| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 20, 2006, 12:40 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | I appreciate what you have written. Perhaps when you appeared to equate slaves to morons, you did not mean that. Part of the point is that, with respect, you are lost in a "western" definition of education. Your position is that because the slaves did not go to schools in the confederacy--and it is true that the slave owners had no interest in their property learning to read--that they were illiterate, ignorant, etc. Again, my friend, it appears to me that you have a lot of reading to do before you comment on this topic. For starters, you do not appear to be aware of the fact that the slaves in some places created their own little schools, which of course their owners did not know about. Your blanket description of slaves as illiterate and ignorant is far from the truth. You may also wish to take into account that some of the human beings kidnapped from Africa and forced into slavery in the United States were Princes and Princesses in their own lands. Highly educated by Western standards? Perhaps n... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 17, 2006, 4:27 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy Again, rather than creating apologies for American films with racist overtones, and creating arguments that I never came up with (all US films are racist, etc.), maybe you should read some factual material about slavery and the Civil War. As you appear to agree, education is important.
And what would I learn? That they were scholars; that they could add, subtract, read, write; or had the same opportunities as white people? If I offended you, or anybody for that matter, by calling them ignorant - I apologize. I only said (wrote) that because I knew they did not receive any kind of educations whatsoever. They did not go to school in the South before 1861. They had a difficult time getting a proper education after the war was over and got their freedom. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 17, 2006, 3:57 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Please, as one last comment, regarding your opinions expressed about Black people and you just wrote they were ignorant: here is what you actually wrote: "African Americans were not educated people in 1850-60s America. I wouldn't necessarily call them morons, but definitely ignorant - white people and slave owners didn't make teachers available to them." How glad you would not necesasrily call them morons. And yes it's true that slave owners did not bother to educate their "property". Again, rather than creating apologies for American films with racist overtones, and creating arguments that I never came up with (all US films are racist, etc.), maybe you should read some factual material about slavery and the Civil War. As you appear to agree, education is important. And I wrote "sorry" not to apologize to you, but that I was sorry I had to write such stuff to someone who has apparently been to University. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 17, 2006, 2:45 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy Your comments about the intelligence etc. of slaves appear to be, at the very least, ill informed. Or do you think someone who is a slave is automatically stupid? Or someone can only be smart if they have gone to school? I'm not saying they were stupid, just uneducated. Quote: Given your comments, it is hardly a surprise you did not recall and maybe even notice the racist stereotype in High Sierra. It's not that memorable of a film, in my opinion - racially or otherwise. It's no Maltese Falcon or Casablanca. Quote: Sorry. No need to apologize. You have your opinions, and I have mine. You seem to rationalize that every movie that portrays minorities, particularly African Americans, as anything but intelligent people as racially motivated. If that's true, then Roots was a racist movie, American History X was a racist movie[/i], Crash was a racist movie. I don't see them that way; I just don't. I see them as movies that are criticizing an ignorant way of life - they a... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 17, 2006, 12:48 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | No offence, my friend, but I think this dialogue needs to conclude. Your comments about the intelligence etc. of slaves appear to be, at the very least, ill informed. Or do you think someone who is a slave is automatically stupid? Or someone can only be smart if they have gone to school? Perhaps you should do some reading about slavery and the slave trade. And I wonder if you realize that your writing, in the end, is fundamentally an apology for a film which ignores race, because 'that's the way things are.' We should all be glad Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks did not have your philosophy. Given your comments, it is hardly a surprise you did not recall and maybe even notice the racist stereotype in High Sierra. Sorry. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 16, 2006, 7:56 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy What I really am reacting to are people (not necessarily yourself) who describe it as a terrific American film etc etc and completely ignore the race elements. For example, that the word 'slave' is never used, that the reality of slavery is completely ignored, and that the Reconstruction period was pictured as looting by the North--partly but hardly completely true. The AFrican Americans outside of Scarlett's care were pictured as ignorant buffoons easily swayed by Northern carpetbaggers. A film that deals with the Civil War so extensively, both what caused it and what happened after it, but that does not have the guts to even use the word slavery is, in itself, racist. And not acceptable as "a sign of the times." It was indeed a racist sign of the times then, and even today when people celebrate it as a great American film (it is) but ignore its inherent racism. So, you would change GWTW by making the blacks scholars, teachers, and college graduates? The mo... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 16, 2006, 11:26 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Well, I can see your points about GWTW. Again, it is a great example of storytelling. What I really am reacting to are people (not necessarily yourself) who describe it as a terrific American film etc etc and completely ignore the race elements. For example, that the word 'slave' is never used, that the reality of slavery is completely ignored, and that the Reconstruction period was pictured as looting by the North--partly but hardly completely true. The AFrican Americans outside of Scarlett's care were pictured as ignorant buffoons easily swayed by Northern carpetbaggers. A film that deals with the Civil War so extensively, both what caused it and what happened after it, but that does not have the guts to even use the word slavery is, in itself, racist. And not acceptable as "a sign of the times." It was indeed a racist sign of the times then, and even today when people celebrate it as a great American film (it is) but ignore its inherent racism. Again, watching GTWT you'd think the Blacks Scarlet... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 16, 2006, 11:07 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Isn't Gone with the Wind supposed to be at least a little racist? I mean it is about the Civil War. It can be thought of as a study of the times anyway. Do I like the way they're treated? Hell no, it's despicable. But it did happen in real life. You really think they awarded an Academy Award to Butterfly McQueen (great name, by the way!!) because she portrayed an ignorant slave? Come on; she had a lot of sass and attitude in the role and that's what made her stand out. She told off Scarlett a whole bunch of times in the flick. Now, I don't know much about Gone with the Wind, it's been a while since I've seen it, it's not one of my favorite movies, and I don't know much about its history or production - but the movie isn't about slavery or racism. The movie's about this stuck up southern belle and her struggles to deal with the changing times and the love triangle between her, Ashley, and Rhett - all during the Civil War. Of course there are slaves and black people treated like dirt, but that was just a sign ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 16, 2006, 10:33 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | It was surprising how much more powerful films were, including films I had seen many times previously, when I saw them "Big". It first happened around 1970, when I received 16mm prints from Janus Films and showed them on a large sheet on York Avenue in Toronto (if it did not rain). It was amazing seeing Bride of Frankenstein BIG. Not a different film, yet it was. I'd watched it on tv dozens of times. For a film like 2001, which was designed for an extraordinarily large screen, you really are missing something just watching it on tv. The original cinerama was a three screen process. By the time Kubrick did 2001, the multiple cameras (with visible verticle lines running down the screen, splitting it into thirds) were gone and it was one, huge, seamless image. If you sat towards the front row centre, the image completely filled your field of vision. What an experience! Plus, of course, you could see all the detail, and in the 70mm print there was tons of detail. You just get only a bare hint of that e... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 15, 2006, 4:41 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Probably did have fins; don't remember the movie that well as to if the dino had legs or fins; I just saw it in the water and immediately assumed that it was the marine dino. Like you said, minor point. Never saw 2001 on the big screen; kinda would like to now. Kinda would like to see a bunch of movies on the big screen: Ben-Hur, Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. etc. Much better movie experience. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 15, 2006, 1:41 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | I'm not a dino expert, and it's a minor point, but didn't the Pleio-whatever have fins instead of legs? Anyway, yes it is interesting judging the different impact between seeing a film on large v. small screen. In the Video Room I've run since 1995 at the local sf convention, I initially used a 'big' tv (52" I think). Two years later we moved to a video projector & 8X6' screen, and never looked back. I have repeatedly seen how films (and, for that matter, still photos) get more impressive the larger the size of the screen. You'd find a lot of the original King Kong not quite as creaky, and some of it is, when seen on a big screen. You should've checked out the reactions of fans who saw 2001 for the first time on a bigger screen than a tv. It was like a whole new movie. In many respects I think younger film goers have little idea of what the impact can be of older films when shown on a big screen. Of course, it is not just special effects which improve with screening size. When I showed The Maltese F... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 15, 2006, 11:17 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Actually, I always considered the dinosaur to be a Pleiosaurus (sp?), not a brontosaurus - the former is a marine dinosaur that probably was a carnivore - ate fish and all. But anyway, that was a cool scene too. O'Brien obviously knew what he was doing. I do wish I could see some of my favorite movies on the big-screen. I've never seen the original Kong in a theater - only on DVD or TCM. Though in the film classes I took, the movies were saw were presented in a auditorium, I wouldn't exactly consider it a movie theater. Still cool, but with no surround sound and the fact that the movies were on DVD shown through a projector detracted from the overall experience. I'm sure if I actually looked around, I could probably find a theater or drive-in that shows classics, but haven't gotten around to it. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 15, 2006, 9:57 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | My apologies to Clint Eastwood for not mentioning Unforgiven, a truly spectacular film worth watching over & over. I assume you know that Eastwood patterned the beating of the Richard Harris character after the video taped beatings he saw of Rodney King. Mystic River is an incredibly powerful film. I have rented Million Dollar Baby three times, but never found the right time to watch it. I feel the time has to be right. I'm a human rights officer, and I know some people, disability advocates, who were extremely upset by the film, because the only apparent conclusion to the boxer's problem was to die. I haven't seen it yet, so I'm not judging. It also can be problematic applying generic politics to art. Anyway, had to acknowledge your comment about Unforgiven. What a brilliant movie! Loved Gene Hackman's at-angles house! | | Static Link |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 15, 2006, 9:53 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | If I recall, apart from Hang Em High, Ted Post also directed Magnum Force, the follow up to Dirty Harry. Magnum Force always struck me as an urban western. Post did other work but it unfortunately escapes me at the time. O'Brien's use of natural elements like water to lend credibility to his stop motion was part of why he was so good. The water I mentioned is most frequently in The Lost World. By King Kong he had better tools at his disposal, in terms of set design (plants etc.), real and faked birds flying around, etc. For example, check out the opening shot of Skull Island in the 1933 version: to make it 'real' O'Brien included water, flying birds, etc--which help distract from the possible artificiality of the wall on the island. If I recall, the biggest use of water in relation to special effects in the 1933 version was when that water loving brontosaurus upset the raft the sailors were on. Of course, brontos were vegetarians, but what the heck. One thing we always seem to forget is that before 1960 movi... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 14, 2006, 7:56 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy Hi again. This is sure more fun than working. Isn't it though? Quote: Willis H. O'Brien ("Obie") was the stop motion specialist who led the team that created the visuals in Kong Kong 1933. He had done one prior feature, a silent version of the Conan Doyle novel, The Lost World. There is an excellent restoration of that film on DVD, but it is mostly for affectionadoes like myself--compared even with the first King Kong, the effects are still relatively clunky. O'Brien did a lot of the animation himself--I'm sure you know what stop motion is--with a very solid team of professionals to help him build models, sets, etc. Two of O'Brien's early tricks, to make his work seem more real, was to include actual water as often as possible (seen frequently in The Lost World as a river running in the foreground as two dinos try to kill each other). Real water lent credibility. He also, second, tried to combine actual live actors into scenes with stop motion animation. Al... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 14, 2006, 1:22 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Hi again. This is sure more fun than working. Willis H. O'Brien ("Obie") was the stop motion specialist who led the team that created the visuals in Kong Kong 1933. He had done one prior feature, a silent version of the Conan Doyle novel, The Lost World. There is an excellent restoration of that film on DVD, but it is mostly for affectionadoes like myself--compared even with the first King Kong, the effects are still relatively clunky. O'Brien did a lot of the animation himself--I'm sure you know what stop motion is--with a very solid team of professionals to help him build models, sets, etc. Two of O'Brien's early tricks, to make his work seem more real, was to include actual water as often as possible (seen frequently in The Lost World as a river running in the foreground as two dinos try to kill each other). Real water lent credibility. He also, second, tried to combine actual live actors into scenes with stop motion animation. Also, he did things like put air bladders into the models, so their ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 14, 2006, 11:41 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | If I remember correctly, Bonnie & Clyde was the first movie to use squibs while The Wild Bunch was the first to show a bullet enter a character and then leave the character - using a squib in the front and the back. I credit the latter with creating the modern rating system. There's kind of a small stab at previous westerns in The Wild Bunch, particularly John Ford's westerns. The church/anti-sin/ant-drinking group that is marching through the street at the beginning is singing "Shall We Gather at the River" which was a staple of John Ford's westerns. They sing it and then the town get shot to hell - kinda symbolic, no? I'm kind of obsessed with stylized violence. The Wild Bunch is obviously a perfect example of that. But the shoot 'em ups rarely provide much entertainment as far as I'm concerned. Most of them are cliched as hell. I'm a bigger fan of sword or samurai movies - Last Samurai is one of my all-time favorite movies now - or action oriented flicks that don't deal with guns at all - li... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 14, 2006, 10:06 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Big Red 760, I guess we're getting off King Kong a bit, but who cares? I assume you have seen the 'restored' Pat Garrett, which does open with Pat getting blown away. For me Peckinpah was a glorious but self destructive director who was mostly screwed by the studio system. Major Dundee (I still have not seen the restored version) is a classic example of studio interference. I first saw The Wild Bunch before it actually was in a theatre. My next door neighbour had a 16mm print, and I had a Bell & Howell projector. As it turned out, it was an anamorphic print and I did not have the lens to widen out the image appropriately. So the image was squished, kind of like when you see credits for a widescreen film which have been squished to a full screen tv format. However, even though William Holden was kinda like a reedy teen (although Ernest Borgnine never looked slimmer) we watched the whole film--it was that powerful, especially at the time it came out. As you would know, before The Wild Bunch when someone wa... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 13, 2006, 6:23 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Very well put. I am 27 - turned about 2 months ago. So I am obviously a product of my generation . As far as the natives are concerned - that's what I meant by cliched - you don't see white savages. Most stereotypical natives are not white - in movies or in real life. If you think about it: they might be black because they spend a lot of time in the sun without putting on SPF 35 or something. And I'm not saying Merian C. Cooper was ignorant as far as wildlife is concerned. I've read his bio on imdb.com and read about his exploits. Obviously he's very talented considering he perfected a process that wouldn't be topped until Jurassic Park. Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy I can only assume you have seen a restored version, for example, of Pat Garrett. While the restored version still is not priceless, it's very good, and worthy of Peckinpah. Kurosawa? Anytime! Hitchcock, absolutely! I have seen Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid; I studied Peckinpah in college (along with Kurosawa) and saw it. It is the onl... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 13, 2006, 5:26 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Big Red 760, there is always one last thing, at least before I pack it in and go home from work & take my blood pressure meds. Your favourite directors are among my favourites. I can only assume you have seen a restored version, for example, of Pat Garrett. While the restored version still is not priceless, it's very good, and worthy of Peckinpah. Kurosawa? Anytime! Hitchcock, absolutely! PJ is a very good director, as his early films in particular show. I suggest KK would have been a lot better if the budget had been a lot smaller, and PJ was not able to rely so heavily on special effects. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 13, 2006, 5:23 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Hi again, especially big red 760. I wish I had the posting up here where I could remember everything. Yeah, I love older films just as much as newer ones. I'm 60, I first saw the original King Kong in an actual theatre, on re-release, when I was probably ten. Re the Natives: well I understand the question. Here is one way to put it: when all white film makers depict savages, the savages are never white, are they? They are always people of colour, i.e., Black. There are many different kinds of peoples who live on islands, including Black people, Asian people, Polynesian people. Some of these are people of colour, while some look white. PJ and crew made a deliberate decision to have people who kind of looked like Maoris, a group decimated in parts of Australia and New Zealand, if I recall. PJ could have had white savages. But maybe white savages would not be something a white audience would relate to.... I absolutely agree that the CGI used has wonderful possibilities, some of which were fulfilled. But they we... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 13, 2006, 4:46 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy The depiction of the natives, again, is racist because: they could have been white...they only had a culture of violence...they killed one film crew member with a spear, totally unprovoked. That meets my definition of savage. The natives in the original King Kong had much more of a civilization, they were clean, they were okay clothes, blah blah blah. Really, guys. PJ did not have to even have people of colour as natives. We should not be apologists. One last question? Would it have been less "racist" if they had been Asian - after all, it was supposedly close to Singapore. Quote: I'd suggest less loyalty to Peter Jackson, and a solider reasonable criticism of his work, would mean better films from PJ. If all PJ hears is "yes sir!" from fans, that will hardly encourage him to be introspective and see his own judgement errors, will it? I hold no loyalty to Peter Jackson. I like, well, love his movies for the most part. But I'm old school - my favo... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 13, 2006, 1:36 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Hi yet again. Probably this will be my last post on the subject, just because it is repetitive. I enjoyed the movie but I refuse to kiss its butt. Each film must be taken on its own merits. LOTR, yes PJ did that, but what does that have to do with King Kong? Except that both KK and LOTR were too long and self indulgent. That worked in LOTR, which had a multiple, epic storyline. It did not work in KK with its much thinner story. The depiction of the natives, again, is racist because: they could have been white...they only had a culture of violence...they killed one film crew member with a spear, totally unprovoked. That meets my definition of savage. The natives in the original King Kong had much more of a civilization, they were clean, they were okay clothes, blah blah blah. Really, guys. PJ did not have to even have people of colour as natives. We should not be apologists. People in the 1930's were dumber than us? Oh please!!! Just because they had not seen too many colour films or watched 2001 does not mea... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 13, 2006, 12:55 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy To respond & add some points: a) Why is the depiction of natives in PJ's Kong Kong racist? Ask yourself one question: why are the Natives not white? Is there any reason why they are people of colour? People of skins of all sorts of colours live on islands. In additon, compare the natives in PJ's King Kong with those in the original. Yes, the natives in PJ have a culture--unprovoked killing people and human sacrifice. -So, just because they're black and violent - makes the film racist. I do remember in the original that the natives kidnapped Ann and tried to sacrifice her to the Ape as well. But just because they didn't kill anybody makes it less racist. I guess that means Raiders of the Lost Ark was racist too because the indians at the beginning of the movie were dark-skinned, killed at least one person, and were being led by a white guy. Quote: b) One can paper over plot holes and problems such as not seeing Ann refuse to be part of the exploitation--but you ar... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Funnyman at February 13, 2006, 12:13 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | It was set in the 30's people were dumber back then. You are just looking for something to bitch about. I suppose Joaquin was too young to play Johnny Cash too. Enjoy the movie. Quit looking for holes. In my opinion PJ set out to do what he wanted. To entertain me for 3 hours and expose me to story that at 28 I have missed out on so far. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 13, 2006, 9:57 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Oh, and I forgot (have to take notes on what was written in posts, because in the post writing box I can't see them). Yes, Jack Black was okay. But just okay. And when it really counted, he just did not have the acting skills to bring off key moments. Black was best when he was being a con man, mostly in the beginning of the film. In the rest of the film he was less important. I have mixed feelings about the change of the character of Carl Denham. The original guy was naive, this guy is a cynical manipulator. He is not capable of or interested in making a good film. He wants to be famous. It takes a very skilled actor to pull off a role that is negative, yet where the audience needs to also kind of like the guy. One problem is that Black seemed too young for the role. Another problem is that most of his backstory--dealing with the producers--was an unnecessary waste of time. Just look at how the 1933 version got started. Not that the opening act was not interesting, it just was too involved in trying to fill... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 13, 2006, 9:50 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | To respond & add some points: a) Why is the depiction of natives in PJ's Kong Kong racist? Ask yourself one question: why are the Natives not white? Is there any reason why they are people of colour? People of skins of all sorts of colours live on islands. In additon, compare the natives in PJ's King Kong with those in the original. Yes, the natives in PJ have a culture--unprovoked killing people and human sacrifice. b) One can paper over plot holes and problems such as not seeing Ann refuse to be part of the exploitation--but you are only papering over the problems. c) We can debate all we want about which special effects are better or more powerful--the original or the PJ version. That is what makes America great! But, you're wrong, I'm right. d) I did pay to see King Kong twice, and did enjoy it both times. As someone above more or less notes, the REAL problem is: IT DID NOT LIVE UP TO THE HYPE AND EXPECTATIONS. IT WAS MORE ABOUT PANDERING TO THE AUDIENCE THAN MAKING A REALLY GOOD FILM. That point is ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Funnyman at February 11, 2006, 3:13 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | I read every word you guys wrote about this movie. Jack Black sucks, Blah, he can't act, blah, blah, hes not heavy enough. I am a Jack Black fan, Tenacious D more than anything, and I am a Lord of the Rings fanatic, I own every toy, pinball machine, statue, dvd, i can get my hands on. That also makes me a a Peter Jackson fan. To say I was irrate when i heard that he cast Jack Black is a understatment. I was pretty set on not going to see it. Jack is a comedy guy, not a action adventure. The point I am trying to make is this. He was actually good at the roll. Not perfect but damn better than I was expecting. I expected him to ruin the picture and Peters career with it. But he did a good job. Everyone was good in it. Not exactly Travolta in Pulp Fiction great, but good. What everyone needs to see outta this picture is how good Andy Serkis and give him some major roles. LUMPY FOREVER...... | | Static Link |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 10, 2006, 6:10 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy a) Bad news. The original King Kong was not a guy in a suit. It was stop motion animation. You may be thinking of the awful remake of King Kong from the 70's, which featured special effects guy Rick Baker in a monkey suit when the original gigantic robot could not do any of the movie work anybody with a brain would have known. My bad - that is what I was thinking. But nevertheless, still not as real or effective as the CGI version (although it was better than the 70s). Quote: b) The film is racist. There is no excuse for the Natives on the island being so violent, without any civilization or culture. I appreciate maybe it's just me that feels that way. Is it reasonable to point out that in the entire rest of the film there is only one other person of colour? But I still don't understand what race has to do with it. The lack of civilization is understandable - that's what makes them and the island so mysterious, civilization has never touched them. They do have a lit... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 10, 2006, 12:29 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Thanks for the comments. I probably won't be able to addres them all, as I don't have them right in front of me, but: a) Bad news. The original King Kong was not a guy in a suit. It was stop motion animation. You may be thinking of the awful remake of King Kong from the 70's, which featured special effects guy Rick Baker in a monkey suit when the original gigantic robot could not do any of the movie work anybody with a brain would have known. b) The film is racist. There is no excuse for the Natives on the island being so violent, without any civilization or culture. I appreciate maybe it's just me that feels that way. Is it reasonable to point out that in the entire rest of the film there is only one other person of colour? c) Yes, the T Rex fight was longer and had three T Rexes. That did not make it better, it did pander to the audience. In the end, I found the rapid editing that PJ used in those sequences similar to the choppy fast editing used in martial arts movies where the actor does not know any mar... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: bigred760 at February 10, 2006, 11:52 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Quote: Originally Posted by wildandhairy First, it is too long. While some individual scenes were okay long, in the end the thin storyline just does not support the film's length. It is not, as many have already noted, an epic storyline (although it could have been). The length is a sign of self indulgence rather than respect for the audience--PJ gave the audience what he thought they wanted to see (MORE) rather than a tight film. Second, although the effects are excellent, and King Kong very well presented, including with facial expressions, the pot bellied big ape just did not quite have the strength of the leaner, meaner original. I totally disagree. While the original was cool, it still came about as a symptom of lack of technology. The beast looked like a man in a suit - which is what it was. Plus, the original came off just as a monster - nothing else, meant to scare off everyone and anyone. The new one received character and depth - PJ having introduced a love story into the fray. Plus, I think the T-... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at February 10, 2006, 10:40 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | King Kong is pretty much out of most theatres now, and is no longer on the top ten box office charts. I've seen it twice. What will the final "judgement" on the film be? First, it is too long. While some individual scenes were okay long, in the end the thin storyline just does not support the film's length. It is not, as many have already noted, an epic storyline (although it could have been). The length is a sign of self indulgence rather than respect for the audience--PJ gave the audience what he thought they wanted to see (MORE) rather than a tight film. Second, although the effects are excellent, and King Kong very well presented, including with facial expressions, the pot bellied big ape just did not quite have the strength of the leaner, meaner original. Third, the Carl Denham character was changed into a cynical manipulator. This alone might have worked if the film had an actor with enough depth to play the role to the hilt. Jack Black, bless his heart, looked too young for the role, and jus... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: ilovemovies at February 8, 2006, 7:24 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | King Kong is a very good movie that only occasionally borders on being great. The first act of King Kong, which takes place in New York City, is pretty good. It does a decent job of introducing things though it should have been tightened a bit. It's a little on the long side. The third act of the movie, which also takes place in New York City, is also pretty good. Though the finale of the movie with Kong on top of the Empire State building didn't have the emotional impact it should have. But where the movie really shines is in the middle segment. The second act of Kong, which takes place on Skull Island, are absolutely dazzling and breathtaking. The action sequences, particularly the fight between Kong and the T-Rex's and the stampede scene will take your breath away! Visual effects are phenomnenal. The production design is amazing and the movie is never boring. Despite that, it only reaches greatness in the middle of the movie though. Still highly recommended though. 8/10 A- *** 1/2 (out of ****) | | Static Link |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at January 13, 2006, 9:48 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Just posting to note that I agree with a lot of what you have written about Kong. The first act did not bother me, it was not boring but there was filler which could have been lost. Similar concerns were expressed about the 1933 Kong, leading to several minutes being cut from a later revival version (there were some edits for sexual or violent content, but the largest cuts were in the first act, principally the scene where Carl Denham does a test filming of Ann--when I first saw the film in the mid 1950's, in a theatre & on tv, that scene was missing). Can't agree Jack Black quite pulled off the role, at least not in the sense that an actor with maybe more experience or heft or something could have done. I agree that the film really takes off after Kong shows up, and one can't take one's eyes off Kong (although I gather one can take one's eyes off in the new film "Hostel", although it apparently is a different context of eye-taking). I am mostly posting this note for two reasons. First, it's gr... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: mouldy311 at January 12, 2006, 10:29 pm | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Review by Michael Jaffe Peter Jackson has been one of my film idols since I saw Dead Alive in 5th grade. Then I saw The Frighteners and loved his work even more, but then those Ring movies came out and my boy PJ went main stream and now everybody loves him. And after viewing King Kong, I think PJ loves himself too much as well. The light-handed approach that came with The Frighteners is all but completely lost in the 500 ton gorilla that is King Kong. While it is true that the previous versions of Kong, the 1930’s version and the 1970’s version with Jessica Lange, the films weren’t happy or funny, but they weren’t boring either and in this Kong the moments that took place before Skull Island, almost 45 minutes, were so boring that I was more focused on the jackasses in the row ahead of me and their conversation. While the film was boring for the first act, I couldn’t help but admit how glorious the film looked and the acting and the writing and everything was superbly done, but I couldn’t help but feel if it... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at January 9, 2006, 10:47 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | A few days ago I went to see PJ's King Kong a second time. This time, I sat closer to the screen, and brought my large stuffed King Kong doll for comfort. I'm 60, sue me. A few quick thoughts: The film worked better the second time around. I liked it the first time, but this time it went by even faster. Unfortunately, the problems remain. King Kong is a terrific film, but not a great film. I'd give it 8.5 out of 10. The reasons why it does not get a 10, much as I would like to give it one: --kill the slow motion stuff. There are better ways to indicate dread. --Jack Black just doesn't really have the acting chops the Carl Denham role requires. His character is incredibly unpleasant. Black seems too young and, sigh, too light weight. Adrian Brody I thought was ok (not fabulous, but ok). Naomi Watts, I believe everyone agrees, was perfect. And I do agree with JoBlo that Andy Serkis & his Lumpy the Cook was my favourite. --some scenes do go on too long in that they just kept repeating the same thing (dino s... | | Read Entire Entry |
| 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 ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: wildandhairy at January 4, 2006, 10:05 am | | Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo | | Hi again. Very interesting comments. And, I do plan on seeing Kong again. Re the characterization of the dinosaurs: 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. 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. Re comments about lonely Kong and the Natives: The lonely Kong/last of his kind Kong--that all came from press releases from the film make... | | Read Entire Entry |
| 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"... | | Read Entire Entry |
|