Lounge of Tomorrow - View Single Post

innerSpaceman · 05-25-2006, 07:13 AM

Well, it could have been ok with a little trimming of the horrific over-the-top stuff. Cut away before the brontosaurisi all tumble over each other in a rolling ball of dino feet and tails. Cut away before T-Rexes are swinging on vines. Leave giant bugs menacingly approaching, but cut stuff where they suck human heads or where the boy who's never held a rifle manages to shoot insects off people's bodies without hitting men. That would be a start.

I love every moment in New York City during the Great Depression. There's something about the way it was filmed ... the comedic style, the art direction, the color timing that I found simply perfect.

(Ok, maybe the ice dancing part could go.)

I like how Ann Darrow manages to "tame" Kong and eventually come to feel affection for him. I like that Carl Denham is a madman moviemaker on the lam. I actually didn't hate Jack Black in the role, and I even sorta bought Adrien Brody as the quirky romantic lead, Jack Driscoll. Certainly, the re-enactment aboard ship of the old King Kong scene between Darrow and Driscoll illustrated how stilted the characters and performances were in the original movie.

But somehow the performance of Kong seemed better in the old one. Though technically superb and very expressionfull, I didn't really warm to this Kong like I did the little puppet with the constantly shifting rabbit fur at the hands of Willis O'Brien. This Kong seemed too much like a merely giant gorilla instead of some kind of, i dunno, tortured, quasi-human soul. Oh, I felt some pathos for him, and the Empire State Building scene was magnificently realized. But the character of Kong, and ultimately this film of Kong, fell flat for me.

I just don't understand the why of it. Technically subperb, visually gorgeous, but ... other than to prohibit the Jeff Bridges / Jessica Lange / Dino DeLaurentis travesty from being the last word on the subject ... I don't really see any compelling reason for this film to have been remade.

But, a few cuts of the absurdly silly stuff, and it's a downright ok movie. Certainly a better remake than Poseidon. This one did try to expand on the story's characters ... and that's gotta count for something..

05-25-2006, 07:13 AM	#8
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Well, it could have been ok with a little trimming of the horrific over-the-top stuff. Cut away before the brontosaurisi all tumble over each other in a rolling ball of dino feet and tails. Cut away before T-Rexes are swinging on vines. Leave giant bugs menacingly approaching, but cut stuff where they suck human heads or where the boy who's never held a rifle manages to shoot insects off people's bodies without hitting men. That would be a start. I love every moment in New York City during the Great Depression. There's something about the way it was filmed ... the comedic style, the art direction, the color timing that I found simply perfect. (Ok, maybe the ice dancing part could go.) I like how Ann Darrow manages to "tame" Kong and eventually come to feel affection for him. I like that Carl Denham is a madman moviemaker on the lam. I actually didn't hate Jack Black in the role, and I even sorta bought Adrien Brody as the quirky romantic lead, Jack Driscoll. Certainly, the re-enactment aboard ship of the old King Kong scene between Darrow and Driscoll illustrated how stilted the characters and performances were in the original movie. But somehow the performance of Kong seemed better in the old one. Though technically superb and very expressionfull, I didn't really warm to this Kong like I did the little puppet with the constantly shifting rabbit fur at the hands of Willis O'Brien. This Kong seemed too much like a merely giant gorilla instead of some kind of, i dunno, tortured, quasi-human soul. Oh, I felt some pathos for him, and the Empire State Building scene was magnificently realized. But the character of Kong, and ultimately this film of Kong, fell flat for me. I just don't understand the why of it. Technically subperb, visually gorgeous, but ... other than to prohibit the Jeff Bridges / Jessica Lange / Dino DeLaurentis travesty from being the last word on the subject ... I don't really see any compelling reason for this film to have been remade. But, a few cuts of the absurdly silly stuff, and it's a downright ok movie. Certainly a better remake than Poseidon. This one did try to expand on the story's characters ... and that's gotta count for something..
	Submit to Quotes