The original 1933 King Kong was my introduction to the world of monster movies. Unfortunately, that was so long ago I don't remember it real well. Also, I was so young and naive I didn't appreciate the time period, the style, and the achromatic (That's a big fancy art word for 'Black and White') film. I had difficulty following the plot (Big gorilla chases Fay Wray, what's to get?) and telling the characters apart.
Fast-forward to 2012. I'm now a big fan of older movies, and I've just seen the 2005 King Kong for the first time. (Yeah, I know, you're asking yourself where've I been for the last 6 years, right?)
So: Here's the plan. I'm going to compare and contrast the movie I've just seen, to a classic that I hardly remember.
Firstly: I really appreciate the fact that Peter Jackson set the 2005 movie in the depression era. I don't think that this pulpy story would work well in the present day. This also shows proper respect to the original story.
Jackson draws a nice parallel with the scene were Kong fights the Pterodactyls... (Wait...What? Oh, sorry.) ...I mean Giant Bats... with the climax of Kong fighting the bi-wings atop the empire state building. I also liked how after Ann Darrow is sacrificed in the beginning, she is willing to sacrifice herself to stop Kong's rampage. That's a strong dynamic I didn't feel was in the original.
I'd have to see the original again to give my thoughts on Fay Wray's Ann Darrow. Famed for nothing more that a scream queen, I've seen a few of her other movies recently (The Most Dangerous Game, The Vampire Bat, and Mystery of the Wax Museum) and discovered that she wasn't a half bad actress.
One thing that bothered me in the 1933 movie, was the fact that 20 zillion redshirts die trying to save one woman. I know now that this is just typical of this kind of story.
Since everyone knows how the story ends, Jackson went for drama, trying to stretch out the iconic finale as long as possible. Personally, I thought it was a little melodramatic, but you can't really end the story any other way.
Well, That about wraps up MY irrelevant thoughts on the latest movie. I plan to also watch and review the 1976 King Kong in the near future.
Stay tuned.
Fast-forward to 2012. I'm now a big fan of older movies, and I've just seen the 2005 King Kong for the first time. (Yeah, I know, you're asking yourself where've I been for the last 6 years, right?)
So: Here's the plan. I'm going to compare and contrast the movie I've just seen, to a classic that I hardly remember.
Firstly: I really appreciate the fact that Peter Jackson set the 2005 movie in the depression era. I don't think that this pulpy story would work well in the present day. This also shows proper respect to the original story.
Jackson draws a nice parallel with the scene were Kong fights the Pterodactyls... (Wait...What? Oh, sorry.) ...I mean Giant Bats... with the climax of Kong fighting the bi-wings atop the empire state building. I also liked how after Ann Darrow is sacrificed in the beginning, she is willing to sacrifice herself to stop Kong's rampage. That's a strong dynamic I didn't feel was in the original.
I'd have to see the original again to give my thoughts on Fay Wray's Ann Darrow. Famed for nothing more that a scream queen, I've seen a few of her other movies recently (The Most Dangerous Game, The Vampire Bat, and Mystery of the Wax Museum) and discovered that she wasn't a half bad actress.
One thing that bothered me in the 1933 movie, was the fact that 20 zillion redshirts die trying to save one woman. I know now that this is just typical of this kind of story.
Since everyone knows how the story ends, Jackson went for drama, trying to stretch out the iconic finale as long as possible. Personally, I thought it was a little melodramatic, but you can't really end the story any other way.
Well, That about wraps up MY irrelevant thoughts on the latest movie. I plan to also watch and review the 1976 King Kong in the near future.
Stay tuned.
Speaking of parallels, I really liked the way the meaning changed between when Karl kept saying he was going to give people the wilderness for the price of admission, and when Preson said the same thing at the end. It went from a heroic sounding goal to the realization that Karl had cheapened all the deaths and hardship to `the price of an admission ticket.'
ReplyDelete