,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
KING KONG (1933) was, in my opinion, half bad. ⭐️⭐️1/2
The effects pieces, strangely enough, remain the most effective parts. You can push beyond the suspension of disbelief w/o much work, and the stop-motion integration is miraculous for the time, and actually achieves an eerie tone that fits the tone well.
Everything else is dire.
Everything else is dire.
The pacing is poor, the actors barely register, the script is unimaginative, and the racial politics ...
Look, you take the time into consideration, but "the times" doesn't write a blank check, either.
Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS analysis was ... totally right.
Yikes.
Look, you take the time into consideration, but "the times" doesn't write a blank check, either.
Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS analysis was ... totally right.
Yikes.
To be clear, I don't expect total alignment ... but neither do I expect people to check their present political outlook at the door. It's all a part of what makes a work of art hold up ... or not.
For me, with KONG, much of it does not.
For me, with KONG, much of it does not.
Yep. As a cultural artifact, it obviously remains important. I just don’t think it holds up as a movie.
The movie presupposes they put Kong— established as an unstoppable killing machine—on a boat and then made an uneventful voyage from the middle of nowhere South Pacific back to New York City.
I think that voyage back is an untold Werner Herzog movie that I’d love to see.
