|
Phil,
You've got a good point. I've been reading more reviews on KONG then I have
on any movie in decades, and you're right -- not only are opinions all over the
board, but when specific scenes or details are mentioned, there's very little
consensus on what specifically worked and what didn't. It seems to have affected
everyone in a very individual way -- which is why I advocate everyone should see
it on the big screen and experience it for themselves. I don't think this is a
movie you can take anybody's opinion on but you're own.
I think that either deliberately or subconsciously -- because he's got his
finger on the pulse of the film-going public of all ages -- what Jackson did was
literally throw in something for everyone. This approach would normally be
disastrous, but he seems to have made it work pretty well in this case.
I'm a huge special effects nut. I got into computers 25 years ago
specifically to do effects. I regularly go to see horribly bad movies just to
check out the effects! And I personally have no problem with the quality or
technical expertise of the effects in KONG -- they are superb in every
technical respect. My gripe was with the over indulgence with which they
were applied in places, particularly in going so far over the top in ways that,
to me anyway, were done "just because we can" rather than because they were
actually a good idea (I keep coming back to those dumb images of the
Tyrannosaurs on the flying trapeze... can't help it... those images easily
qualify for the most expensive stupid effects shots ever done. They totally blew
the impact of the whole Kong/Tyrannosaur battle for me. Sorry, but that's how
that sequence affected this sympathetic pro-Jackson viewer. Had me wondering
"what the hell was he thinking...?" when I should have been enthralled with the
titanic struggle).
It's interesting to examine the polling data taking place at IMDB at:
... with 27,324 individual votes registered so far:
Basically, when rating Jackson's KONG on a 1 to 10 scale, the *average*
scores broken out by age groups show:
Ages under 18 average a rating of 8.5
Ages 18 - 29 average a rating of 8.0
Ages 30 - 44 average a rating of 7.7
Ages 45 and up average a rating of 7.1
... since I fall into the 45 + group, I not longer feel quite so alone. But
take heart in the fact that, averages aside, 44% of ALL voters rate it 10 out of
10 -- and another 20% give it a 9, 13% give it 8 and 8% give it a
7. On the negative side of the equation, only about 14 % of ALL
voters rate it 6 or lower, so 86% of the voters think the film is
pretty darn good, rating it 7 or better.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Edwards
Cinema Arts
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 19:12
Subject: Re: [MOPO] King Kong the 3rd it far more right than he he got it wrong. Why? Because with very few exceptions, most people don't agree on what bits of the movie didn't work, or what bits were over done or under done, or too whimsical, or whether he was remaking O'Brien's film of Dino's film, or whether perhaps he was making a film simply using the KONG mythology. Here comes heresy.... In the original, KONG was talked about as being a giant ape. Read that again. A Giant Ape. If that's the case, then the greatest error it made was that O'Brien's "giant ape" was perhaps the most anatomically incorrect gorilla ever on the screen (with all due resepct to Charlie Gomera). Obie, with Ray Harryhausen, did a far better job on gorilla anatomy and stop motion movemnet in MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. And while everyone is talking about things being "too CGI" nobody cares to mention that all through the original KONG, the puppet's hair ripples in a most unrealistic and illogical manner simply because of the handling for ther stop motion process. But that's okay, because it's a "classic" and that's "the best they could do then"and... well you've all heard all the old movie elitists usual arguments in making comparisons. The 1933 KONG utilised state of the art stop motion techniques (and Obie was on a budget and a schedule) as they were at Obie and his crew's disposal. The optical printer was pushed to new extremes with multiple exposures to create the world of Skull Island and to present a rampaging giant ape having a big night out on the town. Damn! So many seem so keen to trash whatever the new, big, grand movie experience these days. It's all so "uncool" to like popular entertainment and declare film makers who got their start in low budget film making as "selling out". Yes, I know, I know. Back in 1933 a bunch of film geeks went to see KING KONG and seriously declared that Obie had really sacrificed the steady and clear narrative of THE LOST WORLD, and that the monsters of Skull Island were just too "fluid" in their movements to be believable as stop-motion puppets. Phil JR wrote: > Joe (and Kenru), > > Yes, that's an important aspect I forgot to mention. In the original > we had master stop-motion animator Willis O'Brien infusing Kong with > life and a vivid, believable personality. Obie never got his Oscar > because the Award for Best Special Effects did not yet exist in 1933. > Now, In this modern version, we have the physical acting genius of > Andy Serkis behind the digital mask, bringing Kong to life and giving > him genuine personality and acting ability. The Academy needs to > create a new award called "best performance by an actor as an animated > character" and give it to Andy so that this cruelty of historical > omission is not repeated this time around. This new award could apply > not only to what Andy has done, but to actors doing voice-overs in > animated films in the future. It's long past time for such an award. > > I agree that Jackson's KONG could have been at least 30 minutes > shorter, maybe more... but I personally wouldn't have cut a second > from the opening up to the landing at Skull Island. All of the > over-long and sometimes-silly action sequences could have been trimmed > -- and the attack by the natives went on a bit too long as well. > > As for rumor of the "extended" DVD of Jackson's Kong... it seems like > there are plans to add about 23 minutes to the existing run-time. My > guess is most of this will be in New York after they return with Kong. > It's obvious that there was a falling out between Carl Denham and Jack > Driscoll, then some kind of a spat between Ann and Jack... and then a > falling out between Ann and Denham when she refused to go on stage > with the captive Kong. I did find myself wondering during my first > viewing just what the heck happened there? I mean, Jack has gone ahead > and written his play for Ann and staged it... but Ann isn't starring > in it. Why? At first we think it's because she's booked to be on stage > with Kong. But then she's not there either! Instead, we see she's back > in the chorus line somewhere, and clearly not relating to either Jack > or Carl when Kong is unveiled. Seems like there was a significant > chuck of script cut out that explains all this. > > Beyond that, who knows? They may show how they got Kong off the island > and back to NYC. > > With the LORD OF THE RINGS films, my complaint was that there was too > much critical exposition cut out of the theatrical releases, which was > later restored in the DVDs and which made the DVD versions of the > films so much better than the theatrical releases. Unfortunately, In > the case of KING KONG, I don't see how any added footage in the DVD > could fix up the flaws of excess and sloppy workmanship I noted in my > review. > > -- JR > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Joe Bonelli <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 27, 2005 14:44 > *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] King Kong the 3rd > > Hi, Craig, JR, et. al. at MOPO. > > Great read, JR. I agree with much but not all. > Craig and I are closer on this. I believe that a just over two hour > run time would be so much better-- > chopping out much of the center section and trimming down the > first-act exposition. > Superb, though! > The Academy MUST acknowledge the contribution of Andy Serkis to the > combination of "New" > technology and fine "acting" that must make up many of the > "film-stars" of the future. Serkis gave the > tragic Gollum and the tragic Ape both what they most needed to be > successful as "creatures" and > "characters on film"--- a Soul. > Joe B. > > > > From: Craig Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > Date: 2005/12/27 Tue PM 12:14:21 EST > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [MOPO] King Kong the 3rd > > > > At 03:31 AM 12/27/05 -0500, JR wrote: > > >And the whole impossible sequence just went on for way too long, > after it > > had lost all emotional impact, with ever-more absurd details being > thrown in. > > > > > > > I think in that sentence you capture the bigget problem with > > Jackson's King Kong. Most everything goes on too long. > > I like the movie better than you -- I'd give it an 8 or 8.5 -- but > > it definitely could be trimmed. I like the opening hour; he > > brings a lot more depth of character to the story, makes the > > players human. > > > > And I think much of the last hour is fine, though I agree with > > you that Kong needed to respond with wonder to the cold > > weather and the snow and ice. (Though there is a problem > > with Kong's weight in this sequence. SPOILER WARNING! > > He shouldn't be so heavy that his climbing up into the empty > > theater balcony causes it to collapse -- considering how > > many people would normally fill that space -- yet he does. > > But that massive monkey doesn't crack the ice on Central > > Park Lake? Must have been one hell of a long cold winter > > for the lake to be frozen that thick.) > > > > But the worst offender is the middle hour or so on Skull > > Island. How much land the natives lived on didn't bother me. > > But that every action sequence went on twice as long as it > > should have did. And there were too many of everything. > > We didn't need an entire herd of giant dinos. A couple > > running from the raptors would have been fine. (I also > > thought the effects in the stampede sequence were among > > the weakest in the film.) > > > > A bit more restraint on the volume of action and some > > judicious editing, to bring the film down to 2:30 hours or so > > from its current 3:07 would have gone a long way to bring > > King Kong much closer to a 10. > > > > Craig. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Craig Miller Wolfmill Entertainment > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > <http://www.filmfan.com> > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > > > > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > <http://www.filmfan.com> > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. |
- Re: [MOPO] King Kong the 3rd JR
- [MOPO] King Kong the 3rd Scott Burns
