![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poliphiloWell, 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 05:56 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-18 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-18 08:34 am (UTC)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.