A winter storm knocked out the lights at my home in Woodstock at 3 a.m. With the lights went the heat and the water. The Karaoke Queen and I decided that our best bet was to eat breakfast in Kingston and see King Kong.
The original King Kong, filmed in 1933, ran 1 hour and 40 minutes. The new version runs 3 hours and 5 minutes. With a budget of $205 million, Peter Jackson produced a blockbuster of computer animation and on location shooting. Jackson fills up all that time by expanding the development of the characters, and in particular by creating a more sympathetic and deeper relationship between Kong and his blond girlfriend, Ann Darrow.
I enjoyed the movie. Kong is a sort of fairy tale, a completely original story… something rarely achieved.
Don’t look for a deeper meaning to the story. I don’t think that it has any. However, if you want to read the most obvious (and predictably leftist) interpretation, go here. The oooga-booga scenes on Skull Island are wildly scandalous.
The major subject of the film is the making of movies and the deep cynicism of show business. Everything, including the death of most of the members of the expeditionary crew that captures Kong, is just so much grist for the mill for an audience that craves sensationalism. So, perhaps, the deeper meaning of Kong is simply boredom… the boredom of the modern city dweller living the secure life of an office worker.
From this standpoint, King Kong looks pretty much like the Walter Mitty dreams of Peter Jackson, and his alter ego, Carl Denham.
Me, I liked the brontosarus stampede!
Posted by: Fausta | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 03:10 PM
That was good.
I liked the giant insect attack, too.
Posted by: Shouting Thomas | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 05:28 PM
bhooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot
Posted by: king kang | Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 06:24 AM