Re: Kong 2005 - A Big......Disappointment....why?...let me count the ways...

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

Here's a little anecdote that may help put Jackson's sci-fi movie into
perspective:

A few years ago, a girlfriend (a hard-core anglophile) took me to see
Kenneth Branagh 's film version of Hamlet.

Near the middle of the movie, Hammy is seen on horseback on the plains of
Denmark (Ruritania) garnering his troops.  The scene was spectacular,
with huge jagged snow covered mountains rising above the plain.  Branagh
shot the scene perfectly.  But as most people know, the real Denmark is
as flat as a pancake.  Figuring that I would impress my date with a
topography lesson (and ignoring the staggering beauty of the scene), I
leaned over and whispered to her, "Is Hamlet in Norway now?"

She smiled at my smartass remark, but later it became clear that I had
only done further damage to our already faultering relationship.  I blew
the moment for her (rumor has it that, 8 years later, she still complains
to her friends about the "Hamlet Incident").  I may only be an
unsophisticated small town boy from western Montana, but I'm smart enough
to have learned a good lesson from this:  Don't date anglophiles.

Well okay. In fairness, I learned more than that.  Here are some other
things that I learned throughout my life:

1-  Donut holes, zucchinis, and train tunnels sometimes are metaphors for
other things.  Once, I saw a talking zucchini in a T.V. commercial.  Now,
seeing a talking phallic symbol on T.V. could have really blown my mind
if I hadn't already learned to suspend my belief.
2 - Branagh's fictional "Denmark" had jagged mountains, and "That's
Okay".
3 - Fictional big apes sometimes bounce off of buildings like ping pong
balls and they sometimes share non-consummated sexual relationships with
women.

If I need scientific accuracy above all else, I'll watch a Dianne Fossey
gorilla documentary, or I'll study a Greg Paul illustration of a
sauropod.  But if a sultry-looking donut ever tries to seduce me in a
dream with some come-hither talk, then I may consider suspending my
belief until I wake up.

That's my $8.99 US on the subject.  (Popcorn is extra).

<pb>
(who wasn't the least bit upset that Spielberg's JP1 _Velociraptors_ were
too large, or that T. rex probably *could* attack prey that stood still).
--


On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:19:48 -0800 (PST) bucketfoot-al@justice.com
writes:
> Well, having read all the reviews, perused the comments
> on this mailing list, I was fairly well prepared to
> enjoy myself today when I went to see the new "Kong"...
> 
> I walked out MAJORLY disappointed.  
> 
> The movie got off to a swell start - I actually liked
> the first one hour of the picture the best, as I think
> the re-creation of Depression-era NYC was excellent,
> and playing Al Jolson singing "I'm Sittin' on Top of
> the World" juxtaposed with breadlines was brilliant. 
> (It was also an awesome tribute to the "World's
> Greatest Entertainer", the greatest American Pop Singer
> of all time - but I digress.)
> 
> Once we got to Skull Island, however, believability
> went right out the window. Let me take this blow by
> blow:
> 
> 1.  The ship would have been rent into pieces and sunk
> had it actually gone bouncing off of the rocks during a
> storm that had 50-foot waves slamming it around;  the
> row boats would have been capsized and everyone in them
> drowned in such seas;
> 
> 2.  The area in front of the Gate and the Wall was
> simply not believable - it was on a narrow rocky
> outcrop with no vegetation - where the h*ll are the
> natives supposed to live, nevermind find food (since
> they are apparently too frightened to venture into the
> lush jungle on the other side anyways?)
> 
> 3.  In the looooooong time it took our heroes to fight
> the canibals (before the Cap't came to the rescue) all
> would have been bludgeoned to death.  I'm sorry, but
> Jack Black single handedly keeping a coupla dozen
> savages with spears away from killing him with
> Hulk-like strength was not believable.  Ditto with
> Driscoll, looking every bit like the wimp that Ann
> earlier implied that he was.
> 
> 4.  Then (sadly) we get to the biggest disappointment
> of the film.  Kong.  Yes, Kong.  Now, don't get me
> wrong.   The special effects were impressive.  The
> problem is that from this point on the movie turned
> into a Tom and Jerry cartoon, with the laws of gravity
> and physics apparently being permanently suspended,
> what with the 20-ton Kong and the V-Rexes bouncing off
> the rocks like fleas on a greyhound, being hung up in
> lianas that would have had to have been made of 30-inch
> Kevlar in order to hang them up in mid-air as they did.
>  And what about all of the bites to the biceps taken by
> Kong?  Didn't see him wearing chain mail, and each one
> of those V-Rex teeth looked about 36 inches in length,
> still - No blood, much less torn flesh (or dismembered
> arms).  Note to future filmmakers:  if you think we
> won't notice this kind of thing, you're mistaken.  In
> that sense the first King Kong was more realistic - at
> least the creatures in that one, crude as they were,
> didn't assume supernatural powers as here.
> 
> Next, lets examine the truly amazing special effects of
> Ann being carried every which way by Kong.  OK.  Now a
> couple of questions?  How come her ribs didn't
> fracture?  How come her neck didn't snap from the
> whiplash or from being slammed into tree branches along
> the way?  Her narrow escapes from the mouths of the
> various V-Rexes speak for themselves. I am sorry, but
> if I want to see this kind of schlock I can rent Bugs
> Bunny where I am supposed to laugh at such shenanigans
> instead of realizing - an hour and a half into the
> picture - that NO amount of "suspension of disbelief"
> that I can muster could possibly overcome the sheer
> impossibility and ludicrousness of what is going on.
> 
> A passing word on the "Brontosaurus Stampede";  no, I
> am not going to make comments about the musculature (or
> lack thereof) of these critters - that's been done
> before and frankly I could care less...but how about
> the critters stampeding at - what - 25, 30 MPH?  How
> about only 4 guys being trampled to death and the
> majority of the others miraculously escaping unscathed
> after running for what seemed like an eternity dodging
> 10-foot wide Bronto-feet?  And how about that "turn on
> a dime" Subaru AWD demonstrated by the Brontos when
> their momentum only carried a couple of them into the
> abyss, while the rest of them lithely piruetted a
> successful negotiation of that narrow, collapsing
> ridge?  Hey - I get it - maybe they're filled with
> Hydrogen like German Zeppelins of old, hence while they
> look like 50-ton beasts, they really only weigh 10,000
> pounds, so they can do the "Henrietta Hippo" two-step
> right out of Fantasia?
> 
> This Kong only looked believable while sitting still. 
> Once he started up he reminded me of Yoda's light-sabre
> fight with Count Dooku in Star Wars, what with all of
> the summersaulting and bouncing off the walls.
> 
> The same stuff applies to the NYC Kong scenes
> ...technically they were breathtaking - the Empire
> State Building scenes were phenomenal what with the
> panoramas, etc....then we have Kong spinning a plane
> around without being pulled off the building - or
> tearing the strut right off the bi-plane - no siree, it
> needed to keep flying so it could collide with that
> other bi-plane - and what about Kong doing his Shaq
> rebounding imitation, tearing the wing off a plane and
> then landing, still balanced, back on the top of the
> building?  
> 
> See, Jackson and his crew forgot that the fact that you
> can now do CGI scenes that intercut critters with
> people so well as to make them look absolutely
> amazingly real DOES NOT MAKE UP for the problem if you
> then have the critters and people suddenly,
> Matrix-like, abrogate all physical laws.  Poof! 
> Suspension of disbelief goes out the window - and
> straight down, not up.
> 
> Lest you think I am done, you are wrong.  Because now
> we get to my #1 objection to the movie;
> 
> 5.  The GD-MF-ing "emotional involvement" between Ann
> and the beast "cluster***k" - well, you know what I
> mean there ;-) Unbelievably (pun intended), after all
> of the above, this non-CGI aspect of the film was THE
> MOST UNBELIEVABLE part of all.  (And I won't even go
> into the MEGATON-embarassing 'ice dancing' sequence,
> because, by that point in time, the film had lost all
> credibility anyway).  Now guys, I'm not saying that a
> girl might not take some kind of pet-like liking to the
> big furry guy (and as an aside, how about the big
> SMELLY guy? - never saw her throw up or retch, even
> though, judging by many trips into ape areas of zoos'
> I've taken, Kong's stench by itself should have slain
> the V-Rexes);
> 
> No, I'm just saying that the 'emotional bonding' scenes
> were, to me, BY FAR AND AWAYS the most TEDIOUS,
> UNBELIEVABLE, and TEMPO-BREAKING aspects of the whole
> picture.  And Ann, well, lets just say that after Kong
> went over the side on top of the Empire State Building,
> what with that look on her face, I expected her to
> shove Driscoll off the side too - instead she embraces
> him after completely shunning him ever since Kong got
> the "Zyklon-B" treatment on the beach!!!
> 
> Oh, and has Mr. Peter Jackson ever been outside, on the
> observation deck of the Empire State Building?  Well, I
> (and probably half his US audience) have been there. 
> And, besides the dizzying fear of heights, there is
> also something known as THE WIND that ALWAYS is
> whipping around up there like a gale.  Still, never saw
> Ann's clothes flap, never heard any wind, and she and
> Driscoll hopped up and down those exterior ladders 100
> stories up in the air like, like, well - like there was
> a net and a blue screen below them, onto which NYC was
> later super-imposed.
> 
> To sum up, had the first (non-CGI) hour of the film not
> been so well done - with the very surprising Al Jolson
> vocal cameo during the opening garnering particularly
> high points with me - I'd have to say this film was in
> danger of being one of the WORST Kong films ever made
> (and, given the 1976 Kong catastrophe, that would have
> been saying a MOUTHFUL).  But, kudos to Jackson for
> excellent and believable NYC atmosphere, good acting
> (in the first hour anyways), and the excellent (though
> totally incredible) visuals of the last 2 hours.
> 
> And the 'Ann loves Kong' bits?  Well Peter, that's what
> the CUTTING ROOM FLOOR IS FOR - so films don't go
> over-budget, over-pretentious and over-long, like, say
> 3 hours +!!!!  Ditto for Ann suddenly deciding to
> become Kong's personal one-woman Vaudeville show.
> 
> One good thing (seriously) about all this, though; 
> apparently Jackson got the rights to not only digitally
> re-master the old 1933 King Kong for DVD, but he
> actually re-created lost scenes (I checked out that
> video link posted earlier), thus making Willis
> O'Brien/Merian Cooper's vision complete.  And for that
> at least I commend his efforts!!
> 
> I'm OUT here.
> 
> _________________________________________________
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
> 
> 


--
"Am I crazy, Jerry?  Am I?  Or, I am SO sane that you just blew your
mind?!" - Kramer