Blog Kong
What we've got here is... failure to communicate.
I can't believe it's been a month since my last post. Wish I could say that I've been too busy living life to be watching movies, but that wouldn't be living life now, would it? I've seen many, and enjoyed most.
As I type, I'm watching one of my favorite Oliver Stone movies, Talk Radio. It's considered an Independent, but it's more polished than most, considering it was made in 1988. The movie is about a talk radio personality, shot mostly in a radio studio during a broadcast. It stars Eric Bogosian, who co-wrote the script, loosely based on Alan Berg, an outspoken radio host who was gunned down by white supremacists, and similar to a Tom Leykis style of presentation. It's verbally combative and over the top, but very engaging. Recommended if you're a fan of talk radio and character studies.
Last night I saw King Kong, the 1933 original starring Fay Wray. I had never seen it, but was quite impressed. My grandma saw it during its original release, when she was only 11 years old and remembers it quite clearly. Kong is quite dated, but not as much as a 72 year old movie should be. The special FX are laughable in some scenes, but always entertaining, even believable in some respects and still packing an emotional punch. This is a movie all film enthusiasts should see -- especially if one is planning on seeing the new Kong coming out in 2 weeks, like myself.
Before blogging off, I must say I recommend seeing 2005's Pride and Prejudice, especially if you're a fan of Jane Austen's work. While it's quite good, it's not my favorite P&P -- 1995's miniseries is a superior version, which is about twice as long as this new one, allowing the full story to unfold. There are characters that get shorted this time around, but this 2005 version ultimately holds its own.
Halfway through the first act, I didn't think I was going to like P&P for 2 reasons: Giggling girls and pig testicles.
The director, Joe Wright, must have been going for a cheap laugh in the early scenes because there was a very blatant quick-shot (almost a double-take) of a large pig's testicles as its lead through the front door. If you ask me, it was completely out of place, drawing me out of the picture. I probably would have forgiven this bizarre shot more quickly, but I'm fairly certain that Jane Austen does not refer to them in her book.
The second thing that slightly bothered me were the annoying giggles of the young Bennet girls. This was probably done intentionally as to accentuate the crude behavior of which is so objectionable to the upper class. The 1995 version was a more refined version, and the casting was much older. The actual age of the Bennet girls in Austen's novel are more on scale with the actors cast in this new P&P, but again it was done for forgivable reasons, though I still found it somewhat bothersome.
As for the lead characters, I liked the ultra-stoic portrayal of Mr. Darcy, but he was too sober at times. Again, I'm used to the 1995 Mr. Darcy, and also found that version to have much better chemistry between Darcy and Lizzie. Which brings me to Keira Knightley's role: I like Keira -- she's a good actress, however, I don't entirely buy her as the well-grounded Elizabeth Bennet. She was a bit too 'girlish' for my tastes.
Wow - reading back over this, it seems I didn't like this Pride and Prejudice much? I don't mean to come across that way because I did really enjoy this movie, and would like to see it again. The cinematography was beautiful, and the overall acting was rewarding. The writers did an excellent job cutting down the material into a bite size morsel, while keeping the flavor entirely Jane Austen.
I can't believe it's been a month since my last post. Wish I could say that I've been too busy living life to be watching movies, but that wouldn't be living life now, would it? I've seen many, and enjoyed most.
As I type, I'm watching one of my favorite Oliver Stone movies, Talk Radio. It's considered an Independent, but it's more polished than most, considering it was made in 1988. The movie is about a talk radio personality, shot mostly in a radio studio during a broadcast. It stars Eric Bogosian, who co-wrote the script, loosely based on Alan Berg, an outspoken radio host who was gunned down by white supremacists, and similar to a Tom Leykis style of presentation. It's verbally combative and over the top, but very engaging. Recommended if you're a fan of talk radio and character studies.
Last night I saw King Kong, the 1933 original starring Fay Wray. I had never seen it, but was quite impressed. My grandma saw it during its original release, when she was only 11 years old and remembers it quite clearly. Kong is quite dated, but not as much as a 72 year old movie should be. The special FX are laughable in some scenes, but always entertaining, even believable in some respects and still packing an emotional punch. This is a movie all film enthusiasts should see -- especially if one is planning on seeing the new Kong coming out in 2 weeks, like myself.
Before blogging off, I must say I recommend seeing 2005's Pride and Prejudice, especially if you're a fan of Jane Austen's work. While it's quite good, it's not my favorite P&P -- 1995's miniseries is a superior version, which is about twice as long as this new one, allowing the full story to unfold. There are characters that get shorted this time around, but this 2005 version ultimately holds its own.
Halfway through the first act, I didn't think I was going to like P&P for 2 reasons: Giggling girls and pig testicles.
The director, Joe Wright, must have been going for a cheap laugh in the early scenes because there was a very blatant quick-shot (almost a double-take) of a large pig's testicles as its lead through the front door. If you ask me, it was completely out of place, drawing me out of the picture. I probably would have forgiven this bizarre shot more quickly, but I'm fairly certain that Jane Austen does not refer to them in her book.
The second thing that slightly bothered me were the annoying giggles of the young Bennet girls. This was probably done intentionally as to accentuate the crude behavior of which is so objectionable to the upper class. The 1995 version was a more refined version, and the casting was much older. The actual age of the Bennet girls in Austen's novel are more on scale with the actors cast in this new P&P, but again it was done for forgivable reasons, though I still found it somewhat bothersome.
As for the lead characters, I liked the ultra-stoic portrayal of Mr. Darcy, but he was too sober at times. Again, I'm used to the 1995 Mr. Darcy, and also found that version to have much better chemistry between Darcy and Lizzie. Which brings me to Keira Knightley's role: I like Keira -- she's a good actress, however, I don't entirely buy her as the well-grounded Elizabeth Bennet. She was a bit too 'girlish' for my tastes.
Wow - reading back over this, it seems I didn't like this Pride and Prejudice much? I don't mean to come across that way because I did really enjoy this movie, and would like to see it again. The cinematography was beautiful, and the overall acting was rewarding. The writers did an excellent job cutting down the material into a bite size morsel, while keeping the flavor entirely Jane Austen.
posted by Eric. Lori. at 10:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home