Movie Talks Archives

Posted by: bigred760 at January 3, 2006, 7:19 pm

Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo

Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy On the other hand, it is remarkable how the 1933 version was able to create characters ouf of the T Rex and other creatures. In the 2005, the monsters were just monsters--eating machines. Instead of engaging us with chracerters (besides Kong, that is), Jackson settled for CGI tricks. For my money, the 1933 battle with the T Rex is far superior to the extended, confusing 2005 battle with 3 T Rexs. 3 T Rexes is typical of the film's "problems". Does three times the T Rexes make it any better? Could you explain a bit further how the 1933 version created "characters" out of the T-Rex, et. al. I don't understand what you mean. I personally liked the 2005 battle between Kong and the T-Rexes more. Nothing against the original, but I found it more exciting - instead of one-on-one, it was three-on-one, yes - the CGI helped a lot, and the fact that it was longer also added to the suspense and action. I also found it, especially - the "final battle" (or last part of the sequence) to be more exhilirating and testerone-pumping. That's just me. Quote: Jackson's presentation of the natives on Skull Island was, if anyhing, far more objectionable than the 1933 version. In 1933 the natives had a culture, dignity, they made sense. In 2005, deranged by the weird island they lived on, they were insane monsters. It still felt racist, but much more racist than 1933. This is 2005, after all. Could not the island natives have been, for example, white? Did they have to be insane, gibbering maniacs? To me, if the natives were anything - they were just cliched. I don't think they were deranged, or insane. I found it a bit "easy" (I guess) that in the original there was somebody who could communicate with the natives - that wasn't the case here. They're not deranged because of the island they live on - they're just isolated (again - in my opinion). Quote: Finally, there is a lot that is applauded about King Kong 2005 that is not actually in the film. Kong is sad because he is the last of his species? How do we know he is the last of his species? We do see some giant gorilla skeletons, but there is absolutely nothing I heard or saw in the movie that there was not some other Kong on the far side of the island. The same lack of information is true about the natives--we only know they have been driven mad by Skull Island because the press release told us so. What makes you think he was sad? Did somebody say it in this forum and I missed it? It's not entirely implausible that he's the last of his species or kind. I mean, last time I checked, gorillas - or even species - travel together most of the time. I didn't see any other gorillas fighting for her when she was being sacrificed. Again - you may be right, he may not be alone, but don't dismiss it entirely and say it's in the script. I don't remember him being sad that much though - except in New York at the end.

Shared Movies
Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows to choose from

Categories:

Movie Award Movie Theater Movie Rating Worst Movies Horror Movie Best Movies Thriller Movie Romance Harry Potter Blooper Censorship Film Festival Action Movie Movie Quote Celebrities DVD Releases Adventure Movie Drama Movie Movie Review Great Movie

Links:

Forum Extractor

Shared Movies
Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows to choose from
Play movies on your computer, Home theater or TV
No Charge per movie, No download limit what so ever!