Movie Talks Archives

Posted by: bigred760 at January 4, 2006, 10:48 am

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

Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy If you look in the 1933 original, just afer the T Rex shows up, it stops to scratch itself. Later, in the fight with Kong, it does this great thing with its tail, pumping itself up to fight. Minor touches, yes--but the touches that made the original so good--and they were also the touches that made Kong himself in the 2005 version so much more empathetic. But those touches were lacking for the three T Rexes. I did not notice any of those in the original - good eye on your part. It's minor touches that make a lot of movies better. Quote: Mind, I'm a spectacle kind of guy. I'd rather that often the camera plunk itself down and just let us see what is going on, rather than use a lot of quick edits and fancy camerawork (which usually is used to obscure what is going on, which is nothing much). Jackson sometimes went for such spectacle--the dino stampede--and sometimes not--the T Rex battle. I don't mind a still camera shot or lot of quick edits myself, as long as it's done right. I don't like a lot of quick edits of close up shots - I'm thankful it didn't happen with King Kong (2005) where you could see everything that was going on in the battle of Kong vs. the dinos. Quote: As for the Natives, sorry, but I'll stick to my guns on that one. The natives in 1933 were first seen doing a ceremony--which implies civilization, culture, organization. They were clean, acted logical, etc. Peter Jackson's Natives start off by (spoiler, but not much of one) killing without warning one of the film crew. There is no ceremony at first, just a rag tag collection of, literally, savages. You get the impression in 2005 the Natives would happily kill everyone. In 1933, the Natives are only interested in Anne Darrow. Jackson could have opted to present the Natives with respect, but instead he did not. And to return to my point about pre-knowledge, if you read "The Making of King Kong" (did I get the book's title right) you will see a whole history of Skull Island (never in the film) which explains why the Natives are so savage and desperate (explanations also never in the film). Backstory is helpful, of course, but.... That's a very good point. I've never read the book (and to be honest, probably won't get around to it). And you're right, the natives in the original are cleaner and more civilized. But I think Jackson's version of the natives adds more to the mysteriousness of the island. There's not communication with them, so therefore the location of the island is more of a mystery - unlike in the original. And yes, they're very violent, savage, - but they too kidnap Anne Darrow to offer her as a sacrifice. The fact that they appear more savage than in the original is what I meant by cliched in my last post.

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

Categories:

Comedy Movie Censorship Movie Quote Worst Movies Blooper Horror Movie Movie Rating Spoiler Drama Movie Film noir Best Movies Star Wars Lord of the Ring Film Festival Divx Movie Science Fiction Movie Romance Movie News Movie Review Anime

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!