Kong

[poliphilo]

Well, 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.

Comments

giant squid

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

my theory is that bad movies could mostly
be helped by a giant squid...
to pull down the titanic for example
and ,well I liked lotr, but the giant
squid in the lake by khazad dum was it
was wonderful
in king kong I do not know how giant squid
could have helped at end but at an earlier
point could have pulled down ship going to
find kong... or anyway bringing him back.

tentacles a john huston film is among my
underrated wonderful films about giant squid
attacking beach a la jaws

Re: giant squid

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I favour plesisaurs myself- you know, Loch Nessy type monsters. There aren't nearly enough of them in the movies.

agreed

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

too right!