The Ship Explosion
-
InsideTheCastleWall — 18 years ago(October 17, 2007 01:42 AM)
Bob arrogantly says "I'm the hunter not the hunted. Nothing can change that." BOOM
ORLY ROFL
The aftermath was funny. Bob must've remembered his shark repellant. He is able to swim safely who knows how many miles to shore when moments earlier we were informed those were the most shark-infested waters in the world. Our guy walks away with little more than a torn sleeve and a slightly disheveled hairdo. -
bobvious — 18 years ago(March 02, 2008 06:34 PM)
It's also been pointed out that the exposition in that first 6 minutes of film is one of the most compressed in movies up to that point. So much is covered and established in that time that the rest of the movie's under 65 minutes can, in relative terms, "take its own sweet time."
The ship wreck was probably realistic enough for the audience of the time, which is said to have jumped in shock at the site of mounted heads in the trophy room. THAT scene was shortened because of some of the shots being too much for the audience of the day.
It's interesting how old movies are judged by modern eyes on this board with seemingly no awareness of the passage of time, the advancement of special effects, and the growing expectations of the audience. I'd almost said "sophistication" of the audience except that an audience that doesn't understand the passage of time and the advancement of effects. is far from sophisticated.
I found the very campy first 5 minutes of Banks' performance more hilarious than the boat explosion. -
georgegauthier-944-917780 — 14 years ago(March 07, 2012 06:10 PM)
I wondered why he did not climb out of the water onto the floating debris he was hanging onto? Let the sharks finish their feeding frenzy, then maybe swim or even paddle his makeshift craft to shore.
-
jacowium — 14 years ago(December 16, 2011 04:12 AM)
It's interesting how old movies are judged by modern eyes on this board with seemingly no awareness of the passage of time, the advancement of special effects, and the growing expectations of the audience. I'd almost said "sophistication" of the audience except that an audience that doesn't understand the passage of time and the advancement of effects. is far from sophisticated.
Well said - I wish I'd written that! You certainly expressed the frustration of many on IMDB confounded by the apparent inability of others to realise that older audiences and moviemakers had a different "eye" and technology & methods available to them, compared to what we're used to today.
On the other hand, I don't think that means we have no right to criticise (I'm sure that's not what you meant), and to my eyes it seems the opening sequence was a bit too compressed, as if the film-makers just wanted to get the exposition out of the way, and get Bob on the island for the main plot to get going. I can't speak for a 1932-moviegoer but I'd be surprised if no-one in the audience back then didn't think it a bit odd to have Bob swim calmly off moments after seeing sharks feasting on the other sailors.
I know your post is almost 4 years old and perhaps you can barely remember the movie, but your sentiments will be relevant as long as IMDB exists. And this is a thread worth keeping alive.
Cheers!
Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks. -
Kammurabi — 14 years ago(March 01, 2012 05:01 PM)
I don't know if I'm sophisticated, but I mourn the passage of time because it brought about the day when "someone" decided realistic looking special effects (cgi) looked better than real special effects (physical in-camera).
It is a matter of taste perhaps. But to me computer generated scenes look more fake. It is a de-evolution in my opinion.
. -
fifiholden — 12 years ago(March 02, 2014 12:40 AM)
I tend to agree with you. After just reading about the making of King Kong I am looking forward to watching this. I seem to find that when I read books like that I want to watch the other films mentioned and this is now high on my list.
I always give old films a lot of leeway as far as effects go etc, and do not every put them in comparison to "modern" films, it isn't right or fair as effects, attitudes etc differ from now.
What a pity it was to read your post and find you said Banks' performance was campy, after all the good stuff you put in.
Sorry it is just an observation, even acting has differed you know!
"Guess I'm not concerned enough about getting away with it." -
dustinthewind25 — 11 years ago(April 27, 2014 08:41 PM)
Man I'm with you on that.
I thought bobvious was doing a good job till he ranked on Leslie Banks' performance. As I'm reading about this movie, I'm finding that most people really enjoy and appreciate his portrayal of Zaroff and feel that it's one of the highlights of the movie.
"an audience that doesn't understand the passage of time and the advancement of effects is far from sophisticated."
Same might go for movie acting technique.
Although I'm in the camp that doesn't feel as though Banks' performance needs defending - thought he was excellent as Zaroff.