Pages

Thursday, August 18, 2011

King Kong



King Kong is a Peter Jackson remake, which is criticized by many idiots, who think the movies are only about the storyline. I really do not understand, how dare to criticize such a movie by couple sentences. “The movie is too long”, “Visual effects are unpleasantly”, “I’ve seen a camera shape on Jack Black’s ass”, “Driscoll’s nose is too long”…etc. The guy doesn’t even have a reason to dislike the movie and son of a bitch still keeps saying his nonsense. I’d like to pop an egg on his ass.

                I mean, it’s something I don’t understand. Why do people criticize movies with their storylines? They say, it wasn’t fluent and the screenplay wasn’t good. Say it wasn’t –and I really think it was- is it really enough to make the movie bad, you son of a bitch? I mean, if the storyline is everything, why do I watch the movie itself? They should publish the script as a book and I should just read it. Why does this thing contain huge stuff, like many cameras, visual/special effects, music, and actors? However, it’s not even necessary. I could go to a book store, buy it as a book, read it and say: “Bullshit!” and I could continue my life. But it’s not like that. When will you sons of bitches learn that the cinema is a visual art? You could go watch many Aronofsky movies –I’m sure you do- but if you try to fuck up a movie because it has action scenes, I’ll say: “Screw you!” Everyone says. If you have to criticize the movie, you’ll criticize the visual part, you’ll criticize the storyline, you’ll criticize the music, you’ll criticize the actors, you’ll criticize the director discretely. But if you try to criticize the movie by saying, “When he looks left, there is a burr in his eyes but when he looks right, there isn’t, ha-ha!” nobody will take you serious. Just stop watching movies like 13-year-old teenagers. When you are lost in the itty bitty details, the guy refers to a lot of movie and book while kidding with the human nature (its desire, its ambition, its wild).

                Since this Peter Jackson movie is a remake, it is criticized wildly and it’ll always be. They say, the King Kong in 1933 is much better than the Peter Jackson’s. People puff that movie up since it’s a classical American movie but what does this bad hat do? I was talking about that when I said visual stuff were also important. The 1933 version has 8.0 rating on IMDB and it really deserves it. But the screenplay of ‘33’s version seems so improvised –and I think it’s a rule to cut the movies short in that time period- it’s like, incomplete. I mean, you go love the original version, bosom it –and I’m a favor of it- but please don’t say the bullshit, “Who is Peter Jackson, man?”

                The King Kong in ’33 was like, boom-boom-boom, everything happened and done. It’s not even certain who is who. Even though, it’s obvious to see the starting point is about “Beauty and the Beast” because of the dialogues and references, life of the characters are so disconnected. The meeting of Ann Darrow and Carl Denham is just skipped by so quickly. Ignorant audience thinks it’s a good thing. Hey idiot! If you don’t give a real story to the character, how real can the events he’ll pass through sound real to the audience? If it was like you thought, the movie would have begun at the scene when Kong and Darrow met and it would have been ended by stupid action scenes. That is why Peter Jackson’s King Kong is very well done. Unlike the original movie, many details, which were skipped by in the original movie, were added and it’s tried to give a real story to the characters and to make them learn. I think, they succeeded. Although, it sounded so raw at the last scene in the first movie when Denham had said, “No, it wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed beast.” It was so meaningful to hear the same quote in the Peter Jackson’s version.


                Why is the 1933’s King Kong better than the Peter Jackson’s King Kong? As a true lover of classical American movies, I think this is a wrong idea. I think that movie’s fame is about being a classical American movie and having the original story. Americans have traditional obsessions. They worship the classical American stuff. Of course, there are many good classical American movies but in essence, maybe Peter Jackson hadn’t created an original story but he had added a meaning and depth, unlike the first movie.


                There is also an underrated King Kong movie in 1976. It has the basic story but it continues with a different storyline. In this movie, the crew goes out for exploring with the ship, tries to strike oil, not make a movie. Even though, these three King Kong movies have the same “Beauty and the Beast” theme, this movie evolves in a different way unlike the other two movies. The woman character is found in the ocean while the exploration goes on. Unlike the original movie and the Peter Jackson’s movie, the Prescott character, who corresponds to the Driscoll character, is clever and handsome person.

                In the original movie, when we have to watch, the woman’s squawks when she sees Kong,  in the 1976 or 2005 version, we see that the woman responds to his love. Especially, in the Peter Jackson’s version, these moments are fed into the movie and they actually added a meaning to the movie.

                Eventually; although, the 1933 version of King Kong is loved deeply since it’s a classical American movie, it has the original story, and it’s done by stop-motion technic; the shoal of the characters and the screenplay is turned into something depth, in the Peter Jackson’s version and it has a much deeper effect visually-naturally-. For instance, Jack Black fits the Carl Denham character perfectly. Furthermore, the references and homages in the movie aren’t overlooked and looked great.

                So What I want to say is, even though, the 1933 version deserves the praises, the Peter Jackson’s version is not a bad remake. Conversely, it must be watched over and over again.

               "And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty, and beauty stayed his hand. And from that day forward, he was as one dead."

Monday, August 8, 2011

Rise of the Planet of the Apes



I’ve recently seen “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and I’m sure I’ve seen the movie before many Americans since I’ve been living in Istanbul. So probably, when many Americans were just sleeping, I was watching the movie. So it was sort of exciting.

            Before giving lots of spoilers, I want to suggest reading my writing about “Planet of the Apes”, which is on this site. It’s also important because as you figure out, the movie has a connection with the old series of “Planet of the Apes”.

            Well… Here we go…

            First and foremost, the movie has a lot of references to the old “Planet of the Apes” movie, which was made in 1968. 

            For instance, it’s a reference to the older movie, when the blonde twerp guy, who “takes care” of the apes, shouts like “This is a mad house, a mad house!” or when Caesar takes his arm, he says, “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”. These are obvious references to the original movie. And Caesar starts speaking at that scene. It’s a good detail, too. And the important thing here is its message. It declares that everything may be opposite in the future.

            We also see news on the T.V. when the same twerp guy discusses with his brother. News is like, “First manned space shuttle is sent to Mars.” And that space shuttle is apparently George Taylor’s. In fact, we may even see the logo of “ANSA” if we look at the screen carefully. I don’t know that much. It’s also a reference to the character of Landon, from the first movie, that the brothers’ last names were “Landon”.

            Caesar’s mother’s was called “Bright Eyes” in the movie, it’s a reference to the Taylor character.

            Also, when one of those brothers was watching the T.V., there was a Charlton Heston movie. It was also a good detail.

            On the other hand, the beauty of the storyline and science fiction at the first movie was turned into something sensitive since it was a prequel, I guess. For instance, the relationship of Will and Caesar. Even though, we are not able to react like, “Whoa!” as we did in the first movie (and I think, its main reason is we’ve seen either the first movie and Tim Burton’s version), the events happened at the second part of the movie made us believe this movie was a prequel. Because some people were like, “This may even be an independent movie.” 

            Besides, it was not so fantasy as I’d expected. It was more realistic. Example, Apes didn’t capture the whole world by themselves as we expected. It was spread to the world by an accidental virus by the awkward team of Will’s. Especially, that guy, who carries the virus, works on an airport company. So it must have been easy to spread the virus to the whole world.

            Out of this, there aren’t huge Human and Ape wars as we expected and I think, it’s about the idea of making another “Planet of the Apes” movie. 

            To conclude, it's obviously not the greatest movie ever but there is another movie for us, the maniacs of Planet of the Apes movies, to watch. I like it a lot. Stop.

HOME


We’re coming across the ocean, by the noises of eagles. There is a couple in the jungle. They are curious as they are afraid a little bit. Jungle must be infinite. There are no foot-steps to follow. Only thing could be done is just walking around non-stop. We are not interested in who they are. We would have never asked, where are they coming from? Past is never important. People would not know about the past, instead of the future. Past is mysterious but future is outrageous. You can organize everything in your head but there may always be disorder.

                The girl is shaking by the night. Her man holds her in his arms. There is no sound but the noises of animals. Being alone with the nature turns them all. They have no ones to care for, they have no ones to be cared by. They have only each other to care for. He can look into her eyes and he can only care for her life in the jungle and he will have known that it was only her who cared for him. 

                She dies in his arms for no reason.

                “Away from the house, together in the home.”

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Planet of the Apes

1968

One of the greatest sci-fi movies ever in the cinematic history. An amazing post apocalyptic era. It’s an irony that the movie could not reach many people by its storyline, its editing, and its messages (it’s not at least as famous as Star Wars is). If you’re more of a science fiction person, it upsets you.

                Warning: This writing may contain some spoilers. Watch out!

                On the other hand, I don’t know if it’s a message that the main character of the movie (Taylor) was an idiot. Because he was a limitless idiot. The pimp thinks, giving statistics non-stop while enjoying the pipe is about being clever. You land on a planet, you see the apes are speaking, and you think it’s such a normal thing? And it’s also like a normal thing to see the apes speak in English for the guy (and I think it’s about Americans’ self confidence nature. “Our language must be spoken in the whole galaxy” thing). You would ask, wouldn’t you? “Okay, apes can speak. But why is it English? Where have you all learnt it?” Right? I’m saying, he was in a shock or something and he couldn’t get the whole thing. But there was an ape called “Cornelius”, man. It means, if you go to the east a little bit, you may see a gorilla named “Akira” or something. You should’ve just asked, “The language you speak, where have you learnt it?” Maybe, they are not in that capacity but you are a human-being, man.

                Besides, it’s an irony that a good movie like this contains the most rubbish scene. In question scene, Taylor and his team think they are landed on a different planet than the Earth and they start exploring the area. One of the guys tries to plant an American flag right next to the river. Taylor sees it and starts imitating a villain laughter like an animal. The camera zooms-in to Taylor’s mouth and rises to the sky. The result: God curse you all!

 Although, the remake of Planet of the Apes that Tim Burton has made is not as realistic and original as the first movie, it could make a good ending though. Acting and make-ups were also amazing. All characters in the movie have characteristics and original mimics. Even though, make-ups were really good in the first movie, it can’t be compared to the Tim Burton’s movie. Regardless, the first movie in ’68 has a very good storyline and editing that could change your point of view to life. It kids with the human-being virtually with its each dialogue and gives its message about the inability of human-being in the future. In our minds, apes are ugly but in their minds, we are not one of a kind snow flake. It holds against us that the idea of human-beings contain a harmful “potential”. It shows this with the “three monkeys” scene at the court (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) and the others. It shows us how we tried to block the scientific studies because they were “against” the religion. It shows us that we don’t respect for animals as we don’t respect for each other. But could the human-being, who is not aware of goings on, really understand all of this?
Furthermore, the movie makes up itself in a great way and it doesn’t even matter if we don’t understand it. It has given its message and contents with it. It accents on the possibility of how the future would be if there was an “apocalypse”. It shows us that if we keep thinking we are “intelligent” creatures and if we keep screwing up the whole environment, we’ll be hunting in the jungles couple thousands of years later. 

                I also want to give some technical information about the movie;

-         -  The movie has 2 million pound budget and the make-up part contains 17% of this. It was the most paid movie to make-up in time.
-          - The man, who acts as Taylor in the movie, had the flu during the movie. Producers went on like that-instead of waiting- by thinking his different voice added something to his character.
-          - 4th astronaut “Stewart” was written as a man.
-          - “Three Monkeys” scene was added to the movie improvisational. It made people laugh because the movie was threatening to become so serious.
-          - There weren’t any apes in the movie at the first 30 minutes.
-          - “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape.” Quote was selected as the 66th best quote by American Film Institute (out of 100).
-          - Space Shuttle and the clothes of Astronauts were marked “ANSA”. It’s the acronym of NASA.

To conclude, the main reason of waiting for “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is this movie, gentlemen. It’s so rare to see a creepy ending in a movie.

George Taylor: And that completes my final report until we reach touchdown. We're now on full automatic, in the hands of the computers. I have tucked my crew in for the long sleep and I'll be joining them soon. In less than an hour, we'll finish our sixth month out of cape kennedy. Six months in deep space - by our time, that is. According to Dr. Haslein's theory of time, in a vehicle travelling nearly the speed of light, the earth has aged nearly 700 years since we left it, while we've aged hardly at all. Maybe so. This much is probably true - the men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and gone. You who are reading me now are a different breed - i hope a better one. I leave the 20th century with no regrets. But one more thing - if anybody's listening, that is. Nothing scientific. It's purely personal. But seen from out here everything seems different. Time bends. Space is boundless. It squashes a man's ego. I feel lonely. That's about it. Tell me, though. Does man, that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother? Keep his neighbor's children starving?