Ryan-77
Entrou em mar. de 1999
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações8
Classificação de Ryan-77
One of the great tributes to the power of KING KONG is that it has attracted innumerable allegorical and deconstructionist theories, yet in the end it defies all of them. The film is so powerful a tale, such a primal journey into story archetypes, that people automatically reflect their own personality onto it.
The theories are almost endless: a racist tale of the Black man in American, a parable of America seeking an escape from the depression, a Freudian story of where the Empire State building is a phallic symbol and Denham uses Kong as his sexual release for his lust for Anne (I've always found this theory to be hysterically funny), and a tale of ecology and man's continual destruction of nature. KING KONG is, after all, a work of art, so any of these theories can be argued. But they tend to reduce a film that is far more complicated and powerful than a simple allegory. All these theories people develop to explain the movie cannot finally contain it -- KING KONG is a timeless phenomenon of the richness of great storytelling.
What truly makes the film work, for audiences in 1933 and today, is that it is a masterpiece of escapist fantasy and adventure that fulfills our wildest daydreams of far off tropical lands and the gleaming metropolis of 1930s New York, the two great jungles of fantasy. Even today its relentless pace rockets viewers along. Once Denham's expedition arrives on Skull Island, the movie NEVER lets up with thrill after thrill after thrill. The effects look great, no excuses given -- they are a pure joy to watch. Cooper once said that he wanted to make the best adventure film of all time, and that was his only intention. Well Cooper, I think you damn near succeeded.
The theories are almost endless: a racist tale of the Black man in American, a parable of America seeking an escape from the depression, a Freudian story of where the Empire State building is a phallic symbol and Denham uses Kong as his sexual release for his lust for Anne (I've always found this theory to be hysterically funny), and a tale of ecology and man's continual destruction of nature. KING KONG is, after all, a work of art, so any of these theories can be argued. But they tend to reduce a film that is far more complicated and powerful than a simple allegory. All these theories people develop to explain the movie cannot finally contain it -- KING KONG is a timeless phenomenon of the richness of great storytelling.
What truly makes the film work, for audiences in 1933 and today, is that it is a masterpiece of escapist fantasy and adventure that fulfills our wildest daydreams of far off tropical lands and the gleaming metropolis of 1930s New York, the two great jungles of fantasy. Even today its relentless pace rockets viewers along. Once Denham's expedition arrives on Skull Island, the movie NEVER lets up with thrill after thrill after thrill. The effects look great, no excuses given -- they are a pure joy to watch. Cooper once said that he wanted to make the best adventure film of all time, and that was his only intention. Well Cooper, I think you damn near succeeded.
Kubrick's last film cannot attain the majesty of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or the brilliant satire of DR. STRANGELOVE, but it is still a stunning, amazing work of art. From the first scene it draws you into its mesmerizing and hypnotically paced tale of sex and dreams, by turns comic and horrifying. The ritual sequence in the movie's center -- indeed, the soul of the movie -- is a shocking and engrossing scene that Kubrick perfectly realizes in the visual language of a nightmare. You'll leave the movie dazed and deeply affected by its imagery and its message about the power of sex both for destruction and healing. A wonderful farewell from a brilliant 20th Century artist.
Stanley Kubrick's film version of THE SHINING becomes much clearer and more interesting after you've read King's novel. Many people tend to disparage either one in favor of the other, but both novel and movie have individual merits and are ultimately about entirely different themes.
In the novel, King examines a flawed but decent man (Jack Torrance) who becomes the victim of a rapacious hotel with a mind of its own that wants to devour him and his family. Jack fights long and hard against the power of the Overlook Hotel, but the hotel overpowers him and eventually fully possesses him. King shows basic optimism in humanity when he lets Jack's remaining human personality poke through during his furious final rampage and allow his son Danny to escape. The Hotel dies an incerinating death as Danny, his mother, and the helpful Hallorann escape to a new life.
No such optimism for Stanley Kubrick. Jack Torrance begins as a violent, slightly insane man who has managed to wear a mask of decency for a few years. The Hotel tempts Jack to remove that mask with its endless luxurious space, opulance, and promise of the immortality that has always alluded him in his writing. When Jack goes berszerk at the end, it really IS Jack in control, not the spirit of the Overlook wearing his shape. There is no humanity to appeal to in Jack (indeed, there never was to begin with), and Danny and his mother can only hope to escape him through their own wits.
As a film, THE SHINING is a frightfully cold tale of humanity stripped bare, and Kubrick purposely distances the story from the emotional background of King's novel, which is a tale of temptation of the human spirit and its purgation. King's novel is freeing, symbolized in the exploding Overlook Hotel, while Kubrick's film is a prison, symbolized by the hedge maze that becomes Jack's demise. It's no wonder that King dislike the movie version so strongly, but both renditions are worthy of praise, and the comparison between them further emphasizes their individual strengths.
In the novel, King examines a flawed but decent man (Jack Torrance) who becomes the victim of a rapacious hotel with a mind of its own that wants to devour him and his family. Jack fights long and hard against the power of the Overlook Hotel, but the hotel overpowers him and eventually fully possesses him. King shows basic optimism in humanity when he lets Jack's remaining human personality poke through during his furious final rampage and allow his son Danny to escape. The Hotel dies an incerinating death as Danny, his mother, and the helpful Hallorann escape to a new life.
No such optimism for Stanley Kubrick. Jack Torrance begins as a violent, slightly insane man who has managed to wear a mask of decency for a few years. The Hotel tempts Jack to remove that mask with its endless luxurious space, opulance, and promise of the immortality that has always alluded him in his writing. When Jack goes berszerk at the end, it really IS Jack in control, not the spirit of the Overlook wearing his shape. There is no humanity to appeal to in Jack (indeed, there never was to begin with), and Danny and his mother can only hope to escape him through their own wits.
As a film, THE SHINING is a frightfully cold tale of humanity stripped bare, and Kubrick purposely distances the story from the emotional background of King's novel, which is a tale of temptation of the human spirit and its purgation. King's novel is freeing, symbolized in the exploding Overlook Hotel, while Kubrick's film is a prison, symbolized by the hedge maze that becomes Jack's demise. It's no wonder that King dislike the movie version so strongly, but both renditions are worthy of praise, and the comparison between them further emphasizes their individual strengths.