MudInYerEye
Practically Family
- Messages
- 988
- Location
- DOWNTOWN.
Marc Chevalier said:
Too old.
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
King Kong:reviews
- Thread starter Marc Chevalier
- Start date
Too old.
Twitch
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,133
- Location
- City of the Angels
I watched the VHS of the original uncut King Kong for 1 ?Ǭ? hours then saw the 2005 film which lasted 3 hours Saturday. If you see it get ready to be edge-of-the-seat anxious for 2 hours as the story unfolds.
There are few times we could have said that a remake is better than an original movie. But King Kong is one of those times. The story is the exact same one Merian C. Cooper developed and brought to the screen in 1933. That is the eternal tribute to the concept. The 2005 Kong actually fleshed out the characters better than the original. It is never departed from. If Cooper could have afforded that he would have done it. But many scenes and dialogues are exactly the same as the original. Exactly. This should tickle viewers of the original to no end seeing that so much was left alone. If you never saw the original the 2005 version stands on its own however.
Throughout the movie Kong does things that endear him to the audience and many that are very ape-like. One scene originally cut by censors was when Kong touched Ann Darrow and then sniffed his finger. Natural identification by basic animal senses. Both the 2005 and the not-of-the-30s-era 1976 Kong used that. One of the most dramatic moments of the movie was when he caught her scent as she stood alone in the deserted streets.
The 1933 version had Kong seeking out Ann in New York. A scene cut was that in which we saw expanded further in 2005 when Kong grabbed several blonde women off the streets, looked at them and then tossed them away to an inglorious death. Cooper shot those scenes as integral parts. It took until the 1970s that original versions began showing up on TV and the later technology of VHS ?¢‚Ǩ?ìuncut?¢‚Ǩ? versions.
The 1933 version used a small model of Kong shot in a frame by frame shoot-and-move the model process that is like Claymation today. Very tedious and slow with very stilted and lethargic resultant action. The hair on the model is seen to move and flow in strange manners due to this. The full-size head model operated by 7 men of 1933 seemed to have a perpetually dimwit and sorrowful look.
And in 2005 I dare anyone to truthfully say that they can see the flaws of computer animation. There are some new creepy crawly creatures that are sure to make you squirm and the dinosaurs vs. Kong fights seen in 1933 are so far eclipsed in 2005 as to not even be worthy of mention. The new movie will blow you away every time Kong is on-screen. The fluid action and dynamic speed of motion choreography makes 1933 Kong and monsters seem to be on Quaaludes in comparison.
In 1976 Dino De Laurentis?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ effort to make Kong move in a more ape-like fashion still produced the guy-in-an-ape-suit look which was part of the actual process. If you have bothered to ever watch an hour of documentary of the lowland gorillas you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll know that King Kong 2005 hits the mark most admirable.
That 1976 effort with Kong set in modern times also departed with the screaming-every-second of Fay Wray. Not to detract from her vintage performance, but De Laurentis and Jessica Lange got it right with the empathy and tenderness shown by the heroine after the initial horror. As I saw Naomi Watts looking so much like Wray in the early scenes I thought she was set to render the same shrieking performance. Peter Jackson simply proved me wrong when I initially thought Watts would play it much too retro in character and look. She pulled it off wonderfully as she transformed from the prim and proper flapper-look to the sultry, soft beauty that won Kong?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s heart. Her tender moments with Kong are light years ahead of what was directed in 1933.
We must remember that in 1933 talkies were relatively new and acting performances were often played in an over emphasis of expression and emotion. This was a throwback to silent films when the moods were set by over-acted close ups of actors mimicking fear, surprise, horror, happiness or sensuality. While the acting in the 1933 Kong was admirable it was a product relative to more basic times. Today we view any movie of that era, no matter how good, with a discriminating eye.
Jack Black was not the overwhelmingly positive Carl Denham character of 1933. He was weaker and more behind the eight ball in 2005. His performance was believable and without complaint.
Every detail proved that the 2005 effort is worthy of praise from the most gruesome native tribe that has ever been depicted to the lengthy New York Kong-on-the-loose sequences.
I only felt disappointed at the look of the natives?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ side of the wall and gate to keep Kong out when compared with the foreboding 1933 vision. But when the Kong side was rendered it exceeded my expectations.
But in 2005 viewers will take heart that while Kong still topples from the Empire State Building just as he did in 1933 he makes his last stand a memorable one. Instead of the bewildered love sick ape wondering what was going on this Kong scrambles to the top of the building and gets into a proactive ?¢‚Ǩ?ìlet?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s get it on?¢‚Ǩ? stance with the biplanes complete with determined expression. His score against the flying machines is better this time too.
Nothing was compromised in the 2005 picture. In fact most of the scenes were expanded in the logical way Merian C. Cooper would have done had he the money in 1933. The original story has not been compromised since that IS King Kong. Peter Jackson obviously kept that in sight in what is certainly a labor of love. We can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t say it was his vision of the story since that was left intact. The way of communicating the classic story IS Jackson?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s vision and it is magnificent.
If you don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t like the 2005 King Kong I kinda feel sorry for you since I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m not sure if you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d care for anything but the original. So called film purists will never accept the 2005 Kong. That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s fine. The original is still available on DVD!
And don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t worry. You will get misty at the end just like with the original version.
There are few times we could have said that a remake is better than an original movie. But King Kong is one of those times. The story is the exact same one Merian C. Cooper developed and brought to the screen in 1933. That is the eternal tribute to the concept. The 2005 Kong actually fleshed out the characters better than the original. It is never departed from. If Cooper could have afforded that he would have done it. But many scenes and dialogues are exactly the same as the original. Exactly. This should tickle viewers of the original to no end seeing that so much was left alone. If you never saw the original the 2005 version stands on its own however.
Throughout the movie Kong does things that endear him to the audience and many that are very ape-like. One scene originally cut by censors was when Kong touched Ann Darrow and then sniffed his finger. Natural identification by basic animal senses. Both the 2005 and the not-of-the-30s-era 1976 Kong used that. One of the most dramatic moments of the movie was when he caught her scent as she stood alone in the deserted streets.
The 1933 version had Kong seeking out Ann in New York. A scene cut was that in which we saw expanded further in 2005 when Kong grabbed several blonde women off the streets, looked at them and then tossed them away to an inglorious death. Cooper shot those scenes as integral parts. It took until the 1970s that original versions began showing up on TV and the later technology of VHS ?¢‚Ǩ?ìuncut?¢‚Ǩ? versions.
The 1933 version used a small model of Kong shot in a frame by frame shoot-and-move the model process that is like Claymation today. Very tedious and slow with very stilted and lethargic resultant action. The hair on the model is seen to move and flow in strange manners due to this. The full-size head model operated by 7 men of 1933 seemed to have a perpetually dimwit and sorrowful look.
And in 2005 I dare anyone to truthfully say that they can see the flaws of computer animation. There are some new creepy crawly creatures that are sure to make you squirm and the dinosaurs vs. Kong fights seen in 1933 are so far eclipsed in 2005 as to not even be worthy of mention. The new movie will blow you away every time Kong is on-screen. The fluid action and dynamic speed of motion choreography makes 1933 Kong and monsters seem to be on Quaaludes in comparison.
In 1976 Dino De Laurentis?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ effort to make Kong move in a more ape-like fashion still produced the guy-in-an-ape-suit look which was part of the actual process. If you have bothered to ever watch an hour of documentary of the lowland gorillas you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll know that King Kong 2005 hits the mark most admirable.
That 1976 effort with Kong set in modern times also departed with the screaming-every-second of Fay Wray. Not to detract from her vintage performance, but De Laurentis and Jessica Lange got it right with the empathy and tenderness shown by the heroine after the initial horror. As I saw Naomi Watts looking so much like Wray in the early scenes I thought she was set to render the same shrieking performance. Peter Jackson simply proved me wrong when I initially thought Watts would play it much too retro in character and look. She pulled it off wonderfully as she transformed from the prim and proper flapper-look to the sultry, soft beauty that won Kong?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s heart. Her tender moments with Kong are light years ahead of what was directed in 1933.
We must remember that in 1933 talkies were relatively new and acting performances were often played in an over emphasis of expression and emotion. This was a throwback to silent films when the moods were set by over-acted close ups of actors mimicking fear, surprise, horror, happiness or sensuality. While the acting in the 1933 Kong was admirable it was a product relative to more basic times. Today we view any movie of that era, no matter how good, with a discriminating eye.
Jack Black was not the overwhelmingly positive Carl Denham character of 1933. He was weaker and more behind the eight ball in 2005. His performance was believable and without complaint.
Every detail proved that the 2005 effort is worthy of praise from the most gruesome native tribe that has ever been depicted to the lengthy New York Kong-on-the-loose sequences.
I only felt disappointed at the look of the natives?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ side of the wall and gate to keep Kong out when compared with the foreboding 1933 vision. But when the Kong side was rendered it exceeded my expectations.
But in 2005 viewers will take heart that while Kong still topples from the Empire State Building just as he did in 1933 he makes his last stand a memorable one. Instead of the bewildered love sick ape wondering what was going on this Kong scrambles to the top of the building and gets into a proactive ?¢‚Ǩ?ìlet?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s get it on?¢‚Ǩ? stance with the biplanes complete with determined expression. His score against the flying machines is better this time too.
Nothing was compromised in the 2005 picture. In fact most of the scenes were expanded in the logical way Merian C. Cooper would have done had he the money in 1933. The original story has not been compromised since that IS King Kong. Peter Jackson obviously kept that in sight in what is certainly a labor of love. We can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t say it was his vision of the story since that was left intact. The way of communicating the classic story IS Jackson?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s vision and it is magnificent.
If you don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t like the 2005 King Kong I kinda feel sorry for you since I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m not sure if you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d care for anything but the original. So called film purists will never accept the 2005 Kong. That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s fine. The original is still available on DVD!
And don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t worry. You will get misty at the end just like with the original version.
Marc Chevalier
Gone Home
- Messages
- 18,192
- Location
- Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
MudInYerEye said:
Surprisingly, Naomi Watts, who plays "Anne Darrow" in the new KONG, is 37: two years older than Uma Thurman.
Marc Chevalier
Gone Home
- Messages
- 18,192
- Location
- Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Twitch, your analysis is thorough; your conviction, admirable. Thank you for sharing it. As you say, the effects in the new KING KONG are really spectacular ... and Kong himself is wonderful. If a computer-generated character could win a "Best Actor" Oscar, he'd definitely get my vote.
Zach R.
Practically Family
- Messages
- 922
Is it just me, or was the pen that Jimmy tried to still from Jack a Waterman Phileas?
Matt Deckard
Man of Action
- Messages
- 10,045
Zach R. said:
It was a Waterman Phileas.
I had a green version of that pen in my pocket when I saw that scene.
- Messages
- 6,099
- Location
- Acton, Massachusetts
I use that pen as well, though I haven't seen the film yet. When is it coming out on DVD? 
MudInYerEye
Practically Family
- Messages
- 988
- Location
- DOWNTOWN.
Marc Chevalier said:
That IS surprising. I like Uma Thurman very much and didn't mean my comment as an insult to her, but she looks like much more of a world-wise/weary woman than the spunky and girlish Watts (at least to my ogling eyes).
Doctor Strange
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 5,262
- Location
- Hudson Valley, NY
Wingnut Films is Jackson's own production company - the name is very familiar to LOTR fans!
I LOVED the film. I'm a huge fan of the original, and I generally hate remakes, but the movie is simply wonderful.
Yes, it's an unnecessary remake of an old masterpiece, but Jackson quickly convinces you that that the story is worth retelling. (And not just for "teenagers who won't watch old b/w movies".) Yes, it's about twenty minutes too long, but at least all the money spent is up on the screen. Yes, the "1933" shown here is a bit cartooned, not a strict recreation of NYC and the clothing, etc. - but that's fine with me. (Much of the attitudes/motivations/dialog and POV are way too contemporary too, but again, that's fine.) Yes, some of the effects are not quite seamless - but 95% are, and Kong is absolutely believable. Some of the changes - making Denham a bit more of a villain, making Driscoll a playwright, making the Venture's crew a little more PC, zombifying the natives on Skull Island - are odd, but the movie delivers everything that it should.
What's most impressive to me is how Jackson has out-Spielberged Spielberg. He is SO in command of his filmmaking technique that he can go from jaw-dropping horror to heartfelt emotion in an instant. (Proving that LOTR was not a fluke, dependent on its great source material for its brilliance!) There are many times in the film when I was simultaneously blown away by the beauty of a scene, but emotionally overwhelmed by the content. And my 12-year-old daughter, who is not really a fan of the original, and went in with very low expectations, LOVED the movie, thought it was absolutely perfect (she had no patience with my minor criticisms), and cried her eyes out uncontrollably at the end.
Of course, I also have to credit Jackson's great female cowriters: if LOTR was a monster movie crossed with an epic war film, KK is a monster movie crossed with a chick flick!
Finally, what some long-forgotten comedian said about the 1976 KK remake when imitating producer Dino Di Laurentis is true:
(Italian accent) "When the Jaws die, nobody cry. But when the monkey gonna die, everybody gonna cry!"
I LOVED the film. I'm a huge fan of the original, and I generally hate remakes, but the movie is simply wonderful.
Yes, it's an unnecessary remake of an old masterpiece, but Jackson quickly convinces you that that the story is worth retelling. (And not just for "teenagers who won't watch old b/w movies".) Yes, it's about twenty minutes too long, but at least all the money spent is up on the screen. Yes, the "1933" shown here is a bit cartooned, not a strict recreation of NYC and the clothing, etc. - but that's fine with me. (Much of the attitudes/motivations/dialog and POV are way too contemporary too, but again, that's fine.) Yes, some of the effects are not quite seamless - but 95% are, and Kong is absolutely believable. Some of the changes - making Denham a bit more of a villain, making Driscoll a playwright, making the Venture's crew a little more PC, zombifying the natives on Skull Island - are odd, but the movie delivers everything that it should.
What's most impressive to me is how Jackson has out-Spielberged Spielberg. He is SO in command of his filmmaking technique that he can go from jaw-dropping horror to heartfelt emotion in an instant. (Proving that LOTR was not a fluke, dependent on its great source material for its brilliance!) There are many times in the film when I was simultaneously blown away by the beauty of a scene, but emotionally overwhelmed by the content. And my 12-year-old daughter, who is not really a fan of the original, and went in with very low expectations, LOVED the movie, thought it was absolutely perfect (she had no patience with my minor criticisms), and cried her eyes out uncontrollably at the end.
Of course, I also have to credit Jackson's great female cowriters: if LOTR was a monster movie crossed with an epic war film, KK is a monster movie crossed with a chick flick!
Finally, what some long-forgotten comedian said about the 1976 KK remake when imitating producer Dino Di Laurentis is true:
(Italian accent) "When the Jaws die, nobody cry. But when the monkey gonna die, everybody gonna cry!"
flat-top
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,772
- Location
- Palookaville, NY
Amen Doctor Strange! You got it right! If you want to nit-pick, you'll find costume innacuracies, or whatever, but WHO CARES?! This movie works.
The world does NOT need bloated, overproduced remakes...very true. But Peter Jackson has such obvious love for the original Kong, that you can see it on the screen!
flat-top
The world does NOT need bloated, overproduced remakes...very true. But Peter Jackson has such obvious love for the original Kong, that you can see it on the screen!
flat-top
- Messages
- 4,942
The film has its flaws....
but I will be all over the DVD. I don't know why, but the airial footage of NYC is so moving to me. I don't know if it is seeing the docks.....I kept looking for oceanliners. I think Jackson left them out due to distraction. I love seeing golden era New york. I will skip all the scenes with bad Brody and take in what only exists in magical movies as these.
but I will be all over the DVD. I don't know why, but the airial footage of NYC is so moving to me. I don't know if it is seeing the docks.....I kept looking for oceanliners. I think Jackson left them out due to distraction. I love seeing golden era New york. I will skip all the scenes with bad Brody and take in what only exists in magical movies as these.
Featured products
-
John Lofgren Monkey Boots Shinki Horsebuttt - $1,136 The classic monkey boot silhouette in an incredibly rich Shinki russet horse leather. -
Grant Stone Diesel Boot Dark Olive Chromexcel - $395 Goodyear welted, Horween Chromexcel, classic good looks. -
Schott 568 Vandals Jacket - $1,250 The classic Perfecto motorcycle jacket, in a very special limited-edition Schott double rider style.
Twitch
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,133
- Location
- City of the Angels
MK- that's the first thing I said, "I want the DVD so I can slowly pan around the NYC repro skyline!"
Hemingway- you should see it once in the theatre with full sound technology. When Kong roars you'll imagine you smell his bad breath from the seats!
It was a long film but I've squirmed at the 1 hour mark on lame flicks. Those that will really get into the film fanatically will love the fact that it is long. Everyone always wished the original was longer.
We must remember that ANY film shot today is done so with completely different results due to myriad things, some as simple as the fact that any one scene is shot with 2-4 cameras while 1932 1 or maybe 2 was a big deal.
Equipment type will never recreate the feel of any older film. Cameras, lenses, filters, film, lighting, makeup and tons more stuff simply couldn't be duplicated ever again.
I am a qualified expert on WW2 aircraft and have seen many movies where there are blatant stand-in planes for Japanese Zeros or German Messerschmitts and more. I recognize what planes they are, realize that there were no aircraft of those types available for filming at the time and go ahead and enjoy the script from there.
Remember Tora, Tora, Tora? They converted AT-6 Texan trainers sheetmetal into several types of Japanese aircraft. Bravo for them! It was before CGI and stock AT-6s would have looked obvious even with Japanese hinomarus on the wings. I wonder how many unwashed non-aero afficianados even knew.
Cinema is all fantasy and at the discretion of those who create it. Art work is not so much an exact detail for detail rendering of an object. The finished piece is the intrepetation of the artist's concept of the object. Cinematography is much the same. We've seen DVD director's cuts and heard what they've done to bring a story to screenplay and screenplay to film. Shooting the film they must capture what they envision and hope that their vision is shared by the audience.
In The Aviator I appreciated that the creators did not dwell overly on Hughes' psychosis for a germ-free environment. I'm sure some had a purient interest in seeing that and were disappointed. I liked that they emphasized his contributions to the aviation world. Were the aircraft models good? Yes. No flaws. But the story was more than just that.
Since The Aviator was not a remake most folks enjoyed the interpretation of the factual story and the accuracy to era detail in wardrobe and props. If it was a remake many would pick at any flaws. So it is with Kong.
I can't imagine the ticket-buying public anti-ing up $10-14 for a 90 minute recreation faithful in all details to the original King Kong rendered in claymation-style stop action movement.
I can't imagine many of the old movies with Cagney, Bogart, Robinson, O'Brien being remade with today's actors filling the rolls but if the story is strong some could deliver good renditions not of the old classic actors, but of their version of them. We'd have to simply have open minds and give latitude because of our prejudices of someone other than Bogart playing Rick in Casablanca or whatnot.
But most certainly, if anyone feels they will be offended by the updated Kong they should save their money and time.
Hemingway- you should see it once in the theatre with full sound technology. When Kong roars you'll imagine you smell his bad breath from the seats!
It was a long film but I've squirmed at the 1 hour mark on lame flicks.
Those that will really get into the film fanatically will love the fact that it is long. Everyone always wished the original was longer.We must remember that ANY film shot today is done so with completely different results due to myriad things, some as simple as the fact that any one scene is shot with 2-4 cameras while 1932 1 or maybe 2 was a big deal.
Equipment type will never recreate the feel of any older film. Cameras, lenses, filters, film, lighting, makeup and tons more stuff simply couldn't be duplicated ever again.
I am a qualified expert on WW2 aircraft and have seen many movies where there are blatant stand-in planes for Japanese Zeros or German Messerschmitts and more. I recognize what planes they are, realize that there were no aircraft of those types available for filming at the time and go ahead and enjoy the script from there.
Remember Tora, Tora, Tora? They converted AT-6 Texan trainers sheetmetal into several types of Japanese aircraft. Bravo for them! It was before CGI and stock AT-6s would have looked obvious even with Japanese hinomarus on the wings. I wonder how many unwashed non-aero afficianados even knew.
Cinema is all fantasy and at the discretion of those who create it. Art work is not so much an exact detail for detail rendering of an object. The finished piece is the intrepetation of the artist's concept of the object. Cinematography is much the same. We've seen DVD director's cuts and heard what they've done to bring a story to screenplay and screenplay to film. Shooting the film they must capture what they envision and hope that their vision is shared by the audience.
In The Aviator I appreciated that the creators did not dwell overly on Hughes' psychosis for a germ-free environment. I'm sure some had a purient interest in seeing that and were disappointed. I liked that they emphasized his contributions to the aviation world. Were the aircraft models good? Yes. No flaws. But the story was more than just that.
Since The Aviator was not a remake most folks enjoyed the interpretation of the factual story and the accuracy to era detail in wardrobe and props. If it was a remake many would pick at any flaws. So it is with Kong.
I can't imagine the ticket-buying public anti-ing up $10-14 for a 90 minute recreation faithful in all details to the original King Kong rendered in claymation-style stop action movement.
I can't imagine many of the old movies with Cagney, Bogart, Robinson, O'Brien being remade with today's actors filling the rolls but if the story is strong some could deliver good renditions not of the old classic actors, but of their version of them. We'd have to simply have open minds and give latitude because of our prejudices of someone other than Bogart playing Rick in Casablanca or whatnot.
But most certainly, if anyone feels they will be offended by the updated Kong they should save their money and time.
Slate Shannon
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 105
- Location
- Nearer to here than to there
The "real" King Kong?
Well, according to the article, it was the Golden Era, he was exploited by humans, and he had affection for only one human female, so...
http://news.newstimeslive.com/story.php?id=77756&category=Local
Well, according to the article, it was the Golden Era, he was exploited by humans, and he had affection for only one human female, so...
http://news.newstimeslive.com/story.php?id=77756&category=Local
MrBern
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,469
I love tommyguns & giant bugs, but the sequence in the movie didnt really appeal to me.
Incidentally , I thought the black sailor had a lot more charisma than any of the other actors.
Also, having seen the trailer sorta threw me. Didnt the trailer have them filming on the beach of skull island, when Ann lets out a scream & shockingly there is an answering roar from Kong ?
Loved the ice scene in CentralPark, tho the trees were all wrong.
-b
Incidentally , I thought the black sailor had a lot more charisma than any of the other actors.
Also, having seen the trailer sorta threw me. Didnt the trailer have them filming on the beach of skull island, when Ann lets out a scream & shockingly there is an answering roar from Kong ?
Loved the ice scene in CentralPark, tho the trees were all wrong.
-b
Feraud
Bartender
- Messages
- 17,188
- Location
- Hardlucksville, NY
As a guy who loves long movies I have to say this film was too long! There were scenes that just needed to be cut down. How long can one watch guys running from stampeding dinosaurs? Kong battling the T-rexes got boring after a while too. When Kong finally ripped the T-rex jaw apart like in the original, I was half asleep. [huh]
I do not like period films when the leads are not (or barely) wearing hats.
Jackson needs to learn to trim the fat. Not everything needs to be an "epic" LOTR style film.
The best part of this movie was seeing the NYC skyline finale. The scenes were excellent!
If this is what got the original King Kong dvd in my hands, then so be it!
I would not buy the dvd. One viewing is enough for me.
I do not like period films when the leads are not (or barely) wearing hats.
Jackson needs to learn to trim the fat. Not everything needs to be an "epic" LOTR style film.
The best part of this movie was seeing the NYC skyline finale. The scenes were excellent!
If this is what got the original King Kong dvd in my hands, then so be it!
I would not buy the dvd. One viewing is enough for me.
Sefton
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,132
- Location
- Somewhere among the owls in Maryland
I haven't seen the new Kong yet (It takes some bit of scheduling to set aside more than 3 hrs for a movie!) but I am looking forward to it. I don't recall if anyone has specifically written about this here but I wanted to mention the new DVD(s) of the original 1933 film. I bought the two disc set and it is really spectacular! Not only does the film look and sound better than I've ever seen or heard it before(I can't even say how many times I've seen this film...hundreds probably..) but the extras are marvellous. If you have any friends who don't appreciate the effects of the original (is that possible?) get them to watch the documentary "RKO Production 601:The Making of the Eighth Wonder of the World". I've always been amazed at the originality and skill of the special effects but this documentary gives so much information that my respect for the filmmakers is now even greater than before. The sequence where Peter Jackson and his special effects team recreate the famous lost "Spider Pit" scene is great. After watching that you can understand how much Jackson loves the original Kong.
The documentary on Merian C.Cooper is also well worth watching. They don't make 'em like him anymore!
Lastly the DVD comes not just with the original trailers for the Kong movies but includes the films that John Ford made with Merian C.Cooper. All in all one of the best DVDs I've ever paid for. Cheers! Sefton
The documentary on Merian C.Cooper is also well worth watching. They don't make 'em like him anymore!
Lastly the DVD comes not just with the original trailers for the Kong movies but includes the films that John Ford made with Merian C.Cooper. All in all one of the best DVDs I've ever paid for. Cheers! Sefton
DanielJones
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,042
- Location
- On the move again...
MrBern said:
MrBern: Entertainment Weekley said that was one of the scenes Perter Jackson cut from the film along with about 4 others. Not sure why it was left in the trailer, but that happens sometimes.
Cheers!
Dan
MrBern
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,469
DanielJones said:
You mean he actually cut something out????
I wonder if the inevitable DVD will be 4 hours long?
Solid Citizen
Practically Family
- Messages
- 922
- Location
- Maryland
Maybe Seeing Kong Tomorrow
Plan on seeing Kong @ Baltimore's Art Deco Theatre "The Senator" tomorrow & will report back. They had Jack Black as host on Saturday Night Live last week acting like a jerk joking about Kong. This is just What Peter Jachson needs (sic) to promo his movie. Peter :rage:
Plan on seeing Kong @ Baltimore's Art Deco Theatre "The Senator" tomorrow & will report back. They had Jack Black as host on Saturday Night Live last week acting like a jerk joking about Kong. This is just What Peter Jachson needs (sic) to promo his movie. Peter :rage: