| Welcome to BS Zelda. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| King Kong | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 17 2005, 02:48 AM (229 Views) | |
| 2awesome4apossum | Dec 17 2005, 02:48 AM Post #1 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Since I feel like it, I might as well show you guys the review I sent to okibi to post on Rated O (since it's not up yet :P)! First, I must say that the original (1933 version) was superior (unfortunately), but I still enjoyed this new version, in fact, I decided to write a little review: King Kong - 3 1/2 Stars (on the traditional 4-star rating scale) I must say that this is on the top of my list of "most anticipated movies". Ever since this was announced about one and a half years ago, I have been anxiously waiting for it. Needless to say, I had my expectations set high, and while it had a few issues, it was still the best movie of the year. Unfortunately that probably doesn't mean anything to most of you, because this year hasn't been great for Hollywood. The story is based semi-closely around the film with the same title made in 1933. It obviously takes advantage of some modern liberties, and isn't an exact remake, although it's much closer than those awful remakes of the film that we've seen in the past. The time period was a shock to me back when I first saw the original Teaser Trailer for the film. It didn't make any sense to set the movie back in the 30s, when the original "Kong" was made to feel as if it could have happened right then. This movie obviously lacks the idea, and takes a more fantasy-like stance in defining the time period back in the 30s, not to mention that because of that the movie won't seem as "outdated" in years to come. In summary, it wasn't a bad choice, but it certainly wasn't a logical one. That leads me to my biggest complaint (if it can be called that) about the film. Peter Jackson focused on his own nostalgia in the presentation of the film. And after one looks at the fact that he wasn't even around in the 30s, and that neither were most of the viewers, it becomes really bothersome. Everything from the opening/closing credits to bits of music were directly inspired to the style used in the 30s. It was fun to see, but those who either didn't like or never saw the original "Kong" won't appreciate or understand it. On the same note, I would still recommend every potential viewer to see the 1933 version before coming to this. While the music was a bit nostalgic (which I personally liked in it, and it never became too overwhelming), it still provided the intense and exciting atmosphere that one has come to expect from Jackson's selected composers. It works, fits and works flawlessly and provides an incredible atmosphere. No major complaints here. I was sure that I would be complaining about the pacing in the movie, ever since the announcement of the 3 hour length came out. I mean, how could a movie with the maximum content of just over two hours stretch it to three? However, the pacing was never an issue. Not once did I feel it was going either too slow or too fast. In fact, this film is a prime example of how a director should go about pacing their film. With that said, the length was still an issue for me. There were a few select scenes (namely one involving giant insects and other grotesque creatures) that seemed to be place in soley for the reason of pacing, and didn't drive the story forward (although definitely carried on the fast-paced action of the movie). It should be said that this could be viewed as either a good or bad thing, but I prefer to think that any excuse to make the film longer would be bad. The cast of actors involved some very interesting choices. The most obvious one would be putting Jack Black in a semi-serious role, but another nearly un-noted one is putting Andy Serkis into both the role of Kong and the ship's cook. Jack Black's role was nearly perfectly chosen. He carried the perfect personality and ego of his character, giving us a perfect balance of seriousness, stupidity and humor. On the other hand, while Andy Serkis might have been a great choice for Kong, he certainly isn't the type who could carry a live-action role on his shoulders. He was clearly the most animated of every other actor in the cast to an almost annoying point. And let's not forget that he's also a very talented voice actor which leads to some problems. That scene mentioned earlier involving the giant insects features a giant attack where everyone is yelling and screaming. Serkis pulls the first bit off well enough, but at one point slips into sounding exactly like Gollum/Smeagol from "The Lord of the Rings", which took me out of the intensity of the scene. But for the most part, the acting was well chosen and well done. The visual effects department have outdone themselves again... for the most part. There’s undoubtedly some issues (especially toward the end), but this is one of the most visually stunning movies that you will ever have a chance to see. In fact, the only huge complaint in here is that the airplanes at the end of the film look more like something one would see in a video game. However, there are a few issues that come with every fantasy movie: the reality of it. It’s really cool to see the damsel in distress being tossed around every which way in the middle of a giant t-rex battle, but it’s overwhelming when one takes the time to consider that if that was any of us, we’d be in serious pain, especially when Kong first rips her out of the bonds that she is stuck in. In the instance of Kong carrying the dame around, the 1933 one had a more realistic scenario. At the same time, the one from 1933 can’t compare to the realism that the beast has in this modern version. So they gave a little and took a little for the sake of atmosphere. Reality issues are present all throughout the movie, and while they’re not surprising for a fantasy movie, we’ve been spoiled by “The Lord of the Rings” movies (in the sense that it feels as if it could be real) already so it doesn’t make as much sense to present it in such an unrealistic way. Such as the dinosaurs (reminding us of “Jurassic Park”) chasing after the girl even though it already has a large meal in it’s mouth. The story (as stated earlier) is a much closer remake of the 1933 film than the rest of it’s successors have been. However, it has clearly been improved upon and jazzed up for the convenience of a more modern and technologically advanced audience. The biggest improvement here was the choice to make Kong much more than just a roaring monster, but rather a character with a personality, his own set of traits and his own thoughts. The connection of “beauty and beast” is now not a one-way “the beast likes beauty”, but has now changed into “beauty and beast understand each other”. Ms. Watts doesn’t get to scream anywhere near as much as we saw Fay Wray do in the first. And while she’s frightened at first, she comes to understand that Kong isn’t trying to kill, but rather protect her. Deep under the film’s claim to be an action/suspense thriller, at heart, the story is a formulaic romance. There’s no question about the newly established love triangle between Kong, our hero and our main character. And the destructive outside force trying to tear everything apart are everyone else. In short, this is a must-see for any moviegoer this year, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the name of Kong written all over the Academy Awards. |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Dec 17 2005, 03:15 AM Post #2 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
That's a nice review, Possum - hope you don't mind, but I'll it's sparked some thoughts so I'll just comment on some things... I'm assuming here that, when talking about the thirties King Kong movie, spioler tags need not apply when discussing it's ending?
Actually, that was one of the ideas of the remake I like the most - that it's a period piece, rather than try and 'update' the movie to being in a more modern time-frame. Indeed, the original movie was made to feel like it was happening 'in the present', but since then King Kong has entered the public lexicon in a way that not many other movies have - it has visually and thematically been absorbed by the popular conciousness, with many of it's images becoming truly iconic. Jackson has said in interviews that one of the prime reasons he set it in the thirties was to try and preserve some of that iconic imagery of Kong in New York, in particular the final fight on top of the Empire State Building as biplanes buzz the ill-fated ape. He wanted the biplanes, basically (and really, did the helicopter showdown with Kong on the World Trade Center have the same impact in the '76 version as the original?)I'd argue the idea that it wasn't logical - there are clear, logical reasons behind the decision.
Something ironic about this is that Jackson was also, apparently, talking about how the '70's remake of Kong was more outdated now than the original, and yet this concept was a major development of the 76 movie. |
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Dec 17 2005, 03:25 AM Post #3 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
You know guys, for the longest time I've been wondering (but have been too lazy to find out, which is really shameful of a Nintendo fan...) where does the word/name Kong come from? I mean, he's from an island right? Not the congo jungle. Is it some weird anagram of the word monkey? |
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Dec 17 2005, 03:26 AM Post #4 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Thanks! I wasn't going for proffesionalism in this review, but I still wanted to evaluate it on several levels (although you'll note that I completely disregaurded educational value, and touched very briefely on the literary value).
Alright then, let's make this a debate ![]()
It turned out quite well, and I wouldn't have it any other way... I was shocked, not dissapointed.
Not to mention that we can't have advanced weaponry attacking him. Basically, it wasn't logical from a *true* remaking standpoint. It was more of a clone than a remake. Again, "Kong" was intended to make it seem like this could be happening in the modern world, but this clearly defeats a point that the movie was trying to get across, and it loses some of the educational (or for those who don't know the difference: "moral") value that the original film had. So I didn't mean it wasn't logical at all, but I meant that it wasn't logical from the standpoint of "I'm wanting to remake this movie".
The 70s version was terrible. That's all I can say. ![]() EDIT: Duke, I don't know... I'll try to find out. |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Dec 17 2005, 03:38 AM Post #5 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
We have Godzilla for that! ...what? ![]() Oh you don't? That's a relief! I thought I was the only one :lol: |
| |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Dec 17 2005, 03:46 AM Post #6 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
I wouldn't say it loses 'moral' value by being set in the past, rather than the present - Star Trek is riddled with morality plays and it's set in the future - the conciet is that the values/standards of today are contrasted against a different backdrop. The arguement that it's more a clone than a remake because it's set in the same time period is also weakened by the fact that the idea that it is 'happening in the modern world' is only one of the points that the original movie was trying to portray. The moral undertones of man invading the natural world and exploiting it for his own ends is still just as strong if the movie is set back in time than if it is set in the present - we can see a reflection of our current society in the mirror of the fictional world of Kong, whether it be through parrallels or contrasts between the attitudes of the past and the attitudes of the present. Also, it isn't necesary for a remake to adhere to the same messages as the source material anyway - they are a new vision of the source, with new creators bringing there own ideas into the mix, sometimes even at cross-purposes to the original. Perhaps you should define what you understand the 'true remaking standpoint' to be, since I don't think we see it as quite the same thing.
Oh indeed, but the relationship of Kong and Anne in the new movie is remniscient of the relationship between Kong and Dwan. |
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Dec 17 2005, 03:49 AM Post #7 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
Oh and Duke, in Donkey Kong the term 'Kong' comes from King Kong - in Japan, Kong was adopted by the public consumption as a term for 'big monkey' - they needed to prove that in court back in the day, if I remember correctly. King Kong had quite the impact on Japan - they even did there own King Kong movie, back in 1939 in which he attacked Eido era Japan (sadly, it's been lost to the ages - a real pitry, since it contains the early work of the guy who did the effects for Godzilla). I'm not sure about where they got it from in King Kong, though. |
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| Duke Serkol | Dec 17 2005, 03:51 AM Post #8 |
|
Where'd that Princess go?
![]()
|
Which is what I was asking. I knew the above
|
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Dec 17 2005, 03:51 AM Post #9 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Fair enough. BTW, it's now up. Also, I don't know if any of you have read my article about the MPAA, but it might interest you. Also note that the only articles on that page which are't mine are: Boogeyman and Sin City. You'll notice the completely different style that they're written in. But the two that should interest y'all are "A Word About The MPAA" and my review on Harry Potter 4... ...the latter of which I'm not paticularly proud of, but it's the most recent of the rest of those reviews anyway. |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Dec 17 2005, 03:59 AM Post #10 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
The MPAA doesn't mean all that much to me, since we have a different rating scale here in Australia to America, which from what I've been able to gather has always had a pretty odd-ball system ![]() EDIT: Actually, it does mean something in that certain ratings in America mean different levels of exposure, profit for the movie when it hits the cinema, thus studios aiming for certain ratings (like the current crop of PG-13 rated horror movies), but I already knew all that It was a well done article, though
|
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Dec 17 2005, 04:03 AM Post #11 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Righto... The Motion Picture Association of America. All the same, it was an interesting paper to write for a film buff such as myself. If you're ever curious though, I'd totally recommend my own article
|
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Dec 17 2005, 04:05 AM Post #12 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
Opps, edited my post while you were replying, by the looks of it Yeah, I knew what MPAA stands for, and already knew about the stuff you talk about in the article. I was just commenting earlier that over here the movies get classified by our own office of film and literature classification, independent of there American rating.
|
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Dec 17 2005, 04:10 AM Post #13 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Naturally. Are there any "automatic" ratings over there? By that I mean, is there some sort of content issue that would automatically make a movie rated something specifically? |
![]() |
|
| coinilius | Dec 17 2005, 04:27 AM Post #14 |
|
Pickled in time, like gherkins in a jar
|
Yes, but apart from ones relating to graphic depections/descriptions of child sexual abuse, I don't knwo them off the top of my head - and the Office of Film and Literature classification website is typically obtuse when it comes to giving out information
|
|
"You must be talking about Heaven... or the moon." "It's a dog eat dog world... and there's not enough dog to go around."
| |
![]() |
|
| 2awesome4apossum | Dec 17 2005, 06:25 PM Post #15 |
|
Who's your favorite possum?
|
Ah, yes. If it were up to me, I'd ban those movies completely. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Generic Discussions · Next Topic » |






(and really, did the helicopter showdown with Kong on the World Trade Center have the same impact in the '76 version as the original?)



8:04 PM Jul 11