Darklord Dave said:
I'm completely surprised at how the original is venerated. It is monumentally significant in film history and I can appreciate it as an archaelogical artifact, but for pure enjoyment the current film is as far superior to the '33 Kong as ANH is to a Flash Gordon serial.
I disagree, I just watched the '33 version last week, and LOVED it. There are so many elements to it that are great to me.
1. The ethereal look of the jungle. PJ himself spoke about how the original is sort of the benchmark for the way certain films look. The background is bathed in a sort of white light that spills out over the jungle. It's beautiful.
Watching the DVD and seeing the different layers of scenery painted on glass, the stop-motion, rear-projection, etc. is the way I like my movies. To me it's sort of like the original SW vs. the special editions. Sure one is technically better, but I prefer models and rubber masks. I guess I'm just old fashioned (and I'm only 26.
).
2. There are just so many moments in the original that I love. When the head tribesman comes down the steps upon first introduction, the music is timed perfectly to his footsteps. I didn't really find much in the new version that impressed me. Actually, as you can see above, the things I liked were the references to the original.
There are so many subtle animations on Kong that no doubt took O'Brien days upon days to do. I love how he smells a flower in his cave just before he grabs Ann.
3. If I had to choose my 5 favorite black and white older films, King Kong would no doubt be one of them. To me, it's easily one of the 100 best films ever made (the AFI happens to agree with me on that subject, however bad that list may be). I only go to the movies these days for the big effects pictures and the art house stuff. I've seen 5 "big films" this year- ROTS, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, Harry Potter, and King Kong. I loved the first 4 and only liked Kong. I just wasn't impressed.
The New York bookends at the beginning and end are miles ahead of the original, IMO, due their portrayal of the city at the time. I loved seeing Broadway circa 1933. I thought it was beautiful.
Really, my opinion doesn't matter much. What do I know? I wanted to like this movie SO badly.
Maybe I just need to see it again with a different view of it. PJ followed Tolkien's work so well that I was disappointed with how little of the original '33 Kong remains in this film. I'll try and go again sometime over Christmas.
Now that I think about it, this film is pretty comparable to Revenge of the Sith. Some people love it, and some people hate it. Both have nearly identical scores on Rotten Tomatoes (the best site for analysis of what the critics think). I loved ROTS and I know people that hated it, so I really need to give Kong another try.