DVD Review HTF REVIEW: King Kong - Two Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[Al (alweho)]

Note the Best Buy box also has five more mini-poster reproductions, exclusive to this set.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Cool. This is one Best Buy exclusive that's actually worth the time and trouble to hunt down.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I just finished watching the documentary, including the "spider pit" sequence. An excellent doc and the recreated spider pit sequence was fabulous.

I do agree that they made the right choice in not adding the sequence to the movie, for 2 reasons. First, of course, the movie wasn't released that way. 2nd, the live action portions of the sequence weren't up to the level of the movie, in addition to the actors being different. Inserting this into the movie would take you out of the film.

The stop-motion animation was top rate, maybe a little too good and that also might make it look odd in the context of the movie.

I came up with my own theory on why that sequence was deleted. I think it could have been the most grusome sequence in the film. This could have been deemed over the top back then.

 

[Darrell S.]

You're right. The story goes that it was filmed and previewed and it was just too gruesome for the audience. Isn't it amazing that in those days, they just threw it away and never thought anyone would be interested. It's hard to believe that in 1933, movies were considered to be something that would be shown once and shelved. They had no idea that we would still be wanting to see them in 2005 and at home on a small screen over and over again.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Even more amazing than Kong would have been the thought of sending images over the air. Only the visionaries were thinking about this then.

I think the doc mentioned that KK was re-released in 1938 (yeah, when it was censored) so you'd think someone would say maybe this might be of value someday.

I'll bet there are people on this forum who could tell us horror stories about film elements being thrown away today.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Who's screen you callin' "small"?!?

 

[Darrell S.]

Nothing personal, David Boulet! I'm sure your screen is huge!

Also, thank goodness for the prints that were preserved in other countries. That's where they found the censored scenes intact. I never thought I'd see the scene where Kong strips Fay like a banana. When I was little I used to read about it in Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine and we all thought it was lost.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I believe the censored scenes were first discovered in Philadelphia by a film collector (Wes Shank) in the early 70s, they've been inserted into most prints of the film since around that time. I don't know where the elements for the current DVD were located, however.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This is a subject we've debated for years and years. Every reviewer has his own ideas, I'm sure. I try to balance the two, but mostly I base my grades on an idea of how I think DVDs for movies of a particular area look. Obviously I have different expectations for a movie from 1933 than I do for one from 2003, so a "B+" image for the former will look radically worse than a "B+ for the latter. The latter may look very good but I think modern movies should essentially look flawless, so they can lose points for minor problems.

I will admit I hold ALL films to fairly objective standards for quality if they earn "A"-level grades, though. That means something has to seem pretty good by modern standards to get an "A" no matter WHEN it was made. Some may regard this as unfair, and maybe it is, but I think that if I award that high a grade, it has to ensure a very impressive experience regardless of age.

But after almost seven years in this business, my opinions remain fluid. I change definitions over time because of new experiences and standards. I'm sure everyone else is the same...

 

[Ray H]

I was just scanning through the disc. And to think, I almost forgot about the dreadfully stereotyped Chinese character.

 

[Darrell S.]

All the characters in KING KONG are stereotypes. Has anyone else noticed how sheer Fay Wray's costumes are?

 

[Johnny Angell]

Specially the "beauty & the beast" costume.

 

[Darrell S.]

Yes. Especially when she screams.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Regarding the debate about how to "score" movies given the disparity of source material, age-related artifacts in various films etc...

My orientation (regarding movies...hehe) has typically been to rate the DVD *transfer* of the movie...not so much the "image quality" in comparison to some golden-standard Fifth-Element type presentation. If the DVD communicates a film-like image that is free from processing artifacts in the DVD-mastering chain, then it gets a good score.

Of course, I say this but then there are plenty of times where my scores have been exceptions to this rule.

I know when I started reviewing I had the thought of actually haveing *two* scores...one for "objective image quality" that rated in the "reference material" sense, and one that reated it relative to how good it *could* look given the nature of the source elements...ie, the DVD mastering job. It sounded like a great idea but I never ended up doing it.

In any case, reviews like mine and Herb's go into lots of detail about the image and sound...so forget the silly score and just read what we have to say!



dave

 

[Herb Kane]

There's a lot of truth in that statement. Initially I was reluctant to use grades, fearing consistency issues. But after getting a lot of messages asking me to use them, I decided to incorporate them into the reviews. Let's face it, if we review a 70 year old film a year ago, is it safe to say that our memory will be totally reliable when it comes to making comparisons? (short of pulling out each disc to do comparisons - not very realistic).

I'll also try and mention particular titles in an attempt to draw comparisons - something which IMO, means more than a score. But like David says, read the description and try and pickup what it is that we are trying to say.

And thanks for the kind words from everyone. It's an honor and a pleasure to write these alongside the other 7 reviewers for the best HT/DVD site on the net.

Herb.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

And of course, just because it's a film made in 1933, that does not necessarily mean it will always be of "lesser" quality. Compare the 1933 KONG right alongsdie the new SON OF KONG disc (also 1933). Check out the Karloff DVD for THE GHOUL (1933) or Criterion's THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (1933). It's mainly about quality of elements, not just the year, right?

 

[Johnny Angell]

At the risk of being crude, was Fay not wearing something under that dress?

 

[Roger Rollins]

The less popular a film, the likelihood is that the original elements will be easy to find, and in good shape.
SON OF KONG had little exposure after 1933 until TV, and both THE GHOUL and THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME were so obscure that their respective owners let them fall into the public domain.

I've seen KONG countless times, in all incarnations, and it has never looked anywhere as good as it does in Warner Brothers' new stunning DVD presentation.

 

[Keith Paynter]

Only the credit sequences are windowboxed, including the overture. The main feature is full frame past the 'safe' area.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Thanks Keith!