Battle of the Beasts

My friends I have reached a new ground with these films. I am honestly at a loss for a loser. Do I fault the original for its cheesiness when the technology was simply not available at that time? Do I blame Jackson's version for being so damn long when he was able to achieve EVERYTHING that the original was trying to? I think there is only one answer. For the first time...we have...a...

TIE

The first one lacked the technology but was still very entertaining. Its a movie I honestly would not mind watching again--which is a big accomplishment for an oldie, no matter how classic or groundbreaking. The remake was fantastic. It was Cooper's movie fully realized.

But don't just take my word for it. Go watch both films. Watching them back to back will help you appreciate both films so much more. Seriously, go. Then come back here and tell me if you agree. :)

Now THAT'S How a Giant Gorilla is Supposed to Look

King Kong (2005)

Jackson didn't just beef up the graphics in this one--the characters, the plot line, even the run time was jumbo sized in this epic remake of GARGANTUAN proportions.

What Rocked

This movie, in my opinion, succeeded in doing what every remake is supposed to do. First, it fulfilled our need for the bigger, badder special effects. The first Kong was just shouting, "Please make me better some day!" And Jackson did. The effects were incredible. Kong was perfect. I honestly cannot imagine someone doing it better someday. I think the quest for a better Kong is now complete.
Second, it playfully added pieces of the original to show its respects. Father of the Bride did this well; Psycho did not. The references to the original were subtle, but lovely. My favorite was the scene in the beginning where Denham (Black) and Preston (Hanks) were discussing possible actresses for the movie. The dialogue went something like this:

Preston: "She'd have to fit a size 4."
Denham: "Fay's a size 4." <~~~ original Ann Darrow
Preston: "Yes, but she's doing a movie
with RKO." <~~~~~original production company
Denham: "Cooper. I should have known" <~~~~~ original director
Love it. Its like they were filming the same movie at the same time!
Next positive remake trait, it took what the original did and amplified it. Darrow, Denham, and Driscoll were all given more layers and more of a story. We were even given more characters that we could become attached too, especially little Jimmy. I was rootin' for that kid the whole way; thank God they didn't kill him off. Kong was even beefed up. In the first film he fought off one t-rex. In this film he didn't fight off one...not two...but THREE toothy devils. That is one badass monkey.
That brings me to my favorite part of this film: the relationship between Kong and Anne. When I read the review of the first one that mentioned people crying, I envied their responses. Jackson's film got me there. He made Kong more than just a monster. He humanized him through the playful and emotional scenes with Anne. Naomi Watts did an excellent job, by the way. Lovely and loveable. I cared for both of them deeply, which made the movie's climactic end much more powerful for me.

What Blew

Most of my complaints are really nit-picky. While I do give major props for Jack Black's performance--I was surprised to see him have so much control-- I could not decide how I felt about his character. Was he a good guy or a bad guy? It seems that his actions were pretty bad, but his attitude made him not so dark. The ambiguity frustrated me. The natives were terrifying. As soon as they came into the movie, the entire mood dipped sharply down. It was a very abrupt shift--I would say too abrupt--from "yay we're on a boat!" to crashing waves, head bashing, and voodoo chants. I thought I had flipped over to some horror flick that I would never watch intentionally (I'm a big chicken).
They put the damn spiders back in. Not only that, they added giant worms, giant cockroaches, giant millipedes....ugh ::shiver::. I'm not gonna lie....I fast-forwarded it a bit. I just couldn't handle it, and I think the whole thing could have been skipped.
Fast-forwarding may have helped this movie more than once. It is over 3 hours long....that is too long. Very few movies are still good 2.5 hours into it, and I always prefer it when they keep it short. They achieved a LOT in this movie; I mean the plot was always a vast one. But I think they could have cut many of the scenes just a little so that the movie would not have been so damn long. For goodness sake the first one was only like 100 minutes and this one took that long just to get to Skull Island.

What Others Thought

• Oscar finally gave Kong his crown-- three actually. All for the technical stuff, though.
• RottenTomatoes dialed down its monkey-loving, giving only an 83% to Jackson's film: "Peter Jackson’s dream project is as good as event movies get; King Kong is visually spectacular and emotionally resonant." It sounds like they agree with me, just not as enthusiastically. (BTW I peeked at the '76 version's score and it only got a 48%--so I guess I didn't miss much.)
• I think Stephanie Zacharek encapsulated my feelings well: "But good things do come in big packages. The trick for any filmmaker is to find the small movie within the big one, which is exactly what Peter Jackson does in King Kong." Jackson certainly found the delicacies--especially in the relationships--in the big picture and brought them to the foreground masterfully.
  
• I liked Paul Clinton's sentiments: "In a word, Jackson's "King Kong," is spectacular, awesome, phenomenal and breathtaking. OK, so I can't boil it down to one word." Very cute.
  
• Time Magazine's remarks sting--but they do have a point: "And our response to the ape's doom, once touched by authentic tragedy, is now marked by relief that this wretchedly excessive movie is finally over." Yeah, the length really hurt the film.
  

In sum, the movie was a visual and emotional masterpiece--but could have been condensed for better impact.

What Else You Should Know

Excellent news for all those who miss the up-close-and-personal interaction with the hairy man himself. Growing up in Florida, I always LOVED the King Kong ride at Universal Studios. I had the script memorized; it was my dream to one day work that ride myself. Alas, the ride was closed to make room for newer, more exciting rides (aka The Mummy which BTW I just found out is also a remake; man they really are everywhere...) But Peter Jackson just announced at comic-con that the big guy IS going to be returning to the California Universal Studios:

"In the new attraction, Jackson said the tram will drive onto a motion-simulator base inside a darkened soundstage surrounded by eight Cinerama screens that envelop riders with a wraparound view of Skull Island, according to Ain’t It Cool News."

So if you want to meet Kong yourself, time to go West.
For those of us stuck home because of budget restraints--damn economy keeping me from giant apes-- Jackson ALSO recently announced a prequel to the movie. Woot woot! Kong Lives!

It was Beauty Killed the Beast

King Kong (1933)

Who wouldn't love that face? That big hairy creature made its debut to a screaming audience in 1933. It was groundbreaking in special effects and is as legendary as its primate lead.

What Rocked

I was really impressed with this film. Going in I expected to be laughing my ass off at the cheesy acting and cheesier special effects. I'll admit, every close up of Kong's face made me chuckle, but the fight scenes were not half bad. And they were long fight scenes! That is something I really don't understand in big action flicks today-- they spend all this money on CGI and explosions so that the audience can enjoy 4 seconds of hardcore monster v. monster battle. But the '33 audience got to see Kong wrestle T-rex, Little Foot, and a flippin' pterodactyl--not to mention his assault on the unsuspecting train car-- for a good portion of the movie.
Kong may have looked like a silly ape, but they took great care to make him natural. His behaviors were very gorilla-like. And watch the scene on the Empire State Building at the end carefully and you can see even see his hair being blown by the wind. It showed great attention to detail.
I thought the pace of the film was very good; it jumped right into the action. And I really loved Fay Wray. She was the perfect blend of bravery and sweetness and played the damsel in the distress exquisitely. If only they didn't make her scream quite so often...

What Blew

I won't waste my time criticizing the overture, even though for a modern audience it is just torture (thank God for fast forwarding). Nor will I spend too much time talking about the incredible amount of sexism in the beginning of the film-- "all women are a nuisance." The girl was a sweet, penny-less dear who didn't ask for anything and they still all gave her a hard time. Such crap. And her romance...love the development on that one. Anyone who complains about Edward and Bella falling in love too fast need to watch this couple. One second he hates all women the next he's laying down his best lines on her-- "Uh...yeah...well...I guess I love you." Swear to God that is near verbatim. I think the monkey did a better job wooing her.
My GOD were the deaths in this thing brutal! It was so unexpected. IMDB puts the body count at 40, and they did not go easy. Granted it is nothing compared to the slasher films of today, but still watching 10 men fall into a deep crevasse and hit the bottom--ouch. Apparently I was spared the worst of it though, as a violent scene was cut after the Production Code was enforced in 1934 :

"It was a graphic scene following Kong shaking four sailors off the log bridge, causing them to fall into a ravine where they were eaten alive by giant spiders. At the preview screening, audience members screamed and either left the theatre or talked about the grisly sequence throughout the subsequent scenes, disrupting the film. Said the film's producer, Meriam C. Cooper, 'It stopped the picture cold, so the next day back at the studio, I took it out myself.'"

Yeah, I think the film was good giant-spider-free.

What Others Thought

• How Kong didn't win any Oscars...I don't know. But it has won a couple other lesser awards.
• Holy crap. I didn't know RottenTomatoes gave out 100% ratings. They must have really loved it: "King Kong explores the soul of a monster -- making audiences scream and cry throughout the film -- in large part due to Kong's breakthrough special effects." Well I didn't cry, but I do respect those special effects.
• Newsweek named it the 47th greatest movie all time.
• King of Critics (Ebert) conveyed of Kong: "Even allowing for its slow start, wooden acting and wall-to-wall screaming, there is something ageless and primeval about King Kong that still somehow works." He didn't agree with my belief that the film had good pace, but didn't completely bash it.
• Though James Berardinelli feels that today's technology dwarfs the original, he still has plenty of praise: "Still, in watching these old black-and-white images which were assembled with craftsmanship and care long before computers made this stuff easy, it's impossible not to feel some sense of awe at what was accomplished those many years ago. In many ways, Kong is still king." Amen to that.
  

A marvel in its time and still commands great respect today-- I think that that is a great compliment for a sci-fi flick from the 30's.

What Else You Should Know

There have been multiple attempts at Kong films. In 1976 there was a remake starring Jeff Bridges and introducing Jessica Lange. Because of time constraints I decided to skip this one and jump right into Peter Jackson's version. But the '76 one looks decent. The trailer shows they changed the story a bit and Kong looks...well a little better than the first one...but I can't wait to see what Jackson was able to do in his film.

Still asking myself WHY?

I think the winner is pretty obvious so I won't bother with a drum roll. Hitchcock's version was so good Van Sant really had nothing to improve upon.

Psycho (1960) wins hands down.

Differences That Mattered

• Nice try Vincey. He looked slim, but still didn't capture that same essence that made Norman Bates so freaking creepy. I think Vaughn is too straight-forward to be able to keep his insanity a secret. It just didn't work for me and I feel that if I hadn't known the ending I would have picked up on his craziness right away.
  
• So Van Sant spent all this time and energy making all these minute details match the original...and then he goes and adds the most ridiculous and unnecessary things. The masturbating, the weird clips...why? It's like let's take this masterpiece and then smear poo on certain pieces. I just do not understand it. At all.

I think Ken Marks at the New Yorker had the perfect question: "If the original did not exist, would this picture be worth seeing?" If we didn't have the marvelous original to hold this one up against, would this be appreciated more? Or would Van Sant's changes blur the genius of the plot? I guess we'll never know, and I'm glad for that.

Check in. Unpack. Relax. Take a shower.

Psycho (1998 Version)

Hmmm. Not a fan.

What Rocked

From the opening credits, this movie did a ridiculously good job at mimicking the tiniest details of Hitchcock's film. The dialogue, the sets, even the exact motions of Norman when he is cleaning up the body were identical to the original. Gus Van Sant must have watched the original four million times to get the details so perfectly. It was neat to watch--at first. I'll get more into that later.
Yay for sound mixing! In our modern movie world we now have better technology and new skills to make the sound in movies more realistic and effective. This movie still used the suspenseful EEE EEE EEE EEE, but they were able to incorporate plenty of background noise and such into the "lighter" scenes so that I didn't have that same "omg that's enough" feeling that I did with the first one.
I liked the idea of making Sam a cowboy (although cowboy Sam and the motel reminded me too much of Fool For Love-- and brought back some awful memories of film class...). I also liked the sister better. Julianne Moore is a respectable actress I think--no Cate Blanchette, but still good. I think her character had a nice edge to her which made her more interesting.
The gore, though more graphic than in the original, was still not nearly as awful as I thought it would be. The shower scene actually looked much more realistic than the first one (yay for there being more than 3 drops of blood after being stabbed like a dozen times!). Even the cuts on the P.I.'s face weren't enough to bother my overly-squeemish self.
I think the film had a much faster pace than the original, which is good because there is no point in dragging it out when the secret is already spoiled (even Hitchcock wouldn't be able to hide the ending of a remake...or would he?)

What Blew

I appreciate the care and precision used to recreate the smallest details of Hitchcock's world...BUT WHY? Why remake a movie and do it exactly the same way, with a few added--and unnecessarily disturbing-- traits? I was not surprised that there was more nudity. Welcome to modern movies. And I did not mind seeing Vigo Mortenson's tushie one little bit. But the masturbating scene? Really? Like it wasn't enough that Norman was a dirty little peeping tom--he also has to molest himself in order to get a strong effect. Have we really become that desensitized to perversion?
For the real WTF moment--William H. Macy's death. So he gets sliced in the face...and falls down the stairs. But wait... WTF are those little snippets of scenes before he falls? Even when Anne Heche was being brutalized there were images of like a storm or something, but those didn't bother me so much. When Macy dies there's a naked woman in a mask...and then a cow on a street....WTF?! The trailer for the movie (which is in the special features of the DVD, but I can't seem to find it online anywhere) seems to say that those images are in Norman's mind, but the movie makes no such connection.

What Others Thought

• No Oscar nods for this one...but it did win two Razzies...ouch.
• RottenTomatoes offers a brutal 36%, saying "Van Sant's pointless remake neither improves or illuminates Hitchcock's original."
• Peter Brunette of Film.com captures my sentiments exactly: "So much of Van Sant's 'new' version of the classic remains the same that you sit there shaking your head, mumbling, why, oh, why?" I don't know, Pete. I just don't know.
  
• Another had-to-put quotes, this time from the Washington Post: "This Psycho seems a little nuts." Doesn't say much, but it made me giggle.
  
• The New York Times seemed to enjoy it: "It remains the most structurally elegant and sneakily playful of thrillers. At least some things never change."

For the most part, people felt this remake was a waste of time. Why fix what ain't broke, I guess?

What Else You Should Know

According to the behind the scenes stuff on the DVD, Van Sant was so crazy meticulous about the details that he even stuck in any errors from the first film, such as doors being opened without being unlocked and stuff. I suggest watching the special features for this one. I think they were more enjoyable than the film.

A Boy's Best Friend is His Mother.

Psycho (1960 Version)

I know I promised you monkeys, but I felt like going bananas instead. HardeeharHar. I have never seen either of the Psycho movies so I really wanted to have this battle. I can tell you right now...if you have never seen or heard anything about this movie (which I HIGHLY doubt) go watch it right now. Stop reading this because I will ruin it for you and GO. For those of us still around, here's what I thought:

What Rocked

I was not expecting to enjoy this movie. For one thing, I am not a horror buff. You may have picked up on my aversion to blood and violence from my review of The Departed. Secondly, I have seen so many older movies that have been RAVED about time and time again and then I see them and walk away thinking, that was it? So my expectations were low.
Oh. My. God. This movie was fantastic! It was so much more risque than I thought was allowed (I didn't realize Hitchcock intentionally made the movie in black and white even though colored films were being made at that time). The suspense was incredible. I finally got to see where infamous "EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE" music that has been used and reused in movies and television shows was born. I'm rambling... let me start from the beginning.
This was a classic tale of why good girls should stay good-- and avoid spooky motels. We have Marion who, other than fornicating with her boyfriend in sleazy motels whenever she can, is a wholesome girl. Then she decides to steal from her job and runaway. Dun dun dun. Hitchcock did a great job of capturing that feeling of guilt and adrenaline during Marion's flee from Phoenix. She sees her boss, she gets followed by a cop, all these little things that put guilty little knots in your stomach.
Then we meet Norman. He is a perfectly standup guy at first. Adorably innocent even. But things get weirder and weirder--his mother screaming up at the house, stuffed birds all over his parlor, and that conversation about mental institutions...yeah, he's a creeper. But if I had not known the ending before seeing the film--damn Universal Studios Alfred Hitchock Show wrecking my life-- I would never have been able to see it coming. Never.
Proof that I would have been scared shitless-- I jumped like a rabbit when the "mother" killed the private investigator. Didn't know that was gonna happen. And that MUSIC. Ugh. Slayed me. Pun intended.
The gore was not over the top. Thank you Mr. Hitchcock for knowing that horror movies don't need to be graphic to scare the pants of someone.

What Blew

The music was a major factor in the success of this film. At the same time, however, it was a bit much at times. During those crucial scenes--the murders, the discoveries, etc.-- sure, blast us away. But there were just normal scenes where the music seemed a bit overpowering. There was no subtlety used in this movie; it was EEE EEE EEE or nothing.

What Others Thought

• Psycho was nominated for 4 gold guys-- but best actor wasn't one of them! That image (shown above) deserves an Oscar on its own!
• Rave reviews from RottenTomatoes. They gave it a 98% and bowed down in awe: "Infamous for its shower scene, but immortal for its contribution to the horror genre. Because Psycho was filmed with tact, grace, and art, Hitchcock didn't just create modern horror, he validated it." Doesn't get much better than that.
  
• I love this quote from Mary Elizabeth Williams from Salon.com: "All those who still get a chill every time they step into a hotel shower, say aye. That, you see, is the power of Psycho." I know I won't be showering carelessly for a while.
  
• Not everyone seems to be as enamored as us though. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times writes:"[Hitchcock's] denouement falls quite flat for us. But the acting is fair." I bet he still freaks out in the shower at motels though.

The world loves their Hitchcock. The American Film Institute (AFI) puts it at the very top of it's 100 Years...100 Thrills list. This is one classic film that I feel deserves its limelight.


What Else You Should Know

There are dozens of fun little trivia notes about this movie on IMDB. Go read them! Some of my favorites are:

• "The blood was Bosco chocolate syrup."

• "The stabbing scene in the shower is reported to have taken seven days to shoot using 70 different camera angles but only lasts 45 seconds in the movie."

• "In the novel, the character of "Marion" was "Mary" Crane. The name was changed because the studio legal department found that two real people named Mary Crane lived in Phoenix, Arizona."

• "Marion's white 1957 Ford sedan is the same car (owned by Universal) that the Cleaver family drove on "Leave It to Beaver" (1957)."

• And all of the ones about how Hitchcock tried to keep it a secret. He was the man.

The reviews of the remake are not so good. But I am an avid Vince Vaughn fan. Let's see how the big, burly man did as a mother-obsessed psycho.

A Difficult Battle...

I am really torn over the FOB battle. One one hand, I clearly enjoyed Martin's version more (hello, look at the lists of rocked vs. blew). But my sense of fairness seems jilted. Had I been around in the 50s I most likely would have loved the Tracy movie. For its time, it is superb. Really I want to pay it its due respect.

In the end though...
this is my blog....
so...I declare the winner...
and the winner is...

Father of the Bride
(1991 Version)

Differences That Mattered

• Franck.
  
• Continuity of the humor throughout the movie, all the way up till the end.
  
• The non-differences--meaning the remakes ability to use the whatever recycled bits of the original that it could. That shows it really honored the first one I think.
  
• Sorry, but I connected so well with the culture of the second film and could not connect hardly at all with the first. That is not the movie's fault, but it is the truth.
  

I really am feeling guilty over this ruling. What do you guys think? Am I being close-minded in counting out the original just because of its outdated values? Are the critics right?


Another battle over. More to come. Shall it be Apes or Giant Gorillas? We shall see.