?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Kong - Eroticdreambattle — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Kong [Nov. 17th, 2006|12:24 pm]
Tony Grist
Well, it's better than the LOTR trilogy.

Kong must be the most convincing CGI character thus far. So why isn't Andy Serkis given star billing?

But why does it have to be so long?  You don't need 3 hours to tell a fairy story.

The middle section is just too much. Taken one at a time those action sequences are thrilling. Added together, one after another, they become fatiguing. 

And distracting.

Come on, get on with it. We want to see the big monkey on top of the Empire State. That's what we paid our money for.

It's one of cinema's greatest moments.  Jackson does it justice. The wings of those biplanes glinting in the  early morning sun. 

Does he add anything to the original? Not really. Not anything essential. 

Except that its not really about sex any more. Kong doesn't peel Naomi the way he peeled Faye.  Naomi juggles and tumbles for him. They're friends.

Original Kong was raw and transgressive. Freudian. This is kinda sweet.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: dakegra
2006-11-17 11:30 am (UTC)
they CGI'd the juggling, really really badly (in my opinion). Spend all that money on a monkey, then botch up the other CGI. There were other bits which just felt... wrong.

And yes, it was too long. An hour and a half to get to Skull Island!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-11-17 12:03 pm (UTC)
I don't suppose it occured to them they could hire an actress with circus skills.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dakegra
2006-11-17 12:12 pm (UTC)
or train her to actually juggle...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jackiejj
2006-11-17 01:47 pm (UTC)
The dinosaur scene was interminable.

I found I couldn't watch it more than once, because it was too sad to see Kong undone by love.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-11-17 05:20 pm (UTC)
It's like he felt he had to compete with Jurassic Park.

Buried in all the overkill is a sweet, sad, little love story.

Jackson has gotten into the habit of making films that are way too long.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seraphimsigrist
2006-11-17 02:51 pm (UTC)

the fall

I thought I wanted to see him climb the
empire state building etc too, but when
he did I realized what I really wanted
was for the stupid thing to be over.
Only comparable bore I could think of would
be the Titanic, at least Kong doesnt list
as much before plummeting to the sidewalk
as the ship does.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-11-17 05:13 pm (UTC)

Re: the fall

I liked Titanic. But back then these huge, inflated, CGI-enabled movies were still something of a novelty. If I were to watch it now it would probably annoy me as much as it does you.

There are films that justify their three hour running time. Fairy-tales about giant apes don't fall into this category.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seraphimsigrist
2006-11-17 05:56 pm (UTC)
a you tube 30 second thing would be
sufficient I should say. for what its
worth I liked LOTR though not as much
as the book.
but I expect if one did not like that
then one did not like the book. Edmund
wilson (oh those awful orcs! essay) did
not. I think it a masterwork of storytelling
movie less so, a reflection of acheiviment
watched no part in entirety.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-11-17 08:17 pm (UTC)
I like the book but not the film. Too much fighting and not enough magic for my taste.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arielstarshadow
2006-11-18 12:37 am (UTC)
What do you mean by "magic?" Tolkien's magic was never the overt kind, so I'm wondering what exactly it was you were hoping for in the LotR movies that wasn't there?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-11-18 08:34 am (UTC)
I should have explained myself- or put "magic" in quotation marks.

I don't mean extra wizards, I mean something more like "soul". For me Tolkien is about landscape and history. LOTR is a slow, sad, meditative book- a book about the passing of the old ways. It's also very, very English. Peter Jackson turned it into an international swords and sorcery action flick.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seraphimsigrist
2006-11-17 05:59 pm (UTC)

giant squid

my theory is that bad movies could mostly
be helped by a giant squid...
to pull down the titanic for example
and ,well I liked lotr, but the giant
squid in the lake by khazad dum was it
was wonderful
in king kong I do not know how giant squid
could have helped at end but at an earlier
point could have pulled down ship going to
find kong... or anyway bringing him back.

tentacles a john huston film is among my
underrated wonderful films about giant squid
attacking beach a la jaws
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2006-11-17 08:15 pm (UTC)

Re: giant squid

I favour plesisaurs myself- you know, Loch Nessy type monsters. There aren't nearly enough of them in the movies.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: seraphimsigrist
2006-11-17 08:20 pm (UTC)

agreed

too right!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)