Re: How close is "Kong" to a real gorilla?

[Michael Skrepnick <palaeopaint@dinosaursinart.com>]

Hi Mark, All,

I saw this epic yesterday ( I'm probably one of the few who was never 
enamored with the original film ).  However, this version is indeed an epic 
and although I have some reservations, is well worth seeing.

As you say, it's unlikely in life that such a gargantuan creature would be 
capable of the physical feats it engages in ( trust me, the trailers don't 
even begin to describe the "antics" displayed through the entirety of the 
movie ).  Further, you will be left incredulous by the punishing "ride" the 
heroine is expected to survive, even when not in the midst of battles to the 
death with the other inhabitants of Skull Island.  She also seemingly has 
incredible fortitude and resistance to frostbite, as she spends the entire 
snowy New York night, including her jaunt up the Empire State, in skimpy, 
voluptuous attire.

However, it is a "movie" after all, and we are of course expected to 
"suspend our disbelief" as usual, no matter how much the content is in 
violation of our reason and sensibilities.  This is the only manner in which 
one can accept the liberties taken in dinosaurian anatomy in the film, as 
these are obviously outcast mutants from a long lost era and as an inbred 
population might be expected to suffer many "morphological" changes.

I don't recall a single instance in which Kong is in fact referred to as a 
"gorilla" proper ( none of the dinosaurs or other creatures on the island 
are addressed for what they are either ), however as the running time is 3+ 
hours (and a lot transpires over that length of time), it's hard to 
recollect all the dialogue.

In spite of this  ( and a few "cheesy" moments of dialogue), Kong is 
definitely another engaging and monumental effort by Jackson and well worth 
the price of admission!  The visuals are highly innovative and the first 
misty images of "the Wall" on Skull Island are worth that price alone.

Mike S.




> It is supposed to be a  fantasy movie after all, not a true-to-nature
> docudrama...... I think it's pointless to engage in critiques of an ape 
> which,  even
> if it could attain that size, wouldn't be able to do all those incredible
> acrobatics due to the constraints of physics.
>
> I'm curious-- I haven't seen the movie yet, but is there any point at 
> which
> KK is ( or in the 1933 version, was), actually referred to as a gorilla?
>
> Mark