The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: pmcd9 on December 10, 2003, 04:45:44 pm
-
Next from LOTR director Peter Jackson is a remake of the classic King Kong. I'm positive that Jackson will make a masterpiece as this is a story that is perfectly suited to his particular sensibility. But I can't help but wonder why he would waste his time on a story that has already been brilliantly done twice before. I'd just as soon he skipped this one and got to work at once on The Hobbit. I guess maybe he needs a break from Middle Earth. Oh well, I can wait.
~Paul
-
I'm not entirely sure what about the Jacksonian sensibility (if you'll forgive me for using that pretentious phrase) lends itself to King Kong, but that's me for you.
-
Certainly all I can think of as his style would be something involving vast amounts of blood, puppets and pointy ears now.
Oh, and lesbians.
He's covering all the bases though!
-
But I can't help but wonder why he would waste his time on a story that has already been brilliantly done twice before.
You mispelled "once".
-
But I can't help but wonder why he would waste his time on a story that has already been brilliantly done twice before.
You mispelled "once".
No, he didn't. Dino DeLaurentiis (sic?) did a remake of the original in 1976. A young Jessica Lange appeared as KK's arm candy. It was not that good.
Sincerely,
Limmo the humorless movie answer man
-
I think he meant that it had only been done brilliantly once.
This place requires very careful parsing.
-
About the DeLaurentiis version, only one thing need be said: its female lead was named "Dwan" [sic]. This should indicate its qualities, and its lack thereof, quite clearly.
That said, there's also "King Kong Lives" to consider, which appears to be at least unintentionally hilarious.
-
I think he meant that it had only been done brilliantly once.
This place requires very careful parsing.
An excellent point, August. Last time I'll post anything before I've had coffee.
Sincerely,
LTHMAM
-
But I can't help but wonder why he would waste his time on a story that has already been brilliantly done twice before.
You mispelled "once".
I have to ask your forgiveness about that as you are most probably right. I remember the latter day version of that movie as being kick-ass, but I only saw it once at the time it was originally released (I was maybe 14 then) and I haven't re-examined it since. Actually, now that my memory kicks in, I recall that I saw that movie on my first date and I remember that girl as being kick-ass as well. But I know that now she's old, is married to a drunk, and has five kids. I'm really kind of sorry I brought the whole thing up now.
~Paul
-
Then there was "Mighty Joe Young" with the unghy Charlize Theron.
-
Then there was "Mighty Joe Young" with the unghy Charlize Theron.
You mispelled totally hot.
~Paul
-
Saw it yesterday. Since I went for the right reasons -- namely, to get some eye candy, which I'm a sucker for --, it didn't disappoint me much -- I got at least one hour and a half of pummeling, pounding, screaming, rat-at-at-ing etc. Some scenes are too bloated, over the top and too long for their own good; the Apatosauri stampede, for instance (complete with a panning sequence following the heroes and the dinosaurs running along a crumbling precipice edge. I was like "oh, just shut up already"). This movie will try to tug at your attention with the subtlety of a gorilla with boxing gloves trying to remix Moby (all the more noticeably in the parts where it's supposed to be serious, heartfelt and deep. Too much close-ups. *Way* too much close-ups). The ape stole the show, I thought. And one word for the squeamish, in whose ranks I squeamishly count myself -- actually, make that five words: giant motherfuck*ng fanged leeches. Guuuh. When the first one slowly rised from the muck, throbbing and quivering, and slowly ejected a three-foot slimy proboscis ending in this rude scolex (eyeless, it felt its way with gentle proddings, until it got hold of a whole human head, then much munching and gulping started), I just curled and tried to burrow deep in my seat. Eek, eek, eek, ewwww...
-
giant motherfuck*ng fanged leeches.
Now this almost makes me want to see it.
-
giant motherfuck*ng fanged leeches. Guuuh. When the first one slowly rised from the muck, throbbing and quivering, and slowly ejected a three-foot slimy proboscis ending in this rude scolex (eyeless, it felt its way with gentle proddings, until it got hold of a whole human head, then much munching and gulping started)
This, also, sort of tempts me to see the movie. I mean, the Lord of the Rings films gave me about my fill of Peter-Jackson-perpetrated extreme close-ups and visual cliche, but HOLY CRAP, LEECHES WITH FANGS.
Also, the phrase "rude scolex" is delightful. I need to find contexts in which to use it, which will sadly not be as hard as one would anticipate.
-
You mispelled totally hot.
~Paul
"Ungh" is a comic book onomatopoeia for a moan of sexual pleasure. Unghy is its adjectival form.
No woman has ever looked better on film than Charlize Theron did in Woody Allen's "Celebrity." And I think CT is in the top 10 on that list a few more times. Yowza.
-
Someone asked somewhere what the important difference between the original they changed. I wanted to see the original again to make sure of my memory. I did a couple of nights ago. The difference is the scene in the theatre. In the original it is the appearance of Ann Darrow that enrages the ape. In the new version he seems to get enraged for exactly the opposite reason. It didn't make sense to me.
Kong was in chains and defeated, then he sees Ann Darrow and his vitality is restored and is able to break the chains. It's one of the most powerful scenes in the entire movie and my favorite part. Well that and Kong playing with her titties, but you know what i'm saying.
~Paul
-
in the 1976 version, he's all down and chained up and encased in a bizarre sort of cage (not in a theater but outside) just looking at Dwan when the photographers rush her and start pushing in. He gets the idea they're hurting his lady and he breaks free. In stages. While Charles Grodin narrates.
That was a pretty bad movie.
-
While Charles Grodin narrates.
That was a pretty bad movie.
I have the idea that any movie with narration is bad. Maybe because it's a sign they didn't figure out how to make a movie rather than committing some other form of storytelling. Anyone who actually watches a lot of movies want to tell me that I'm missing something?
-
Well, he's actually emceeing the event where they unveil Kong. Kong gets a foot loose and he's still talking to the crowd about how strong the chains are. Then Kong's arms get loose and he starts discussing how strong the cage is.
Then Kong gets loose and steps on him. It's not overlaid narration but more of Grodin's character kind of giving a bizarre play-by-play while being the promoter.
-
I have the idea that any movie with narration is bad. Maybe because it's a sign they didn't figure out how to make a movie rather than committing some other form of storytelling. Anyone who actually watches a lot of movies want to tell me that I'm missing something?
See, when I think of bad movies and narration, I think of cheap B films like The Beast of Yucca Flats, where narration is spliced in in order to attempt to make a story out of disconnected footage or otherwise to patch major technical issues. (If I recall correctly, Beast has omnipresent narration because they lost the audio track, which is impressively incompetent.) I think it can be used well but is often used as plot spackle.
-
There's something to be said for good narration. I'm a big fan of Film Noir, and a common trope of film noir is hard boiled narration, which I love.
Nowadays I think narration works best ironically, when used in comedies to counterpoint what you're seeing. The television show "Arrested Development"'s best jokes are often in Opie Cunningham's narration.
The one film I can think of that exists in a theatrical version and a director's cut that shows the film with and without narration is "Blade Runner" - try to find the theatrical cut, as the director's cut removes Harrison Ford's narration to the detriment of the film. If you've never been a fan of narration before you'll miss it in the director's cut.
Also, the DC had a crappy happy ending tacked on that sucked so very, very hard.
Speaking of shitty "director's cuts" - the new "Uncorked" edition of Wedding Crashers is SO MUCH like the theatrical version that the only thing I think was added was two extra two second shots of girls with their shirts/bras off. That's it. Whoo, that must've been too hot for theatres, huh?
fuck*ng marketing assholes.
I liked the movie, but not enough to watch it again on DVD just to see four seconds of titties.
-
I was thinking of Blade Runner as something that was better without the narration, but it's been a long time. I could stand to see that again actually.
I would be most pleased if you would tell me some good film noir with narration or without that I can rent. I was actually trying to have my own whole personal film noir festival a while ago but was restricted to what they had at the lame chain video store, so it fizzled out. But now I have Netflix and they seem to have almost everything.
-
There's something to be said for good narration. I'm a big fan of Film Noir, and a common trope of film noir is hard boiled narration, which I love.
e.g. The Man Who Wasn't There.
-
Yeah, but the Man Who Wasn't There was a Film Noir Satire, which isn't quite the same thing. Gotta love the Coen Bros., though.
As far as some good film noir:
The Third Man (probably the epitome of the genre)
Out of the Past
The Set-Up
Laura
Murder, My Sweet
Gun Crazy
This Gun's For Hire
Rififi
Criss Cross
The Wrong Man
Touch of Evil
For some neo noir:
L.A. Confidential
Chinatown
Dark City
Blade Runner
The Man Who Wasn't There
Sin City
-
A satire? I don't see it. I'll grant you that there are elements of humor there. But the film didn't seem to be poking fun at the noir genre. I see it as a genuine noir film with the sort of funny characterizations that are present in all of the Coen's films.
Thinking about it, in a broad sense you could argue that many of the Coen's films are noir (or noir-ish). Blood Simple? Miller's Crossing? Barton Fink? Clearly not noir in that they're all filmed in color. But the themes are pretty noir and many elements of the style too.
-
There are colour noir films - I think "noir" has to do more with the darkness in the character's souls, the darkness of the films' themes, rather than the actual darkness of the physical film frame.
And yes, I believe most of the Coen Bros. films are poking fun at their genres - although not with the wink wink irony of lesser filmmakers.
Their films aren't so much genre films as examinations of genre films. They're more film critics than film makers - they make their criticism of other films by making better films, and then rubbing the lesser films' noses in their own filth.
Anyway, it's certainly a noir, but it's a self-aware noir that knows it's a noir.
-
Their films aren't so much genre films as examinations of genre films. They're more film critics than film makers - they make their criticism of other films by making better films, and then rubbing the lesser films' noses in their own filth.
Anyway, it's certainly a noir, but it's a self-aware noir that knows it's a noir.
Well put. I agree with that.
I guess I just see "satire" as intentionally making fun of a subject. I don't believe the Coens' films are doing that. So they make a superior film -- I can't ascribe a negative motive to that. I'd argue that they love noir and use their talents to create the best noir films they can. I don't see the "rubbing the lesser films' noses" part.
Thinking about it, Lebowski's pretty dang noir.
-
And isn't it odd that one of the most colorful and bright places imaginable - LA - seems to be the setting of many a film noir?
-
they make their criticism of other films by making better films, and then rubbing the lesser films' noses in their own filth.
*Sigh*. I'd love to do that for a living.
-
Thank you Jough for the list. If nothing else you may save us from watching the late, horrible seasons of X Files.
Education.
-
And isn't it odd that one of the most colorful and bright places imaginable - LA - seems to be the setting of many a film noir?
See, as much as I'm generally not a big fan of Chinatown, their use of L.A. was absolutely appropriate. The L.A. of the 1920's, as represented in the film, was an incredible boom economy -- and an incredibly fragile one, as dependent on contrivances for water as it was. The "water business" used there is an ideal model of what I think of as the main problematic structure in noir films: a government, industrial, or other large system easily broken by corruption. That, and the L.A. of Chinatown wasn't even remotely comfortable. It captured the bleakness of the desert very well.
Can't speak for other L.A. noirs, but that's my thought...