King Kong
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:27 am
Now THIS is a movie that deserves to be called a classic!
Having seen all three versions recently, and after seeing the original 1933 one twice, I can honestly say its the best version. I don't really remember the 1976 one all that well, and the 2005 one suffered from being too darn long. But the 1933 one was the porridge cooked just right.
It has Fay Wray, who is the best (and most adorable) Ann Darrow out there.
It has Stop-Motion... now, I know Stop-Motion looks more fake than a Christian who believes in free will, but... honestly, that's kind of why I like it. For me, a movie is more immersive if the special effects AREN'T too realistic. It evokes more of the "fantasy" sense. I mean, CGI looks good and real (in big-budget pictures, anyway... the Sci-Fi channel is a good arguement for CGI looking fake) but but it's not evocative, doesn't prod the imagination the same way Stop-Motion does.
And, it has the most sympathetic Kong. I mean really, the later versions tried too hard to make Kong sympathetic--the girl loves him and understands him, etc. But in my mind that just ruins the effect. Sort of like when you read a Spawn or X-Men comic and the narrator goes into a monologue about how tormented everyone is--it ruins whatever emotion you're supposed to be feeling and makes it laughable. But the 1933 Kong, you really care for him because the audience can SEE that he's all alone and misunderstood, and nobody in the movie quite "gets it"--even Ann Darrow just sees him as a horrible monster even as Kong himself does everything he can to DEFEND Ann, making it all the more tragic when he dies.
I'm beginning to think that the best time for American Movie-Making was from the 1920s to the 1950s. In that period, we had Kong, all the best Zorro films, dozens of great low-budget Science Fiction and Detective movies and serials, and even those "bad" horror movies I was talking about in another topic. With the 1950s was probably the first trip downhill when we made a bunch of anti-Communist propoganda in the form of giant monster movies... every last one of which was trumped by the Japanese and their wontabular film, Godzilla (which, IMO, is the best giant monster movie ever made). That was the general pattern of American cinema, television, and entertainment in general for every decade thereafter.
But King Kong was American moviemaking at its height, and shows exactly what Americans have lost the power to do: Imagination, adventure, and the ability to try new things. Our directors and creators aren't people like Miriam C. Cooper (who was a real-life adventurer before making this movie), but pampered rich kids who only do whatever their college professors say is "good." American films have become pretentious shlock with no real value.
But King Kong is on DVD now, so what's it matter? ^__^
Having seen all three versions recently, and after seeing the original 1933 one twice, I can honestly say its the best version. I don't really remember the 1976 one all that well, and the 2005 one suffered from being too darn long. But the 1933 one was the porridge cooked just right.
It has Fay Wray, who is the best (and most adorable) Ann Darrow out there.
It has Stop-Motion... now, I know Stop-Motion looks more fake than a Christian who believes in free will, but... honestly, that's kind of why I like it. For me, a movie is more immersive if the special effects AREN'T too realistic. It evokes more of the "fantasy" sense. I mean, CGI looks good and real (in big-budget pictures, anyway... the Sci-Fi channel is a good arguement for CGI looking fake) but but it's not evocative, doesn't prod the imagination the same way Stop-Motion does.
And, it has the most sympathetic Kong. I mean really, the later versions tried too hard to make Kong sympathetic--the girl loves him and understands him, etc. But in my mind that just ruins the effect. Sort of like when you read a Spawn or X-Men comic and the narrator goes into a monologue about how tormented everyone is--it ruins whatever emotion you're supposed to be feeling and makes it laughable. But the 1933 Kong, you really care for him because the audience can SEE that he's all alone and misunderstood, and nobody in the movie quite "gets it"--even Ann Darrow just sees him as a horrible monster even as Kong himself does everything he can to DEFEND Ann, making it all the more tragic when he dies.
I'm beginning to think that the best time for American Movie-Making was from the 1920s to the 1950s. In that period, we had Kong, all the best Zorro films, dozens of great low-budget Science Fiction and Detective movies and serials, and even those "bad" horror movies I was talking about in another topic. With the 1950s was probably the first trip downhill when we made a bunch of anti-Communist propoganda in the form of giant monster movies... every last one of which was trumped by the Japanese and their wontabular film, Godzilla (which, IMO, is the best giant monster movie ever made). That was the general pattern of American cinema, television, and entertainment in general for every decade thereafter.
But King Kong was American moviemaking at its height, and shows exactly what Americans have lost the power to do: Imagination, adventure, and the ability to try new things. Our directors and creators aren't people like Miriam C. Cooper (who was a real-life adventurer before making this movie), but pampered rich kids who only do whatever their college professors say is "good." American films have become pretentious shlock with no real value.
But King Kong is on DVD now, so what's it matter? ^__^
). He needs a girl for his project, and after a lot more on her backstory, he finally gets her involved. There was a lot of unnecessary exposition on these characters in the latest film. I mean, when I go to see a King Kong movie, you know what I wanna see? King Freakin' Kong is what I want. For pete's sake, get the girl, get on the ship and get to the damned island already. In the new flick, there's this long stupid voyage sequence as well. Just get to the island and show me the big monkey.