[kombuchakid]

Would it not be great to have a thread devoted to all things Kong?

from Mr Cranky
There's no better way for Hollywood to excise itself of its racist past than by hiring a New Zealander to remake one of its most renowned films, 1933's "King Kong." Unless the big gorilla is meant to represent a large, threatening Maori, director Peter Jackson's remake is probably less a critique of white and black relations than it is an expression of Jackson's overwhelming need to give the CGI-friendly actor Andy Serkis a job.

This "Kong" doesn't revisit the original's racial undertones; it has a symbolism all its own. As anyone who's read a magazine lately knows, Jackson has evidently been on the Olsen twin's diet. He's gone from a weighty "Lord of the Rings" king to a bony auteur. Alas, the gorilla must represent the old, bigger Peter and the character Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) must be the new, little Peter. After all, Driscoll, the playwright who pens Carl Denham's (Jack Black) masterpiece movie and saves Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) from Kong, is an artist. Kong is the huge, persecuted beast. It's not hard to see the Peter Jackson metaphors in it all. King Kong is the poor, abused fatty. Driscoll is the sleek lover, waiting for his chance to steal away the beauty.

Unfortunately, at a daunting three hours, the drama in "King Kong" is drawn out even more than the analysis in this review. Jackson may be a master of action sequences and the use of CGI, but when it comes to convincing audiences of the authenticity of a dramatic sequence, he could take a lesson or two from the humps who direct greeting-card commercials. It takes Jackson a good 75 minutes before revealing the beast. The so-called touching sequences between Ann and Kong go on so long they begin to feel like donation commercials for an animal shelter. Ann performs a little vaudeville act for Kong to win his affection. In perhaps the film's most tortured, ridiculous sequence, Ann teaches Kong a bit of sign language. This is revisited in the film's climactic sequence, but is explained to the audience in voiceover by Ann just to make sure any actual primates watching don't miss the meaning.

As usual, the filmmakers swing and play with their computers, but when it comes to dialogue, they're throwing something stinky against that window.



http://www.mrcranky.com/images/crankymini.gif


No wonder Ohio's air is so bad. There's a big-ass ape breathing all over everything!

[KnowItAll]

Pundits are saying King Kong might flop ...

http://www.dvds.org/blog/category/movies/

[kombuchakid]

Thursday, July 21, 2005

All Things KONG!

A couple of months back I glanced at a copy of a new book on King Kong. The book in question, Kong: King of Skull Island is considered to be a prequel/sequel to the 1932 book King Kong. The work of author/illustrator Joe DeVito, it was a pretty impressive book and I think I decided to see if I could find a review copy at the Strand at 50% off. I then promptly forgot about the book, not having noticed a copy at the Strand. Then, the other night, I'm flipping through the high definition channels to see what's on and come across some previews of coming attractions on the Universal high definition channel. The first one, called (I think) The 40 Year Old Virgin, looks mildly interesting. Then, it is followed up by a trailer that has you riveted to your seat. It took a little while (no I didn't need to see the ape) before I realized it was for King Kong. My first impression as the trailer started was that this is a movie I've just got to see. Quite an endorsement indeed since I can't remember the last movie I've seen, preferring instead to wait until they appear on the dish, hopefully on one of the high definition channels. I have vowed to watch only movies in IMAX theatres but I'll gladly break that vow to see King Kong. It looks to be that spectacular.

Now, I'm warning you. Whatever you do, don't venture near the kongisking.net website. Unless of course you've got a lot of time to spare.

http://bookheaven.blogspot.com/2005_...n_archive.html

[lychini]

Can't wait to see ol' MonkeyMovie but it's SAD how worried I am that King Kong may not be the blockbuster they are all desperately counting on. Jackson had to loss weight, so maybe Carl Denham is a bit of the crazy insurance underwriter on the big boys back. Booked to see it for Christmas so no mean reviews on this site til then - only NICE ones pleaaasssee x

[kombuchakid]

you should be SAD only if you have a financial stake in the flick-otherwise why would it make a difference to your enjoyment?

The fat one is still, how shall I put this delicately, still fat.

I plan to see it in an IMAX theatre, in Hyderabad, which should be mindblowing, flop or not.

[lychini]

Yep tragic to be caught up in box office worry but pals worked on the movie it means indirect jobs. IMAX is a great idea. (And fat/cuddly/meglamania is - cool)x

[uktony]

Does it come with Chinese sub-titles?

Tony

[fuey]

I watched this yesterday. It's didn't feel like 3 hours as it was an enjoyable watch. I went in the film with no expectations though and found the film satisfactory. I think it's worth watching at the cinema. It's a decent movie that will be better watching on the big screen in the cinema with the surround sound than at home. It has chinese sub titles for those non native english speakers reading this forum.

[cerberus]

the best kong movie thus far. half the audience was weeping openly, and not because tickets were inexplicably 10 bucks steeper than usual. definitely a good flick, go watch it.

[BenderBends]

absoulte junk.....

id rather spend 3 hours in the bathroom with the most painful case of dry-aria