We actually went Monday, but you know how there's a lag time on these things. I liked it. I didn't watch the icky parts, I think I jumped every time a giant bug appeared, I made comments at Josh and he made good comments at me (i.e. he only mocked things that needed mocking), and I liked it.
I liked Chad Denham. He was so incredibly unreliable, and his eulogies made us gag, but he had a winning way about him. And I liked his approach to video cameras. He reminded us of a certain Hitman.
Naomi Watts was excellent. She was, to start with, pretty enough to pull off the role. And to continue with, she did a good job varying the wide-eyed/sad/awestruck look that she was required to use in every scene with Kong. It's harder acting when you have no lines to work with.
I did wonder why her arms didn't both break when Kong yanked her off the ropes. And surely she should have had more scrapes and bruises, running through the jungle in that thin little outfit, and being manhandled (ape-handled?) all the time. And her makeup stayed awfully good. But at least she got a little dirty.
Jack Driscoll --ah! ::happy moment:: I really liked him. He was a playwright. That's a good start, right there. He went through that entire jungle to rescue the girl. Jungles are good for men, unless of course they kill them. (Be heroic or be squished.) He defied a giant gorilla to get her--even better. He refused to profit off Kong being taken back to America. He was nice, heroic, and an all-round Good Guy. He can stay.
The cinematography was awesome cool. I liked the dinosaurs. And the dialogue, what there was of it, was quite tolerably well done. The swearing wasn't especially offensive. I could almost ignore it.
But the question did arise: what was the movie about? There seemed to be several thesis statements floating about. That would win it a C from Dr. Hake ("no thesis statement, or multiple conflicting theses"). These are the top contenders, in my opinion:
"Beauty is irresistible to men and beasts."
"Mystery is ruined when you can sell it for the price of admission."
"Dinosaurs and giant bugs don't like video tape."
"The native doesn't want chocolate."
"Monkeys must beware beauty."
"Jump, or you'll have to write in a cage."
Someone also suggested something about courtship, but I wasn't quite clear how to formulate that one. "If you drag the girl through the jungle, she'll only want to leave, but if you rescue her from the one dragging her through the jungle, she'll love you forever"? "Silent strength is no match for skill with a typewriter"? "A beautiful vista improves any relationship"?
Hahahaha! Personally, I thought the eulogies were hilarious. "He died for a good cause. And you know what? I'm going to dedicate this movie to him and give half of the proceeds to his wife and children." *approximation thereof* And then, he fulfills all expectations by repeating the exact same eulogy for the next guy. I thought that was a good touch. :)
ReplyDeleteMy main problem with the movie (besides the lack of thesis) is that it was just too long. They could have cut half of the action scenes.
Somethin' like that. I liked this guy's review best. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20675 And yes, I personally found Kong rather touching. My only difficulty was determining exactly... why.
ReplyDelete"Modernism killed the Beast."
Interesting links, guys. Thanks. I find it interesting how frontpage liked it and David ripped it to pieces. :-)
ReplyDeleteI also had noticed and appreciated the manliness in the movie. Jungles are worthy opponents when there's a girl to be saved. :-) Guys, you really should become adept with at least one type of weapon. Swords rock, but I begin to appreciate machine guns now too. ;-)
I at least tracked with the frontpage guy with his explication of Miss Darrow's femininity and how it was beauty that tamed the beast; have to ponder that a bit more before I buy it wholesale.
I thought Kong almost represented the way a guy feels when he's absolutely head-over-heels for a girl but can't and/or won't express his feelings for her. So he jumps around trying to act manly and usually ends up breaking things. :-) A kind of masculinity made absolutely helpless in the face of "Woman." Jack Driscoll, on the other hand, expresses himself with his mind and his actions. Hmmm, maybe I'm jumping a little far here, but do you think you could make a Platonic parallel: Jack = man who's reason rules his appeteites through his spirit, Kong = man who doesn't control himself through reason?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I liked it (especially appreciated the whole lets-go-rescue-the-woman-to-the-great-risk-of-our-lives-no-questions-asked part), though it was @ 45 minutes too long.
Assault rifles aren't. You can get a decent AK online for about $400. Swords are also good. Knives are nice. And batons RULE!
ReplyDeleteAnyway... I'm really amused. :) Maggie may be right, but I still identify more with Kong.
I have not seen this movie, but I feel I must make the following comments:
ReplyDeleteMiss *Darrow*? How ironic.
Sounds like the same reason I didn't like Star Wars III - too much. You really can only appreciate so many lightsaber duels in the course of a three hour movie. I'm guessing the same applies to crash-through-the-jungle-and-fight-anything-that-moves scenes.
Jonathan, I came across an interesting site online over break: fighting with a gentleman's walking stick. It also showed basics of fighting with umbrellas and switches - things like car antennae. I think we should take that up, as it takes more skill than firearms - enough to be satisfactory - whilst being more practical than a sword. :-D
- Nic