The mafo's MoFo 100 List

→ in
Tools    





All great choices Marky, love your reviews
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
King Kong (Peter Jackson, 2005)



I know we have a few MoFos who don't especially care for the newest King Kong, but I'm a big fan of the film. Jackson found the right balance between crafting a loving homage to the 1933 original (his favorite film growing up) and retooling it for the CGI era. I admit that I'm usually not a fan of remakes, but I find this one to be the best version of the classic story. Although Jackson can be accused of making this Kong "too-everything" (too long, too bloated, too much CGI, too much emotion, etc.), he does accomplish quite a bit in the way of suspense, action, spectacle and a believable Beauty and the Beast story with terrific performances as the couple by Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis, the latter aided by the effects team. Jackson's production designers also got to create the spectacular New York City of the '30s and the exotic, otherworldly Skull Island where Kong and the other huge creatures from the past still roam in the wild.



The film is basically divided into three parts. Part One (52 minutes) begins in Depression-era NYC where comic actress Ann Darrow (Watts) has just lost her gig and is contemplating going to work at the burlesque house to earn enough to eat. At the same time, movie producer/director Carl Denham (Jack Black) has just learned that the studio heads hate the rushes from his latest "wildlife" picture and are going to fire him, so, escorted by his assistant Preston (Colin Hanks), he gathers together what he can and hightails it towards the ship waiting to transport him across the ocean to the mysterious location where he wants to finish up his project without the studios' help. His primary problem is that he's lost his leading lady, and Fay Wray isn't available since she's off working with Merian C. Cooper. (A nice in-joke since Wray played Ann in the '33 King Kong and Cooper co-directed it. There are several such references throughout the film.) Luckily for Carl, he comes across Ann and entices her to join him when he mentions that his film is being scripted by playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), an author with whom Ann would like to work. They get to the ship just before the studio execs and are introduced to Capt. Engelhorn (Thomas Kretschmann) and his crew which includes First Mate Hayes (Evan Parke), teenage former stowaway Jimmie (Jamie Bell) and Lumpy the cook (Serkis). Jack is also aboard ship, even if it originally isn't his idea. During the voyage, Denham gets plenty of footage with Ann and her leading man, prima donna Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), but the captain isn't happy that he's sailing for an uncharted island, and then he learns that Denham has a warrant out for his arrest. Just when it looks like they'll divert to Singapore to hand Denham over to the authorities, the ship enters a fog bank and eventually reaches Skull Island.



All the supporting characters seem to have some back stories going on. For example, the Captain seems to be a very soft-spoken guy but you can tell that he's at sea hiding from some haunted past. However, the most affectimg relationship of the lesser characters is the father-son one between Hayes and Jimmie. Hayes is trying to teach Jimmie life lessons, and Jimmie has just begun reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness, so their discussions of that book seem to be playing out in their true life adventure on the sea and at Skull Island. A relevant line is when Hayes tells Jimmie that the novel "isn't an adventure". After the setup and intro, Part Two (84 minutes) gets into the rock 'em, sock 'em action and creepy suspense, and this is where Jackson both pays faithful adulation to his fave film and deliberately tries to go into overdrive with a series of pumped action scenes which recreate but go well beyond the source. The original had one T. Rex; this one has three. [Note: Kong's battle with the three is both hilarious and has some startling 3-D looking shots, mostly involving the dinosaurs trying to eat Ann. I've heard some viewers complain that this fight scene is ludicrous and defies the laws of physics. Well, if you really think about that while watching a movie about a giant ape fighting three dinosaurs in 1933, then you probably shouldn't be watching this movie (and most fantasy) in the first place.] The original had one mad stampeding dinosaur; this one has dozens. The original had to cut out the gross-out scene with giant bugs and headsuckers; this one includes it using the original's storyboards.



The other thing which separates this Kong from the original is the emotional empathy between Kong and Ann. In the original, Ann was terrified of Kong throughout the movie and showed no other emotions toward him. Kong was interested in the way Ann smelled. In fact, he pokes her with his finger a few times and then raises it to his nose to get a good smell of her. He's obviously fascinated with Ann, but she just wants to get away from the "Monster". In the 1976 remake, which was also updated to the '70s, Jessica Lange doesn't even play Ann. Instead, she plays Dwan and she's terrified initially by Kong, but later when they spend some quiet time alone and she finds Kong to be her protector against even worse beasts, Dwan even gets turned on by what Kong can do to her body! She does feel some love for Kong though, however it's nothing like the attachment which develops between this version's Ann and Kong. Eventually, Ann holds on tight to Kong when she sees that he's the one who can save her from Skull Island's scary fauna. She also introduces Kong to the concepts of humor and beauty. There is a deep, mutual bond between the two characters which I find totally natural, no matter how many times I've heard somebody call it weird or stupid. So, even if some find this movie redundant or a vulgar waste of money, I find it a good, old-fashioned entertainment, but with a lot more heart and soul than the other versions.



Dehnam and the crewmembers are able to capture Kong and take him back to NYC where he displays the Ape as the Eighth Wonder of the World. Denham is really depicted as a weasly guy who'd probably sell his mother to get a hit in the entertainment business. Jack turns out to be a decent heroic figure. [Note: the original Kong has Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot) as the First Mate on the ship who was a heroic figure and Ann's human love interest. This film seems to turn that character into three characters: Brody's playwright, Parke's first mate, and Chandler's vain actor who, not so coincidentally, is named Bruce.] Part Three (40 minutes) is what happens when Kong is in NYC, leading up to the climax at the Empire State Building. We are witness to another array of spectacle and action made all the more fun by it occurring in a meticulously-recreated 1930's Times Square and environs. I don't think I need to go into any details about these scenes, but they don't disappoint me at all. Kong himself remains dignified right up to the very end.



I want to add that I grew up with the 1933 King Kong, and it was instrumental in my falling in love with the movies. The fact that you could see such things which were impossible has a big effect on a youngster. I think it's a classic and that everyone should watch it. My rating for it is
. However, I don't lionize it as others do. Willis O'Brien's stop-motion effects are incredible and a lot of fun, but the acting in the film isn't really A-quality. I mean, Fay Wray is beautiful and can scream with the best of them, but her co-stars aren't all that hot. Armstrong can play a big producer OK, but it's superficial, and Bruce Cabot is on the wooden side as the hero. Another thing is that the beginning is a little slow-moving. (Yes, I realize that many viewers complain that Part One of the 2005 version is slow and irrelevant, but I actually enjoyed the added time to get to know the characters. Even if many of the characters and their relationships don't "pay off" in the context of the plot, they do add depth and mystery to the film. I realize that some people today will just find the acting and FX of the original too hokey, but it's a real movie-movie, and I keep finding plenty of hokey acting and FX in today's films.



I'll even give the 1976 update a break and recommend that one too, at least until I see it again and perhaps change my mind. Although it's more sexually aware than the original, it actually isn't as sexy, but Jeff Bridges brings some seriousness to his role as an animal rights activist to help balance out Charles Grodin's broad, but amusing turn as a Snidely Whiplash-ish oil tycoon. Jessica Lange's screen debut is worth seeing even if the FX are laughably bad. So, all-in-all, a mixed bag, but still entertaining enough for me to give it a low
. I'll edit this if necessary upon a rewatch.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



You're a Genius all the time
I think all three Kongs are enjoyable to one degree or another, but I'm not really in love with any of them. The '76 version is probably my favorite of the three, albeit in a goofy sort of way. I was very impressed with Jackson's movie the first time I saw it, but the biggest problem I have with it now is it just doesn't hold up nearly as well on the small screen. I realize that 99% of movies are better viewed in a movie theater, but the '05 Kong loses so much in the transition. When I first saw it, I didn't notice the bloated running time or any other flaw you wanna throw out there. I was just caught up in the ride. But when I rented it two or three years ago or whatever, it bored the heck out of me.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Well, to make sure that I gave an honest impression of what I thought of it, I watched it the last two days on the smallest TV (20" diagonal) in the house without any stereo speakers, and I still loved it. But you're you, so I totally getcha.



The relationship between Kong and Ann was one of the best romances I've seen in a movie , but I didn't like how pretty much every other character was super-cartoony and one sided (key example : Jack Black as the director). The movie starts by introducing all these different characters and then most of them get thrown away or forgotten about half way in.

That New York was really amazing to look at though.
__________________



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Jack Black's Carl Denham could be considered cartoony, but he's out to save his career, and if a dozen or so shipmates die, and then even more New Yorkers bite the dust, Dehnam will only think about what he can do to make a name for himself, no matter what he says about "finishing the film and giving the profits to his family" BS. Denham, although superficially likable (probably because he's played by Jack Black), is downright psychotic in this version. You know, "Psycho"!



I love King Kong (2005). It's one of the movies that got me interested in film again. Watching it again, now, it's not as mind-blowing as it was when I first saw it in theaters (I hadn't seen many films back then), but that doesn't stop it from being a great remake. It shows why Peter Jackson is the man when it comes to remaking a film. The ultimate fanboy.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
#147: A Hard Day's Night (Richard Lester, 1964)



If anything, this film gains in significance and pleasure-inducement as each year passes by. Fans of the Beatles already have seen this film a gazillion times and know that all four of them were charming and humorous beyond belief. Not only were the Beatles meant to rule the radio airwaves, but for a brief time, thankfully recorded for posterity, they ruled the movies. This film, which is certainly as anarchic as a Marx Bros. classic and basically invented the music video, just lets the Beatles play themselves on frenetic tour during the crazy early Beatlemania days just after they had become a worldwide phenomenon. There is a semblance of a plot which helps because Paul's incredibly "clean" grandfather (Wifrid Brambell) is hilarious, as well as their Mutt and Jeff team of "pseudo-managers" (Norman Rossington and John Junkin). Then, who can ever forget Victor Spinetti as the sweater-wearing TV producer/director who is positive that the Beatles will ruin his career even if "I won an award... "

Fave Love Song from the Film:


American expatriate Lester had already directed a cute British musical omnibus flick called It's Trad, Dad!, which featured Chubby Checker, Gene Vincent, Del Shannon, Gary U.S. Bonds, etc., and then he made The Mouse on the Moon, the sequel to The Mouse That Roared, where he worked with Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Terry-Thomas, but neither of those could prepare a viewer for how innovative he made A Hard Day's Night. Sometimes, the thing was downright lyrical (when Ringo takes a holiday), but more often it was utterly insane with visual and verbal jokes flying by at a staccato pace. The musical numbers were filmed from completely straightforward to manic. All the Beatles' personalities were allowed to shine through. For example, it's here where we first see Ringo shooting photographs, and Ringo was the photographer for the group, going so far as being the director of photography in their "home movie", Magical Mystery Tour. Lennon's infectious smile and black humor are on fine display, while Paul and George both get to be charming with a touch of menace and romanticism. In fact, the scene where George tears into a pompous forecaster (Kenneth Haigh) of teen trends is a special highlight. Plus, George's future wife Pattie Boyd (nicknamed "Layla" ) is in the flick as one of the girls whom McCartney comes onto on the train.



I'll admit that sometimes I feel a bit sad watching this wonderful film, but mainly it just makes me happy to be alive and have good taste in movies and music. HA!



Also: Its best to watch this with the volume really loud. This was playing somewhere in town when I was a kid and my Dad being a Beatles fan took me along even though I think I was about 5 or 6. And boy I'll tell you what... it was probably the loudest movie I've ever seen with the screaming and the guitar and well, you know what I mean mark.

But yeah, we have the DVD and its superb.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Thanks for bumping this up the forum by posting your review of what I think may be the first music video of all time, as well as a really great film. I'm not going to bother listing all the movies on your list that I agree are deserving of their place on a list of the greatest movies ever, there are too many to name off. Gonna have to take some of your recommendations though and watch some of these listed here that I haven't seen yet.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
My pick is The Beatles ("The White Album"), their sprawling, 30-song opus which was mostly made by each Beatle individually. It covers the most stylistic ground, even though all four sides are sequenced appropriately. Side 1 = Hit Singles; Side 2 = Acoustic; Side 3 = Hard Rock; Side 4 = Eclectic, experimental. That's just my personal choice. I love every Beatle album, so I don't believe that there's a "wrong" answer.

Radiohead fans (count me in), does this remind you of anything?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
#148: Gentleman Jim (Raoul Walsh, 1942)



This is my fave Flynn flick and also the best Raoul Walsh film in my opinion. It certainly succeeds on several levels. Warner Bros. was the studio king of biographical movies, but sometimes they just tried to make the film entertaining nonsense. Well, when something is this fun and entertaining, I refuse to call it nonsense. This is not only a terrific action film, but it's a super romance, incredibly funny, a wonderful family film (in at least two senses of the word "family"), an interesting historical film (even though much of the history is malarkey), and just a super example of how some '40s films are paced swifter than the allegedly "fast-paced" films of today. It tells the story of how athletic young San Franciscan James J. Corbett (Flynn) rose from being a bank teller to the Heavyweight boxing champion of the world. Corbett connives his way into the posh Olympic Athletic Club and gets sponsored by the attractive Victoria Ware (Alexis Smith) and her father (Minor Watson). However, it isn't long before Corbett's boorish narcissism pisses off the entire club membership. They plan to try to get rid of him by having the former champion of England take him out in an exhibition match which is America's first exhibit of the new Marquis of Queensberry Rules, which were designed to help legalize what heretofore was considered the equivalent of a public brawl during the bareknuckle days. Needless to say, "Gentleman Jim"'s fancy footwork and speed make things turn out not as planned.

If you love old movies, it's easy for me to explain why this is really crackerjack entertainment. Errol Flynn has his best buddy Alan Hale playing his dad. The music, sets and costumes all perfectly recreate the Naughty Nineties (1890s) of San Francisco. Errol Flynn made a string of financially-and-critically-successful films from 1935 to 1942, and he had a sparkling personality which this script was able to satirize by making fun of the idea that he just thinks way-too-much of himself. The photography and editing move along at a lightning pace, and Raoul Walsh was an expert at making action films, but here he expands it into a more-sophisticated blend of the rollicking kind of comedy he had already mastered with his silent version of What Price Glory. The scenes involving the Corbett family constantly fighting amongst themselves [especially Jim and his two older brothers (Pat Flaherty and James Flavin) who all still live at home] and taking their fights out to the family barn where the entire neighborhood gathers and gleefully shouts "The Corbetts are at it again!" are rib-ticklers.

There are plenty of other ingratiating characters, including Jim's best friend (Jack Carson), his first trainer (Rhys Williams). the family's priest (Arthur Shields), a local judge (Wallis Clark) who gets into trouble by liking boxing so much, Victoria's beau (Carlton De Witt), and Jim's manager (William Frawley). But what really pushes Gentleman Jim into the realm of a film which is more than just entertaining, but something truly memorable and moving is the performance of Ward Bond as John L. Sullivan, Himself. James J. Corbett fought champion John L. Sullivan at the end of the latter's career, and although Sullivan's performance in the ring might seem a bit awkward nowadays, it probably wasn't that far-off in terms of how the man fought in his latter days. He basically just tried to land one haymaker punch to knock an opponent out, but Sullivan was of the old school, and he wasn't prepared for the graceful, new wave of boxer that Corbett represented. While Ward Bond is very funny playing someone who thinks just as much of "Himself" as Corbett thinks of "himself", it's the magical scene after their bout which represents the heart and soul of this truly special film. Both Ward Bond and Errol Flynn are terrific in that scene, but Bond truly shines.




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
#149: Spartacus (Stanley Kubrick, 1960)

I just showed Spartacus to Sarah for the first time, so I had to explain all the behind-the-scenes trivia about the film and its restoration. I'm going to go into that later, but first I want to discuss the film itself. Spartacus is a lavish, epic film about a slave revolt against the Roman Empire some time before Julius Caesar became Emperor. Kirk Douglas, the executive producer, plays Spartacus as a very dignified slave who becomes the slave army's leader. The film is jam-packed with big name stars. Jean Simmons plays the lovely slave Varinia who becomes Spartacus' wife, Tony Curtis plays a "singer of songs" who wants to fight, Laurence Olivier and Charles Laughton play rival Roman senators, Peter Ustinov plays the jovial head of a gladiator school, and there are dozens of other recognizable names and faces playing smaller roles in the three-hour-plus film.



The film begins at the salt mines of Libya where Spartacus is purchased to train to become a gladiator. The subsequent scenes at the gladiatorial school have always been my favorite part of the film, especially the scenes involving the trainer (Charles McGraw), Spartacus' tender meeting of Varinia, and the high point of the entire film, the duel to the death with Draba (Woody Strode) before the patrician Crassus (Olivier), his protege Glabrus (John Dall) and their two lady companions (Nina Foch and Joanna Barnes). Later, after the slaves revolt, the film focuses on their attempt to leave Italy, and Rome's tactics to thwart them and stop the legend of Spartacus from snowballing into the heart of every single slave in the Empire.

Spartacus went through a lot of creative hassles to make it to the screen. First off, Kirk Douglas wanted to use blacklisted Dalton Trumbo for the script, and then he wanted to go ahead and credit Trumbo himself in the credits; when he did so, Douglas effectively broke the Black List in Hollywood. Then, western-veteran Anthony Mann was hired to direct, and he did direct the spectacular opening scenes in Libya, but he and Douglas had a falling out, so he was fired. Mann subsequently directed two gargantuan epics, El Cid and The Fall of the Roman Empire. Douglas went looking for a director and found one in Kubrick who had directed him in Paths of Glory. Kubrick was available because he was fired/had quit (depending on who says what) as director of Marlon Brando's One-Eyed Jacks. Kubrick directed the film but felt constricted because he didn't have his usual total sayso over the script, production, casting and final cut. Kubrick did actually shoot much of the film himself, although Russell Metty got the film credit and the Best Color Cinematography Oscar. Based on his experience with Spartacus, Kubrick moved to England to get away from Hollywood and to be able to make all his subsequent films with total control. Even so, Spartacus was a big critical and popular hit. The major naysayers were people like Hedda Hopper and John Wayne who called it Commie propaganda before it was ever screened.



Since Spartacus is seen by some viewers as less than a pure Kubrick film, a group of film buffs deign it to be less significant, entertaining and absorbing than his other films, but I've never understood that. I will admit that the film seems less "Kubrickian", but there are still some major Kubrick touches, and the film is compelling all the way through. One personal touch which I find the most moving in the film is the way Kubrick films the scenes of the simple people while Tony Curtis "sings" his song about going home. With the most beautiful part of the musical score playing in the background and Curtis's voice in the forground, a series of naturalistically-photographed scenes are shown of babies and families resting and dreaming of returning home yet knowing that they still have a tough fight ahead of them. In fact, Kubrick reprises the mood and texture of this scene when Spartacus later walks through the camp the night before the biggest battle of the campaign while the camera tracks along with him. The people are all looking directly into Spartacus' eyes with hope, whether they're nine or ninety-years-old. That is pure Kubrick, and the fact that he probably shot those scenes himself (and I'd say it was obvious that he edited them too) makes them very Kubrickian for those who care.


One of the film's most moving scenes (no spoilers)

Another thing which is interesting to note while watching Spartacus is the way that after the opening scenes in Libya and some of the battle scenes, many of the scenes with the big name cast seem to be shot on sound stages while the humongous crowd scenes (usually sans the stars) are filmed on location. This was Kubrick's choice. He wanted to work with the actors on the sound stage so that he could have more control (this is a technique he shared with Hitchcock, among others). Sometimes, it may seem a bit odd or "phony" to modern viewers, but it works well enough in the movie. You don't really watch Spartacus thinking how phony it is. For one thing, the movie's cast most all give superlative performances, balancing the witty (Ustinov and Laughton, apparently benefitting from a rewrite of their scenes by Ustinov himself) with the sincere (Douglas, Curtis and Simmons) and the menacing (Olivier and McGraw). Spartacus is a film I loved as a little kid, and I enjoy it just as much now as an Old Fart.



One other thing to mention about Spartacus is its restoration in 1991 and release to theatres that year (I saw it on the Big Newport's gigantic screen). Many scenes of violence were restored, including the ones using actors with one arm made up to have a prosthetic arm chopped off, as well as extra blood and guts in a few scenes which were deemed "sickening" by the Legion of Decency at the time. However, the most significant of the restored scenes was the one where Laurence Olivier tried to seduce his servant Tony Curtis by using a snails and oysters analogy. The film's restorers had access to the images of the scene but the soundtrack had been lost and Laurence Olivier had already died. Tony Curtis could redub his own dialogue (mostly delivered in long shot), but it took a suggestion from Olivier's widow Joan Plowright to enable the scene to be restored. Plowright remembered that Anthony Hopkins did a perfect Olivier impression at a cocktail party, so she suggested him, he agreed and the voice you hear on the soundtrack is Sir Tony dubbing Lord Larry.