(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)

Tom Ronca - 2005-12-15 11:43:50
I saw 'Kong' last night and it has much to recommend it -- in certain ways an improvement over the original (the characters are more fleshed out, especially Ann Darrow and Jack Driscoll, who was basically a walking sack of potatoes in the first), but, at a whopping 3 hour and 7 minute length, it's too long by almost a third of its' running time. Almost every scene seems to run long (especially, despite their exciting staging, most of the action set-pieces). Others, like the spider-pit sequence and the Central Park scene, have no business being in the film in the first place. But don't let me discourage you from seeing it -- it is immensely entertaining; just would have been more so had it been about 45 minutes shorter.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-15 11:49:51
Tom: That seems to be the number one criticism of the film: too dang long. Needless to say, I will be a-watchin' anyway!!
-------------------------------
amatt - 2005-12-15 13:13:03
I am against the death penalty. No doubt about it. (Let's kill people so we can show people that killing people is wrong. Bull.) Just for peoples info about this guy writing books, bullcrap, his books didn't even sell 500 copies.
-------------------------------
2fs - 2005-12-15 14:05:39
I don't say that if Williams' work in prison helped people, that's a reason to oppose the death penalty (as if if he hadn't, it'd be okay), but the death penalty most certainly prevents those executed from redeeming themselves and helping others. Cuz, you know, they're dead.
-------------------------------
Editrix - 2005-12-15 14:20:34
S-s-s-spider pit sequence? I might have to sit King Long out.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-15 14:38:12
Believe it or not, the original version of "King Kong" actually had a spider pit sequence almost exactly like the one in the new one, but the 1933 spider pit scene was censored for being "too frightening for children" and was apparently completely destroyed. Stills from it survive, though, and it does look interesting. I generally tend to love long movies, since there's nothing quite like a triple feature anyway, and director Jackson doubtless had to fight very hard to make his movie this long, since the pressure is always to make 'em short and turn over the seats (studios are like a bad waitress). But it's all in the pacing, of course, and I haven't seen this movie quite yet and can't comment (which apparently isn't stopping me). (Film critics seem to have an especially hot place in their hell for long films, since they loathe every split second they ever have to spend sitting through any movie, ironically enough.) One thing's for sure, though: no matter what, I'll miss the radiant Fay Wray, arguably the most heart-stoppingly beautiful actress around in 1933. As for Bruce Cabot (the first Jack Driscoll), you're right about the sack of potatoes assessment (although I hope they have some rational reason for Adrian Brody's 1975 haircut in 1933, a time when only Einstein wore that much hair, if indeed even he did). I'm curious to see how Jack Black does in this. That's a guy with Jim Carrey-sized talent that hasn't found the right film (except maybe "School of Rock," which I still haven't seen, despite being a Led Zeppelin devotee). Robert Armstrong's Carl Denham was always my favorite character in the first one (next to Fay Wray, of course), and it always struck me as peculiar that his career went nowhere in particular afterward, except for the sequel. There's no back story there as far as I know, like Lee Tracy drunkenly urinating on the crowd from a balcony in Mexico during the shooting of "Viva Villa" (another Fay Wray classic from the following year).
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-15 14:40:44
Christ, please forgive my preposterously long post. I don't realize I've typed a dissertation until I look at the results in horror a few moments later when it posts.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-15 14:45:32
Michael: You beat me to the punch re: the spider pit scene. KING KONG was one of my favorite movies as a kid, and I read everything I could get my hands on about it...

As for the length of your posts, you could experiment with some basic HTML paragraph breaks. Substitute a caret symbol for brackets and do this: [/p][p] between paragraphs to break up the type.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-15 15:10:20
Thanks, Paula. (Or I could write shorter posts... Or could I?)
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-15 23:21:02
Okay, I saw "King Kong" and I could scarcely have been more impressed. It's paced very, very differently from a Spielberg adventure film, with scenes allowed to play out to a length you practically never get in an American movie. It's a completely different experience from start to finish, and I loved it. The fight scenes between the gorilla and the dinosaurs are like a little boy's dream, and there were times when I almost felt like a kid seeing the original for the first time (I detested the Jeff Bridges abortion, well-meaning though it obviously was). Strangely, the Bridges abortion hid the fact that King Kong was a guy in an ape suit, pretending in the publicity that it was a giant robot, while in this case they billed Andy Serkis as Kong, even though the gorilla's really computer generated (using Serkis's movements, a very different thing than "playing" the part). In the 70s, they wanted you to think it was a machine even though it was a person, but in '05, they kind of want you to think it's a person even though it's actually the product of a machine. ^/p^^p^ With apologies to Tom, the Central Park scene turned out to be one of my favorites,very charming and well done, I thought, and some of the creatures in the spider pit sequence will change many children's consciousnesses for generations, I think. Maybe some adults', too. ^/p^^p^ While I did miss Fay Wray, I thought Naomi Watts did a superlative job. Strangely, one of the most effective scenes in the previews isn't in the movie itself, the one where she's standing on a rock being filmed by Denham and they hear the ape roar. I wonder if it ever was part of the movie, or if it was just shot purely for the previews. ^/p^^p^ The gorilla was perfect, but most interesting of all is 1933 New York. Everybody in NY is going to be advancing those scenes frame by frame when the DVD comes out. It's by far the best movie representation of an earlier New York that I've ever seen, including "Gangs of New York." Hell, it's better than the NY in the first one, which was actually filmed in 1933 (albeit on backlots). And Skull Island is a pure amazement of creativity, unlike anything I've ever seen (although I never saw Jackson's Rings movies). ^/p^^p^ This movie was smashing, and with its length, you're practically seeing two movies instead of one. I'm glad they didn't scissor the movie in two like "Kill Bill," which actually would've been almost possible, since more or less half is set on the island and half in New York. ^/p^^p^ One of the few changes I can think of that I'd've suggested would be to tack the original Max Steiner score onto the end credits. Some musician once said that the first "King Kong" was a "great backdrop for that spectacular Max Steiner concert," and it is indeed one of the damndest pieces of music I've ever heard in my life: I think the great Brooklyn band Mandrill owes it a debt. That's the one place (aside from Fay Wray) where the first film has it all over this one. ^/p^^p^ I'm also pleased to see that this Kong prefers older women; both Fay Wray and Jessica Lange were 26, while Naomi Watts is 37, a much more interesting age for a woman, whether appealing to man or beast. ^/p^^p^ By the way, speaking of closing credits, when "The Producers" opens, remember that they put a whole musical number after the conclusion of the credits, so don't leave at the end of the movie. ^/p^^p^ Now we'll see if these paragraph breaks work or what.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-15 23:22:14
Evidently I need to brush up on HTML. Sorry.
-------------------------------
Alan - 2005-12-16 10:09:35
It's not the caret ^ you need, it's actually the angle braces (Shift-Comma and Shift-Period on most keyboards).

We'll try them and see what happens.

Anyway, wait 'til you see "King Kong."

I wonder if the original was the source of your fondness for monkeys.
-------------------------------
MIchael - 2005-12-16 10:39:39
By the way, I just looked at the writer of the post before my last one, and I'd initially assumed it was Paula.

Thanks, Alan.

When I was grousing in my first post above about film critics hating long films, if Tom happens to be a film critic (I have no idea), I certainly didn't mean that the way it might have sounded. The paciing of this movie is so unusual for an American film (especially an action thriller) that it's really the most unusual thing about it, which is really saying something, and I'm curious to see if most people agree that it was too longish. I bet they do, but for me personally it was the perfect length.

Okay. I'm going to finally be quiet for a while.

Sorry about what looks in retrospect like a protracted bout of unhinged filibustering or something.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2005-12-16 11:11:52
It's not the caret ^ you need, it's actually the angle braces

Oops, thanks, Alan!
-------------------------------
Flasshe - 2005-12-16 12:38:38
I suddenly have a craving for a glass of claret.

Anyway, last night I watched the new DVD of the restored original King Kong, a movie I haven't seen in a very long time (if ever?). And I have to say I was mightily impressed, especially since it was made in 1933. And Michael's right - Fay Wray is gorgeous. Nice special effects. I was astonished to see things like rippling fur on Kong's back. And so much of the movie does depend on Steiner's great score, since so much of it is visuals and action rather than dialog. I was also surprised that the New York sequence was only 20 minutes long. I started to listen to Ray Harryhausen's commentary on the disc, and that sounded fascinating. Will have to listen to the whole thing soon.

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to Jackson's remake, now that I can compare/contrast properly.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-16 14:27:33
Okay, I just can't stop myself from this one. The rippling fur in the original is from the fingers moving the miniature for the stop motion effect. I remember being flummoxed by that rippling fur when I was a small child.

As for Fay Wray, there was a school of thought for decades, widely subscribed to by many people (I think Moss Hart goes mentions this in his autobiography, for one, unless I'm mixing that particular source up: I've read this over and over) that Wray in her prime was the most beautiful woman since the invention of photography. The Wray movie I mentioned earlier, "Viva Villa," was shot on location in 1934 and features Wray as a brunette Mexican, and Wallace Beery as Pancho Villa. I recommend that one.
-------------------------------
Sue - 2005-12-16 15:34:28
Re: critics & long films: Roger Ebert has often said, "No good movie is too long; no bad movie is short enough." Or something like that.
-------------------------------
Michael - 2005-12-16 23:46:04
I've read that Ebert quote, but in practice I think he usually tends to slam everything with a running time over 90 minutes at least a little for being too long, almost without fail (including "King Kong," if I'm not mistaken), along with almost every other film critic. I think they see so many films that they just want whatever they're seeing to end, and equate watching a movie with work, which is too bad. But it is a very good expression and a sentiment with which I certainly agree. (And I did find "King Kong" to be the perfect length for me personally.)
-------------------------------
Sharps - 2005-12-17 14:36:58
I liked Jackson's King Kong very much, but I agree that the set-up was too long (it's not an excuse that you need that much time to flesh out the characters - please). I disagree that the Central Park scene was expendable -for one, it serves as a kind of bookend to the sunset scene on Skull Island: here, Ann reveals inherent joy and beauty from her environment to Kong. Also, it makes the following sequence that much more heartbreaking, and I loved the abrupt, on-a-dime shift to the final chase-down. Speaking of which, I haven't seen the original in a long time: does it have the scene that Jackson's does, on top of the mountain when Kong is attacked by bats? Beautiful bit of foreshadowing! I can't say enough about Naomi Watts, who has been a personal fave since the extraordinary Mulholland Drive; I loved all the vaudeville background material. But finally, what makes this movie such a resounding success for me was the unspoken empathy/attraction/understanding between Ann and Kong, expressed wordlessly, only in gazes and gestures. The chagrined, puzzled, yet resigned, knowing look in Kong's eyes, gazing at Ann, when he realizes that the King of the jungle has finally met his match in the big city, is one of the most heart-piercing experiences I've ever had at a movie. Bravo!!
-------------------------------

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland