“is far more famous and well received than the Wolfman remake”
So? Does that make the Jackson film more worthwhile than the rest of the bunch of stupid remakes, ranging from Wolfman to Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Just because it’s more famous with a bunch of even worse actors than the original?
(Naomi Watts is the only decent thing I can say about it but then again, all the Kong leading ladies are remarkable on their own)
The statement about your “preference” of the remakes to the original was irony…more watchable my ass…
I thought of two films: The Lost Weekend and Days of Wine and Roses
Given more realistic—more raw and viceral—performances of alcoholics, I think the acting isn’t very convincing. I think the films might have relied on the shock value of the subject matter, too—which is no longer shocking to see on screen.
@Ruby
may i just say- shane…
Oh, I beginning to think you don’t like me. :P
@Chris
Hi! Good post. I think the original King Kong movie is well-made and I can imagine that it made quite an impact when it premiered—but, like you, I find it a little dated. However, my problem stems from the effects. (I can’t remember the acting very much to be honest). When the film reveals Kong, it didn’t have the impact that I think it wanted—but how could it, after experiencing modern f/x (e.g., Spielberg’s Jurassic Park). In a way, my reaction is a bit unfair, but what can I do?
In a way, I feel this way about all the old horror classics (e.g., Frankenstein, Lagosi’s Dracula, etc.). I guess my expectation is that these films should elicit fear and terror (to some degree), and if they don’t, they don’t really fail, on some level, to stand the test of time. Again that might be an unfair standard. (Then again, something like Todd Browning’s Freaks manages to still be disturbing and creepy, so…)
Btw, I agree with you about the relationship between the woman and Kong. The film merely hints at something between them, and I think this is what Peter Jackson was trying to explore and develop. Unfortunately, I think he got caught up in the cgi, action sequences, etc.
it’s not u, jazz— it’s alan ladd ;) i still like the lost weekend, it’s very noir and i love ray milland. and the horror classics are great fun! especially bride of frankenstein and the cabinet of dr. caligari. for me these will never be dated
“Unfortunately, I think he got caught up in the cgi, action sequences, etc.”
He got caught up with rehashing sequences and basically the whole screenplay and that alone, is an INSULT to the original, no matter what anyone thinks about it.
That and money of course….he just HAD to stay in fucking Hollywood after the LOTR films. I suppose the temptation of remaking fantasy masterpieces is too much.
Jackson’s Kong/Ann relationship was the most chaste of the three, with the 1976 verson as the most explicit and the 1933 somewhere in between.
I’m having a hard time following you Dimitris Psahos.
If you’re not talking about critical acclaim, then why are you bringing up irrelevant remakes such as Wolfman and Texas Chainsaw Massacre? You said that in years from now “people” (I brought up critical acclaim because of this word, granted I am paraphrasing) will start saying that the remake of Wolfman is better than the original. Though, I really do not get what this has to do with my original criticism on the 1933 version of King Kong. Is your point that you think that I think newer movies are automatically better than older movies? Or something of the like? I am not trying to be sarcastic, but it seems like you’re trying to say something personal to me but I am not quite sure what.I never even stated that I liked the remakes more than the original in my initial post, nor have even elaborated on why I think the remakes are better, so how could you find something ironic in what I said? Not to mention in my first rebuttal, I expressed that my opinion on how the remakes fair against the original is very tentative due tot he fact I have not seen either one in a long time.
Though disregarding all of this, you have not really clarified on your “less b-movie like” statement, you merely just said what it was in regards too, but you’ll still have to elaborate. The 70s remake was very “b-movie” like to me seeing as how campy and cheesy it was, while the 00’s remake was the total opposite in that it was pretentious in how epic it tried to be.I’m not getting a very friendly vibe from you. I was just merely expressing my disdain for the original King Kong movie, I know a lot of people like it so I am not surprised that someone might take offense, but I am not really looking to fight someone over it. I’d appreciate it if you would continue this conversation while keeping the condescending rhetorical questions to a low, other wise I am not interested in continuing. Mainly because I’m not really sure what we’re arguing about. I would rather not be put in a situation for me to defend the remakes of King Kong, when I personally do not remember them vividly or care about them :-p.
@Ruby
it’s not u, jazz— it’s alan ladd ;)
Just playin around, Ruby. But seriously, did you hear me say that The Lost Weekend isn’t very good? ;)
kk but what about this? imagine shane with jack palance as the title character…..huh? huh? ;)
Jazzaloha and ruby stevens
I agree with you Jazz, in that “Frankenstein” looks very cheesy. In fact, I usually try not to call “Frankenstein”, “Dracula”, “Invisible man” and etc horror movies anymore, instead I rather just label them monster. Though in regards to those three, I actually think they have aged relatively well, Frankenstein in particular is one of my favorite films of all time. Those movies really do not just rely on intimidating visuals for entertainment (well, Dracula kinda does).
I don’t really like the “Bride of Frankenstein” much which is kinda rare for a Frankenstein fan. While many feel its campyness is its charm, I can’t really say I found much of “Bride of Frankenstein” funny, and I thought the development of how the Monster becomes all smart and human like was too unrealistic for my liking. I like the themes and his character development in the first movie of the trilogy better. I also really like “Son of Frankenstein”, which I thought was a nice twist from the original formula, not to mention Igor is awesome.
“The 70s remake was very “b-movie” like to me”
Maybe we’ve seen different b-movies then or have a different impression about them…King Kong by Guillermin is cheap, money-making, mainstream shit. If a certain public thinks it’s a “b-movie” likewise the original one, then that certain public knows shit about films.
“If you’re not talking about critical acclaim, then why are you bringing up irrelevant remakes such as Wolfman and Texas Chainsaw Massacre?”
To obviously pinpoint that money = control of the mass. The reason why Jackson’s and Guillermin’s pieces of crap are more famous is because of the smart marketing of the companies.
“I never even stated that I liked the remakes more than the original in my initial post, nor have even elaborated on why I think the remakes are better”
This: I’d say they are probably more watchable than the Cooper version. is insinuation. That alone is personal judgment. With or without elaboration.
“Is your point that you think that I think newer movies are automatically better than older movies?”
My plain understanding that subjectivity is irrelevant when the timelessness of classic fantasy films might be overshadowed by pathetic fantasy films of today based on the negativity about them. Of course, it’s possible you may as well hate the current Hollywood crap too but there’s always a better / worse analogy between what’s great and what’s a rehash.
“I’d appreciate it if you would continue this conversation while keeping the condescending rhetorical questions to a low, other wise I am not interested in continuing.”
I’ll speak however I want in any tone I want to.
yes the ‘monster’ movies are enjoyable more on a camp level now but they are no less fun :)
@Chris
I think might have a higher opinion of these films if I pushed aside the scare factor and tried to evaluate the films on other terms. (Frankenstein looks cheesy but what about Lugosi? “I vant to suck your blood.” Uh, no.)
@Ruby
Hitting below the belt. :)
Definitely “Rashamon”. This was so dated and I really got nothing out of it.
“Lawrence of Arabia” is mostly exposition, showing instead of telling how incredibly hot, oppressive, and boring desert travel is for most of the picture. This itself is boring. Also when Lawrence attempts to teach Bedouins about saving water or navigating the desert, these portions are condescending and naive. Moreover, when Lawrence receives a bright white robe as a gift, a friend of mine pointed out “Where did his party procure such clean, pressed robes in the middle of the desert?” My rejoinder was “What happened to every second of their journey counts against the sun in that part of desert, and Lawrence is dancing about in his robes and giggling while his men clap at his impromptu fashion show?”
Some of the dialogue, especially around wells, is excellent, and the campiness is fun. But the film’s classic status is undeserved.
oy
-veh!
L’AGE D’OR – i thought it was effing boring and stupid
RASHOMON – it’s ok. but one of my 5 least favourite kurosawas for sure
TWENTIETH CENTURY – pretty much no redeeming qualities other than the subplot with the broski putting stickers everywhere
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN – totally pointless; the original is one of my favs though
A KING IN NEW YORK – boring; chaplin’s worst feature imo
this thread needs to be removed by admin.
what absolute, stupid bullshit.
In response to what people’s opinions are on the King Kong film, personally I like the Peter Jackson version. It may not be the greatest film I have ever seen in my life, but it’s very entertaining and looks very impressive on a big screen. Also, character development is lengthened out, so that we can draw a more personal connection between Kong and the Ann Darrow character. You also have Skull Island for about an hour in the picture and it’s loaded with great scenes in the jungles with all sort of interesting creatures like dinosaurs and insects. There’s also a great evolution of a relationship between the Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and the writer played by Adrien Brody. It also has that great scene at the end on top of the Empire State Building and that really looks impressive on a big screen. The first King Kong today looks dated, but I think it is a major achievement in the fact that there had never been a film made like that before. I just thought the new one did it better.
Now, here’s a few films I find dated and naive. A film that I have seen that I find to be really dated is Angels With Dirty Faces with James Cagney. The censors back in those days said it wasn’t enough that the James Cagney character feel bad about his crime, but that he had to plead for his life as he was being executed. He has a friend in the film who is a priest and the priest comes to bring the news of Cagney’s (is Cagney’s character name Rocky by any chance?) to these young kids who were in some films back in that period called the Dead End Kids. The priest brings a newspaper with him saying Rocky died yellow. Give me a break. Another film involving jail is I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang. The way the Paul Muni character is forced into being at the scene of a crime is unrealistic. All of the sudden, he gets framed and put in jail. And to mention another Cagney film which I like and even though the ending is somewhat naive is Public Enemy. Again, it’s the censors that forced this specific ending down the throats of the filmmakers. Cagney’s body falls to the ground as the door opens to his mother’s house. I’d have to go back to look at my DVD to see how they were originally going to end it, but the censorship board forced that ending on there.
“And to mention another Cagney film which I like and even though the ending is somewhat naive is Public Enemy. Again, it’s the censors that forced this specific ending down the throats of the filmmakers.”
ok, first of all, if you’re going to discuss these films, get your facts straight.
The censors had no influence on The Public Enemy. At the time, though the Production Code had been written, it was not being enforced (and would not be until August 1934). Censorship was in the control of state censorship boards which had no direct influence on film production. What is your source for a censor “forcing this specific ending down the throat” of William Wellman, while at the same time letting the violence and sexuality in the rest of the film stand as is?
the only naivete around here is people’s assumed knowledge of film.
@Vellaem Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favorite movies of all time. I find it paced at the right speed and I don’t think it would work as well, if they cut it down more. Back in those days, you didn’t have to have a scene that was loaded with something like a car chase or something right at the start of the picture. It takes it’s time to develop the relationships between the characters of people like Lawrence and Sharif Ali and to build to scenes like the taking of Aqqaba. The canvas for this film is vast and so, it seems like it does work better at a slower pace. When Lawrence, for example, leaves Lord Feisal’s tent and sits in the sand at night, it builds us up to the scenes where we see the Arabs crossing the Nefut desert and conquering Aqqaba. Think of the scene where Lawrence goes back to rescue Gasshim. The scene where Daout or is it Thrush wait for Lawrence to appear with Gassim to head for the well has to have that slow build that helps to bring up the emotions of the viewer watching that particular scene. But, I understand if you don’t like Lawrence. I guess it’s not for everyone. I just think it’s a masterpiece.
@RUS I believe I heard that on the DVD I own of Public Enemy. It’s the box set called Warner Bros. Pictures Gangster’s Collection. I think I may have heard it on the commentary or somewhere else on the DVD. But hey, if that’s not the case, that’s fine. I only thought that that was what they said on the DVD.
There’s also a ‘naivete’ issue in general with films. It’s also an issue with modern films, but there are more counterexamples.
The ‘Big philosophical speech’. People hear an impassioned plea that makes a moral argument against their side. They realize, ’He’s right!’
Now, I’m not saying people don’t change, or will never change their minds in the face of the negative consequences of their beliefs.
But, if somebody stands up in front of a crowd and gives a big speech about how awful everybody is behaving, they will get angry, and will become more entrenched in their beliefs. That’s one thing I appreciated about Dogville, though I’m usually against Trier. It really got that aspect of human behavior right. If people are going to change their stance on something, it has to be through their own discovery. (Or through group conformity or fear of consequences, but that’s a different area altogether.)
@ RUS Why does Public Enemy end like that though? What’s your explanation? I thought I heard that there was more than one ending originally planned. I’m just curious.
I don’t understand what your problem with the ending is? what about it seems censored to you? it’s pretty graphic and morbidly ironic watching Cagney’s bloody corpse fall through the doorway while “I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles” plays on the Victrola. what about that ending seems compromised to you?
@RUS I don’t have a problem with the ending. I just thought that that particular ending was not the first one to be chosen by the filmmakers. Maybe, as far as the censorship issue goes, I thought that Cagney’s character was going to survive or, die in another fashion. The fact that his corpse falls through the doorway of his mother’s house I thought I heard on the DVD that that was what the censor’s were pushing for. That he has to die but not just die in a hail of bullets guns ablazing for example, but instead his corpse shows up at his mother’s house. It has to do with not just dying but how the death itself is handled. It’s still a good ending. Don’t get me wrong. I just thought it originally wasn’t supposed to end like that.
@RUS For all I know, perhaps I should pop the DVD back into the player sometime and see if that’s the case as far as how the movie plays itself out. Please don’t take offense, which I don’t think you are. I’m just stating what I believe I heard on the disc.
For what it’s worth, RUS is right…this thread is utterly pointless.
“It also has that great scene at the end on top of the Empire State Building and that really looks impressive on a big screen.”
A rehash scene from the original looks “better” just because it’s filled with even crappier effects? Oh, perhaps because it’s from Jackson’s “magic wand”?
I wonder what’s people opinions on Jackson’s early and far superior career to any King Kong and LOTR type film…I suppose just because they’re not critically “noticed” like that worthless King Kong remake, they’re automatically “inferior”…
Rich Uncle Skeleton
“this thread needs to be removed by admin.
what absolute, stupid bullshit.”
I would refrain from such precipitate evaluations. Your statement actually implies that all the responses and opinions posted here are worthless, to say the least. I strongly disagree.
What is better: a thread containing discussions and comments that actually SAY something and MEAN something, or a thread filled with boring lists, one-word posts and hardly any interaction in sight?
This thread was initially meant to work as a place for people to contribute thoughts, views and comments on films from a different time period (I chose 30s, 40s, 50s because that era interests me the most). It’s interesting for me to know how modern viewers relate to those films.
I saw Casablanca recently for the first time (yeah, I’m young, and maybe not so wise) and, while I was really captivated by a few scenes (singing of Marseillaise was great, among others) and by the sheer luminous power of presence of both charismatic leads, the film as a whole left me slightly underwhelmed. It seemed too mechanical and a bit dull to me, although surely it had its undeniable merits. My impression was: This is a fine film but not a masterpiece. So I though I’d ask if there are any films from that period you got to watching because of the hype and were disappointed in. Really, that easy))
Appreciate all the posts, I love’ em.
Chris R Grudge
Dimitris Psahos -
While the King Kong movies have had often times mixed reactions, they are generally a lot more positive than what that Wolfman movie got (I’m assuming you’re talking about the movie that came out last year?). Peter Jackson’s version of King Kong while I don’t think is a great movie, is far more famous and well received than the Wolfman remake, which is already largely forgotten.
I don’t understand your “less b-movie ish” statement.