The 8th Wonder of the World - 2-disc SE of King Kong & Kong Collection; REVIEWS - Page 15

Guest 3656 · 06-12-2005, 21:17

Has anyone received the box set from CDWow yet? Mine's still showing as 'pre-order', and the set appears to have disaappeared from their web site!

John Hodson · 06-12-2005, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Soprano

Isn't the release done by Rhino the definitive OST. It even includes snippets of dialogue.

That's the one (it appears to be cheaper here); check out post #257 in this thread (nice info from the producer of that CD)

I still say that this version of the main theme is, ah, sensational.

Guest 52145 · 06-12-2005, 23:18

Thanks TS, John, for the OST info. I'll be getting.

Also tagged on Mr & Mrs Smith too, since Amazon have it at a very reasonable price, and I'm in a screwball phase at the mo.

Guest 45586 · 07-12-2005, 06:20

I saw the movie last night, first time in many years, and had forgotten how tightly structured it is - a very definite three-act play. It is showing its age, in places very badly, but the middle section on the island is still mesmerising and unconsciously (?) powerful in its depiction of the destructive force of white imperialism upon primitive cultures. Two things really bothered me: we never see how the resourceful Denham transferred Kong to the ship; and how on earth did Denham get Kong on to that sort of crucifix on stage in New York and how on earth did he plan to get him off the stage? I think we should be told.

John Hodson · 07-12-2005, 08:54

And how did they scrape Kong off the New York sidewalk? Was he stuffed and mounted? Bought by 'Burger King'? Did Ann - or 'Casting Couch Annie' as she bacame known - go into movies, did Jack become her agent, turn to the bottle, as he dreamed wistfully of the sea. Did Denham go back to the island to find Kong's ma and pa, (shooting 17 thought to be extinct species of dinosaur along the way, kicking their stiffening carcasses and spitting in their eyes), bump into a tribe of neanderthals, marry the prettiest (who turns out to be male).

And did the Hays Office, bolstered by a swarm of critics, at this precise moment, step in and

John Hodson · 07-12-2005, 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendell Armbruster

I saw the movie last night, first time in many years, and had forgotten how tightly structured it is - a very definite three-act play. It is showing its age, in places very badly...

How so? (seriously

) I think it's wonderfully paced, not a wasted minute and the screen time flies by. It's a perfect reflection of the era, down to its antediluvian attitudes towards other cultures, women, dumb beasts* ('we'll teach him something he's never known before - fear'). That's not to say it's aged badly though; the fact that it's still a powerfully thrilling - and, above all, entertaining - piece of work says much for its longevity, and it will go on entertaining long after I'm dust. It's also got a nice sense of humour, something it shares with the '76 version.

Must add BTW, Warners print is a corker - it's certainly the best I've ever seen.

*BTW, I could argue that the only way things have changed in regards to the above is that we now satisfy our consciences with counterfeit morals, but go on in the same old way; but that's waaay OT

Guest 53930 · 07-12-2005, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendell Armbruster

powerful in its depiction of the destructive force of white imperialism upon primitive cultures.

*Sigh* here we go again, well spotted mate. Hope you enjoyed the movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendell Armbruster

Two things really bothered me: we never see how the resourceful Denham transferred Kong to the ship; and how on earth did Denham get Kong on to that sort of crucifix on stage in New York and how on earth did he plan to get him off the stage? I think we should be told.

Just use you're imagination for gods sake!......Who cares 'how' they got kong back to New York. Personally, i couldn't give a monkeys...

anephric · 07-12-2005, 10:45

I believe Armbruster has what John Brosnan would refer to as a "faulty sense of wonder"...

anephric · 07-12-2005, 11:50

In terms of being dated (and you'll excuse my rusty ramblings because I haven't watched this in a few years and haven't received the dvd yet) stylistically I remember some quite dynamic camera moves - dollying/tracking - which was quite bold in an era when cameras were roughly half the size of Otto Preminger's ego. There are some horrifically stagebound sections, of course (in the worst sense of the word - I have no problem with such things when they're implemented well/stylishly)... I remember the sequences onboard ship being utterly flatly filmed and quite dull (admittedly, it would have been tough to make them otherwise).

From what I remember of Grass and Chang, the cinematography in these was similarly technically quite audacious and Kong echoes them in places (and their documentary/pseudo documentary themes).

John Hodson · 07-12-2005, 13:33

Either I'm viewing everything through Kong tinted specs, or I'm ripping my shirt open to reveal that I am indeed 'The Man With No Taste', but the words 'dull' or 'horrifically stagebound' never entered my head when I watched it again the other night. There is the grave danger of being over protective towards something so jewel-encrusted from one's youth, but, honest injun, I'm trying to be objective here. For me, it still works. Completely.

If we're talking dynamic camera moves, ironically I think that could more favourably applied to Pichel/Schoedsack's The Most Dangerous Game, filmed concurrently on the same jungle set, but then again, that didn't have to contend with the thorny problems of acting to an 18" model that wasn't even there yet.

BTW, BBC2 are showing King Kong (at 1.25pm) and Son of Kong (before it at 12.25pm

) on Monday December 19. On December 20, ITV shows the '76 version. Go ape...

Guest 52145 · 07-12-2005, 14:43

I don't think Kong has dated badly at all. I can't remember the last modern blockbuster that thrilled me even half as much as Kong on DVD. Any plot holes (what's the customs charge on a giant ape, anyway?) or other niggles I had were swept away by the sheer magic of the production - it's just so damned captivating, so briskly-paced (as others have mentioned), that I can't bring myself to nitpick. I love the special effects, and after watching the doc, have tremendous respect for the job O'Brien et al did. You may be able to occasionally "see the joins", but that just doesn't matter. It feels far more real to me than Peter Jackson's CGI creation.

I persuaded my 18yr old brother (more used to stuff like The Day After Tomorrow) to watch Kong the other day, and he talked all through the first act. Then I got a real kick when I realized, during the T-Rex fight, that he hadn't said a word since Kong appeared; he was just as caught up in the film as me. Like John said, this is a film that'll be entertaining people for many years to come.

anephric · 07-12-2005, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Hodson

Either I'm viewing everything through Kong tinted specs, or I'm ripping my shirt open to reveal that I am indeed 'The Man With No Taste', but the words 'dull' or 'horrifically stagebound' never entered my head when I watched it again the other night.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I think the rest is wonderful and excitingly filmed - the biplanes attacking, for example (don't Schoedsack and Cooper cameo as the pilots?) - I just found the scenes on the ship a little flat and dull and stagey in the most mundane way. Perhaps purposely, because it makes Kong's entrance that much more bombastic.

John Hodson · 07-12-2005, 15:08

I know I dissed the '76 film's 'Bloke in Ape Suit' earlier (probably more to do with the weight of expectation; Dino De Laurentiis purely knew how to sell a film), but - behold - DVD Drive-in's review of KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962)/KING KONG ESCAPES (1967) (2-Pack) featuring a guy in an ape suit that had been borrowed from Road to Bali, left out for the moths, and dragged all the way to Tokyo behind a truck...

anephric · 07-12-2005, 15:12

From what I remember, De Laurentiis went all-out (effort-wise and financially) to make his Kong a technical marvel, but as mentioned in the '76 thread Rambaldi's mechanics simply weren't up to the task and Rick Baker had to step in at short notice and salvage the thing. Iirc, it was only things like the giant Kong hand that he got to work effectively. (I remember reading somewhere that, due to logistical/communication problems in that everything was built at Rambaldi's workshops in Italy and shipped over they managed to construct two Kong left paws but no right one!)

Guest 45586 · 07-12-2005, 15:51

Glowormm didn't spot the sardonic streak in my comments. But at least we seem to have left all those posts about tin size, discounts and late deliveries far behind.

John Hodson · 07-12-2005, 16:09

I for one am delighted at all that angst; look at the size of this thread. All these people praising, prognosticating, palpitating and, well, lots of other things beginning with 'p', for a film made, for many of 'em, when their grandfathers were born.

There's hope for this forum yet.

Guest 4576 · 07-12-2005, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by anephric

Hey, don't get me wrong, I think the rest is wonderful and excitingly filmed - the biplanes attacking, for example (don't Schoedsack and Cooper cameo as the pilots?) - I just found the scenes on the ship a little flat and dull and stagey in the most mundane way. Perhaps purposely, because it makes Kong's entrance that much more bombastic.

I find the opening 30 minutes or so of Kong, depending on my mood, either quaint or pretty tiresome, but it reminds me in that way of The Wages of Fear - another immense adventure thriller that has the nerve to bore the audience with the actors standing around delivering dreary exposition for the opening act just to make what comes afterwards even more spectacularly hair-raising.

Guest 53667 · 07-12-2005, 17:05

I watched the new DVD release last week--the first time I had seen Kong in several years--and found the opening scenes work just fine. The build-up makes the Skull Island sequences mucn more effective. One hundred minutes of non-stop action would be tedious and exhausting. It establishes Carl Denham as a man who will do pretty much whatever it takes to get his movie and Ann Darrow as desperate enough to go half way around the world for a job.

Guest 45586 · 07-12-2005, 20:28

I hear that Peter Jackson takes 70 minutes before he even drops anchor at Skull Island and another 30 or so before Kong makes his entrance. That's almost as long as the entire original version! Must be a whole lot of social contexting going on.

KeyserSoze · 09-12-2005, 18:47

Kong fans check this out, nice price !!

Kong replica