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."

No comments:

Post a Comment