|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Jackson's King Kong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-30-2005 08:07 AM
Things I liked:
- The extended 'On Top of the World' opening sequence, which offered a brutally explicit impression of what Depression-era New York must have been like;
- Replacing the 'I must get a girl' scene on the ship in the 1933 film with the screening room scene in the remake - you got a sense of who the moguls were that Denham was up against;
- Rescripting the Driscoll character as a Federal Theater playwright, thereby creating another reference to the specific historical period in which the action is set;
- Rescripting and expanding the Englehorn character;
- The references to Heart of Darkness
- Intelligent 'quoting' from the original without the remake being tied down by it: the title sequence design, Denham's 'We'll be millionaires, boys!' monologue and then the incredible jump cut to the theatre marquee, quoting the tribal dance music from the original film in the extended stage sequence in the remake.
Things I didn't like:
- Rescripting Carl Denham as a crass, culturally insensitive, cultural imperialist moron. There was no sense in this film that the Denham character is supposed to be a parody of a real person (Merian C. Cooper) and that a lot of the political incorrectness in the original is tongue-in-cheek, with reference to the exploration documentary genre that was popular in the mid-20s (not just Cooper, but film-makers such as Flaherty, Martin & Osa Johnson, etc.). I'd have preferred John Goodman to Jack Black in the role.
- The film was about 3 reels too long, with most of the excess length being taken up by extended dinosaur fights and long, lingering expression shots (e.g. Ann gazing at Kong) which make their point in 10 seconds but go on for 50. It was like Jackson was directing at Lord of the Rings pace, but this called for much tighter pacing, with the three phases of the story occupying closer to equal length. Another down side with the dino fight is that yes, the CGI was impressive; but impressive CGI is nothing new now, and needs a decent script to support it.
- Technical blunders. We see a sound recordist making tests on the ship and a hand-cranked Mitchell camera; obviously, no hand-cranked camera would have been used to record sync sound.
- Making the romantic attachment between Ann and Kong far less ambiguous. In the original we were left guessing where her sympathies lay, to a certain extent; but not in this one.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 01-07-2006 03:40 PM
Definitely the last time I have wasted time and money on a Jackson movie. It's just that I've had enough of his bag of tricks, he hasn't learnt a new one for years.
Two hours after I left the theatre, to me the movie is fading away at breakneck speed.
Mr Jackson obviously couldn't decide whether he wanted to impersonate Cecil B. DeMille, James Cameron or Steven Spielberg, so he tried to do all of them and ad his own bad taste as a topping.
I felt bored, everything was predictable. Ten dinosaurs do not excite me more than one dinosaur. I get tired after watching endless sequences of people nearly trampled to death by rubberish looking CGI characters.
Kong's closeups and gestures were OK to me, but his movement in long shots was not a bit more convincing to me than any classic stop motion character. More fluid, maybe, but not convincing when compared to better CGI characters like Gollum in LOTR.
Jackson tries to connect elements that will not connect for any audience. The "romantic adventure" audience feels disgusted by the spider/"penisaurus dentata" sequence, and the scifi/horror fans get bored by endless exchange of looks between Kong and Ann - too much "Titanic" kitsch here.
To me, KING KONG feels like an overlong trailer combined with a non-interactive video game in demo mode. Acting was substandard, and while I found Naomi Watts OK, Jack Black's ugly face is certainly hard to watch in what seem five hours of shot-from-below wideangle closeups.
Total lack of humor, every line of dialogue predictable, every character a cardboard cliché and even the better scenes drag on forever and ever and ever. As for the music score, the less said, the better.
When Kong went iceskating, I was waiting for diffused slow motion footage and white doves. How about a sequel with the two of them getting married (remember, they did a sequel to the 1976 version!)?
At least Mr Jackson could get rid of his leftover Ork army from LOTR, they were simply recast as a bunch of repulsive natives on Skull island. Welcome back to racial stereotypes, the 1933 inhabitants of Skull island at least had a certain dignity of their own, but disfigured zombies are infinitely more interesting, aren't they?
Some composisting work was unbelievable bad, all elements in the long shot of the expedition party at the deep trench were "sawing" against each other. Many Kong shots had heavy aliasing around the head, every single long shot was slightly soft and without realistic detail. In some composites, different levels had mismatched grain structures. Some greenscreen shots of Miss Watts on top of Kong's mountain look like matte work from 1956 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (but without that film's campy charm). Less effect work with more care spent on quality would have made a better looking movie.
What a waste of time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 01-08-2006 05:38 PM
Maybe I'm just not critical enough. The original Kong is one of my favorites (see my post in the favorite movie poster thread), and while I recognized many of the flaws that have been mentioned here, overall, I liked Peter Jackson's version.
It can never achieve the status the original has, but as a retelling, it has its moments. I almost feel like I'm at an AA meeting when I stand up and say I LOVED the ice sequence. It was bittersweet, as Kong's last happy moment on earth. And I liked the Empire State Building sequence in addition to others. I agree it could be an hour shorter, and lose a few characters, but I was never bored.
However, casting Jack Black as Carl Denham is missing the point that the original Denham was a charicature of Merian C. Cooper. Black's reading of Robert Armstrong's memorable lines sounded wrong, like he didn't really understand what he was saying. I have fewer problems with turning Jack Driscoll into a playwright, even though it is one of those aspects which clutter up an originally straightforward story.
The realization of 1932-33 NYC was impressive, and I didn't catch many of the digital artifacts that have been mentioned, although the picture was slightly out of focus (this was noticed during the trailers, and alerting a staff member didn't help), so I cannot complain about the effects work. For several minutes there was a pulsating yellow fog on the right side of the picture, as if the filmstock had been partially fogged before processing--unforgivable.
Not a perfect movie, but I cried when the monkey fell.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|