Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pmcd9]

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

[AlohaDawg]

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.

[wombat]

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?

[AlohaDawg]

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.

[V-Adore]

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.

[jough]

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.

[wombat]

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.

[AugustWest]

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.

[jough]

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

[AugustWest]

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.

[jough]

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.

[AugustWest]

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.

[AlohaDawg]

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?

[yu-huang]

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.

[wombat]

Thank you Jough for the list.  If nothing else you may save us from watching the late, horrible seasons of X Files.

Education.