Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Okay. I've spent about 5 hours tonight watching King Kong. I started out with the 1933 version. It has probably been 40 years since I originally saw this and I don't remember it being this good. I remember being so-so about the movie. But seeing it tonight I am really impressed by what was accomplished nearly 75 years ago. Sure the effects are a bit cheesy today but back then...wow. I was not originally a fan but now I am. This movie actually approaches the masterpiece rating.:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbsup:
That's the good news. The first hour, forty minutes. Now for the bad news.
Peter Jackson. Take away LOTR and what do you have? Basically, nothing. Casting...atrocious. My pick for Denham would have been Kevin Spacey. When I was watching the 1933 version the Denham character was screaming Kevin Spacey. And what was this poo poo about having the Jack Driscoll character being some namby-pamby playwright? In the '33 version he was a man's man. First mate of the Venture. I'm not sure who I'd replace Brody with but it would be somebody with some presence. Naomi Watts...now that was brilliant casting. Fay Wray was a knock out as is Ms. Watts. There were a lot of good images in the Jackson version but it plods to its inevitable conclusion. Jackson did some great things with the natives. The Kong footage used state of the art graphics. But I didn't feel a soul to this movie. Certainly, not in the way I felt it in the 1933 version. It was just too 'clever' by half. The actor that played the captain did a fine job but I just couldn't help but wonder how someone like Max Von Sydow might have portrayed the captain. About an hour into the picture I began to wonder if we were ever going to get to the meat of the story...A poo pooing hour to set this up? Give me a poo pooing break. Peter Jackson gave us some beautiful pictures but OMG the self indulgence. I had the feeling that he wanted to stay true to the picture but in the end could just show no self-restraint and ended up producing a picture loaded with self indulgence.
Jackson's scenes with the island natives were remarkable, however. They were terrifying and along with the fire laden images of the Kong wall and the rescue boats tossed about on an angry sea...WOW. This movie had a lot of things that I like but in the end still fell flat. I mean the images of Naomi Watts tied up, waiting for Kong were glorious.
Take this movie and get rid of the chaff and this could have been a masterpiece. But instead we were subjected to Mr. Jackson self aggrandizement. This movie had so much potential. It wasn't a horrible movie, in fact, it had some wonderful images. It was a near miss for me mainly because of the miscasting of Jack Black and Adrien Brody...and Jackson's self indulgence. Tighten this thing up...cut even an hour out of it and I think it could have been a fabulous movie.
I realize there were dinosaurs in the original and I didn't like them in that either. Peter Jackson created some nice visuals but in the long run missed the boat. a marginal :thumbdown I was actually expecting worse.
EDIT: could I possibly have worked "self indulgent" in any more? :embarasse And I didn't mention it earlier but the vaudeville routine between Naomi and Kong was just embarrasing.
That's the good news. The first hour, forty minutes. Now for the bad news.
Peter Jackson. Take away LOTR and what do you have? Basically, nothing. Casting...atrocious. My pick for Denham would have been Kevin Spacey. When I was watching the 1933 version the Denham character was screaming Kevin Spacey. And what was this poo poo about having the Jack Driscoll character being some namby-pamby playwright? In the '33 version he was a man's man. First mate of the Venture. I'm not sure who I'd replace Brody with but it would be somebody with some presence. Naomi Watts...now that was brilliant casting. Fay Wray was a knock out as is Ms. Watts. There were a lot of good images in the Jackson version but it plods to its inevitable conclusion. Jackson did some great things with the natives. The Kong footage used state of the art graphics. But I didn't feel a soul to this movie. Certainly, not in the way I felt it in the 1933 version. It was just too 'clever' by half. The actor that played the captain did a fine job but I just couldn't help but wonder how someone like Max Von Sydow might have portrayed the captain. About an hour into the picture I began to wonder if we were ever going to get to the meat of the story...A poo pooing hour to set this up? Give me a poo pooing break. Peter Jackson gave us some beautiful pictures but OMG the self indulgence. I had the feeling that he wanted to stay true to the picture but in the end could just show no self-restraint and ended up producing a picture loaded with self indulgence.
Jackson's scenes with the island natives were remarkable, however. They were terrifying and along with the fire laden images of the Kong wall and the rescue boats tossed about on an angry sea...WOW. This movie had a lot of things that I like but in the end still fell flat. I mean the images of Naomi Watts tied up, waiting for Kong were glorious.
Take this movie and get rid of the chaff and this could have been a masterpiece. But instead we were subjected to Mr. Jackson self aggrandizement. This movie had so much potential. It wasn't a horrible movie, in fact, it had some wonderful images. It was a near miss for me mainly because of the miscasting of Jack Black and Adrien Brody...and Jackson's self indulgence. Tighten this thing up...cut even an hour out of it and I think it could have been a fabulous movie.
I realize there were dinosaurs in the original and I didn't like them in that either. Peter Jackson created some nice visuals but in the long run missed the boat. a marginal :thumbdown I was actually expecting worse.
EDIT: could I possibly have worked "self indulgent" in any more? :embarasse And I didn't mention it earlier but the vaudeville routine between Naomi and Kong was just embarrasing.
Last edited:
