Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > Film Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26-12-2005, 23:31   #321
Spectre07
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: None Bothered
Posts: 5,806
Thanks: 6
Thanked 18 Times in 7 Posts
Ta, sounds good and glad it wasn't my imagination. I'm intending to go thru the extras disc tomorrow, so 'll have my curiosity satisfied.
Spectre07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2005, 10:48   #322
Guest 29334
Filmmaker/A Big Film Fan
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 957
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I got my Tin as a gift on Christmas day and am really looking forward to watching the film again.
Guest 29334 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2005, 13:11   #323
Guest 52145
Big Damn Hero
 
Guest 52145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,877
Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
The Last Days of Pompeii is only Ł7.99 in the Axel Boxing day sale, though the site is verrrrrrrrry slow due to volume of traffic. I've finally managed to bag this for a decent price!

EDIT: my copy's shipped, but it looks like they're out of stock now ...

Last edited by jackal; 27-12-2005 at 20:13.
Guest 52145 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2005, 23:46   #324
Guest 33312
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 596
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Just watched the region 1 King Kong dvd; Christ what an exciting film! I hadn't seen it for years but it more than holds up. The Picture and Sound are both astonishing as well; why they weren't awarded top marks in the DVD TIMES review I don't know! The level of grain was just right and the picture was crystal clear; the sound too was largely blemish free! What a stonking film this is. My adrenaline is still pumping as I write! The horror scenes are still surprisingly strong, and coupled with the wonderfully animated creatures, were the main reasons I loved the film so much as a youngster.
Guest 33312 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 09:52   #325
Guest 45586
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 912
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I saw the Jackson version the other day and while discussion of it probably belongs in "Another House," as they say in Westminster, I thought I'd offer the following opinion on the "lost" spider-pit sequence. As I said on an earlier post, Jackson's recreation of this is utterly amazing and probably unique in the annals of movie history - but having now seen Jackson's 2005 version you can see exactly why the sequence was cut from the 1933 version. It really slows the story down, detracting badly from the ape and the girl, and I just wish Jackson had cut the thing from his own version, which drags on and on, no matter how brilliantly made or how slimey the creatures are. Despite this, I thought the rest of the 2005 version pretty spectacular, a major refinement on the plot and just as moving as the 1933 climax.
Guest 45586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 10:08   #326
John Hodson
Out to lunch...
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bolton, Lancashire
Posts: 12,507
Thanks: 9
Thanked 55 Times in 4 Posts
Major plus points included the representation of the lost tribe, Denham's characteristion, and the absolutely amazing recreation of Kong himself (thankfully, it's not just the keyboard punchers; Sirkis deserves all the plaudits) and the period; the '30s New York scenes were marvellous - the nightime skyline was sublime. But, I thought the Bronto stampede was not only too long, but ridiculous, we simply didn't need Jamie Bell, or some of Evan Parke's portentiously daft dialogue, some of the action was at such a pitch that it came on like an assault on my senses (and not in a good way), and if ever a movie needed an intermission...

Not bad, but not great, and I shudder at the thoughts of a DVD 'directors cut'. Guess which 'Kong' they'll still be talking about in 70 years time?

Last edited by John Hodson; 29-12-2005 at 10:23.
John Hodson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 13:24   #327
Guest 29
Last Of The Independents
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Up North
Posts: 5,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I have similar feelings to you John. I enjoyed it but I thought the length was a major problem. The film is also oddly out of joint. The emotional and kinetic high points come in the middle hour leaving little left for the final New York section and somehow I just couldn't feel the same affection for this brilliantly designed and realised Kong that I do for the bit of cloth and wire from way back when.

Off-topic of course, but I thought Jack Black was wildly miscast. If ever a part was ideal for Gene Hackman (even at this point in his career) then this was it.
Guest 29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 15:25   #328
Guest 45586
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 912
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Off-topic of course, but I thought Jack Black was wildly miscast. If ever a part was ideal for Gene Hackman (even at this point in his career) then this was it.
I thought Jack Black was cast simply because he looks like Peter Jackson (fat version) without the face fuzz.
Guest 45586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 16:05   #329
Guest 29
Last Of The Independents
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Up North
Posts: 5,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ahhh that explains a lot.
Guest 29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 16:18   #330
Summerisle
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,000
Thanks: 62
Thanked 110 Times in 32 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I have similar feelings to you John. I enjoyed it but I thought the length was a major problem. The film is also oddly out of joint. The emotional and kinetic high points come in the middle hour leaving little left for the final New York section and somehow I just couldn't feel the same affection for this brilliantly designed and realised Kong that I do for the bit of cloth and wire from way back when.
I have to say this was next to the LOTR movies the fastest moving long movie I have seen since those films were released; I have seen 80 odd minute movies that felt longer than this Kong. I can only suspect that people are so used to the naff third-hand characterisation in Star Wars that when somebody comes along and tries to portray real people it's a bit like a kid brought up on Michey Dee's tasting quality homemade food. I felt sorry for Kong at the end and when he's dying I felt a twinge in the tear ducts. I enjoyed it and will go again.

Jack Black was fine and they didn't sweeten the character by making him go through some hypocritical Hollywood makeover at the end.
Summerisle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 16:32   #331
John Hodson
Out to lunch...
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bolton, Lancashire
Posts: 12,507
Thanks: 9
Thanked 55 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summerisle
I can only suspect that people are so used to the naff third-hand characterisation in Star Wars that when somebody comes along and tries to portray real people it's a bit like a kid brought up on Michey Dee's tasting quality homemade food.
Well, there's a time and place for characterisation and it does depend on how far you take it. I thought Denham was possibly the only fully rounded character in there (a movie producer with the morals of an alley cat - is there any other kind?), but then, it's a CGI blockbuster, not Bergman. The half arsed attempts at creating character, particularly with Jamie Bell were ludicrous; he could barely read or write, yet he was having a crack at Conrad? Good grief we'll have people questioning how they got Kong on board the 'Venturer' next. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Seventy odd years ago we got an economical, well paced, beautifully made popcorn movie where each 'character' was drawn on the back of a matchbox; did it hurt the film that we didn't explore their motivations? Or indeed those of an 18 inch stop motion model? And did I shed a tear for both Kongs, well, actually yes (though misty eyed would be a better description for Jackson's pixilated creation). Ultimately he's the one character that really matters.
John Hodson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 16:32   #332
Guest 29
Last Of The Independents
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Up North
Posts: 5,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I can only suspect that people are so used to the naff third-hand characterisation in Star Wars that when somebody comes along and tries to portray real people it's a bit like a kid brought up on Michey Dee's tasting quality homemade food

Don't you think you'd be better peddling such sentiments in the Modern DVD and Movie Forum? Are you seriously suggesting that I didn't think much of Jackson's Kong because I can't cope with films about 'real people'?

I found it long and, for lengthy stretches, rather tedious. That's got a lot to do with Jackson's inability to know when enough is enough and his refusal to trim his films down to a reasonable length. There is no reason on earth why his Kong needed to be three hours long or even two hours. Except self-indulgence and a lack of discipline. T

What's so real about the characters anyway? They're all stereotypes of one kind or another, just as they were in the original. Stereotypes given a lot of dialogue and unnecessary screen time don't suddenly transcend cliche.
Guest 29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 16:38   #333
Guest 29
Last Of The Independents
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Up North
Posts: 5,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Seventy odd years ago we got an economical, well paced, beautifully made popcorn movie where each 'character' was drawn on the back of a matchbox; did it hurt the film that we didn't explore their motivations? Or indeed those of an 18 inch stop motion model? And did I shed a tear for both Kongs, well, actually yes (though misty eyed would be a better description for Jackson's pixilated creation). Ultimately he's the one character that really matters.

This gets to the nub of the problem doesn't it. Whatever reason Jackson had for remaking a film which didn't need remaking hasn't translated onto celluloid and I suspect that the self-consciously 'epic' length is an indicator that the director realises it. He tries to beat the audience into submission and it has clearly worked for some people. But if you're going to make a film long, it has to have a dramatic structure which works and a subject which requires the length. "Kong" doesn't - it's a monster movie but now it's wrapped up in yards of spare celluloid for no good reason.
Guest 29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 20:40   #334
Guest 45586
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 912
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I know I once brought up the thing about how they got the monkey on the boat and into the theater. But here's another thing. In the evolutionary scale of things, the T-Rex and Brontosaurus and all the other creatures on the island were lizards. They could not possibly live in tandem with a mammal like Kong. That just doesn't make any sense at all. Thus the stuff in this film obviously could never have happened!
Guest 45586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2005, 21:21   #335
John Hodson
Out to lunch...
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bolton, Lancashire
Posts: 12,507
Thanks: 9
Thanked 55 Times in 4 Posts
Stop it WA, stop it now you wicked, wicked man...
John Hodson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2005, 00:04   #336
Spectre07
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: None Bothered
Posts: 5,806
Thanks: 6
Thanked 18 Times in 7 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Armbruster
I know I once brought up the thing about how they got the monkey on the boat and into the theater. But here's another thing. In the evolutionary scale of things, the T-Rex and Brontosaurus and all the other creatures on the island were lizards. They could not possibly live in tandem with a mammal like Kong. That just doesn't make any sense at all. Thus the stuff in this film obviously could never have happened!
But they live on an island and so, isolated from the conventional evolutionary path, developed their own self contained eco system. This eco system was sustained, against the odds, by the lost tribe. phew! Do you I think I managed to bat that one into touch?
Spectre07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2005, 11:00   #337
Guest 45586
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 912
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Spectre07 - thou art revealed as a direct descendent of Charles Darwin which entitles you, verily, to inherit the wind.
Guest 45586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2005, 11:19   #338
Spectre07
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: None Bothered
Posts: 5,806
Thanks: 6
Thanked 18 Times in 7 Posts
I used to inherit a lot of wind this time of year until I cut out the sproats.
Spectre07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2005, 11:41   #339
John Hodson
Out to lunch...
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bolton, Lancashire
Posts: 12,507
Thanks: 9
Thanked 55 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre07
I used to inherit a lot of wind this time of year until I cut out the sproats.
Which, of course, was the title of the 1966 Christmas chart topper by the legendary Rambling Syd Rumpo (#my dearioooos...#)

Last edited by John Hodson; 30-12-2005 at 17:20.
John Hodson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2005, 15:58   #340
Guest 20157
Trusted User
 
Guest 20157's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 541
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Whatever reason Jackson had for remaking a film which didn't need remaking hasn't translated onto celluloid and I suspect that the self-consciously 'epic' length is an indicator that the director realises it.
Jackson said last night on Film 05 that he was simply giving a new generation of moviegoers, who may not know the original even exists, the chance to feel what he felt when he was 9 years old.
Guest 20157 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
Bruce Cabot, Ernest B. Schoedsack, Fay Wray, James Flavin, King Kong, Merion C. Cooper, Robert Armstrong, The 8th Wonder of the World, Victor Wong

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 23:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.qq
Copyright ©2000 - 2021 Network N Ltd.