No amount of ape-girl bonding can justify giant gorilla ice dancing. I shudder to think of the ill-conceived, Kong-inspired ice dancing that could appear in the next winter olympics as a result of this movie.
Saw the movie again and picked up on this. Ann and Kong originally bonded over her pratfall routine. Kong enjoyed watching her fall down. Falling down is funny. The theme is reversed when they re-unite and go "skating" on the lake. This time Kong is the one falling down and he thinks it's funny.
I've also been noticing that folks who saw the 1933 version recently (as I did last night on your recommendation) seem to be enjoying it much more than folks who haven't.
I just got back from it, and I firmly enjoyed it. Sure, it could have been shorter, and some of the casting and new characters and little added bits felt off (but some casting and new bits were brilliant), but I was squirming and happy and sad and touched and thrilled etc...
I liked it, primarily because of Naomi Watts' and Andy Serkis' performances. I can't think of another performance besides Ann that had so much screen time with so few lines. Watts sold it.
Besides, there's a lot worse things in life than to watch Naomi Watts emote for three hours.
I'm in the surprised-I-really-liked-it camp. Came for the visual effects, stayed for the sad love story. Intelligent animal trying to communicate who's also the last survivor of a doomed race = big anthropomorphic sympathy points. I guess I'm just a big softie. Or maybe I'm a furry and didn't know it.
I was definitely uncomfortable with the "natives"--I had to force myself to chalk that up to "it has to be in the plot or it isn't King Kong". Otherwise, though, not much about the film bothered me, including the cheesy/campy parts. (I didn't really like the delivery of the final line, though.)
Loved it. Absolutely loved every moment of it. Except the bugs. And I absolutely bought the emotional connection between Ann and the monkey.
Given the fact that movies have a time constraint, in the back of my mind there's always a silent caveat of "Oh, thata bonding scene would have played out better over several days or so", but that's what novels are for.
But I not only believed the chemistry, but I thought the characteriztion of Kong was what sold him as a character. I think Andy Serkis has the mocap digi-character niche swen up in Hollywood for a while.
She's friended me as well and this post is readable by her, FYI.
I think that "friending" is the wrong verb BTW because unlike Friendster where you're actually indicating the presence of a friendship this is indicating a desire to read comments. LJ should have probably picked "subscribers" instead.
I also subscribed to her journal because I look forward to reading her insane disjointed tirades against whatever has inadvertently attraced her wrath. (I read drieuxster for the same reason.)
Comments 20
Reply
Reply
Reply
I just got back from it, and I firmly enjoyed it. Sure, it could have been shorter, and some of the casting and new characters and little added bits felt off (but some casting and new bits were brilliant), but I was squirming and happy and sad and touched and thrilled etc...
Reply
Besides, there's a lot worse things in life than to watch Naomi Watts emote for three hours.
Reply
I guess I'm just a big softie. Or maybe I'm a furry and didn't know it.
I was definitely uncomfortable with the "natives"--I had to force myself to chalk that up to "it has to be in the plot or it isn't King Kong". Otherwise, though, not much about the film bothered me, including the cheesy/campy parts. (I didn't really like the delivery of the final line, though.)
Reply
Reply
Given the fact that movies have a time constraint, in the back of my mind there's always a silent caveat of "Oh, thata bonding scene would have played out better over several days or so", but that's what novels are for.
But I not only believed the chemistry, but I thought the characteriztion of Kong was what sold him as a character. I think Andy Serkis has the mocap digi-character niche swen up in Hollywood for a while.
Reply
That's no way to talk about Scott, and if you had any decency you'd stop talking about their relationship and move on.
Reply
Reply
I think that "friending" is the wrong verb BTW because unlike Friendster where you're actually indicating the presence of a friendship this is indicating a desire to read comments. LJ should have probably picked "subscribers" instead.
I also subscribed to her journal because I look forward to reading her insane disjointed tirades against whatever has inadvertently attraced her wrath. (I read drieuxster for the same reason.)
Reply
Leave a comment