Post by Quorthon on Dec 17, 2005 0:36:01 GMT -5
Well, despite the fact that I was hoping to get the first review of Kong up here (and sort of reserved the honor in the King Kong thread in the Sci-Fi section), I still have a lot to say about it. Why does my ego claim to deserve the right to Kong dibs? Because, dammit, I was raised on classic horror films! And there is none more classic than:
King Kong
Adventure/Fantasy/Drama/Science Fiction/Suspense (you name it)
2005
Color
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Directed by: Peter Jackson
USA
By now, if one is either an American or a film buff, knowledge of the plot of King Kong is well known. It's American Cinema Lore by now. A film crew on a secret, ancient island haphazardly discovers a giant ape living on the island and decide to bring the beast back to New York to get rich. And all hell breaks lose. The climax is legendary, the beast is every bit a part of the American landscape and culture as Teddy Roosevelt, The Great Depression, The Amber Waves of Grain, The Purple Mountains Majesty, and Lady Liberty herself. So, going into making a film--remaking for the second time--has got be an incredibly daunting task.
As many people are well aware, one of my top pet peeves with movies these days is the over-abundance of remakes, and the bastardization of true classics (The Fly--again--for 2006? No thanks!). King Kong is the last remake I have vowed to support theatrically because of the immensity of the story, and the fact that it is such a classic, brilliant story. From back when Hollywood was still conjuring up original films.
Here’s the breakdown:
The Good:
--Kong has never looked so expressive, deep, and alive. His mannerism, movement, facial expressions--all of it a shiny spot of perfection. Kong is riddled with incredibly detail, from subtle movement of his jaw, to scars, to his massive silver back.
--Excellent acting, and for the most part, excellent characters.
--Well written and directed. Peter Jackson has shown us the proper way to do a remake--much like John Carpenter did with The Thing, or David Cronenberg with The Fly. Why mention two horror films? Because Kong was also a horror film back in the day. Back when horror films weren't one-sided "evil shows." Back when Dracula was billed as a "love story." Not like that relatively awful House of Wax remake where the film was degraded to status of "Neo-Slasher Film." Kong gives us tension and scares, but likable characters and incredible action. Speaking of which...
--The action sequences are fun, furious, and, like Kong himself, larger than life and over-the-top. Excellent choreography follows the action showing us that, indeed, action sequences can still be pulled off in ways other than the flash-n-hit fights in "Batman Begins" or the "retarded flinging the camera everywhere superfast" action that "Saw" barfed upon unsuspecting moviegoers.
--This film has heart. Lots of it. You really feel for the mighty Kong. You feel for him as the last of his kind (supposedly), you feel for him as he's removed from the world he knew and loved, you feel for him at the very, climactic, end. Kong expresses more empathy, emotion, and "humanity" than most people who will attend this movie and chatter obnoxiously through the quiet parts. The tender moments are a perfect compliment to the action, suspense, and violence.
--Naomi Watts is excellent, Jack Black is zany, Adrien Brody is fantastic.
--Fantastic sets, costumes, the look and feel of the movie is fantastic and the detail is beyond remarkable. Tons of classic cars, and classic characters.
--The dinosaurs, absent in '76, are finally back.
--A long forgotton, originally cut, and supposedly "lost forever" scene from the original King Kong has a rebirth here--the first time it's appeared in a Kong film. What scene is that? In the original Kong, there was meant to be a giant spider at the bottom of the ravine with the dead-tree-bridge.
--Brilliant atmosphere and Cinematography carry the moods, feelings, heart, and terror of this film going.
--One of the best musical scores I've heard in a while.
--While this film is occasionally a little too PC, it at least still had the balls to kill a vast number of people. Not very graphic, but plenty enjoyable.
--Fantastic opening titles, reminiscent of the 30's Hollywood era--and the film jumps right into the story, foregoing credits until the film ends. Much like Star Wars.
--The natives on Skull Island are bloody fantastic. Creepy, scary, captivating. What a surprise!
Didn’t Hurt It, Didn’t Help:
--Occasionally, the action is far too over-the-top. While the film is a fantasy, sometimes that flight of fancy heads a little high.
--(That overly PC part I mentioned is here:) The universally reviled (compared to King Kong 1933) 1976 version of King Kong, and it's more reviled sequel, (both of which I actually enjoy) showed us that Kong could still be a monster. Now, I have no problem with Kong having emotions--in fact I love that--but Kong's potential "wild animal" antics could've gone further. He only ever put one person in his mouth--and he didn't even eat the guy! Kong in "King Kong Lives" chowed down on a few people, and even split one guy in half. Animals like gorillas are creatures that bite and eat in a predatory manner. This Kong was expressed almost too human at times. Now, did this hurt the film? Oh hell no, but Kong is as much wild animal as he is an emotional being. This Kong, at times was, too emotional for me. Kong was sure violent and rampaging, but there's the feeling that he's holding back, and for no reason.
--The strength of the dialog is diminished somewhat from the 1933 classic to this remake.
--Relationship between the first mate of the ship and "his favorite little deckhand" seemed a little tacked-on. It works well in that we get to know two more supporting characters--so we feel for them when they're in danger. I personally found it a tad cheesy, though their conversations were meant to mirror "the bigger picture," and it works relatively well.
The Bad:
--If Peter Jackson has developed one failing--since, oh, say, "The Frighteners"--it's an over-reliance on CG and Compositing. And we have that here. Seriously, close-ups of Watts in Kong's hand didn't need a CG ape hand! A giant physical one would've have worked just fine--and it would've felt more real. The dinosaurs don't look as good as in "Jurassic Park." "So what?" you say? So what?! "Jurassic Park" is 12 years old. That's right--twelve years old--these dinosaurs should blow "Jurassic Park's" out of the water.
--Some moments of "iffy" compositing. Dangerously close to the way compositing generally looked in the 80's with an obvious line around the objects in front of the green screen. The colors, lighting and hues matched just fine, but there was still that hard line, artificially blurred digitally.
--The actor playing "the heroic manly-man actor" for the film in this film is pretty obnoxious. He's the one I wanted Kong to snap in half and eat.
The Ugly:
--The only real ugly thing about this film is that, to far too many people, it will diminish the value of the original, still best, 1933 King Kong. Call me old fashioned if you want, but that's still the best version.
--It's another remake that, all in all, isn't needed--and Hollywood has been far too reliant on lately.
Memorable Scene:
--I was extremely happy with the way the Allosaurus (say T-Rex if you want, but a T-Rex has 2 "fingered hands," these had "3-fingered hands"--much more akin to an Allosaurus) battle with Kong ended. Very, very happy.
Acting: 9/10
Story: 10/10
Atmosphere: 10/10
Cinematography: 10/10
Character Development: 9/10
Special Effects/Make-up: 9/10
Nudity/Sexuality: 2/10 (no nudity, mild, mostly implied, sexuality)
Violence/Gore: 8/10 (very little gore, tons of violent action--brilliant choreography)
Dialogue: 9/10
Music: 10/10
Direction: 9/10
Cheesiness: 1/10 (relates to the dialog problem)
Crappiness: 0/10
Overall: 8.5/10
This film is either a high "8" or a low "9." So I compromised--with my first ever "half" rating. The over-reliance on CG, I believe, hurt the film a little bit as did the surprising compositing problems. The overly over-the-top action sequences have a tendency now and then to be so ridiculously zany that it can ruin believability. So is this better than Kong '76? Oh hell yes. Is this a great film? Of course it is. Is it better than Kong '33? Oh hell no--and it couldn't be. So is it a worthy remake? Yes. And it's definetly worth seeing--just, maybe, watch the original first. It's a worthy remake, and doesn't ruin or destroy the original story. A real plus, like I pointed out, is the addition of a forgotten, cut scene from the original Kong. It's still a fun film with a solid, classic story (personally, I think this is a greater story than the "The Greatest Story Ever Told" about Jesus), characters, with tons of action and suspense. Watch the original, then watch this.
King Kong
Adventure/Fantasy/Drama/Science Fiction/Suspense (you name it)
2005
Color
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Directed by: Peter Jackson
USA
By now, if one is either an American or a film buff, knowledge of the plot of King Kong is well known. It's American Cinema Lore by now. A film crew on a secret, ancient island haphazardly discovers a giant ape living on the island and decide to bring the beast back to New York to get rich. And all hell breaks lose. The climax is legendary, the beast is every bit a part of the American landscape and culture as Teddy Roosevelt, The Great Depression, The Amber Waves of Grain, The Purple Mountains Majesty, and Lady Liberty herself. So, going into making a film--remaking for the second time--has got be an incredibly daunting task.
As many people are well aware, one of my top pet peeves with movies these days is the over-abundance of remakes, and the bastardization of true classics (The Fly--again--for 2006? No thanks!). King Kong is the last remake I have vowed to support theatrically because of the immensity of the story, and the fact that it is such a classic, brilliant story. From back when Hollywood was still conjuring up original films.
Here’s the breakdown:
The Good:
--Kong has never looked so expressive, deep, and alive. His mannerism, movement, facial expressions--all of it a shiny spot of perfection. Kong is riddled with incredibly detail, from subtle movement of his jaw, to scars, to his massive silver back.
--Excellent acting, and for the most part, excellent characters.
--Well written and directed. Peter Jackson has shown us the proper way to do a remake--much like John Carpenter did with The Thing, or David Cronenberg with The Fly. Why mention two horror films? Because Kong was also a horror film back in the day. Back when horror films weren't one-sided "evil shows." Back when Dracula was billed as a "love story." Not like that relatively awful House of Wax remake where the film was degraded to status of "Neo-Slasher Film." Kong gives us tension and scares, but likable characters and incredible action. Speaking of which...
--The action sequences are fun, furious, and, like Kong himself, larger than life and over-the-top. Excellent choreography follows the action showing us that, indeed, action sequences can still be pulled off in ways other than the flash-n-hit fights in "Batman Begins" or the "retarded flinging the camera everywhere superfast" action that "Saw" barfed upon unsuspecting moviegoers.
--This film has heart. Lots of it. You really feel for the mighty Kong. You feel for him as the last of his kind (supposedly), you feel for him as he's removed from the world he knew and loved, you feel for him at the very, climactic, end. Kong expresses more empathy, emotion, and "humanity" than most people who will attend this movie and chatter obnoxiously through the quiet parts. The tender moments are a perfect compliment to the action, suspense, and violence.
--Naomi Watts is excellent, Jack Black is zany, Adrien Brody is fantastic.
--Fantastic sets, costumes, the look and feel of the movie is fantastic and the detail is beyond remarkable. Tons of classic cars, and classic characters.
--The dinosaurs, absent in '76, are finally back.
--A long forgotton, originally cut, and supposedly "lost forever" scene from the original King Kong has a rebirth here--the first time it's appeared in a Kong film. What scene is that? In the original Kong, there was meant to be a giant spider at the bottom of the ravine with the dead-tree-bridge.
--Brilliant atmosphere and Cinematography carry the moods, feelings, heart, and terror of this film going.
--One of the best musical scores I've heard in a while.
--While this film is occasionally a little too PC, it at least still had the balls to kill a vast number of people. Not very graphic, but plenty enjoyable.
--Fantastic opening titles, reminiscent of the 30's Hollywood era--and the film jumps right into the story, foregoing credits until the film ends. Much like Star Wars.
--The natives on Skull Island are bloody fantastic. Creepy, scary, captivating. What a surprise!
Didn’t Hurt It, Didn’t Help:
--Occasionally, the action is far too over-the-top. While the film is a fantasy, sometimes that flight of fancy heads a little high.
--(That overly PC part I mentioned is here:) The universally reviled (compared to King Kong 1933) 1976 version of King Kong, and it's more reviled sequel, (both of which I actually enjoy) showed us that Kong could still be a monster. Now, I have no problem with Kong having emotions--in fact I love that--but Kong's potential "wild animal" antics could've gone further. He only ever put one person in his mouth--and he didn't even eat the guy! Kong in "King Kong Lives" chowed down on a few people, and even split one guy in half. Animals like gorillas are creatures that bite and eat in a predatory manner. This Kong was expressed almost too human at times. Now, did this hurt the film? Oh hell no, but Kong is as much wild animal as he is an emotional being. This Kong, at times was, too emotional for me. Kong was sure violent and rampaging, but there's the feeling that he's holding back, and for no reason.
--The strength of the dialog is diminished somewhat from the 1933 classic to this remake.
--Relationship between the first mate of the ship and "his favorite little deckhand" seemed a little tacked-on. It works well in that we get to know two more supporting characters--so we feel for them when they're in danger. I personally found it a tad cheesy, though their conversations were meant to mirror "the bigger picture," and it works relatively well.
The Bad:
--If Peter Jackson has developed one failing--since, oh, say, "The Frighteners"--it's an over-reliance on CG and Compositing. And we have that here. Seriously, close-ups of Watts in Kong's hand didn't need a CG ape hand! A giant physical one would've have worked just fine--and it would've felt more real. The dinosaurs don't look as good as in "Jurassic Park." "So what?" you say? So what?! "Jurassic Park" is 12 years old. That's right--twelve years old--these dinosaurs should blow "Jurassic Park's" out of the water.
--Some moments of "iffy" compositing. Dangerously close to the way compositing generally looked in the 80's with an obvious line around the objects in front of the green screen. The colors, lighting and hues matched just fine, but there was still that hard line, artificially blurred digitally.
--The actor playing "the heroic manly-man actor" for the film in this film is pretty obnoxious. He's the one I wanted Kong to snap in half and eat.
The Ugly:
--The only real ugly thing about this film is that, to far too many people, it will diminish the value of the original, still best, 1933 King Kong. Call me old fashioned if you want, but that's still the best version.
--It's another remake that, all in all, isn't needed--and Hollywood has been far too reliant on lately.
Memorable Scene:
--I was extremely happy with the way the Allosaurus (say T-Rex if you want, but a T-Rex has 2 "fingered hands," these had "3-fingered hands"--much more akin to an Allosaurus) battle with Kong ended. Very, very happy.
Acting: 9/10
Story: 10/10
Atmosphere: 10/10
Cinematography: 10/10
Character Development: 9/10
Special Effects/Make-up: 9/10
Nudity/Sexuality: 2/10 (no nudity, mild, mostly implied, sexuality)
Violence/Gore: 8/10 (very little gore, tons of violent action--brilliant choreography)
Dialogue: 9/10
Music: 10/10
Direction: 9/10
Cheesiness: 1/10 (relates to the dialog problem)
Crappiness: 0/10
Overall: 8.5/10
This film is either a high "8" or a low "9." So I compromised--with my first ever "half" rating. The over-reliance on CG, I believe, hurt the film a little bit as did the surprising compositing problems. The overly over-the-top action sequences have a tendency now and then to be so ridiculously zany that it can ruin believability. So is this better than Kong '76? Oh hell yes. Is this a great film? Of course it is. Is it better than Kong '33? Oh hell no--and it couldn't be. So is it a worthy remake? Yes. And it's definetly worth seeing--just, maybe, watch the original first. It's a worthy remake, and doesn't ruin or destroy the original story. A real plus, like I pointed out, is the addition of a forgotten, cut scene from the original Kong. It's still a fun film with a solid, classic story (personally, I think this is a greater story than the "The Greatest Story Ever Told" about Jesus), characters, with tons of action and suspense. Watch the original, then watch this.
