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

[SteveJKo]

For me, this is the absolute best presentation I have ever seen of this title. Is it perfect? No. But it's still excellent, and the fact that a film with no known negative looks this great is a miracle to me!

 

[Jeff_HR]

After watching "Son of Kong" I can only dream about what "King Kong" would have looked like with a negative to use to make the DVD transfer. :frowning:

 

[Patrick McCart]

WB only mentioned King Kong would recieve a digital restoration, but not specifically from LDI. LDI expressed interest in Oz, but that was before Ultra Resolution was developed by WB. To this day, LDI and UR were used together only on the new Singin' in the Rain SE.

Also, I really feel that LDI's restorations of anything other than original negative and interpositive/fine-grain look weak. The Star Wars films, THX 1138, Bambi, and Alice in Wonderland all used the original negatives. Casablanca, the Indiana Jones films, and possibly Citizen Kane utilized fine-grain positive/interpositives.

Sunset Blvd. and Once Upon a Time in the West were from duplicate negatives. Both have this really odd "thick" look to them. SB has a lot of motion artifacts in any high-movement shot. In both films, stationary shots look much better. Mary Poppins: SE was apparently from a dupe negative made from separation positives due to the negative having faded color. From start to finish, it's full of smearing and poor contrast.

I really think LDI's processing only works right when studios supply them with better film materials. When you have a dupe negative, just leave the grain as it is and clean up as best as you can. What detail is left after two generations being removed is too valuable to lose in moving shots.

Except for shots involving multi-generational opticals (like dissolves and composites made after filming), most of the film looks stunningly clear and detailed. I've said it before, but the new Rear Window DVD has the same type of look. Ok, so there is a veil of grain throughout. Well, even though you have the grain, the picture is razor sharp and detailed.

Who cares about a few bits of dirt and some lines when they got heavy stuff like film tears and splice marks?

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Gods i used to have some Fond memories of Son of Kong but after seeing it last night after i had watched the Original it really revealed was a quick Cheapie the film was. It had it's moments but they were definately in Cash in Mode.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Johnny Angell:


Now the transfer doesn't even qualify as "good"? Wow.

DJ

 

[Ed St. Clair]

PatrickMcCart,
Thanks for your post. So much info. While I'm thinking about all of the above, can you give me some of your fave DVD transfers so I can 'see' for myself what you look for?

 

[Kevin M]

The transfer is great IMO, most likely the best it will look for a long time...maybe forever barring any over the top digital clean-up's.
Speaking of which the WB guys do seem to respect grain structure because practically all of their classic releases lately have left it alone in any image clean-up attempts, this is a good thing. Grain is film, no grain is video...that's the way I feel anyway (to an extent, I also feel there is such a thing as too much grain, but none of that is in Kong IMO).

Even the sound was nice, just a bit of hiss here & there but nothing distracting at all.

So do the loving extras that Wingnut provided for this DVD help relieve any of the ill feeling against Jackson that some have regarding his "disrespect" for the original Kong (by his doing a remake)?

 

[Johnny Angell]

I must have missed those comments accusing Jackson of disrespect. Surely he's established his respect for the movie. Even if he fails with his remake, I don't expect to find myself thinking he doesn't respect the original.

 

[Steve Christou]

Peter Jackson is obsessed with the 1933 King Kong, has been since he was a kid, more than most of us here, remaking it isn't disrespect, a lot of todays generation of young moviegoers will not sit thru this ancient film. I could pay my girl Sandra to sit and watch it with me and believe me after a few minutes she'll give me my money back and walk out the room, or pick up a magazine to read. It's a damn good story retold and refurbished for a new generation of film fan.

Nothing wrong with remakes, my favorite movie of all time is a remake of a well regarded silent. In my opinion all the hype on Peter Jackson's Kong has sparked interest in the original, people who would have never bothered with it before will now be giving it a spin and adding it to their collections, and that's all good in my book.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

About six months ago in earlier Kong threads, there were several members who expressed a certain level of disgust that Jackson was in any way associated with this DVD release, suggesting that the only reason for it was to promote his remake.

However, they quieted down after it was pointed out to them just how much of a dedicated fan he was/is, and that his obsession of King Kong including the largest private collection of artifacts from the original King Kong film, made him perhaps the most valuable resource for adding insights and value to this release.

I think he proved that to be true with his astonishing reproduction of the lost 'Spider Pit' sequence. I also think he provided some of the more interesting interview segments that were cut through out the documentary.

Personally, I was disappointed they didn't make a commentary track with both Peter Jackson and Harry Knowles, as the two are famous for their countless late night conversations on the making of Kong and the influence it has had on so many famous filmmakers. I have no doubt the two would have provided a fascinating commentary track.

I was also hoping Warner might have put together a gallery of stills taken from Peter Jackson's vast King Kong collection. Perhaps this is something Warner is saving for the 75th Anniversary Edition?

 

[Johnny Angell]

Great idea.

 

[rich_d]

or 2001: A Space Odyssey.

It will be interesting to see what Jackson does with the pacing of the new Kong.

 

[Zen Butler]

- excerpt from Herb's review

I can stand on that. Further, this film has never looked better. Its' imperfections without a doubt should be ascribed to its' source(age, quality).

 

[Johnny Angell]

Yeah, there's an example of a very slow buildup and I must confess upon being confused when I saw it for the first time.

I frankly hope he retains the same slow pace of the original in the beginning of the film. I liked that bulding tension leading up to the first sighting of Kong.

 

[TravisR]

Since the remake is three hours long, I think you'll get your wish.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

They didn't aquire a "new print"...they pieced this together from several prints from all over the world. The previously censored scenes were taken from a British print which had never been cut, so these scenes are now, for the first time, of the same generational quality as the surrounding footage.

This is an absolutely STUPENDOUS release, and Mr. Feltenstein and all others responsible at Warner Home Video are to be commended for their most welcome efforts. I never thought I'd see Kong look this good. The documentary is the absolute greatest; thank the gods (and monsters) that they were able to include the still-lovely Miss Wray in it. And the cover art on the keepcase version (I opted for that over the tin, 'cause I didn't want it in a digipak) is absolutely divine.

 

[JayHM]

While I agree that this is a great DVD release in almost every way, I can't agree that the digital restoration looks stupendous - not when there are other truly pristine restorations to compare it to (many of which also did not have access to the original negative).

 

[Jeff_HR]

If Jackson really respects the '33 Kong he would have made his remake in B&W.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Good ones to have, Nils!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I think it's only four of us that posted disappointment, out of all the other glowing reviews on this thread. And people in very high places, you know who you are, put this as DVD of the Year. I don't believe WB is worried about little (not true) old (very true) me!

I think I will have to buy Kong on VHS, as this is my first home video version. Would love to see the LD.

Again, packaging, features, & sound are very well done!