The
listserv bounced this posting, so I'm forwarding it back to the
group.
Scott
MoPo
List Owner
From: Edmund R Flood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] King Kong the 3rd
I loved it. Thankfully I didn't have the super critical eye that would have ruined it for me.
It was a spectacle in all the right senses of the word. I kept thinking "Wow what a unbelievable movie for an 8 year old boy. It's got elements of "Raiders", "Jurassic Park", "Apocalypse Now", and "Lord of the Rings".
Yes, it was long but I can't remember looking at the screen with so much awe in a long time. It even resonated on an emotional level that surprised me.
And it didn't even matter that I way past 8 years old.
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Edwards Cinema Arts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 7:12 pm Subject: Re: [MOPO] King Kong the 3rd > All these KONG posts perhaps indicate one thing - Jackson may have> gotyit 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
> thatagain. 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
> caresto 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
> rampaginggiant 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
> budgetfilm 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 <[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] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> > > Date: 2005/12/27 Tue PM 12:14:21 EST
> > > 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,
