tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8944798.post113415146108882769..comments2024-01-18T05:18:48.819-05:00Comments on Wombat's World <small>(a blog for writer K. A. Laity)</small>: Kong is KingK. A. Laityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05983280397279864583noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8944798.post-1134653060732459202005-12-15T08:24:00.000-05:002005-12-15T08:24:00.000-05:00I can't make up my mind about this movie. I loved...I can't make up my mind about this movie. I loved a lot of the details, and I thought the love story was great.<BR/><BR/>But I am currently wrestling with two issues. (SPOILER ALERT)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>1) That island. Danger at every turn (except when there doesn't need to be, like when the characters need to get from one place to the next). So, it revels in its own spectacular movieness. But here's my problem: does it revel because it wants to, or because it has to? I don't think there's a soul alive who doesn't know (whether via direct or indirect contact with prior versions, or through the film's advertising, which clearly shows Kong in a cityscape) that the big monkey goes to New York. So, I can't help but feel that the action on the island has to be amped up to the point of absurdity to compensate for the fact that we *know* the principals will find their way back to civilization. Around the time when Anne was hanging from jaws of a T. Rex that was entangled in vines, while Kong fought its brother among more vines, I began to wonder whether the movie hadn't jumped the shark. And this was after Anne had already been chased by dinosaurs up above. And before the bugs.<BR/><BR/>(2) We are, I think, supposed to deplore Carl Denham's Kong show in New York for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is the indignity inflicted upon Kong. Another reason, though, seems to be the cheap thrill generated by putting (or seeming to put) a woman in danger -- like a twentieth century gladiatorial show, made safe by the fact that no one expects real carnage. If that's true, then how are we supposed to enjoy the first two hours of the film, where the "real" Anne falls prey to monsters of all sorts, some from her own species. How can that be less problematic than Denham's NYC spectacle? (Maybe this is endemic to the Kong movies as a whole -- I haven't seen the 1933 or the 1976 versions in some time. But given what we have to sit through on Skull Island in Jackon's version, I kind of doubt it.) And if the woman in danger isn't a problem, why isn't she?<BR/><BR/>I'm conflicted.Crispinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15806928003525908542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8944798.post-1134405657329681542005-12-12T11:40:00.000-05:002005-12-12T11:40:00.000-05:00John Shirley's posted his review, as well. (No pe...<A HREF="http://www.johnshirley.net/DesktopDefault.aspx" REL="nofollow">John Shirley's posted his review, as well</A>. (No permalinks, tho, dangit...)Gene Kannenberg, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04557131306122319206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8944798.post-1134236941828774672005-12-10T12:49:00.000-05:002005-12-10T12:49:00.000-05:00Hee hee -- I remember watching movies at the libra...Hee hee -- I remember watching movies at the library like that (Bretton Woods, which became a library after my kindergarten year there). We used to love that -- that's where I first saw Peter O'Toole in <I>The Ruling Class</I> (need to get the DVD!) and Tom Courtney in <I>I Heard the Owl Call My Name</I> which I remember only vaguely now, but I do remember it having a profound impact on my imagination at the time. The priest who comes to force his religion upon the "heathens" finds that they have knowledge and wisdom of their own, and no need of his. I wonder if that's on DVD?<BR/><BR/>Glad you liked the review -- I think you'll enjoy the film, it was lots of fun.C. Margery Kempehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15910282257993793334noreply@blogger.com