Tweet
didnt know Jackson was so critical of the 70s version. sorry but i was bored with most of his take on the big ape. the remake of mighty joe young was much better to me
-
-
Comment
-
I have never heard Jackson be critical of '76. I have heard him say he tried, with his movie to combine homages of the best of the '33 and '76 versions. I happen to like Jackson's version a lot, although '33 is the king. I have all three on blu ray (which for the 1976 one, was a neat trick and thanks to someone pointing out a USA usable import on this list for a good price)Comment
-
i just think the movie was way to long with alot of stuff that didnt need to be in itComment
-
Not only hot but a smoking body to!Did I read you right saying Fay Wray was ugly ?
I think you need glasses
mView My Customs
www.type3toys.com
or check here
http://megomuseum.com/community/memb...5-HumanWolfmanComment
-
Hell yeah!Hands down, 1976. The basic concept is far fetched any way you slice it. So, in my eyes, it needed some style to give the story some kick. The 1933 version is cool for it's day with regards to the stop motion animation. But by every standard, even for the 30's, the acting is horrid. The dialogue is horrid. Laughable actually. The 1976 nails it just right. The dialogue is humorous where it should be and applies emotion when needed. BUT it never takes itself too seriously. See that's the problem with the other two films. When they try and give the treatment this Shakespearean irony, the concept collapses and then becomes true camp. It's a giant animal that falls for a blonde. The idea of "Beauty killed the beast" carries with it many levels of meaning, but they don't all apply to the story of King Kong.
'76 Kong's approach to the sacrificial throne is still dramatic. The entrance for the 1933 and Jackson remake? Yawners. The girls - Fay Wray (ugly). Naomi Watts is pretty, but she's easily second place to Jessica Lange. Who wouldn't go ape over that body? The soundtracks - Sorry but John Barry is King of the Kong soundtracks. Nobody touches his memorable scores. His contributions lent so much to the mood of the '76 version.
The apes - The 1933 version barely resembles anything having to do with an ape. He's a hybrid of something else. And from that perspective, I agree with the interpretation. Kong is not just a big monkey. He's an entirely different breed which lends it's own mystique. The '76 version takes that to the next level and gives the ape more human qualities. And BTW, the arms were meant to be that length. That was not an oversight. Kong was purposely created to be part ape, part humanoid. I understood that as a kid, my kids understood it when they saw it. But there are still a few 'critics' who simply don't "get it".
The Jackson Kong is so ape-like he's without mystique. He's just a big ape. Well you lose something in that translation. He still needs to have that rare, old-world, look to him that both the '33 and '76 captured. The Jackson Kong just comes across as a mountain gorilla on steroids.
And one final comment - I quietly laughed at Jackson after seeing his film, because he was such a tasteless critic of the '76 remake. He went out of his way to attack the makers and cast of that film, which I thought was in bad form since they are his professional peers. He bowed at the throne of the '33 version and figuratively speaking, sucked it's arse. Unfortunately when it came to the approach of Kong he borrowed DIRECTLY from the '76 version. All of the humanistic qualities of Kong and his interaction with Naomi Watts was a direct steal from the '76 story. Those aspects were NOT in the '33 version. Fay Wray never bonded with Kong on any level. And she only felt pity for him after death, the way you would feel if you saw a dog on the side of the road. The '76 Kong attempted to reevaluate that relationship and make it more meaningful. The Jackson Kong followed in lockstep. So much for Jackson's criticisms. Hypocritical b*stard.Think OUTSIDE the Box! For the BEST in Repro & Custom Packaging!Comment
-
1933 version ... then Mighty Joe Young (1949).Comment
-
My vision is just fine...like this photo.Did I read you right saying Fay Wray was ugly ?
I think you need glasses
m No contest. Fay is not even in Jessica's zip code.
Comment
-
My vision is just fine...like this photo. No contest. Fay is not even in Jessica's zip code.
http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/file...4/KongLang.jpg
Oh for pete's sake you two! All the Kong chicks were hot. I'm partial to Fay Wray myself.
I always have to remember a snarky review for King Kong '76 that referred to Jessica Lange as "former and future model" trying to imply she would never make it as an actress.Comment
-
Im in your corner Tom on this one!My vision is just fine...like this photo. No contest. Fay is not even in Jessica's zip code.
http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/file...4/KongLang.jpgComment
-
Both women were cinematic goddesses, each in their own (polarizing) eras.
Would it be fair to say that a preference for Jessica may be rooted in the fact that when seen on the big screen for the first time we were hormone raging err...impressionable young teens? Whereas our first images of Fay Wray were witnessed way back in our youth when girls still had cooties and young women were Moms? Just a thought.
As for Jessica today...she is absolutely THE highlight of American Horror Story. (Wednesdays, 10PM, On FX -
).
Comment
-
Wow, she got old !!!Comment
-
Uhm... She's 62 years old fellas. When and if either of you make it to that stage, let's see how good you look. We're talking about these ladies in their prime during their respective Kong projects.Comment
Comment