucky. That final scene where the one guy is having his arm sucked up, then his head ... I still shudder at the thought of it. Eww!
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on January 02, 2006, 10:54 PM:
Yucky it was, Jan! And it became even yuckier for me when I learned that the Weta animators had christened those lamprey-like creatures "meat weasels." There is something decidedly unsavory about that appellation. Can't quite put my finger on it, but . . . YUCK!
SGB
Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on January 03, 2006, 03:40 AM:
And this "one guy" is Andy Sirkis, the man who plays Kong in the Movie (and who was Golum in LOTR).
Scott, Glad you finally found the Holy Grail!
Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on January 03, 2006, 03:47 AM:
I saw this film just before Christmas. Cut something like an hour to an hour and a half out of it and it would have been good.
The end sequence going up the Empire State was outstanding and I really felt decidedly odd as Kong ascended knowing that he was going to be coming back down in freefall. Right, that's it he's going to fall now - look away. Oh, he's still there... perhaps he'll fall now... no, no, he's still there. Perhaps he'll fall in a few minutes. No, perhaps a few minutes longer. Oh bugger it, just bloody well fall off.
And by the time he did fall, the impact had been lost and I couldn't have cared less what happened to him. That is the problem with this film all the way through. It needed a film editor to take charge of the finished footage and excise all the superfluous rubbish.
Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on January 03, 2006, 06:22 PM:
Thanks again, Jean-Marc.
It was so striking to me how labor intensive stop motion animation is and how frequently ideas and even specific creatures were recycled between 1930 and 1960. Didn't the spider-critters in Jackson's recreation of the lost scene remind you of the monsters in THE BLACK SCORPIAN, that early 1950s low budget Willis O'Brien effort? As I recall, there was a long underground sequence in that film (reminiscent of THEM!) that included not only giant scorpians but also other creepy crawlers very similar to those originally intended for KONG. Seems that O'Brien never lost touch with the lost scene, even decades later.
THE BLACK SCORPIAN is still worth a look for fans of the genre and it's available on DVD for as little as $6 plus postage on ebay. Has anyone ever seen it on super 8mm???
Ah, love them non-CGI critters.
SGB
Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on January 03, 2006, 11:08 PM:
I wanted to share my Dad's impression of the new Kong.
......Three Hours? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
....'When Gone With the Wind came out, it was practically three hours.'
Indeed, what has happened to films that they all need to be sooo, loooong?
I nealy died when the new Titanic, went down for the third time.
And watching all that water, it was difficult to hold my own.
Michael
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2