Just back from King Kong 2005

not2sharp

not2sharp

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 29, 1999
Messages
20,464
The new King Kong movie clearly tries to parallel the original film. Its the 1930s again and the tramp steamer Venture has sets sail on myterious voyage. The characters are all there, and we can just about make out everyone from the king of Kongs to the eccentric chinese cook. The technology has clearly changed across the 70 year gap that spans the two films. Black and white has given way to luxious color, and those shady painted backdrops now look rich and over-the-top enough to almost qualify as 3-D.

Unfortunately, progress or deterioration is just as evident elsewhere. Where the original was dark and often horrific, the new format just lays it all out there like a glorified video game. There are few if any shockers in this thing, and the script is now goofy enough to take the edge off most of the characters. Fay Wray's heroine has been reduced to a screwy dumb blond joke, while Carl Denham seems much more like a slimed down Peter Jackson, then the worldly adventurer and entrepreneur of the original movie. Gone is the charm of that old crusty wisen skipper, who has been reduced to an erratic plot device. The scary and plotting natives have been reduced to anorexic left over orcs (who have a very overt reaction to partially consumed chocolate!). Even Kong seems more depressed rather then regal; I guess he was one of the few who actually read the script before they filmed this thing.

It is not a bad film; but it is a far cry from the original. Where the earlier version was equivalent to an R-rated horror sci-fi the new one is a PG rated light weight fantasy adventure. But, the bigger problem lies elsewhere; for even as the pixel and minute count have increased, the little dramatic details that actually move the original plot along and made it a classic are no longer there. But, who needs a plot, or a credible story, when you have giant cockroaches? Lets hope the 1933 version stays with us for a long long time. The 2005 version is better suited for the kids and roaches.

n2s

similar recent Hollywood screw ups - The Island of Dr. Monroe
 
The original "King Kong" is one of my three all-time favorite films - seen it a million times.

But I'm hesitant to go see the remake because on the television commercials all of the special effects just look like cartoon animation. How did the effects look on the big screen? Did you ever believe that Kong was really a giant gorilla?

-Bob
 
Bob W said:
Did you ever believe that Kong was really a giant gorilla?

-Bob
Click to expand...

King Kong is a better gorilla then he ever was. But, there lies the problem. The original King Kong was an improbable monster who just happen to look like a giant gorilla; and, he has now been reduced to an oversized representation of the silverback from Gorillas in the Mist (1988). Its like remaking Orca (1977) and replacing the killer whale with the one from Free Willy(1993).

n2s
 
Its like remaking Orca (1977) and replacing the killer whale with the one from Free Willy(1993).
Click to expand...
Or like replacing the real Godzilla with an upright-walking gila monster?

I was mostly wondering if the special effects were up to par. So they're OK? I've seen too many 'modern' movies where the digital special effects look like a cartoon, not live action.

-Bob
 
Why don't they remake movies that weren't done right the first time? If you know anything about it you can rent a stack of bad movies and find some that could have been good movies, and still could be good movies if you changed them around a little....

Does anyone remember the King Kong remake of the 1970s? Fat chance....
 
Does anyone remember the King Kong remake of the 1970s?
Click to expand...
I remember how BAD it was. Blechhh. Ditto "King Kong Lives".

"King Kong vs. Godzilla" was pretty good. They even tacked on an ending for American audiences where King Kong wins!

-Bob
 
One remake I liked was "The Blob". The remake's special effects were more convincing and the themes were dark, paranoid, and sinister. But most importantly, the remake had a horrific amount of gore and nightmarishly graphic effects.
 
I definitely prefered "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" to most, perhaps all, of the earlier film adaptations. But I hardly consider it a 'remake' since it was the first film to honestly follow the novel.

-Bob
 
Cougar Allen said:
Why don't they remake movies that weren't done right the first time? If you know anything about it you can rent a stack of bad movies and find some that could have been good movies, and still could be good movies if you changed them around a little....
Click to expand...

I've always wanted an answer to that question myself. Especially when I saw the remake of Dawn of the Dead. The original was wonderful. But the remake just tried too hard.

Same with Night of the Living Dead. The first one wasn't scary, but it was actually kinda creepy. But the 1990 remake just sucked hard.

Does anyone remember the King Kong remake of the 1970s? Fat chance....
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually I've seen it. I have a little fetish for bad movies and this is one of the worst. Oddly enough, it had a pretty decent cast for it to have sucked so bad.

I probably won't see the new King Kong. I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD probably, but I don't see any reason to spend $5 (yes, here in Sylva movies are still only $5 for the evening show) to sit in the theater and watch it.
 
If a movie was good enough to have a following, a great reputation, then it doesn't need a remake. If all a modern version can add to it is high-tech special effects, then why not just make a competely different movie, a unique movie that no one has done before, that can benefit from those special effects, which the original didn't need.

Carl Denham seems much more like a slimmed down Peter Jackson
Click to expand...

I read that Jackson took off a lot of weight. :)
 
Mighty Joe Young comes to mind. I'm going to see King Kong, even though I barely remember seeing the original. What I'd like to see is a good Tarzan movie. Christopher Lambert's take wasn't bad, but I like the corny Johnny Weismuller Tarzan the best.

I recently bought the War of the Worlds tv series on dvd. At first it was kind of creepy, but after the first five episodes, the bumbling aliens just weren't scary anymore(skinny, ALIENS like torsos and heads, and big elephant feet does not a scary alien make), and the actors were just coasting through their scenes. The original was great, I haven't seen the new Tom Cruise one.
 
Psychopomp said:
Same with Night of the Living Dead. The first one wasn't scary, but it was actually kinda creepy. But the 1990 remake just sucked hard.
Click to expand...

You thought Tom Savini's version 'sucked hard'. Damn, i thought it actually surpassed the original. Had a more satisfying ending and better effects. It also kept most of the tension from the original.

I for one think that George A. Romero is sometimes overrated. I like all his zombie movies but people still think of him as a great director because of 2 movies (Night and Dawn). I was hoping Land of the Dead would be great but somehow it kind of lacked something. The Dawn remake was better than Land of the Dead.

Lucio Fulci is the greatest zombie movie director.

Back to Kong. I don't understand how one can compare a movie made in 1933 to a movie made in 2005. It's just a different era. It's not supposed to be exactly the same. This is the era of CGI effects. Some may not like it but I think Peter Jackson wasn't really aiming for oscar nominations for best actor. It's using today's special effects to create a realistic kong that was't possible then. that's about it. I for one don't think there would be much of a plot when it's a movie about a giant gorilla.
 
Commenting on zombie movies, I've seen the original Night of the Living Dead, the Dawn of the Dead remake, Land of the Dead, and 28 Days Later (c'mon, for all intents and purposes it's a zombie movie). The original was okay, kind of creepy, but didn't really do it for me. Dawn of the Dead had some good action, some neat lines and plot twists, but I didn't care for it all that much. People on these boards and others are always hatin' on Land of the Dead, but I loved it. I thought it was a great movie, the zombies were corny, especially when they discover they can fire guns, and when they can swim. Other than that, the movie was great IMHO. As for 28 Days Later, I didn't like the ending, it left you hanging somewhat, but I thought it was a great movie also. As far as remakes go, I didn't see the original Dawn of the Dead, or the remakes of NOLD, but with Hollywoods track record, the original was probably good, and the remakes probably blew.
 
Cougar Allen said:
Does anyone remember the King Kong remake of the 1970s? Fat chance....
Click to expand...

:DI actually liked that one, Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lang. I was about 10 when it came out, watched it last night on cable. Campy at times, but fun.

May go this afternoon to see the new one.
 
What I'm seeing here is a need.

A need for a new genre of movie.

A need for . . .

GIANT GORILLA ZOMBIES!

We're talking some big, stinky undead monkeys for sure.
 
If you want to see the new King Kong you'd better hurry. The left is quietly beginning to decry the blatant and unconscionable racism that permeates all throughout the movie (according to them, of course). I'm sure they'd love to have it pulled from the theaters altogether.

Actually, there's no force on the planet that could get this movie pulled now, considered the hundreds of millions of dollars the studio has invested. But it is interesting to once again describe the process by the which the left unwittingly manages to diminish the impact or consequences of true racism.
 
While I do think some people "over analyze" things looking for stuff to get offended about, the auther Merian C. Cooper was somewhat known for his racist views, one of his more infamous quotes.

"The lust of power is in us, we white men. We’ll sacrifice anything for the chance to rule. And I believe that it is right that black, brown and yellow men should be dominated by the white."

I do think it's important for critics to keep in mind the era in which Kong was written. Doesn't excuse it, but adds important context that should allow better discussion of the issues of racism and colonialism without slamming a movie that many can enjoy.
 
Fun Fact:

As with Robinson Crusoe, Moby Dick, and The Last of the Mohigans, the original King Kong was based and partly inspired by a true story. In 1926 the Natural Museam of History in NYC had worked with a wealthy young adventurer and hunter W.D. Burden, to capture and return a legendary giant creature form an island in Asia. He was successful, and the animals were placed on display in the NYC zoo with great fanfare. Like Kong, they too died quickly.

Read about it here:
http://www.unmuseum.org/burden.htm

Now that is the movie that Peter Jackson should have made. The true story of adventure that inspired the classic King Kong.

komodo7.jpg

komodo03.jpg

The real island that inspired King Kong

n2s
 
I just picked up a boxed set of the original 6 Weismuller Tarzan movies on DVD. I'm working my way through them all. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top