King Kong Premier

Ranchgal · Post by **Ranchgal** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:18 am

Thank You Marlboroprojects. I appreciate you review.
And I too can wait to see it for awhile.

Twitch · Post by **Twitch** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:07 pm

I watched the VHS of the original uncut King Kong for 1 Â½ 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 ?uncut? 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? 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?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?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? 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 ?let?s get it on? 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?t say it was his vision of the story since that was left intact. The way of communicating the classic story IS Jackson?s vision and it is magnificent.

If you don?t like the 2005 King Kong I kinda feel sorry for you since I?m not sure if you?d care for anything but the original. So called film purists will never accept the 2005 Kong. That?s fine. The original is still available on DVD!

And don?t worry. You will get sad at the end just like with the original version.

Rem · Post by **Rem** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:35 am

For me the ending lasted too long, it lost so much of it's momentum. To me, it's [size=12px]friggin machine guns[/size], they would have torn him apart. It would have been much more tragic had it only lasted about a minute.

Also, there was no blood! I'm not the gore-loving type per sÃ©, but once again it would have been more sad to see Kong inhumanely slaughtered with more visual impact!

I wish they had made the crew and some of the main characters a little less fleshed out. I like the idea of them being just characters flat and in ways cartoony, and as I said before they should have been "fleshed out" with their actions only like how Lumpy the Cook (Andy Serkis) was.

And Twitch, you can't compare modern CGI to the old ways. It's not about what they have now in comparison, it's about what they created given the materials they had to work with at the time. So it's unfair to compare them in those terms. But yeah some of those facial expressions were really good in the new one.....

Cowboy79 · Post by **Cowboy79** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:59 pm

I was wondering since I've never seen the First King Kong which I want to see. Will this be a movie I look forward to since I never saw it?

Twitch · Post by **Twitch** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:53 pm

Mr. Rem- no cut at the original. It was superb for 1933. And the bottom line is the story is what made the movie not special effects. I'm emphasizing that some folks are just to prejudiced for the original that they won't give the 2005 version a look and that's their loss.

I think the machine gun and blood is like this: 1st all pilots use aerial machine guns in short bursts like we see most being a second or second and a half at most. In the guns of 1933 they used weak ammo- plain lead slugs- no armor piercing, incendiary or explosive rounds. The .30 caliber rounds piercing Kong were in scale so small compared to his massive body that blood was not visible due to the thick ape hair and the fact that the wounds were scattered all over the body and collectively killed him. Anyhow that's my logic on it.....

Rem · Post by **Rem** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:01 pm

I figured it woul've taken a while, but really I think it would have been better had they all made quick and brutal passes like that last one in the movie.

But its not so much about the gunning down of Kong, it just plain lasted too long. Before the planes arrived, (the part when they arrived was perfect though), Kong pushing Anne away to protect her (they do this multiple times), the 15 minutes of biplane shooting, and with Jack going up the elevator, then more protecting of Anne, then she protects him, then another few minutes when he dies and is falling off the building....

I did quite like it though how the photographers were climbing on top of him to get a picture, but the problem is that it emphasizes the point well, but it has already been emphasized to death by ther last half hour.

Oh well.

Ranchgal · Post by **Ranchgal** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:10 am

Cowboy79 wrote:I was wondering since I've never seen the First King Kong which I want to see. Will this be a movie I look forward to since I never saw it?

IF you have never seen either---See the newest one--it will be more to your sense of expectation.
the original b&w is a stand alone by itself, but in this day and age, you have to understand what it was at the time to appreciate it-things are so far beyond that now--and the dino Delaurentis version is not as good as the new one---so I wouldn't live in the past on this.

See the new Kong and enjoy him for what it is.

Twitch · Post by **Twitch** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:48 pm

Right Ranchgal- if someone never seen the original they will not be lacking by seeing the new Kong as the story is exactly the same and not messed with. Just watch it and enjoy. Actually those that never seen the 1933 one will enjoy it more cause everyone else is concentrating on scene by scene comparisons.