King Kong [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Tuukka

12-13-2005, 09:29 AM

With 41 reviews in, KK is 95% at Rottentomatoes. This is an very well written, thoughtful review from Roger Ebert, who gave the film 4/4.

- - -

It was beauty killed the beast.

There are astonishments to behold in Peter Jackson's new "King Kong," but one sequence, relatively subdued, holds the key to the movie's success. Kong has captured Ann Darrow and carried her to his perch high on the mountain. He puts her down, not roughly, and then begins to roar, bare his teeth and pound his chest. Ann, an unemployed vaudeville acrobat, somehow instinctively knows that the gorilla is not threatening her but trying to impress her by behaving as an alpha male -- the King of the Jungle. She doesn't know how Queen Kong would respond, but she does what she can: She goes into her stage routine, doing backflips, dancing like Chaplin, juggling three stones.

Her instincts and empathy serve her well. Kong's eyes widen in curiosity, wonder and finally what may pass for delight. From then on, he thinks of himself as the girl's possessor and protector. She is like a tiny beautiful toy that he has been given for his very own, and before long, they are regarding the sunset together, both of them silenced by its majesty.

The scene is crucial because it removes the element of creepiness in the gorilla/girl relationship in the two earlier "Kongs" (1933 and 1976), creating a wordless bond that allows her to trust him. When Jack Driscoll climbs the mountain to rescue her, he finds her comfortably nestled in Kong's big palm. Ann and Kong in this movie will be threatened by dinosaurs, man-eating worms, giant bats, loathsome insects, spiders, machineguns and the Army Air Corps, and could fall to their death into chasms on Skull Island or from the Empire State Building. But Ann will be as safe as Kong can make her, and he will protect her even from her own species.

The movie more or less faithfully follows the outlines of the original film, but this fundamental adjustment in the relationship between the beauty and the beast gives it heart, a quality the earlier film was lacking. Yes, Kong in 1933 cares for his captive, but she doesn't care so much for him. Kong was always misunderstood, but in the 2005 film, there is someone who knows it.

As Kong ascends the skyscraper, Ann screams not because of the gorilla but because of the attacks on the gorilla by a society that assumes he must be destroyed. The movie makes the same kind of shift involving a giant gorilla that Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977) did when he replaced 1950s attacks on alien visitors with a very 1970s attempt to communicate with them (by 2005, Spielberg was back to attacking them, in "War of the Worlds").

"King Kong" is a magnificent entertainment. It is like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film. Computers are used not merely to create special effects, but also to create style and beauty, to find a look for the film that fits its story. And the characters are not cardboard heroes or villains seen in stark outline, but quirky individuals with personalities.

Consider the difference between Robert Armstrong (1933) and Jack Black (2005) as Carl Denham, the movie director who lands an unsuspecting crew on Skull Island. A Hollywood stereotype based on C.B. de Mille has been replaced by one who reminds us more of Orson Welles. And in the starring role of Ann Darrow, Naomi Watts expresses a range of emotion that Fay Wray, bless her heart, was never allowed in 1933. Never have damsels been in more distress, but Fay Wray mostly had to scream, while Watts looks into the gorilla's eyes and sees something beautiful there.

There was a stir when Jackson informed the home office that his movie would run 187 minutes. The executives had something around 140 minutes in mind, so they could turn over the audience more quickly (despite the greedy 20 minutes of paid commercials audiences now have inflicted upon them). After they saw the movie, their objections were stilled. Yes, the movie is a tad too long, and we could do without a few of the monsters and overturned elevated trains. But it is so well done that we are complaining, really, only about too much of a good thing. This is one of the great modern epics.

Jackson, fresh from his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, wisely doesn't show the gorilla or the other creatures until more than an hour into the movie. In this he follows Spielberg, who fought off producers who wanted the shark in "Jaws" to appear virtually in the opening titles. There is an hour of anticipation, of low ominous music, of subtle rumblings, of uneasy squints into the fog and mutinous grumblings from the crew, before the tramp steamer arrives at Skull Island -- or, more accurately, is thrown against its jagged rocks in the first of many scary action sequences.

During that time, we see Depression-era breadlines and soup kitchens, and meet the unemployed heroes of the film: Ann Darrow (Watts), whose vaudeville theater has closed, and who is faced with debasing herself in burlesque; Carl Denham (Black), whose footage for a new movie is so unconvincing that the movie's backers want to sell it off as background footage; Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), a playwright whose dreams lie Off-Broadway and who thrusts 15 pages of a first draft screenplay at Denham and tries to disappear.

They all find themselves aboard the tramp steamer of Capt. Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann), who is persuaded to cast off just as Denham's creditors arrive on the docks in police cars. They set course for the South Seas, where Denham believes an uncharted island may hold the secret of a box office blockbuster. On board, Ann and Jack grow close, but not too close, because the movie's real love story is between the girl and the gorilla.

Once on Skull Island, the second act of the movie is mostly a series of hair-curling special effects, as overgrown prehistoric creatures endlessly pursue the humans, occasionally killing or eating a supporting character. The bridges and logs over chasms, so important in 1933, are even better used here, especially when an assortment of humans and creatures fall in stages from a great height, resuming their deadly struggle whenever they can grab a convenient vine, rock or tree. Two story lines are intercut: Ann and the ape, and everybody else and the other creatures.

The third act returns to Manhattan, which looks uncannily evocative and atmospheric. It isn't precisely realistic, but more of a dreamed city in which key elements swim in and out of view. There's a poetic scene where Kong and the girl find a frozen pond in Central Park, and the gorilla is lost in delight as it slides on the ice. It's in scenes like this that Andy Serkis is most useful as the actor who doesn't so much play Kong as embody him for the f/x team. He adds the body language.

Some of the Manhattan effects are not completely convincing (and earlier, on Skull Island, it's strange how the fleeing humans seem to run beneath the pounding feet of the T. rexes without quite occupying the same space). But special effects do not need to be convincing if they are effective, and Jackson trades a little realism for a lot of impact and momentum. The final ascent of the Empire State Building is magnificent, and for once, the gorilla seems the same size in every shot.

Although Naomi Watts makes a splendid heroine, there have been complaints that Jack Black and Adrien Brody are not precisely hero material. Nor should they be, in my opinion. They are a director and a writer. They do not require big muscles and square jaws. What they require are strong personalities that can be transformed under stress. Denham the director clings desperately to his camera, no matter what happens to him, and Driscoll the writer beats a strategic retreat before essentially rewriting his personal role in his own mind. Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler) is an actor who plays the movie's hero, and now has to decide if he can play his role for real. And Preston (Colin Hanks) is a production assistant who, as is often the case, would be a hero if anybody would give him a chance.

The result is a surprisingly involving and rather beautiful movie -- one that will appeal strongly to the primary action audience, and also cross over to people who have no plans to see "King Kong" but will change their minds the more they hear. I think the film even has a message, and it isn't that beauty killed the beast. It's that we feel threatened by beauty, especially when it overwhelms us, and we pay a terrible price when we try to deny its essential nature and turn it into a product, or a target. This is one of the year's best films.

Lazy Boy

12-13-2005, 11:07 AM

Wow, that's a rave. Could it top his ten-best list?

It would mean much more if he hadn't given four stars like candy to films that didn't deserve them (North Country, Batman Begins, Bee Season).

Tuukka

12-13-2005, 11:29 AM

Berardinelli is for many one of the best and most reliable critics around, including for me.

- - -

KING KONG

Spoiler Alert: This review assumes that the reader is familiar with the story of King Kong, including the ending. If you're not, and don't want to be spoiled, it's best to stop reading after the fourth paragraph and return once you have seen the movie.

By choosing to re-make King Kong, an American iconic masterpiece, Peter Jackson set a task for himself higher than the Empire State Building. Making this movie wasn't just following up The Lord of the Rings, it was the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. And, as with all such personal projects, this one ran the danger of not working because the director was too close to the material. (Steven Spielberg's Hook and Atom Egoyan's Ararat fall into that category.) Fortunately, Jackson's passion for the material did not dim his creative senses. By combining the best elements of the 1933 and 1976 versions of the film with his own contributions, Jackson has made what many will consider to be the definitive King Kong. There's no need to try this story again; it's doubtful it can be improved upon.

Jackson's 2005 King Kong follows the basic storyline of the 1933 original, albeit with a number of changes and wrinkles. There are a few direct homages, including a reference to Fay Wray being unavailable for Carl Denham's film because she was "making something for Cooper," a snatch of the hammiest verbatim dialogue from the old screenplay, and a few bars of Max Steiner's theme. Although Jackson claims to detest the 1976 version, he borrows freely from it. (Perhaps subconsciously?) Some things that happen in this King Kong mirror events from the De Laurentiis one too closely to have occurred by coincidence. (In particular, the development of a two-way relationship between the girl and Kong, rather than the one-way one from 1933.)

If there's a flaw in King Kong, it's that Jackson spends a little too long setting things up. It's understandable that he wants to spend some time with the characters so we get to know them before the action starts, but the 70-minute build-up seems excessive. There is an impact to early momentum, and some audience restlessness can be expected. While it's true that the two earlier movies also devoted the first third of their running times to setup, that amounted to 35 minutes for the 1933 picture and 45 minutes for the 1976 editions.

Once the action starts, however, it's difficult to find something more energetic, more daring, and more touching than King Kong. This is roughly two hours of the best movie-making available today. It's worth every penny (and more) that was spent bringing it to the screen. As eye candy goes, only Revenge of the Sith equals it from 2005, and King Kong is overall a richer and more satisfying cinematic experience (and this is from someone who lauded Sith and may put it in my End of the Year Top 10). If you think of the 1933 King Kong as a foundation of a house, the 2005 version is the whole thing. Jackson has used Cooper's vision as his blueprint, and has expanded upon it greatly without changing the essential floorplan. The synopsis sounds much the same, but the experience is wholly different.

The old Arabian proverb says this: "And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty. And it stayed its hand from killing. And from that day, it was as one dead." This is, and has been, the story of King Kong, the 25-foot tall giant of an ape who rules his island, but finds man to be the superior predator. Led by his fascination for a blond woman to act in ways contrary to his nature, he is ensnared and brought to a foreign land, where he proves inadequate to counter the forces brought to bear against him. It's easy enough to see King Kong as a parable about man's rapacious approach to nature. That aspect of the story is as evident in Jackson's telling as in the environmentally conscious 1976 version.

Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is a struggling actress who finds herself out of work with no means to pay for a meal. Filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black) is being pursued by his creditors and needs to find a leading lady so he can set sail before the authorities catch him. Fortuitously, it would seem, the two meet, and Ann is soon aboard the Venture, heading for lands unknown. The captain, Engelhorn (Thomas Kretschmann), is a surly chap who doesn't trust Denham. Also aboard the ship is Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), the screenwriter for Denham's latest epic. And there's a hunky actor, Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), who is intended to play Ann's on-screen love interest. Off-screen, she becomes involved with Jack. The two are involved by the time the ship reaches its destination, Skull Island. There, Ann is kidnapped by the natives and sacrificed to their god, Kong. Instead of killing her, however, the big ape is intrigued by his blond-haired captive, and the two bond - Ann does a vaudeville comedy routine for her captor while he protects her from T-Rexes. Meanwhile, Jack, Carl, and a group of others from the ship come ashore to look for Ann. They don't find her - at least not initially - but they encounter a menagerie out of Jurassic Park and insects that might eat horses for a snack. Eventually, Ann is rescued, Kong is captured, and the action moves to New York City. Breaking free of his manacles on the first night he is being displayed to the public, Kong locates Ann and climbs to the top of the Empire State Building, where his tragic final stand occurs.

Despite three prominent human actors, the star of the movie, as one might expect from the title, is the giant primate. Kong has gone from being an 18-inch high clay puppet to a man in a monkey suit to a beautifully rendered CGI creature. His range of motion and ability to react believably have improved with each incarnation. This Kong uses an amazing range of facial expressions and, when you look into his eyes, you can't believe he isn't real. Andy Serkis, who helped Jackson by "playing" Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, lends his motion capture skills to Kong, and the results are so stunning that one is tempted to believe that Jackson went to a South Pacific Island and found a 25-foot high ape. Kong shows nearly every emotion across the spectrum: puzzlement, rage, amusement, bemusement, possessiveness, tenderness, and affection. And Kong does some things that couldn't have been accomplished using any other special effects technique. Try orchestrating the T-Rex battle another way.

The best of the trio of human performers is Naomi Watts. She also has the most difficult job - not only is the role physical, but it requires her to play off something that isn't there. (This is fast becoming the norm, rather than the exception, in big-budget motion pictures). Like Kong, Ann must traverse a vast emotional range, from horror and fear, to acceptance, to caring. Adrien Brody does the best he can with a thankless role. Jack's part is to fall in love with Ann, then run around the island chasing her. In New York, he gets to participate in a car chase, but after that, his biggest contribution is to ride an elevator in the Empire State Building. Jack Black, an unusual choice for Carl Denham, plays the movie maker like a cross between Cecil B. DeMille and P.T. Barnum. Black's portrayal is primarily straight, and he is effective, although there are occasions when the actor's personality peeks through.

The cornerstone of the film isn't the CGI action/adventure material; it's the relationship between Kong and Ann. Here's where the movie's heart lies, and for King Kong to be more than a visual extravaganza, Jackson has to hit us beneath the left rib cage. In 1933, Ann was terrified of Kong. He treated her like a plaything, and she hated and feared him. When Kong died, we felt a little sadness, but nothing overwhelming. In 1976, Lorenzo Semple Jr.'s most important innovation was to have the female lead (called Dwan, played by Jessica Lange) reciprocate the Beast's feelings. Kong was fascinated by Dwan. After an initial bout of fear and anger, she accepted him as a gentle protector. Atop the World Trade Center, she risked her life to save his, and her world came apart when he fell. The male lead (Jeff Bridges) was also shown as being sympathetic to Kong.

For the 2005 version, Jackson has followed the 1976 movie's lead, and developed a tender, two-way relationship between Ann and Kong. This is meticulously advanced over the course of the movie - particularly in three scenes. The first has Ann doing a song-and-dance routine that amuses Kong and convinces him not to kill her. The second has Ann moving behind Kong during a battle, acknowledging him as her "champion." And the third involves a frozen pond in Central Park, and may represent King Kong's most magical moment, and Jackson's lasting contribution to the legend. Unlike in the 1976 movie, Jack is not kindly disposed toward Kong. This may be why, in the end, the bond between Ann and Kong seems stronger than the one between Ann and Jack. And the reunion of the two human lovers after Kong's plunge rings hollow. We don't really care about Ann and Jack. The character we do care about has just died. His final moments with Ann are quietly heartbreaking.

One of the most difficult things about King Kong may be picking a favorite scene, especially since the final two hours are packed with candidates. Action-adventure lovers have the dino-rampage, featuring raptors chasing down a pack of brontosaurs; the triple T-Rex smackdown (a tour de force that lasts about 10 minutes); an insect attack that will make bug-phobes squirm (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is tame by comparison); Kong's attempts to reclaim his stolen bride; and the final Empire State Building battle. For me, the quiet moments are in many ways more rewarding: Kong and Ann bonding while watching a sunset, and the playfulness of Central Park. The latter is more rewarding with tragedy looming so close.

The musical score is nondescript, but perhaps that's not James Newton Howard's fault. He was selected by Jackson late in the process to replace Howard Shore, and only had a couple of months to write and record everything. The best thing that can be said about the music is that it's never intrusive. Visually, as one would expect, King Kong is a marvel. The decision to do no location shooting allows the Skull Island scenes to be eerie and claustrophobic. And Jackson's re-creation of Depression-era New York, while not rigorously accurate historically, fits nicely into a nostalgia mold.

I can't say that King Kong is the best film of 2005, although it's close. It is the year's best and biggest blockbuster, and proves that, after the re-make disappointments of Godzilla and Mighty Joe Young, it is possible for an old-time monster to make a triumphant re-appearance. Jackson's King Kong casts a huge shadow over the history of this "movie monster" - not big enough to eclipse the 1933 or 1976 tellings of the same story, but impressive enough to remind us that, with a wizard at the helm, there are times when re-makes can be glorious things.

3 1/2 / 4

© 2005 James Berardinelli

Lazy Boy

12-13-2005, 01:41 PM

This review seals the deal that this film will be nothing less than outstanding. Walter Chaw, a critic who is very constructive with criticism and not easy to please, was blown away by it.

KING KONG (2005)
**** (out of four)

starring Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Andy Serkis
screenplay by Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson, based on the screenplay by Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace
directed by Peter Jackson

Naomi Watts is absolutely adorable in King Kong. Good thing, too, because she has to convince that with a few vaudeville pratfalls and a strategically-wielded switch she can win the heart of one of the most venerated monsters in movie history. The way Peter Jackson films her suggests that he's found his own muse: she's always set against impossible backlot sunsets, asked to feign love for a fake film before transforming herself--in the same, wonderful shot--into feigning real love for a man in this film when she spots her suitor, playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), author of a play ("Isolation") for which she sees herself as perfect for the melancholy lead. ("You must be the saddest girl in New York." She is.) In a lot of ways, Watts' Ann Darrow is the logical extension of her Betty from Mulholland Drive: both are actresses with hidden elements to their personalities, both are asked to audition for us on an imaginary stage, and both, in the end, find themselves embroiled in a dark romance that ends in show-business betrayal. During the final third of King Kong, once the beast famously has Ann in his clutches while scaling the side of a mighty edifice in the Big Apple, it's fair to be distracted by the rapture on her face--and to wonder if she knows that there's only one eventuality possible to her quiescence.

It's a giant cheeseball of a movie packed chock-a-block with big emotions, big speeches, impossible sacrifices, and faith in the overwhelming power of love and the siren's call of adventure. Peter Jackson's King Kong has John Keats' "Ode to a Grecian Urn" and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness on its mind; the last major auteur project so relatively expensive, so veined throughout with mad ambition, so obsessed with poetry and Conrad, was Apocalypse Now, and you can mark more similarities than that in the margins of this improbably personal project, pursued to the point of irony and brought off with unapologetic hubris and unparalleled, self-knowing artistry. With this film, Jackson has three different characters (including, through a learned gesture, the ape--it's just as corny as it sounds, but not as unbearable as you might fear) intone the word "beautiful" as though they were happening in its utterance upon the holy incantation of Keats' ode: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty--that is all/Ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know." For these three characters (Jack, Ann, and the CGI ape Kong (modeled on movements performed by Andy Serkis)), at least, they're playing for the sublime in an unfussy equation--that idea that the only truth is in an ideal of beauty held with white knuckles and teeth and sinew. And, man, is that simplicity, well, beautiful.

Set in that rough 20-year period between the two World Wars concurrent with the dates most commonly ascribed to the Art Deco movement in Architecture (1920-1939), King Kong opens with appropriately Art Deco titles and ends atop the Empire State Building (built in 1931)--that stylized ziggurat which, in the time of the 1933 King Kong, boasted a spire imagined as a dock for a dirigible. In the interim, from Capt. Englehorn's (Thomas Kretschmann) tramp steamer ("Just like ours!" says stowaway-turned-cabin boy Jimmy (Jamie Bell), pointing to the cover of his Heart of Darkness paperback) to the cramped rooms housing director Carl Denham's (Jack Black) cast and crew to the topography of fearsome Skull Island, Jackson has exploded the stylization of Art Deco to encompass every aspect of the production. Depression-era New York in summer and winter is a marvel of imaginative history, for instance. But the real brilliance comes in the creature design, not only of Kong but of the dinosaurs and insects and bats of Skull Island as well. Each a little south of anatomically correct, the animals in the film are made like the jagged starbursts and sunflowers of Art Deco--there's something ineffably designed about their creation. Jackson announces his presence even here in the creature effects; in one fell swoop you have a demonstration of what a film with a completely unifying vision, one meticulously controlled frame-by-frame, actually looks like. King Kong is an antique picture book come to vivid more-life-than-life, and moments where the digital line between ape and Ann seems unconvincing play a lot more to me like homage to the Jackson-revered original.

About that original: early in the picture, Jackson slyly alludes to Fay Wray, who's "unavailable" for Denham's opus because she's shooting something over at RKO. But if King Kong is self-aware, it's self-aware only in the most fruitful, non-snarky kind of way. Jackson never feels superior to the original (a film he's called his favourite)--rather, his references tend to be evocations of the subjects and aesthetics of films shot in the thirties. Compare how its period authenticity is all of respect as opposed to something like James Cameron's Titanic, which has already become something of a camp classic for its plucky teen heroes and the name-dropping of Freud and "Something" Picasso. Jackson's film is intelligent and mature whatever its thrill-ride instincts. Consider the handling of the natives of Skull Island. Jackson doesn't deviate much from Merian Cooper's depictions from 1933: they're painted as gibbering savages, and it's fair to wonder at the sensitivity of it all until the conclusion at a Broadway theatre to which Denham's brought Kong to serve as the centerpiece of a gaudy stage show--and hired a group of dancers of indiscriminate race to portray the savages. It's one driven, obsessed director channelling another: Denham the showman, never failing, as Jack observes, to hurt the things he loves the most just as Jackson, in resurrecting this beloved talisman from childhood on the gaudiest stage $200 million can buy, is doomed to murder him again.

Denham takes on the Kurtz role as Jackson's alter ego, driven to finish his "jungle adventure" at any cost on an island he tricks the steamer crew to visit based entirely on his faith in a secret map drawn on the back of an oilskin. He's the kind of wild-eyed dreamer who infected a lot of Capra movies only to find at the end that he's trapped in a Pottersville of his own creation. It's possible to mark in Jackson through this character a lot of ironic self-knowledge: he has Denham, the filmmaker, say, "The whole world will pay to see this, we'll make millions," as well as deliver the final expression of "beauty"--this time as a noun, spit out as though it were something stuck in his craw for the whole of the misadventure. For the rest of it, though, there's this sense of delightful lightness. (Even Denham's single-mindedness is played with some levity by a restrained Black.) I thought Jackson was the perfect choice for the Lord of the Rings trilogy because, judging from his film The Frighteners, I believed that he might have been the best person in the world at integrating live-action and computer-generated imagery. If there was a whisper of a doubt then, there won't be after the Tolkien films (which peaked with the first one, but nevertheless) and now the glorious King Kong, which is exciting, nay, stunning, in a way that's never heavy-handed. While he's escalating the action, layering it, piling on elements and unforeseen roadblocks until the screen is delirious with business, Jackson is still folding in visual gags and character moments. King Kong is gloriously uninhibited, fearlessly silly and willing to express itself through grandiloquent statements and breathless pronouncements. At three full hours, I wanted three full hours more. I hadn't felt as exhilaratingly free and goofy in a film since I was an eight-year-old watching Raiders of the Lost Ark through my fingers. They don't really make movies like this anymore; I don't know if they ever did.

Tuukka

12-13-2005, 02:09 PM

"At three full hours, I wanted three full hours more. I hadn't felt as exhilaratingly free and goofy in a film since I was an eight-year-old watching Raiders of the Lost Ark through my fingers. They don't really make movies like this anymore; I don't know if they ever did."

I love that quote. :)

CyclicNightmare

12-13-2005, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka
"At three full hours, I wanted three full hours more. I hadn't felt as exhilaratingly free and goofy in a film since I was an eight-year-old watching Raiders of the Lost Ark through my fingers. They don't really make movies like this anymore; I don't know if they ever did."

I love that quote. :)
I CANNOT WAIT FOR THIS MOVIE

daddiefatsacks

12-13-2005, 03:29 PM

im tryin to gather some people up to see this at midnight

SCHMOES UNITE

Lazy Boy

12-13-2005, 03:37 PM

I'd love to see a midnight showing, but two problems:

1) Finals. I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't procrastinate, and I really need to get cracking.

2) I'm really, really fuckin' sleep-deprived because of said finals. No matter how excellent the film may be, I know that beyond midnight, my eyes will be getting heavy, and I don't want my first viewing to be ruined by that.

daddiefatsacks

12-13-2005, 09:49 PM

going to see this at midnight !!!!! WOOOOOo

TrippingBalls

12-13-2005, 10:26 PM

Going to get blazed and see the movie at midnight. Review will be up tomorrow.

Sigur509

12-13-2005, 10:55 PM

I will be getting out of school early tomorrow to see it.

Digifruitella

12-13-2005, 10:59 PM

12:01AM tonight, for me. Excited :D

dman476

12-13-2005, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Digifruitella
12:01AM tonight, for me. Excited :D
Do you live in Ukraine now?
Reason I'm asking is because I have ancestral roots there.

chinton

12-14-2005, 01:48 AM

Woohoo just got back from Seattle after helping with the last pre-release screening. cant wait to see it with a real audienc e

FilmBuff84

12-14-2005, 02:40 AM

Saw the movie today, loved it.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Now this was one helluva entertaining flick! I was never someone who held Peter Jackson's 'LOTR' trilogy in high regard, I respected him for doing what he did with the books and making them faithful adaptations, but they did little to stimulate me, the acting was embarassing at times, and the third film and its 17 endings grated on my nerves. With King Kong I really wasn't sure what to expect, but haivng seen the trailer way back when, I got more excited, and it was something I was very much looking forward to. And now that I have seen it, i'm happy to say it didn't disappoint. At over 3 hours, it never felt overly long and never dragged out, unlike the aforementioned LOTR films, and kept me entertained all the way through. The film is essentially broken down into three sections.; The first introducing us to Jack Black's hopeful, ambitious, and slightly sneaky director, his assistant Colin Hanks, respected theatre writer Adrien Brody, and stunning actress in waiting Naomi Watts. The film set-up and subsequent trip to the island takes us about to the hour point, and for that whole time it's Black that essentially steals the show. He's perfect in the role, never over-the-top in his delivery, and thankfully he never crosses that line to being over ambitious as a director that makes him unlikeable. Brody has that every day kinda guy appeal that makes him an easy 'action hero' to cheer for, and Watts is simply gorgeous, at first haivng that wide eyed appeal ala 'Mulholland Drive' before settling into a far more serious persona, and essentially the damsel in distress, though she never flails about, it's just what else are you going to be when you're up against dinosaurs, but you see she's one tough cookie underneath it all. When we hit the island for the middle section, it's where the film turns it up for the audience to sit back and be dazzled. Overgrown insects, man eating slugs, and of course the horde of dinosaurs that plague the location make for plenty of spectacular sequences. You'd be hard pressed not to find a more jaw dropping, can't-take-my-eyes-off-the-screen scene than the T-Rex versus King Kong fight which is the centrepiece of this fine film. On the topic of King Kong, he's a pleasure to watch. Andy Serkis, who doubles up as a crew member also, gives him such character, he almost becomes human. The emotion in his eyes and his facial expressions give the ape such a warmth that you instanstly fall for him, and you believe the relationship that develops between him and Watts. The two have some sweet scenes together, and you really feel the adoration they share for each other. As the island is left behind, the film wastes no time in setting the finale up for Kong on display for the public, which leads to anarchy in the streets of New York, and the almost heart wrenching closing between Kong, Watts and the fighter planes trying to take him down. The effects are as polished as they can be, but still obvious, moreso when humans are involved in scenes with Kong or other miscellaneous animals, but that's just nitpicking really. As for what I though was wrong with the film, the sped up slow motion scenes on the island was a cheap effect, and many of the side characters did little to grab your attention, Hanks and Jamie Bell specifically. Hanks' character is uninteresting and whiny that I was hoping someone or something would come to their senses and pick him off, whilst Bell's character is given this little back story that hopes to give us some kind of sympathy towards him, but ended up just wasting time that could've been chopped down. But overall, this is a solid, well handled, respectful, and highly entertaining remake that successfully mixes the feel of 1930's with a new age adventure film that'll have you glued to the screen in sheer excitement. 9/10

daddiefatsacks

12-14-2005, 03:58 AM

SPOILERSSSSSSSSSSs

holy cow, this movie was fucking off the wall
peter jackson is uncanny
jack black is oscar worthy
king kong KICKS ASS

i just got back from my 12 o clock screening, and 3 and a half hours later im still buzzin cuz of this movie. The character development WORKS, the effects are just amazing, the scenery is jaw dropping...i can go on and on...i can't even think of a fault, this could be the best movie ive seen in the last 3 years?

]10/10[/b]

Digifruitella

12-14-2005, 04:00 AM

Simply amazing.

an A+ (10/10) from me. Words can't describe this.

This is an achievement that deserves every award it will get nominated for. I wouldn't care if the movie doesn't get nominated for anything (oh it will.) because the movie is THAT great.

I've got to say, WAIT until you see it you will understand just what an amazing movie this is. Brokeback Mountain is getting this praise for the best love story of all time well I say King Kong has the best love story of all time. That is the ultimate story of love. Peter Jackson has put that on screen flawlessly. I checked my watch, and already by 5th minute into the film I was teary eyed. Thanks to the beautiful music by James Newton Howard who never fails.

King Kong makes the appearance an hour and 10 minutes into the film and after that it's beauty.

I feel so great right now. It's like I have just witnessed the best movie in my life.

if we're talking awards then King Kong will get all of them for the technical achievement.

Visual FX is King Kong's win. If the Academy passes this one, then they would be insane.

Sound Mixing
Sound Editing
Editing
Cinematography
Production Design
Costumes
Best Director
and BEST PICTURE are all King Kong's

we'll see on how many of them I was right on when the time comes.

Digifruitella

12-14-2005, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks

holy cow, this movie was fucking off the wall

king kong KICKS ASS

]10/10 [/B]

Gosh man, that film really was something. I just don't know what to say right now. It's like you said about still buzzing about it. I'm kind of in an awe/shock mode right now. PJ is the next Spielberg/Cameron, what am I saying not NEXT, he's up on par and MORE

LegionX

12-14-2005, 05:45 AM

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**

I have to tell yall. I am not a big fan of long movies but DAMN! Every minute of this film was entertaining to watch. Peter jackson I feel did an awsome job of retelling the lovely story. no one has done it better since the original. Say what you want to about remakes this year, cause quite frankly most of them are outragously dull and un-entertaining, but Kong is the King of the movies this year. My top 5 movies of the year are about to make a big shift because I think I migh end up putting this as my fav. over Sin City. There hasnt really been a movie like that since Sin CIty, where I left the theater saying "OH MY GOD!" http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/king_kong/andy_serkis/kingkong3.jpg
This movie has so much character development throughout the first drawn out hour, before you even hear Kong's ROAR!, to satisfy anyone. Jack Black actually did a fantastic job with his role. He couldnt have played it better. Naomi Watts was an awsome as Anne. They chose the perfect person to play this role. And of course Adrian Brody. Did a fantastic job with his role as the screenplay writer/Hero.
The fight scene between Kong and the 3, yes I said 3, T-Rex'x actually made me stand up screaming after he stated slamming his chest and Roaring! We all did in that theater tonight. The CGI in the movie was top-notch. It was just incredible to watch, and actually made you feel what Kong was feeling. He looked and appeared that real. You felt and wanted him to be real. Even though this movie times just over 3 Hours, the movie keeps you hooked for so long that you feel that it only lasted 2 Hours. This film is an event, and a thrill ride that everyone must experience this Holiday Season! Peter Jackson does it again, as he creates a film that takes your breath and energy away. Better buy a energy drink before entering this theater, because it is definelty one hell of a ride.

GREAT JOB PETER JACKSON.....
9.5/10

Jimbo513

12-14-2005, 06:36 PM

Does the first bad review (meaning not a 9 or 10) have to be from me? Guess so.

King Kong was a good movie but I didn't feel it was great. Maybe I better rephrase that. I didn't feel it was as great as people are saying. I probably would have rated it a 9/10 if I didn't read all these steller reviews. I went in thinking I was going to be moved in many ways, but I wasn't.

The good.

The action is amazing. Once the movie picks up it is non stop action. Some of the best action sequences I've ever seen.

The CGI is equally amazing. Kong looked great and in my opinion the dinosaurs looked better than Jurassic Park (I guess that's not saying much as this movie was made like 10 years later). The only bad CGI I saw was when she was juggeling the rocks.

The interaction between Kong and the girl is great. You really get a sense of how deeply the two end up being connected.

The bad.

I thought the dialogue wasn't up to par. Pete Jackson, Fran Walsh and the other woman did a much better job writing dialogue with LOTR. The action is what saved this from being a mediocre film.

Other than Kong and the girl, I didn't feel a real connection with any other character. The sub plot with the black guy and Jimmy I think was his name, was just lacking. They could have done alot better job with the secondary characters. The movie just sorta forgets that there are more people involved than just a giant ape and his crush.

The first hour is a bit slow. This is forgiveable though because it's a nice build up into the action. Can't really fault the movie too much for this.

Overall, I just wasn't blown away like I thought I would be. Again, it's good, I just don't think it is as good as was expected.

8/10

HanasaMO

12-14-2005, 08:01 PM

King Kong is my most anticipated movie for 2005, but I can't see it until FEB 2006 when it's released in China.

Doug

12-14-2005, 08:17 PM

6/10

** POSSIBLE SPOILERS **

- Just a short review from me:

- I dearly loved the LOTR series and feel their one of the greatest achievements ever put to film. I love Peter Jacksons direction and style so I went into Kong pretty phsyched to say the least ....

The Good: The buildup to Skull Island was very well done, and the shots of depression era NY were astounding and inspired. Kong was every bit as good as I was expecting and his facial expressions were quite eerily life-like. The acting was decent but nothing near as developed as I would have liked ..... but I will put the acting in the 'good' category.

The Bad: I knew going into this i'd have to suspend some degree of belief but wasnt prepared for the amount of 'yeah right' moments I had to witness. The snickering began when the dinosaurs began stampeding and you see the expedition running through the legs of gargantuan baddies .... um yeah. It gets even more unbelievable when you see Kong running with Ann in his hand all the while fighting off one, two, and then three T-Rex's .... miraculously her neck never snaps or even recieves mild whiplash. The part where Jimmy (Billy Madison .... dance Billy!) is shooting the insects off of Brody is laugh out loud ludicrousy, as is asking the audience to believe Ann Darrow would be running through Skull Island barefoot the entire movie without even a sprain :rolleyes: . I could go on & on but jeesh Peter couldnt you have made things a little more believable? .... Were suppossed to believe that a playright would have the balls to continue on without a weapon to rescue a girl he just fell for in a land with every genetic screw-up imaginable ..... and better yet grab the closest vine and begin lowering yourself and the damsel 400 meters down a sheer cliff :( . The end finale with Ann in a white gown at the top of the Empire State Buiding in December and not a sign of discomfort or frosty breath was just plain silly ..... it had to be about -10 up there and probably -17 with wind chill .... then you got Brody & Darrow scaling the side of the building on a rickety ladder ..... yeah ok.

- Overall its not bad, but not that good either. It drags in places and suffers from too much acting done in front of a blue screens. Go see it and tell us what you think ...... im all Konged out now and will probably forget about it in a week.

6/10

dman476

12-14-2005, 08:32 PM

King Kong is almost SOLD OUT in my theater for tonight. Kind of unimpressive because LOTR sold out for the first day a week in advance. Anyway, only showtime left is 10:55 and 3/4 is sold.
Luckily, I got my tix for 7:00 where I will be heading out to in about 30 mins.

poopontheshoes7

12-14-2005, 09:20 PM

SIMPLY WOW....

I mean, I was almost expecting to be let down by the film just because my anticipation was so high. But I was dead wrong. I've read lots of the reviews saying how amazing the CGI is and how amazing the action is, but I was truly taken away.
Kimg Kong is the first movie EVER since Jurassic Park to take me into its world completly. Everything looked so rich and textured. Skull Island was pure amazment.
The natives were also a suprise. Believe it or not, The appearance of the natives is one of the most tense scenes in the movie. They are truly unerving to look at. THe 3 T-rex vs. Kong fight is one of the best fight scenes ever imo, it was just so damn well pulled off I couldnt believe how they pulled some of that stuff off.
The spider pit was just plain gross, I wasnt expecting some of the nasty stuff you see in the pit. As far as Kong goes, Well I really dont need to say how amazing he was. They really dont make um like this anymore. Theres something about this film that feels like old hollywood. Its got rich corky charecters, fun fun fun monsters and just pure and simple wonder, which is what films lack today.
The New York scene was beautiful, the look of New York couldnt have been more perfect. The sunsets and lights, cars, buildings, everything felt authentic.
As far as the hour or so build up, it didnt bother me a bit and I was sure it would. The beginning didnt feel like it was taking its time just to take its time. There really were no dull moment through the whole film.

Damn, I just realized that 4 movies from 05 alone are on my all time favorites list.
Sin City
Batman Begins
Devils Rejects
King Kong

10/10

moviegroupie

12-14-2005, 09:27 PM

EDIT: I take back my previous comments, after eating food I feel more comfortable.

10/10

AMAZING!

Peter Jackson, a job well done.

Oh, and how great were the slowed down scenes (when Brody types 'skull island' on the typewriter, and being surronded by the natives.

Sigur509

12-14-2005, 10:09 PM

AMAZING!

Better than I ever expceted. Jack Black blew be away, and the effects were top notch. I want to see it again as soon as possible.

10/10

moviegroupie

12-14-2005, 10:12 PM

Sigur, me too. Not only does it need to be seen on the big screen, but it needs to be on the silver screen. at least twice.

If you don't see this in theaters, and you download it or rent it for first time viewing, you should be shot.

poopontheshoes7

12-14-2005, 10:19 PM

Im probably going to see it agian friday!

I cant believe I wanna sit through a 3 hour movie again!

Commodore

12-14-2005, 10:47 PM

I"m not gonna repeat any of the positive things people have said, I thought this was a really great film. One of the best I've seen in awhile. A few negatives I will point out:

1. as someone mentioned, the secondary characters were kind of lame

2. the line at the end by Jack Black was cheesy and unnecessary, it sounded like it must have come from the original film and they threw it in there as a tribute

3. this movie is going to get cries of racism:

a)it had the token black guy and an awful chinamen stereotype that seemed totally out of line, and I am not a PC person in general,

b)like LOTR, almost all the expedition characters are white, although this probably would be historically accurate for that time period

c) the native savages in the film are dark skinned, wild and untamed

I wouldn't call the movie racist at all (other than the chinaman), but there will be all kinds of media stories making this claim, and it will hurt the film's chances with liberal PC Academy voters

Sigur509

12-14-2005, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by poopontheshoes7
Im probably going to see it agian friday!

I cant believe I wanna sit through a 3 hour movie again!

To me, the 3 hours flew fast.

moviegroupie

12-14-2005, 10:52 PM

I disagree.

1) the token black fella was ok, token. but he never dropped the n-bomb, once, nor rapped or anything. definitely not stereotyping.

2) the chinaman, not really. all he did was lead brody to the basement if i recall correctly.

3) the natives had to be dark skinned. they were supposed to be dark and demonlike and fit the dark king kong noir profile. they werent native americans, but rather sacrificial worshippers.

EDIT: ditto, the three hours flew for me too. i looked at my watch once, but only to see how long its been since i've eaten and walked my dog. certainly not out of boredom.

Commodore

12-14-2005, 10:54 PM

I agree totally with you on all that, I'm just saying that is how it will be perceived in some circles

moviegroupie

12-14-2005, 10:56 PM

I thought you felt the same way. All I'm saying is it's a damn shame if this film is disregarded by the PC academy for stupid misconceptions or "evil subtletys" jackson didn't even put in there.

Wilka26

12-14-2005, 11:18 PM

WOW! I have never see anything so amazing as King Kong! My jaw was hanging open even an hour after leaving the theater. This is easily my favorite film of 2005 and probably one of my top 5 favorite films of all-time.

CreeperBEATNGU

12-15-2005, 12:11 AM

Amazing movie. I was moved to tears more than once. The pacing and structure are perfect. The first act sets up the characters beautifully, the second act is some of the most incredible action and effects to ever grace the screen, and the third act is when the emotion that Jackson brilliantly built throughout 3 hours truly pours out.
Naomi was pleasant and heartbreaking, Jack Black maintains the strength of his comedic performances while still delivering a stellar dramatic performance without the over-usage of comedy getting in the way of it(Ryan Reynolds should watch this man and take notes), the score(which I was worried about after hearing of Shore leaving the project)is powerful and moving without at all rehashing epic action scores I've heard in the past(this movie easily could've been stuck with a loud, booming, and downright annoying score if the job were given to the wrong composer, James Newton Howard did an excellent job), and Jackson brings back more of those fantastic wide-shots that made LOTR so visually stunning.
Jackson crafted a movie that's lighthearted, dark, exhilerating and depressing, and blended them together seamlessly where most filmmakers would've botched it by having one overpower the others. He also did a fantastic job of conveying the very harsh message of the ignorance of humanity and managed to break my heart while still entertaining the hell out of me.
I had monumental expectations for this movie, and it didn't only deliver, it exceeded them.

Mr-Blonde

12-15-2005, 01:40 AM

King Kong - 10/10

http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/9087_poster_thumb.jpg

Peter Jackson has crafted one magnificent monster movie-- in fact the it's the monster movie to end all monster movies! Although the film has a bloated running time it was a joy to watch from the lengthy first act to the tragic finale. This has got to be the best use of CGI I have seen yet. It is nothing short of amazing! Everything in the film from the creatures on Skull Island, to the 30s New York skyline, to Kong himself is breathtaking. Between the wide range of emotions expressed by CG Kong and Naomi Watts' wonderful performance PJ manages to make their relationship 100% believable and heartfelt. This film is not to be missed in the theater. Great great great movie!

Tuukka

12-15-2005, 01:44 AM

After all these reviews from the schmoes, I'm getting a feeling that a PJ film might win the Golden Schmoes once again. :)

jOvy

12-15-2005, 01:45 AM

Wow.

dman476

12-15-2005, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by moviegroupie
Sigur, me too. Not only does it need to be seen on the big screen, but it needs to be on the silver screen. at least twice.

If you don't see this in theaters, and you download it or rent it for first time viewing, you should be shot.
I agree.
This film is a fucking monster. I LOVE it.
Best Film, hands down, of 2005. This is brilliant filmmaking, a cinematic masterpiece if you wil, of human life, drama, and misanthropy.
No matter how much I will like Brokeback, this film is the one for me.
I had a geek orgasm and I can't wait to watch it again. The film is that good. The last scenes are very touching, and even the cynical (myself included) will feel a sting of sadness come end time.
The film is a spectacle also. It is gorgeous to look at, 1933 (Depression Era) is done so magnificently, the film just gets an extra point because of that. The acting is magnificent - even Jack Black. And my god, Naomi Watts. What a wonder to behold, she is spectacular in the film, I can't believe those people at the Globes didn't give her (or the film) a nomination.
I look forward to seeing this film in the very near future, possible a week from today. I am so glad I saw it at the DOME with a full theater - this film is the event we were all looking for. I like LOTR as much (maybe less) than the next person, but it never really did itfor me. This film is the film I'd hoped LOTR was. I love this film and I know I'll like it even more on multiple viewings.
Munich can't possibly be this good. Oh, and Howard's score is pretty damn awesome and gotta love those homage scenes and music in the film. Overall Score:
10!

Digifruitella

12-15-2005, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by poopontheshoes7
Theres something about this film that feels like old hollywood.

Yes! I am glad somebody noticed that! Goooood stuff!! I truly think that this is perhaps the most faithful and realistic approach to re-visualize the Depression Era, old America/New York. The whole beginning, the shots of the depression and just the feeling overall is pure classic.

chinton

12-15-2005, 01:52 AM

Going back to a way earlier post of course there are amny things about this movie that dont make perfect logical sens e and a fter seeing it 8 times there ar e plenty of things. How does Kong play on the ic e pond without cracking it? How does Watts and Brody make back a cross the entire island in what seems like a matter of seconds? How does Watts not die of hypothermia.

But you know what it doesnt matter. To me this was a very old fashion movie in everything from its dialogue to look. Im not sure how to put this in words but maybe somebody else can help me with it. The movie just seemed really innocent so to me I wasnt bothered with many logical innacuracies the 6/10 reviewer pointed out. I dont care that Watts isnt shivering from the cold as shes on t op of the Empire State Building becuase Im too caught up in the movie and emotion. Same thing goes for the T-Rex fight. How eactly do these vines manage to hold up these very heavy creatures? I couldnt care less. I was way too caguht up in the scene

Digifruitella

12-15-2005, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Sigur509
To me, the 3 hours flew fast.

Absolutely right, Sigur! It was unbelievable, to me, how fast the 3 hours seemed to go by! I felt no boredom nor dullness all throughout the three hours. I was so amazed. It's so stunning how this film has such power to just take you in this world and make you forget where you are. I didn't think about time. I can't stop talking about it. I haven't felt this good since I saw Batman Begins. In fact, Kong is my second time at the midnight screening. I wan't to see KONG AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!!!

Did anybody get teary eyed by 5 minutes into the movie? Like I mentioned before, with the music, and the emotional scene between Ann and the elder actor.

Patrick Bateman

12-15-2005, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Sigur509
To me, the 3 hours flew fast.

Yeah, same here.

Just got back from seeing Peter Jackson's King Kong and must say that it's definately one of the best films of 2005.
Went to a 8:30 showing tonight with my significant other at the local theater, and it was already packed 30 minutes before showtime. Which is very unusual here. And I would say an additional 20-30 people showed up during the first 15-20 minutes after the film started.

As for the film itself, it was marvelous. Mr. Jackson has delivered a superb King Kong remake, and one that is a fine addition to the legacy of King Kong. I'm sure Merian C. Cooper would have been proud.
Initially I thought the running time would be a bit of a negative, but the film honestly plays out just fine. And I cant say there ever was a point during the film where I was checking my watch.
The action scenes were awesome, the drama was always there (especially the native attack sequence which was just chilling), and most importantly the love story between Kong and Ann was nothing short of beautiful.
I especially enjoyed the quiet moments with Kong and Ann, as I thought they were very charming. By the end of the film, I cant say I remember walking out of a theater in recent memory with so many people in such a somber mood. And rightly so.
Peter Jackson took the job in remaking an american classic. And remade it well. Peter Jackson's King Kong was one of the most anticipated films of the year 2005, and I knew he wouldnt let us down.

10/10

dman476

12-15-2005, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Digifruitella

Did anybody get teary eyed by 5 minutes into the movie? Like I mentioned before, with the music, and the emotional scene between Ann and the elder actor.
Definately, yeah. It was saddening and tragic. After all, it was Beauty killed Beast. I felt sorry for KONG and I'll say it, as my friend pointed out after I called the original a Monster movie: "Kong isn't a monster - he's humane." :)

Mr-Blonde

12-15-2005, 02:08 AM

This is not a film to be analyzed for logical inconsitencies.

What about this film should be analyzed/admired:

1-) The fantastic rendering and emotional range of Kong.

2-) Naomi Watts uncannily believable performance. What's hard to believe is that she did all this in front of a green screen. After watching this film, the actors in the SW prequels have absolutley no excuses for their shitty performances

3-) The stunning recreation of Depression era New York City.

4-) The magnicent renderings of the Skull Island creatures. This film kicks the shit out of all the Jurassic Park films combined.

Tuukka

12-15-2005, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by chinton
Going back to a way earlier post of course there are amny things about this movie that dont make perfect logical sens e and a fter seeing it 8 times there ar e plenty of things. How does Kong play on the ic e pond without cracking it? How does Watts and Brody make back a cross the entire island in what seems like a matter of seconds? How does Watts not die of hypothermia.

But you know what it doesnt matter. To me this was a very old fashion movie in everything from its dialogue to look. Im not sure how to put this in words but maybe somebody else can help me with it. The movie just seemed really innocent so to me I wasnt bothered with many logical innacuracies the 6/10 reviewer pointed out. I dont care that Watts isnt shivering from the cold as shes on t op of the Empire State Building becuase Im too caught up in the movie and emotion. Same thing goes for the T-Rex fight. How eactly do these vines manage to hold up these very heavy creatures? I couldnt care less. I was way too caguht up in the scene

Ditto.

When you go see a movie about a giant ape battling with dinosaurs, a willingness to do some suspension of disbelief is required.

What bugs me about the accusations of a movie being "unrealistic" is that it usually involves a double standard. The thing is, just about ALL movies showcase physical feats which are impossible.

A prime example:

When you hit someone in the face really hard, you usually end up with either broken nose, broken jaw or broken teeth. However, in movies people punch each other endlessly with no visible damage.

If we don't expect realistic physics from scenes like that, why would we expect realistic physics from scenes of a giant gorilla battling dinosaurs?

Tuukka

12-15-2005, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
2-) Naomi Watts uncannily believable performance. What's hard to believe is that she did all this in front of a green screen. After watching this film, the actors in the SW prequels have absolutley no excuses for their shitty performances

To be fair, it's a difference between directors instead of being a difference between actors.

Jackson made sure that Watts always had Serkis to act with. Whenever Naomi watches Kong, she is in fact watching Serkis performing as Kong. Serkis was always there, standing on a higher platform to have the right line of sight, and always in character.

Mr-Blonde

12-15-2005, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Tuukka
To be fair, it's a difference between directors instead of being a difference between actors.

Jackson made sure that Watts always had Serkis to act with. Whenever Naomi watches Kong, she is in fact watching Serkis performing as Kong. Serkis was always there, standing on a higher platform to have the right line of sight, and always in character.

Granted that PJ is a much better director than George Lucas but I still say that the actors shoulder much of the blame. Even in many of the scenes in which they interact with one another the pacing and inflection seems to be way off. I'll agree though that it's Lucas fault for using the takes that he did.

Did anyone else find the dinosaur avalanche scene to be as completely amazing as I did?

Digifruitella

12-15-2005, 02:25 AM

Tuukka

12-15-2005, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Granted that PJ is a much better director than George Lucas but I still say that the actors shoulder much of the blame. Even in many of the scenes in which they interact with one another the pacing and inflection seems to be way off. I'll agree though that it's Lucas fault for using the takes that he did.

My problem with this take on the actors in SW prequels is that just about all actors who gave either poor or so-so performances in those films tend to be really solid, even great, in other movies.

Portman was crappy in prequels, but she has ranged from good to great in everything else. From what I've seen of Haydensen in other movies, he is a good actor, and gives out his worst in the prequels. Even McGregor sucked in Phantom Menace (but was good in the AOTC and ROTS), and he has always been very consistently good-great in all the countless of movies he has made

The SW prequels are filled with career-worst performances. The only ones who were completely immune to Lucas-effect were Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid.

Patrick Bateman

12-15-2005, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Digifruitella
I can't even put this into words, but Serkis deserves an Oscar for his performance. If you get past the CGI, it was really Andy Serkis who was KONG.

I couldnt agree more

. It's been widely reported that Serkis studied mountain gorilla behavior in Rwanda's Virunga Mountains, and at the London Zoo. And I think Serkis did a awesome job bringing to life a range of emotions and responses for King Kong.

Tyler_Durden_208

12-15-2005, 09:13 AM

I'm gonna have to go out on a limb here and say I was dissapointed with Kong. Not the character, he was done very well, but the movie as a whole. For one, this movie should have been at most two and a half hours. Second, they should take PJ's slow motion liscence away. Especially that sped up slow motion that made almost everyone in the theater sick. Of course these are the same problems that LOTR had. And Jack Black was horrible to me. He's just not built for dramatic acting. The scene that was the most glaring to me was when he was onstage telling about Kong, and I kept thinking "what's with the wimpy voice? shouldn't he have a more dramatic tone or something?" Other than that, I agree with the positive stuff you guys have been saying.
8/10
(That Abominable Snowman joke was awesome.)

TrippingBalls

12-15-2005, 10:20 AM

Great, but flawed movie.

My main problems with King Kong are its action scenes and its secondary characters who add nothing to the story but alas the movie wastes time developing. While the LOTR films benefited greatly from extended editions, here it feels like King Kong could have benefited from cutting a couple of scenes here and there. The scenes between the whiny little "brave" kid and the black guy add nothing to the story and only further detract from the 4 main characters the story revolves around, namely Mr. Denham, Mr. Driscoll, Ann Darrow and Kong.

As far as action scenes go, I guess I've been spoiled by Peter's previous LOTR films. It takes a lot to wow me these days, and while King Kong's action (namely the scenes involving the stampede and the T-Rex fight) is certainly impressive visually, I just wasn't nearly as taken aback as I thought I would. Maybe if this movie had come out 3 or 4 years ago. And the T-Rex fight just seemed to drawn out.

However, what does work in this film are the characters, and Ann's relationship with Kong. Even Denham's character, as sleazy as he may be, is likable in certain scenes. Kong and Ann's relationship is touching. This is where the film truly shines, as all the spectacle and special effects take a backseat to the emotion.

All in all, a solid 8/10.

Tyler_Durden_208

12-15-2005, 10:32 AM

Another thing:
*SPOILERS*

Do you think kids are gonna hate Jack Black for years to come because of his character smashing the bottle of chloroform onto Kong's face? Things like that seem kind of unforgiveable in kid's eyes.

*END SPOILERS*

poopontheshoes7

12-15-2005, 10:50 AM

Mr-Blonde, Yes The Dinosaur stamped/avalanche scene put the biggest, sheepish grin on my face. I actually claped and cheered at a couple of moments during that scene. I rarely ever cheer during a movie, EVER.

As far as the dude who said the movie was 'unbelievable'. I agree with what everyone else said. This is a movie about a love story between a giant ape and a blonde bombshell, so come on, theres gonna be moments of unbelievablity.

LOTR never did much for me. From a technical stand point the 3 Ring films are amazing, but I never really was invested in the story. Like somone else said. Kong was what I wanted from Lord of the Rings but didnt get.

bigred760

12-15-2005, 11:15 AM

Review of King Kong:

Wow!! That's the word that was going through my mind when the credits started to roll. This movie has a little of everything to offer, from action, suspense, drama, romance, effects, close calls, good acting, symbolism, and . . . it just offers an all-around excellent movie. If you're going into this movie expecting a flick about a big ass monkey, you're going to walk out shocked as hell at how good this movie is.

This movie isn't about a big ass monkey, it's about the relationship that develops between a 25 ft. gorilla and a very hot woman - you really can't blame him for wanting to hang around her (no pun intended). You enjoy the moments these two spend together, whether it's enjoying the sunset, or having fun on ice - it's just really cool watching them enjoy time together, sensing the respect they have for one another.

Of course, this flick isn't all touchy feely. You've got these guys trying to rescue said maiden from the horrible beast; they got guns, and they mean to use them. Throw in some dinosaur chases, Kong wreaking havoc on these guys, and an awesome fight scene between our big ass title character and a few dinosaurs for good measure. The action really is heart pounding and fun to watch - don't see how you can look away.

The characters also added to the greatness that is King Kong. Naomi Watts' performance was topnotch as the subject of the ape's affection. I can't imagine how hard it must have been to act like you're alongside a 25-foot monkey, and have feelings for it (like a pet, I guess), but she pulled if off nicely :D - not to mention she's really nice to look at. While Adrien Brody's role really wasn't that big, or difficult - he still does a good job of playing Watts' love interest. But for me, it was Jack Black that topped 'em all. While he usually plays comedic roles and goofy characters, this time he captures an arrogant filmmaker who's all talk. Sure, he comes off as funny, but just hearing him talk through this movie, making promises and everything - you just know he's full of shit. His arrogance and actions are not only symbolic in the movie, but also strike a chord towards the end of the movie.

I had a blast watching this movie. Peter Jackson is a master in my mind now; what he was able to do in this movie is mindblowing. If you don't know that the original (1933) King Kong was his inspiration for becoming a filmmaker, it wouldn't be too hard to guess after watching it. There's even a little shout-out to the original's filmmakers and actress in this update. The fact that Jackson is able to deliver an equally impressive movie - with CGI, more action, and adding a little to the storylines - adds to this man's awesome ability as a filmmaker.

Jackson delivers in his version of King Kong with heart. This movie has a lot of heart. The heart comes in the form of emotions, relationships, even the action - because trust me: my heart was thumping with adrenaline as I watched Kong take on other monsters and beasts. But there's another side to King Kong that gives the ape more human qualities. This movie has everything a movie fanatic (like myself :D) can really enjoy.

10/10 (and this is my first 10/10 this year!!)

Mr-Blonde

12-15-2005, 11:30 AM

I can't believe that Naomi Watts didn't get a Golden Globe nom for her performance in this. Her scenes with Serkis were fantastic and completely believable. And I also agree that Andy Serkis did a phenomenal job as Kong. Between Gollum and now Kong so far he's two for two in sucessfully bringing to life iconic all CGI characters.

--SPOILERS--

I cringed at Serkis' sailor character's fate. His grisly death by worms was extremely disgusting.

Tyler_Durden_208

12-15-2005, 11:41 AM

I was actually more interested in Serkis' Lumpy character than most of the other secondary characters put together. Goes to show you that a little can go a long way.

Jas

12-15-2005, 12:43 PM

Wow. What a great movie. Without a doubt one of the best movies I've seen this year, and for a long long time.
Everything in this movie was just, simply put, WOW!

I kinda half-cried at the end...Lip started trembling...I'm such a little girl :rolleyes:

10/10

TrippingBalls

12-15-2005, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
I cringed at Serkis' sailor character's fate. His grisly death by worms was extremely disgusting.

SPOILERS

Yea. His and the captain of the ship were the only secondary characters I cared about. I actually wanted the whiny kid to be off'ed.
I was surprised at how gruesome his death was given the PG-13 rating. What a shitty way to die for a such a cool character.

chinton

12-15-2005, 02:35 PM

Whats so annoying is that both Andy Serkis and Noami Watts wont get nominated for Oscars even though they both deserve it not only for great performances but the situation in which those great performances were given.

Favorite Lines:

"Carl was right there is some myster left in the world and we can all have a piece of it for the price of a dmission ticket>"

"Anne you're the saddest girl Ive ever seen."

spacemonkey

12-15-2005, 03:19 PM

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/894/2240/lo/2307_WD_143_314_V248_00017.jpg

Title: King Kong (2005)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrian Brody

Review:

Ever since Kong the giant ape from Skull Island first appeared on the silver screen way back in 1933 it has captured the imagination of millions of people. So much so that it has spawned quite a few remakes and sequels. Most of them have never really been able to capture the image of a giant gorrilla properly. Lets face it. Its never been truly convincing. You could always tell it was either a man in a suit or stop motion animation. Now, with the help of some cutting edge computer animation, Peter Jackson has finally done the big ape some justice! Kong Lives, through the magic of special effects.

The story as many of you already know is fairly simple. A crew of filmakers, desperate to film something awe inspiring and captivating for their new movie, travel to a mysterious island that no one has ever heard of or discovered for that matter. Their destination is Skull Island. Unbeknownst to them, the island is populated with gigantic insects, deadly giant centipedes and basically deadly giant EVERYTHING you could imagine. Its a land where dinasours roam free and a deadly race of cannibalistic natives are on the prowl. A deadly place in deed, of course they dont know this and just plunge themselves deeper and deeper "Into the Heart of Darkness" where a giant ape awaits them. Ape falls for girl, ape is taken away from his natural habitat...Ape wrecks huge amounts of havok on New York city streets.

I have to applaud this new version of Kong for finally making a giant gorilla look believable. This Kong is a living breathing creature, with feelings and emotions. You forget that you are watching a special effect and just take Kongs performance right in and you start believing that you are watching a giant gorilla. The special effects and animation are that believable. Hats down to those folks at Peter Jacksons WETA studios for surpassing even their own previous creation "Gollum" from Lord of the Rings. These guys obviously labored hard to make Kong look this good. Kudos to those guys for not only making Kong believable, but for making every creature, and Skull Island itself a completely credible living breathing environment.

The action sequences are something to behold. Breathtaking battles between gigantic creatures await. Peter Jacksons is a true geek at heart, and acting true to his geekdom his has run amok in putting images on the screen that will take you back to when you were a 14 year old kid saying "cool" a lot. Jacksons a big geek whos been given a lot of cash, and he intends to use it to make himself and his fellow geeksters happy! And that aint a bad thing!

The action sequences are not in a any hurry to finish, they really take their time on making a scene truly amazing and intense. You want Kong to fight a T-Rex? Why not have him fight tree of em? With one hand? Everything as far as action and special effects was pushed to the limits. You will see these characters finding themselves in some truly incredible situations. And the best part of it all? It all seems real...within the context of the truly fantastic. Skull Island is a whole other world. Its like nothing youve seen before, true escapism to the highest degree. This is a film for you to totally loose yourself in an alien world.

There were a few set backs. For example, the story wich is a fairly simple story is drawn out to three hours. Now, most of it is spent on fantastical action sequences and effects and I had to admit that sometimes they did scratch on geek boy over indulgance. But only slightly. I do believe some of the movie could have been edited down, but heck I was having so much fun that I didnt care.

On the acting department we have a great cast and they do a great job in what is other wise a pop corn flick. Theres nothing really incredibly demanding about these roles as far as I was concerned, the real stars of this film are the effects, theres no question about that. The actors are their, and they are great actors, but with little to do but react to the amazing circumstances that they have sarounded with. Jack Black is the only one that really shined as the sneeky, selfish Carl Denham.

A warning for you parents out there. The movie is PG-13, but it has some truly frightning moments. Jackson really pushed the envelope as far as what he could show in a PG-13 rated flick. Specially when it comes to the natives of Skull Island. I just thought we would get a re-hash of what we had already seen with jacksons Orks on Lord of the Rings. NOT SO! These cannibals are even more evil and ruthless looking. Demonic even. True evil. Scary stuff, there was a little kid on the theater I saw it in that started to cry. Obviously parents taking their little kids to see this might find them getting scared during those sequences. They are intense, you have been warned.

All in all? A film filled with a sense of true wonder and fantasy. Youll revert to when you were a teenager and you just indulged yourself in the coolness of watching giant monsters fighting each other. Lets face it folks, this is first and foremost a monster movie. A monster movie with emotion. Jackson does have a talent for creating characters that dont forget to feel. Go see this expecting a three hour long extravaganza of top of the line, cutting edge pop corn entertainment. Kong Lives!

Rating: 5 out of 5

Patrick Bateman

12-15-2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by chinton
Favorite Lines:

"Carl was right there is some myster left in the world and we can all have a piece of it for the price of a dmission ticket>"

"Anne you're the saddest girl Ive ever seen."

One of my favourite lines in the film was the nod to Fay Wray where Denham mentions something about getting "Fay" for his film, and his assistant mentions that she's busy shooting a picture for RKO.

That was awesome. :cool:

spacemonkey

12-15-2005, 04:02 PM

Did anyone get the feeling like they were watching a silent movie at certain point? I know there were sound effects galore, but theres was barely any dialogue. It was non stop action for huuuge chunks of the movie and suddenly I realize, wow no one has said anything in the movie in more then 15 minutes!

lunatic

12-15-2005, 04:41 PM

I know it's three hours long movie and it was not Holiday week Wednesday but King Kong made less than 10 mil. Do you think people really did not rush to see it on the first day?

max

12-15-2005, 04:57 PM

Possible spoilers!!!
Tedious, hollow spectacle. Although I'm sure I would have loved it back when I was 9 years old. The few sequences that moved me had nothing to do with apes, dinos, or giant insects. Which is sort of like saying you went to see a ballet for the music. Am I missing some kind of emotion chip? I felt nothing whatsoever when Kong was meeting his interminable demise? Nothing during the icy pond sequence. I groaned aloud and sat there with my head in my hands. The biggest problem, for me, is that Naomi Watts has absolutely no sex appeal. She just fills space. At least LOTR had Sam and Frodo carrying the viewers along in the story. Personally, I would've cast Scarlett Johansson in the part. Someone who can express emotions beyond slightly miffed and inconvenienced, which is the extent of Watts' range. I like the ape. Didn't like anyone else. Except Kyle Chandler as Bruce Baxter. Jack Black is miscast. Adrien Brody is not quite right as an action hero. My favorite young actor, Jamie Bell, is criminally underused. The nearly generic musical score is another problem. It falls as flat as Naomi Watts and adds nothing whatsoever to the film. And lord, I know the film was supposed to be doing a light take on the race relations of the original era, but man did it make me feel uncomfortable. I was also troubled by jarringly pretentious subthreads, specifically the explication of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. As for KONG'S technical accomplishments, I'm not impressed. The Brontosaurus stampede looked absolutely wretched, and the WWF T-Rex battle was more motion blur than anything else. The newness of Kong has worn off. It's time has passed. And I think Peter Jackson is a hack. I can't wait until we're over him. Ugh. 5/10

moviegroupie

12-15-2005, 06:06 PM

I don't think it was that packed yesterday, there was no line or people waiting in line for the next showing, and I easily got two seats in the best seat in the house after arriving a little late (the trailers already started).

I almost saw it again today, but I'll see it over the weekend definitely.

Joshmo

12-15-2005, 06:19 PM

For the poster who gave it 5/10...if you are really asking if there is something wrong with you regarding emotions and this movie, then I would say yes there is. Please dont flame, I am just responding to someones question. This movie is a freaking masterpiece. Check that emotion chip.

;)

Sigur509

12-15-2005, 06:43 PM

After seeing it again, it has offically entered my top 20.

Words can't express how great this movie is.

Fisting Ackbar

12-15-2005, 07:05 PM

SPOILERS

I pretty much expected this film to be awesome...which it was.

Not totally perfect, but come on, what movie is? I could have also gone without some of the sped-up slow-motion and it did feel a bit long at times (though I can't think of what I would have cut out).

But most of the movie was truly exhilerating, and the part where Kong bites off the tongue of one of the T-Rexes (and spits it out) rocked so hard it hurt.

Probably my favorite movie of the year.

9/10

Also,

1: When Adrien Brody is being taken to his "cage", did anybody catch the reference to BRAINDEAD/DEAD ALIVE? I got a big kick out of that.

2: Was that Howard Shore guiding the symphony while Kong was on stage?

12-15-2005, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Fisting Ackbar
...Was that Howard Shore guiding the symphony while Kong was on stage?

I haven't seen the film yet, but yes that was Howard Shore.

Can someone explain the "ice-pond" sequence a little more to me? How did it play out?
I've heard in equal amounts that it is a very beautiful and sad moment (knowing what's about to happen to Kong), and that it's also a very cheesy moment...could anyone care to elaborate on that? Thanks.

dman476

12-15-2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by ak

Can someone explain the "ice-pond" sequence a little more to me? How did it play out?
I've heard in equal amounts that it is a very beautiful and sad moment (knowing what's about to happen to Kong), and that it's also a very cheesy moment...could anyone care to elaborate on that? Thanks.
The ice pond scene is very nice, it's touching and I didn't feel it to br misplaced. It shows Kong and Darrow enjoying the little time that they have together. It's very innocent and just a great scene. I don't see why people are complaining.

Duke Nukem

12-15-2005, 09:00 PM

The movie is great, the special effects (with only a small smudge of it) are excellent, the acting was fine, the epic storyline told the tragic story of Kong beautifully, and it deserves to be successful. However...

I kind of hope this movie flops, because if it turns out TOO successful, it will inspire studios to make more remakes to classic movies that we DON'T want. This movie was different. It had been years since the original in 1933 (and since the first remake in 1976), and with the advance in technology and the epic story Peter Jackson had in mind, it could have made a worthy remake (and it is). But, if one remake is successful, that means more remakes to come. To us, that success (i.e., our money) means that we thought that THIS ONE PARTICULAR remake was good, but that DOES NOT mean we want more remakes to other films. To the studios though, that success only translates to "more want for more remakes" which is bullcrap.

So...if any schmoes or numerous guests are reading this, and you feel a little skeptic about this remake (or even prefer to wait for video or DVD), go ahead. I completely understand, and it will only even out the deservence line of success. You see, there are too many remakes already in the making right now and being planned, and a failure of one has to happen if we see less re-done movies we've already seen.

Otherwise, it is a good movie, I loved it, but I don't want it too become too successful. What I'm saying might sound contradictory, but it isn't. I don't wish Peter Jackson and the studio to lose money, but if it has to in order to start killing the planned remakes, then so be it.

poopontheshoes7

12-15-2005, 09:10 PM

Thats probably the most selfish thing I've ever heard. Your basically saying dont go see it, becuase I dont want more remakes. Maybe thats not what you had in mind but thats what it sounds like.

Im not trying to be a prick or ass, but get over it. Remakes are trend right now and they're gonna keep coming for a while and the failure of one (no matter how big it is) wont stop all the other ones that are already in production or becoming ready for production.

I personally hope this movie makes a shitload of money so it can get the respect it deserves by everyone who goes a see's this masterpiece.

NightStalkerGtx

12-15-2005, 09:26 PM

I'll be seeing this on sunday and i cant wait i wasnt pumped b4 but now im going fucking crazy,

As for remakes, dont wish this movie bad luck if a crappy remake comes out dont see it its that simple.

12-15-2005, 09:33 PM

dman476 - Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to that scene, it does indeed sound beautiful.

I'll be seeing Kong 3pm GMT today, Friday.

I. Cannot. Wait.

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-15-2005, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by lunatic
I know it's three hours long movie and it was not Holiday week Wednesday but King Kong made less than 10 mil. Do you think people really did not rush to see it on the first day?

People have to work extra hard the holiday season so they can have money for Christmas and whatnot. Come Friday when people are off work and going out on the town, that's when the big bucks'll be rolling in.

Duke Nukem

12-15-2005, 09:45 PM

I'll I'm saying is that, if anyone is questionable about this remake, then don't see it. There will be a lot of other people that will see it though, and for that, it deserves success. There are number of remakes, good and bad, that been successful in past years, more than before, and my feeling is that it will take a BIG remake to flop and kill the term "remake" for a while. Technically, with the praise from so many, this film deserves all the success in the world. But, too much success can create more remakes that we don't want. That's how studios work, unfortunately, and I suspect it will take some kind of sacrifice to lower the number of remakes (despite that sacrifice being that one good remake). I know it won't stop production of current in-the-making remakes, but it will halt studios from making other remakes that are in whisper and only concept at the moment. Something has to be said.

dman476

12-15-2005, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by ak
dman476 - Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to that scene, it does indeed sound beautiful.

I'll be seeing Kong 3pm GMT today, Friday.

I. Cannot. Wait.
Well, I hope you enjoy the film (I think you will). It really is a great movie and well worth the wait and anticipation.
James Newton Howard's score was really good, some tracks, like Beautiful, really have shades of Thomas Newman in them, don't you think?

silentasylum

12-15-2005, 11:51 PM

what a great movie! So many wonderful shots. This will probably turn into one of my favorite movies of all time, it really blew me away that much. Worth the wait, time, all that good stuff..........

10/10

LegionX

12-15-2005, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
The movie is great, the special effects (with only a small smudge of it) are excellent, the acting was fine, the epic storyline told the tragic story of Kong beautifully, and it deserves to be successful. However...

I kind of hope this movie flops, because if it turns out TOO successful, it will inspire studios to make more remakes to classic movies that we DON'T want. This movie was different. It had been years since the original in 1933 (and since the first remake in 1976), and with the advance in technology and the epic story Peter Jackson had in mind, it could have made a worthy remake (and it is). But, if one remake is successful, that means more remakes to come. To us, that success (i.e., our money) means that we thought that THIS ONE PARTICULAR remake was good, but that DOES NOT mean we want more remakes to other films. To the studios though, that success only translates to "more want for more remakes" which is bullcrap.

Do me a favor....Re-read your opening paragraph....... Then think about that stupid comment you made shortly after that... You said it yourself that the movie was excellent....why not inspire studioes to make more remakes? If they can make films to the same capacity as Kong was then hell have at it Hollywood. These are movies that we remember growing up and are being re-amde for the youth of today. You think any young teenager will ever look at the 1933 Kong? No! they would rather watch a "Re-Make" with all the newest technology. Now if a corny Director (which Peter jackson certainly is not) decides to come in, and fuck up a remake then by all mean we have the power to say dont see this. But when a Director (such as Peter Jackson) can re-make a movie to be as good or better than the original then yes my friends, and Hollywood, please continue with the remakes...only if you can do what Peter Jackson did! Kong was brilliant and I'm sure other remakes will come along that will be just as brilliant or better.

LegionX

12-16-2005, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by max
The biggest problem, for me, is that Naomi Watts has absolutely no sex appeal. She just fills space.

WHAT!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL OMG....here if this doesnt get your penis moveing then I'm calling you gay.... lol jk

http://home.sc.rr.com/pix4sale2002/images/naomi_watts_01.jpg
http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/040129/12319__watts_l.jpg
http://www.12move.nl/images/1/5/watts01.jpg

lol I rest my case

dman476

12-16-2005, 12:12 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*drool*

Naomi Watts is adorable and partly the reason why the film worked. She is genuinely believable, and a heck of an actress at that. I usually don't like when she does nude scenes (ala Mullholland Dr. or 21 grams) because I really think she's better than that but...you know, I'm sure many of you (guys) will disagree with me.
I can't believe a few of you said she has no sex appeal.
She looked her absolute best in this film and...I can't even continue. I keep thinking of her crying face in the film and it just begins to make me sad. I'll say this again, she deserves an Oscar for the film, or at the very least a golden globe - to which she wasn't even nominated, which I think is outrageous.

Duke Nukem

12-16-2005, 12:15 AM

Okay, okay. Maybe I went a little haywire. I just finished this college semester with paper on "The People are Taking Movies for Granted," basically on the numerous many problems plaguing movies, Hollywood and theaters right now. The number of remakes (too many of them currently) is one of those problems I went over. I really liked the new "King Kong" and feel it is a worthy remake. I just have a bad feeling that it will inspire a lot more remakes to other classics we don't need. You say "why not make more remakes if they could be this good?" That's the problem. I don't believe they can. Remember the number remakes "The Ring" started? "The Ring" was good, but most of the remakes to follow were inferior and pointless. we didn't need new additions to "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Dawn of The Dead," "The Fog" and other films). The same thing might happen with "King Kong" being such a hit. You never know anymore with Hollywood.

I take back my statement. I look at the poster of King Knog on IMDB and I feel guilty now. Maybe making a big remake like King Kong flop is not the right way to stop needless remakes. I just thought that by making a big remake like this flop, it would tell studios something. The movie would have flopped in the box-office, but made big money on DVD. It might have become a cult-classic instead and kept studios from remaking more movies. I guess sacrificing a good remake to illiminate soon-to-be bad and pointless remakes isn't the solution now. I admit I was wrong and take all that back. Kong deserves it all. But, I hope to God its success only tells studios that the audience paid for that remake only, not for future remakes to other classic films too.

LegionX

12-16-2005, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
You say "why not make more remakes if they could be this good?" That's the problem. I don't believe they can.

They did.....
KING KONG...

TrippingBalls

12-16-2005, 12:28 AM

Max, no offense, but when was the last time you liked a movie that didn't star Robert DeNiro or play in an arthouse theatre?

Duke Nukem

12-16-2005, 12:30 AM

Um, "King Kong" is just one good remake currently. There has to be another good one to follow to complete your theory.

LegionX

12-16-2005, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
Um, "King Kong" is just one good remake currently. There has to be another good one to follow to complete your theory.

theory huh...lol hmmmmmmmmmm ok here is a list of some good remakes

-King Kong
-Spider-Man (yes back in the early to mid 70's there was once a movie that was released about Spider-Man...I think it was a straight to video/TV movie)
- The Ring
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
- The Longest Yard
- The Punisher (Not a great movie but just as good if not better than the original)
- Cheaper by the Dozen
- Plus I heard they are re-making the Batman Anthology and You cant tell me Batman Begins wasnt a great start...

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-16-2005, 01:25 AM

The Heart Collector

12-16-2005, 01:25 AM

Cheaper By The Dozen? Man, GTFO!

TylerDurden182

12-16-2005, 02:03 AM

King Kong- 10+/10

I have seen it twice now, and it has definantly entered my top 10 of all time. A fucking masterpiece.

Mr-Blonde

12-16-2005, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
King Kong- 10+/10

I have seen it twice now, and it has definantly entered my top 10 of all time. A fucking masterpiece.

Here here! Seconded for best of 2005.

dman476

12-16-2005, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by LegionX
theory huh...lol hmmmmmmmmmm ok here is a list of some good remakes

-King Kong
-Spider-Man (yes back in the early to mid 70's there was once a movie that was released about Spider-Man...I think it was a straight to video/TV movie)
- The Ring
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
- The Longest Yard
- The Punisher (Not a great movie but just as good if not better than the original)
- Cheaper by the Dozen
- Plus I heard they are re-making the Batman Anthology and You cant tell me Batman Begins wasnt a great start...

King Kong, to me, is the best remake ever made, or at least I think it is right now. I maybe own five remakes, I usually don't like them. In my opinion, Longest Yard, TCM, Cheaper by the Dozen, and Punisher are all crap films, but that's my opinion.
Good remakes:
The Man Who Knew too Much (1956)
Ben Hur
Dawn of the Dead - good update of the Romero original, a very enjoyable film.
The Fly - classic film, better than the original
War of the Worlds - I like it but in no way does it live up to the greatness of the original, although I must admit it is one of the better remakes to come out in the last few years.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Look at War of the Worlds
The Magnificent Seven - this would probably be the best one were it really a remake, well, I don't know what it is actually. Is it a remake? If so, it's a great one.

The Producers might be on this list if it's any good. But other than that, there's nothing that I can remember. The Pink Panther will not be on that list, seeing as it is made by the "hack" director of Cheaper by the Dozen. Pink Panther will be a dreadful film I think.
In no way am I against remakes, but I am against shitty remakes but shitty directors. Please, do let Peter Jackson remake the films he wants to. Oh, and I hope Kong is a huge success, the only film that really deserves it this year.

dman476

12-16-2005, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
King Kong- 10+/10

I have seen it twice now, and it has definantly entered my top 10 of all time. A fucking masterpiece.

Lucky lucky. I look forward to seeing it again next week.
I really loved the film and I hesitated, but I can easily say that the film has entered my top 25 and that is a large accomplishment. I know that there are about a hundred (if not more) better films than this one but I really dug this film.

LegionX

12-16-2005, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Cheaper By The Dozen? Man, GTFO!

lol yea I agree wtf did I put that here ohh well mistakes will be done

bigred760

12-16-2005, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Duke Nukem
However...

I kind of hope this movie flops, because if it turns out TOO successful, it will inspire studios to make more remakes to classic movies that we DON'T want. This movie was different.

So...if any schmoes or numerous guests are reading this, and you feel a little skeptic about this remake (or even prefer to wait for video or DVD), go ahead. I completely understand, and it will only even out the deservence line of success. You see, there are too many remakes already in the making right now and being planned, and a failure of one has to happen if we see less re-done movies we've already seen.

Hate to break it to you - but remakes are being made anyway. And whether this flick flops or not, they're still going to be made.

I freakin' loved this movie; I will see it again in theaters and will buy the DVD. Schmoes, if you love movies, this is film-lovers dream. Go watch it on the big screen.

max

12-16-2005, 10:08 AM

Max, no offense, but when was the last time you liked a movie that didn't star Robert DeNiro or play in an arthouse theatre?

CAPOTE, SYRIANA, WALK THE LINE, THE SQUID AND THE WHALE, just to name a few. I was actually being very kind to KING KONG. Didn't want to offend the Kongheads on this board. But the more I think about the movie, the little there is to think about, that is, the much less I think of it. It's a silly, ludicrous (how anyone survived the Brontosaurus stampede is beyond even my wildest suspension of disbelief), bloated (you could probably find a cure for cancer with the $200 million they spent on it) piece of apeshit. And I haven't even mentioned its 3-hour running time. Knowing Peter Jackson, there's probably an extended director's dvd cut in the works. Hope it includes Ann blowing Kong. How else to explain the perpetual gooey look on her face? Can't wait.

bigred760

12-16-2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by max
Knowing Peter Jackson, there's probably an extended director's dvd cut in the works.

I doubt it - the movie was supposed to be around two and a half hours - so if they have extra footage to add, I don't think it'll be much. He put everything he wanted to put in in this "edition."

Mr-Blonde

12-16-2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by bigred760
I doubt it - the movie was supposed to be around two and a half hours - so if they have extra footage to add, I don't think it'll be much. He put everything he wanted to put in in this "edition."

Actually PJ said in his interview on the main page that he had 4 hours worth of material shot and that he may just be releasing an extended.-- which is fine and dandy in my book. If you don't like overly long movies the solution is simple-- don't go see them!

bigred760

12-16-2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Actually PJ said in his interview on the main page that he had 4 hours worth of material shot and that he may just be releasing an extended.-- which is fine and dandy in my book. If you don't like overly long movies the solution is simple-- don't go see them!

I did not know that.

Don't mind them at all actually. I own five or six movies that are at least 3 hours long.

Mr-Blonde

12-16-2005, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by bigred760
I did not know that.

Don't mind them at all actually. I own five or six movies that are at least 3 hours long.

Actually I didn't mean to infer it was you who was complaining. I just hate how certain reviewers are complaining about the length. It's like what-- you didn't know that going into it? Every synopsis that I have read about it practically broadcast the fact.

bigred760

12-16-2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Actually I didn't mean to infer it was you who was complaining. I just hate how certain reviewers are complaining about the length. It's like what-- you didn't know that going into it? Every synopsis that I have read about it practically broadcast the fact.

I know - just wanted to say that I didn't know PJ might have enough for an extended edition.

max

12-16-2005, 11:06 AM

Actually I didn't mean to infer it was you who was complaining. I just hate how certain reviewers are complaining about the length. It's like what-- you didn't know that going into it? Every synopsis that I have read about it practically broadcast the fact.

Reviewers only complain about length when a movie fails to justify its length. I see no reason why a re-telling of KING KONG should run 3 hours. Not on paper and certainly not from what I've seen. The original's only 1-1/2 hours long and is far more effective than Jackson's vainglorious attempt. There are short movies that feel long and long movies that feel short. KING KONG is a long movie that feels longer. Now when do I get to see that blowjob scene?

Mr-Blonde

12-16-2005, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by max
Now when do I get to see that blowjob scene?

That's gonna be in the sequel King Kong 2: King Dong.

chinton

12-16-2005, 11:25 AM

Actually many people were killed durign the Brontasauras stampede I guess you missed that line of dialogue. Also technichally it doesnt need to be three hours as people but who cares when those three hours are so incredibly enjoyable.

By the way if you really want to tlak about wasteful studio money that could go to starving children a better idea would ahve been combining what it cost to make any Uwe Boll film, The Dukes Of Hazzard, Just Friends, and I could go on and on and put all of them together.

By the way the shot with Noami Watts on the bow of the ship with the sunset in her hair was gorgeous.

chinton

12-16-2005, 11:27 AM

By the way did anybody get a kick out of the little stuff like Anne slowly backing up to Kong during the T-Rex fight acknowleding him a s her champion. I also loved the part where hes grabbing up blonds in the street and casually tossing them away when he realizes theyre not Anne. Grea t stuff.

bigred760

12-16-2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by chinton
By the way did anybody get a kick out of the little stuff like Anne slowly backing up to Kong during the T-Rex fight acknowleding him a s her champion.

I don't know if she was acknowledging him as her champion - at least I wouldn't word it that way. She was backing up basically because she knew that he would do all in his power to protect her. He'd demonstrated that. I liked that scene as well; I especially liked the look on his face as he glanced down seeing her back up towards him.

max

12-16-2005, 11:41 AM

By the way if you really want to tlak about wasteful studio money that could go to starving children a better idea would ahve been combining what it cost to make any Uwe Boll film, The Dukes Of Hazzard, Just Friends, and I could go on and on and put all of them together.

The combined cost of all those movies wouldn't add up to $200 million, either. An Uwe Boll film probably costs less than what they paid Watts' hair stylist.

By the way the shot with Noami Watts on the bow of the ship with the sunset in her hair was gorgeous.

Yes, but that only lasted a few seconds, and there weren't enough of those moments to justify the movie's interminable length.

max

12-16-2005, 11:47 AM

By the way did anybody get a kick out of the little stuff like Anne slowly backing up to Kong during the T-Rex fight acknowleding him a s her champion.

I thought she was slowly backing up because Kong was getting a hard-on. Again, those deleted scenes can't come soon enough.

TrippingBalls

12-16-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by max
Reviewers only complain about length when a movie fails to justify its length. I see no reason why a re-telling of KING KONG should run 3 hours. Not on paper and certainly not from what I've seen. The original's only 1-1/2 hours long and is far more effective than Jackson's vainglorious attempt. There are short movies that feel long and long movies that feel short. KING KONG is a long movie that feels longer. Now when do I get to see that blowjob scene?

Fair enough. While I can agree that King Kong suffered from a lot of scenes that should have been deleted, most of them being scenes revolving around useless secondary characters with no payoff who add nothing to the story. That and the action scenes leave a lot to be desired. (I've seen enough scenes featuring gigantic monstrous CGI creations in LOTR). However, what saved the movie for me was it's more subtler moments, where it's not loud and not trying to be a summer popcorn movie. Namely, all the scenes featuring Ann and Kong. Sure, some of them are cheesy, but they're touching in their own way. In fact, what won me over with the LOTR movies weren't the massively epic CGI battle scenes but rather the characters and Frodo and Sam's quest. That's what I like about Peter Jackson is he knows how to be sentimental as well as gung-ho.

And don't tell me you can't say that Kong is one of the best CGI creations in years. If you can't at least admire the extrenious hard work, talent, and dedication that went into making him, then I believe there may be something wrong with you. Kong isn't just some CGI model that was slapped together in 5 minutes using 3d Studio Max like George Lucas did with the Star Wars prequals. Real labor and love went into making him.

max

12-16-2005, 12:56 PM

However, what saved the movie for me was it's more subtler moments, where it's not loud and not trying to be a summer popcorn movie. Namely, all the scenes featuring Ann and Kong. Sure, some of them are cheesy, but they're touching in their own way.

Yes, those worked for me the best, but they still left a lot to be desired because Naomi Watts doesn't do it for me, either physically or as an actress. And there are only so many times I can watch Kong and Ann make goo goo eyes at each other. I wanted to be touched. I was waiting to be touched. Instead, I got so bored I was tempted to touch myself.

And don't tell me you can't say that Kong is one of the best CGI creations in years. If you can't at least admire the extrenious hard work, talent, and dedication that went into making him, then I believe there may be something wrong with you.

I admire the effort, I admire the creation, I don't admire the overall end-product. You can also admire something and not like it or respect it. Wish they had put more effort into other areas like the script and character development and casting. I wouldn't have hired Jack Black. I wouldn't have hired Adrien Brody. And I definitely wouldn't have hired Naomi Watts.

Billdemart

12-16-2005, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by max
Possible spoilers!!!
The biggest problem, for me, is that Naomi Watts has absolutely no sex appeal. She just fills space. 5/10

As soon as I read that I stopped reading your review. You are nuts...

Billdemart

12-16-2005, 02:11 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Billdemart/bilde.jpg

Saw this last night and was absolutely and totally blown away. I knew it was 3 hours long going in, I knew we wouldn't see Kong for a while and it took a long time to set the movie up. I saw every possible preview including the Vine scene (parts of it at least), but I was still absolutely awestruck watching Kong in pretty much every scene he was in.

I thought the main three characters, Anne, Carl, and Jack were great. Jack Black was good in his role as Carl, I thought Brodie was outstanding as Jack, and Watts as Anne stole the show (at least of the humans). Her performance, not so much in her lines, but her expressions were awesome. She really portrayed the role well.

But Kong steals the show and makes you almost forget about everything else. How in the world did they make him look so real? At no point in the film did I ever think he looked like a computer generated creature. He looked so real and lifelike. He acted exactly like every Ape i've ever seen on tv. They did an over the top, unbelievable job in making him look and act as realistic as a 25 foot ape could be. His facial expressions were priceless. His snorts, barks, growls, roars, laughs, howls, frowns, etc. etc. etc. were all just awesome.

The major actions scenes were astounding, breathtakeing, edge of your seat, thrill rides. The brontosaurus stampede was excellent, the T-rex battle is probably the greatest thing I've ever seen on the big screen, the spider pit was creepy, nasty, and intense. And then of course the final empire state scene was dizzying, incredible, sad, and phenomenal.

King Kong delivers in every way possible. It was a bit long but at no point was I ever bored or wishing it would speed up.

Kong is probably now my favorite movie character of alltime. I really felt for him. Simply amazing. This movie is in my top 5 of alltime I think. I can't wait to see it again.

10/10

max

12-16-2005, 02:16 PM

Saw this last night and was absolutely and totally blown away.

As soon as I read that I stopped reading your review. YOU are nuts...

Billdemart

12-16-2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by max
As soon as I read that I stopped reading your review. YOU are nuts...

Lets compare what I said to what you said, especially in the context of this thread and see who comes out smelling like a rose...

Doug

12-16-2005, 03:11 PM

- Damn!, was I at the same movie? ..... about the time the spider pit scene was underway I was seriously contemplating leaving the theatre .... I was bored senseless. Somewhere in the middle of the brontosaur stampede tracking shot -- where millions were spent making it look not-so-ridiculously unbelievable -- the movie began to show the effects of digital overdose ..... running between the legs while carrying on cheerfull conversation is just too stupid. I can only sit through so many far fetched battle scenes with nothing else to offer but proposterous non-stop action with no regard for believability or plausible story. Im seriously convinced that all the critics that are raving about this movie are undoubtably in the back pocket of Peter Jackson & the studio ..... how else can these positive reviews be justified!? :mad:

- I went on Wednesdays opening day matinee @ 1pm showtime and their was about 15-18 people braving this steaming pile of monkey turd. I have a feeling this movie isnt going to go to far and im thanking my lucky stars he made the far superior LOTR trilogy before Kong otherwise it probably wouldnt have gotten the green light for production.

- The end result is a film that will blow you away with some great visuals here & there one minute, only to bore you silly with stale dialogue and static characters the next.

silentasylum

12-16-2005, 03:48 PM

they still left alot out to be desired because Naomi Watts doesn't do it for me physically, or as an actress

we're all entitled to our opinion but perhaps you would have preferred Colin Farrell as the woman, sorry but that doesn't make any sense. 21 Grams proved her ability as an actress and this also shows the type of actress she is.

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-16-2005, 04:08 PM

*Some Spoilers below*

I just got back from seeing this and I must say that I was blown away. Peter Jackson did it again. I was surprised of the realism of the CGI, not only with Kong but with the dinosaurs as well (I looove the stampede scene ). The scenes with Kong and Ann are truly touching, and was a nice approach as opposed to the 33 version where Ann just screams all the time.

I also really liked how Jackson nodded to the original film in a few cases. From the scene being filmed on the boat that was right out of Kong '33, to the music played in the amphitheater.

Jack Black was great as a much seedier, dirty Carl Denham. While he wasn't exactly evil, he was more willing to do anything to finish his picture, even if it cost his crew their lives. Brody and Watts were perfect in their rolls as well.

My only complaint is how the film at times tries to make us give a crap about two characters: The First Mate and Jimmy. Every scene they were in felt really forced, almost as if Jackson/Walsh/Boyens were trying too hard to recreate a Frodo/Sam team for this film. That's the only part of the movie that really bugged me.

As for the running time, it certainly does not feel like 3 hours. The movie started and before I knew it I was on the boat, then Skull Island and then New York. It felt shorter than it actually was.

I'd have to give it a 9/10. The only thing that stops it from being damn close to perfect is the secondary characters of The First Mate whose name escapes me and Jimmy. Otherwise it'd be a 10/10. I can't wait to see this again.

BigRedNeck

12-16-2005, 04:17 PM

Does anyone think that KK will recover this weekend from only making 9 someodd million Wednesday?

My hope was KK would kill Titanic in the box office.

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-16-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by BigRedNeck
Does anyone think that KK will recover this weekend from only making 9 someodd million Wednesday?

My hope was KK would kill Titanic in the box office.

People aren't on vacation yet, so they couldn't rush out to see the movie. There should be a big jump this weekend, and good word of mouth to keep the momentum going strong.

And it won't beat Titanic. There's no way this picture or any picture in the near future will make $600 million.

BigRedNeck

12-16-2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
People aren't on vacation yet, so they couldn't rush out to see the movie. There should be a big jump this weekend, and good word of mouth to keep the momentum going strong.

And it won't beat Titanic. There's no way this picture or any picture in the near future will make $600 million.

I WISH it would.

I'll be seeing it twice this weekend.

Tuukka

12-16-2005, 05:47 PM

I wrote a long review for this film, but somehow I managed to delete it. Fuck.

...So a short re-cap:

All in all KK is a good adventure film with some occasional great moments. However, I also feel that it's deeply flawed, and certainly not a great film except for some occasional scenes and the wonderful last 20 minutes.

I'm torn between a 7/10 and 8/10, so I give it a 7.5/10 right now.

Lost in Space

12-16-2005, 07:31 PM

i just saw it
thus it was the best movie of the year
hands down
no competetion
beautiful anything and everything about it
Peter Jackson works his charm again

12-16-2005, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Tuukka
All in all KK is a good adventure film with some occasional great moments. However, I also feel that it's deeply flawed, and certainly not a great film except for some occasional scenes and the wonderful last 20 minutes.

I agree entirely, but I'll get back to the more negative apects later.

Kong himself is a marvel, both technically, and as a character, and the ending is certainly sad when it comes because you become so bound to him and his basic natural instinct.

The acting was very good from everyone, no complaints there. Jack Black was perfect for the part of Carl Denham. Peter Jackson certainly knows how to handle a lot of characters, and it feels like a breeze here, because you do invest emotion into them.

The negative aspects of this film stem from an argument that has become somewhat of a cliché, but it bothers me so much, I have to express my opinion on it - CGI.
Film, above all, is a visual medium. It has become so apparent to me that, within the last few years, big budget films have buckled under the sheer imagination of the director simply because the film cannot sustain the level of CGI required for it. Time and budget simply will not allow it.

A fair amount of CGI within the film was fairly decent, but there was an awful lot of very bad CGI that could have been cut-out or not even created in the first place. Peter Jackson seems to have become a CGI freak. The dino stampede was pathetic. Thirteen years of progress since Jurassic Park and that's what we get, what a load of shit. The digital doubles of the actors were no different to the rubbish digital doubles in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, again, where's the improvement. It takes me out of the film completely. Especially any scene where Kong is holding Anne. A very difficult effect to get to look right, so I can't really criticise that too much.

I must make it clear that I pay a lot of attention to stuff like this, I'm very anal. I wouldn't say I'm overly critical, just very observant.

The CGI Kong was very good indeed. Andy Serkis deserves major recognition for his performance. Outstanding.
New York looked good, especially in the final scenes of the film. It was a bit too drawn-out though. There's only so much I can take of planes shooting a gorilla.

I wasn't blown away by anything, I was just content with the film, and for that reason, I rate it 7/10.

As a side note, I would like to say how beautiful the 'ice-pond' scene in Central Park was. It's a very sad scene because you know that Kong is about to face a terrible fate. Here he doesn't have any troubles, it's just him with Anne, and it's heart-breaking.

I also (almost) shed a tear when Kong signs the 'beautiful' motion with his hand. Kong (as a character) is a genius creation of special effects and acting. It's such a sad story. Who gives a shit when a human dies, but to see animals getting the brunt of human violence is something I have trouble watching.

The very final scene of the photographers and the army standing on top of and beside Kong is filmmaking genius. It just shows the ignorance of humans toward nature. All these people thought Kong was a beast, a monster, but he was just a gorilla that wanted to survive and care for the one that he loved. It really is a tale of beauty and the beast, and you know which category humans fall into.

Billdemart

12-16-2005, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by ak
I agree entirely, but I'll get back to the more negative apects later.

Kong himself is a marvel, both technically, and as a character, and the ending is certainly sad when it comes because you become so bound to him and his basic natural instinct.

The acting was very good from everyone, no complaints there. Jack Black was perfect for the part of Carl Denham. Peter Jackson certainly knows how to handle a lot of characters, and it feels like a breeze here, because you do invest emotion into them.

The negative aspects of this film stem from an argument that has become somewhat of a cliché, but it bothers me so much, I have to express my opinion on it - CGI.
Film, above all, is a visual medium. It has become so apparent to me that, within the last few years, big budget films have buckled under the sheer imagination of the director simply because the film cannot sustain the level of CGI required for it. Time and budget simply will not allow it.

A fair amount of CGI within the film was fairly decent, but there was an awful lot of very bad CGI that could have been cut-out or not even created in the first place. Peter Jackson seems to have become a CGI freak. The dino stampede was pathetic. Thirteen years of progress since Jurassic Park and that's what we get, what a load of shit. The digital doubles of the actors were no different to the rubbish digital doubles in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, again, where's the improvement. It takes me out of the film completely. Especially any scene where Kong is holding Anne. A very difficult effect to get to look right, so I can't really criticise that too much.

I must make it clear that I pay a lot of attention to stuff like this, I'm very anal. I wouldn't say I'm overly critical, just very observant.

The CGI Kong was very good indeed. Andy Serkis deserves major recognition for his performance. Outstanding.
New York looked good, especially in the final scenes of the film. It was a bit too drawn-out though. There's only so much I can take of planes shooting a gorilla.

I wasn't blown away by anything, I was just content with the film, and for that reason, I rate it 7/10.

As a side note, I would like to say how beautiful the 'ice-pond' scene in Central Park was. It's a very sad scene because you know that Kong is about to face a terrible fate. Here he doesn't have any troubles, it's just him with Anne, and it's heart-breaking.

I also (almost) shed a tear when Kong signs the 'beautiful' motion with his hand. Kong (as a character) is a genius creation of special effects and acting. It's such a sad story. Who gives a shit when a human dies, but to see animals getting the brunt of human violence is something I have trouble watching.

I think you captured what makes the film so wonderful.

Kong.

You become attached to him. He is so expressive and emotional and incredibly rendered. It's just amazing.

As far as the other CGI problems, I didn't notice them at all. I thought the entire movies graphics were phenomenal.

And even reading all the major critics critiques of the film they never mention the CGI as a whole being anything but amazing.

12-16-2005, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Billdemart
As far as the other CGI problems, I didn't notice them at all. I thought the entire movies graphics were phenomenal.

And even reading all the major critics critiques of the film they never mention the CGI as a whole being anything but amazing.

Alas, the beauty of different opinions. The emotion of the film was the most important thing, and Peter Jackson got that so right. The things that I mentioned in my review dragged the film (as a whole) back for me, but it is a beautiful film emotionally, no doubt about it.
Like I said, I'm content with it. 7/10 is a good rating coming from me.

Billdemart

12-16-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by ak
Alas, the beauty of different opinions. The emotion of the film was the most important thing, and Peter Jackson got that so right. The things that I mentioned in my review dragged the film (as a whole) back for me, but it is a beautiful film emotionally, no doubt about it.
Like I said, I'm content with it. 7/10 is a good rating coming from me.

/cheers to different opinions :D

Heck everyone hated The Postman but I thought it was good.

Bourne101

12-16-2005, 09:10 PM

I think a box-office problem it is having is that it is having very few showings a day due to the length of the film. My theatre shows it at 2 and 7:30. Now I know that's not for every theatre because some theatres show it on multiple screens but if you think about it if the number of times it is shown per theatre was doubled it might have made 18 million on Wednesday and 12 million on Thursday. I think it will be fine in the long run but I think that may have something to do with it.

I will be seeing it this weekend.

Lazy Boy

12-16-2005, 09:43 PM

Seeing it in a little over an hour and a half. Got my tickets earlier today.

It's been a long two years since we've had a PJ film in theaters, it was becoming sort of a tradition. Hopefully, all these positive reviews won't set my expectations too high.

LegionX

12-16-2005, 09:44 PM

I dont know how its doing in other theaters tonight but I am sitting here in the office at work and I am curretnly looking at the numbers for King Kong and it isnt any better. 444 people so far tonight with only one more show left to go. Keep in mind me have 2 prints of this and that figure was both prints combined. I dont understand it. How can such a great film do so badly? oh well. Its still a great film never the less.

NightStalkerGtx

12-16-2005, 09:55 PM

legion, what theater u work at as in like is it a loews type of theater or ur avg small town theater?

Because i tend to go to loews and its always packed for any movie even one thats been out for 5 weeks (jarhead), but if i were to go to the right next to my town (its a small avg sized movie theater 8 screens) its always empty for every movie i went to see war of the worlds opening day at 9 15 there and there mustve been about 12 people in there counting me.

and that movie opened with 60nil+ so i guess sometimes one theater just has bad luck of brining in a crowd and it doesnt really mean anything...

12-16-2005, 10:06 PM

I saw Kong at an Odeon multiplex, and it was dead. You could count the people in there on your fingers.

NightStalkerGtx

12-16-2005, 10:12 PM

^ ouch well if the movie flops its not going to effect its quality.. its going to be a hit over seas anyways and maybe will make a killing on dvd either way it wont change the fact that this is a great movie (hopefully it is im seeing tomorrow at 7 35 already got my tickets).

NightStalkerGtx

12-16-2005, 10:13 PM

ak, what time did u see it?

jaw2929

12-16-2005, 10:34 PM

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

Well they let me off work early, so I decided to go see Peter Jackson's newest flick, King Kong.... Absolutely LOATHING Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, I was hoping that this would be MUCH better than those gaddamned pieces of cinematic garbage....

The trailers made it look fuckin' awesome, and the movie itself did NOT disappoint! It's about 3 hours long or so, and it starts out a bit slow.... But Jackson got really good actors to hold down the parts that didn't involve Kong and it really worked...

Movie starts out with Jack Black (a bit mis-casted here) being a movie director and producer, who's lookin to get funding for his next big movie.... He's also on the lookout for a new leading lady as well... While Naomi Watts who plays the lead character Anne, is an aspiring actress.... The 2 meet by chance, and then things go from there... Adrien Brody plays the screen/script writer, and Anne's love interest, Jack...

So they venture out to an undiscovered island, where they run into some crazy-ass natives, as well as all sorts of Dinosaurs and the movies title primate.... There's a connection between Anne and Kong, which lasts throughout the rest of the movie, as he takes her further away on the island, and Jack and the rest of the ship crew go after her.... Eventually they capture Kong, and get him into New York City as a circus type show, when he eventually breaks loose and wreaks havoc on everyone :D

I'll leave it at that... But this movie is fuckin BRILLIANT! Just absolutely beautiful, the relationship between Kong and Watts' character was flawless... All the dinosaurs and creatures on the island were fuckin bad-ass and believably well done! ( Jurassic Park sucks BALLS compared to this! ;)) The action scenes were amazing, and everything just really clicked throughout....

DEFINATELY check out this movie... It's well worth the time and money spent... Naomi Watts is one of my favourite actresses, and Adrien Brody does a damn fine job here too.... Jackson, after the abysmal shite known as LOTR, you have redeemed yourself! :)

Mr.HyDe807

12-17-2005, 12:20 AM

I just got back to see this amazing movie, and im not sure what to tink of it so far. I thought it was excellent, but am not sure if was a masterpiece. Im gonna think over it and give a review tomorrow

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-17-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by LegionX
I dont know how its doing in other theaters tonight but I am sitting here in the office at work and I am curretnly looking at the numbers for King Kong and it isnt any better. 444 people so far tonight with only one more show left to go. Keep in mind me have 2 prints of this and that figure was both prints combined. I dont understand it. How can such a great film do so badly? oh well. Its still a great film never the less.

Keep in mind that that is one theater. There are countless theaters across the country, and domestic B.O. includes all of North America, even Canada. The film's gonna do fine. Even if it doesn't, big whoop. That doesn't deny the fact that Jackson delivered a critically acclaimed film that many theater goers like us loved.

And that's all that really matters to Jackson. To quote him, "All you can do is make the best film you can."

The Other

12-17-2005, 01:49 AM

Very few remakes actually equal or outdo the original. This is not one of them. Still, it's a well-made, old-fashioned escapist popcorn flick. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rating: 7/10

Lazy Boy

12-17-2005, 03:38 AM

King Kong - 8/10

What I saw was indeed great entertainment, and I was deeply moved, but is the entire structure solid enough for me to rate it highly? Or, does it stray too far into visual overload, exhausting the audience before the emotional scenes can hit their greatest peak? Both tremendously moving, and tremendously tiring, Peter Jackon's Kong is a remake that wears its maker's heart and indulgences on its sleeve. Naomi Watts delivers a superb "silent movie" performance; she's at her best in scenes that physically place her in Kong's POV, and have her improvise silent comedy to placate the initally frightening, but soon to be tender, beast.

I can appreciate what Jackson was going for in the first hour, even though the buildup of certain characters doesn't pay off. The running time isn't a detriment, since this is a three hour movie that feels more like 90 minutes. Screenwriting problems aside, this is a generous (maybe too much) portion of what it must have felt like for Jackson to watch the original 1933 classic.

Since the tragedy and mythology are so closely tied with the original, how does this modern adaptation hold up? From it's beginning with the Jolson song (New York never looked so lovely and cinematic) to the lovely ice pond scene (in which tears welled up in my eyes, knowing the inevitable outcome), this is a good remake that creates a heart where the original film was lacking.

I know what I'll be seeing again.

12-17-2005, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
ak, what time did u see it?

I saw it at a 3pm showing. I saw Harry Potter at a 3pm showing a few weeks ago, and that was packed.
Hopefully the later showings will be busier, especially at the weekend.

NightStalkerGtx

12-17-2005, 10:01 AM

^ hopefully but what happens sometimes is that the "big movie theaters" tend to be empty on the afternoon and make 80% of their bussiness at night because i went to see batman begins twice opening weekend once at a 3 45 show (it was sat) there was like 10 people in there coutning me and then i went to an 8 30 show (sunday night!) and the theater was packed.

^ That was a loews jersey gardens a theater with 20 fucking screens.

LegionX

12-17-2005, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
legion, what theater u work at as in like is it a loews type of theater or ur avg small town theater?

Because i tend to go to loews and its always packed for any movie even one thats been out for 5 weeks (jarhead), but if i were to go to the right next to my town (its a small avg sized movie theater 8 screens) its always empty for every movie i went to see war of the worlds opening day at 9 15 there and there mustve been about 12 people in there counting me.

and that movie opened with 60nil+ so i guess sometimes one theater just has bad luck of brining in a crowd and it doesnt really mean anything...

No I work in a 10 Screen Independently owned movie theater in a small retirement town of NC. I was just wondering if it was like that in other theaters. Cause our 10:00 PM show did 32 I belive. and this morning (as I sit at my desk again) did only 24. I hope its doing better at the bigger theaters.

NightStalkerGtx

12-17-2005, 10:32 AM

well, i have a friend in loews mountainside and he said during the morning/afternoon king kong was doing "okay" but at night the theater was packed and there was a big improvement and that they made an avg 4-5 thousand bucks of it ast night.

LegionX

12-17-2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
well, i have a friend in loews mountainside and he said during the morning/afternoon king kong was doing "okay" but at night the theater was packed and there was a big improvement and that they made an avg 4-5 thousand bucks of it ast night.

Im glad to hear its doing decent numbers at other theaters. Cause its bombing here. Oh well.... its still a great movie anyways. BTW since my last post we put 1 more person in so its total is at 25

Mr.HyDe807

12-17-2005, 10:35 AM

{POOSSSSSIBLLLEE SPOILERSSSSSS!!!!!!}

Alright, now that i really think it over, i just realized how fucking amazing this movie was! Although there were stupid kids and a BABY crying at certai times that kinda agitated me, i loved the movie throughout the entire time! Some people shun this movie for the long time, but i felt it zipped by in a flash! All the actors were great, especially naomi watts and kong. Man, i was so impressed about how Peter Jackson incorporated their relationship! When kon left her, then came back and saved her life, and acted like it was no big deal. Man, that was hilarious and great at the same time! Also, their first encounter with each other was also great! Also, the action scenes were phemonenel {dman, how do you spell that word}, the brontosaurus chae scene was great and the kong vs. the 3 t-rex was also great! I loved what Kong did after he broke the jaw of one of them.The comedy was also great {i actualy laughed out loud over what Andy Serkis said abou the foot print, and what one of the movie producers said in the beginning}.
In addition, the ice pond sequence was very moving and i was actually......okay, on the verge of crying! I thought the scene would b out of place, but it didnt feel like that at all!
I could go on adn on, but im really lazy and am just gonna say this- GO SEE KING KONG! YOU WONT BE DISAPPOINTED!

well, maybe you will, i dont know!

NightStalkerGtx

12-17-2005, 10:46 AM

legion, lol come out lucky number 26!

NightStalkerGtx

12-17-2005, 10:55 AM

just got off the phone with someone from loews jersey gardens they said they got a 6-7 thousand avg of the movie yesterday and its doing really well.

PuggyD

12-17-2005, 11:52 AM

"Kong" is most definitely overhyped.

And I think that there's a chance that the Friday numbers might not be great because a lot of people, the ones who were the most eager, already saw it on Wednesday.

I don't think this is going to tank, necessarily, but I have from the beginning had my doubts about why anyone would want to sit through a 3 hour version of "King Kong". The story's already been done, and it seems to me that moreso than some other remakes the story of "Kong" doesn't really leave that much room for interesting reinterpretations. It's just really played out, and I can't say that I won't enjoy it a little bit is Jackson's vanity project underperforms a bit. Someone along the line should have stopped him and reminded him of "Godzilla '98", the remake of "Mighty Joe Young", or hell, even the last "King Kong" remake that didn't work out.

Billdemart

12-17-2005, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by PuggyD
"Kong" is most definitely overhyped.

And I think that there's a chance that the Friday numbers might not be great because a lot of people, the ones who were the most eager, already saw it on Wednesday.

I don't think this is going to tank, necessarily, but I have from the beginning had my doubts about why anyone would want to sit through a 3 hour version of "King Kong". The story's already been done, and it seems to me that moreso than some other remakes the story of "Kong" doesn't really leave that much room for interesting reinterpretations. It's just really played out, and I can't say that I won't enjoy it a little bit is Jackson's vanity project underperforms a bit. Someone along the line should have stopped him and reminded him of "Godzilla '98", the remake of "Mighty Joe Young", or hell, even the last "King Kong" remake that didn't work out.

So this is your review before having seen the movie? I can't believe you just tried to compare this to Mighty Joe Young and Godzilla...

PuggyD

12-17-2005, 12:48 PM

Um, all three are remakes of old giant monster movies. I was oversimplifying, sure, but the comparison is apt.

And yeah, sorry if that was unclear, but I haven't seen the movie. Don't think I will; it doesn't look interesting to me. Just wanted to throw in my theory about why it's making less than most predicted at the box office.

Jon Lyrik

12-17-2005, 01:01 PM

Comparing Kong to Godzilla is pretty asinine-sounding, considering the former movie is getting Golden Globe nominations and rather extraordinary word-of-mouth. When talking of opening weekends I can understand, but anything else makes no sense.

chinton

12-17-2005, 01:39 PM

How is Kong overhyped its a great movie.

I really hope it doesnt tank becuase if it does I give up on the moviegoing audience becuase it will be yet another great movie this year that nobody went to see.

Also comparing Kong to Godzilla doesnt make any sense to me. Exactly what are the comparisions. Godzilla is an empty spectacle picture with no heart and annoying characters. King Kong is escapist entertianment that is filled with tender moments and extremely likable characters. This movie has a heart. Im sorry I simply dont understand at all how this compartes to Godzilla.

chinton

12-17-2005, 01:45 PM

Also I thought it wa s interesting it was the 8th time Ive seen this film and its still depressing in the end.

Anybody notice how the light literally goes out in Kongs eyes.

dman476

12-17-2005, 01:50 PM

Lazy Boy

12-17-2005, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by chinton
Also I thought it wa s interesting it was the 8th time Ive seen this film and its still depressing in the end.

Anybody notice how the light literally goes out in Kongs eyes.

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

Yeah, that was quite heart-rendering. I think it's more tragic that he actually died ON the building instead of after falling -- his sliding reminded me of Jack sliding off the piece of ship in Titanic, sinking into the freezing water.

I'm going back next weekend, definitely.

gspawn

12-17-2005, 03:06 PM

This movie is absolute crap, and it's all due to editing. It would have been a wonderful 2-hour movie, but everything was so desperately drawn out trying to push run-time that I was only kept from getting a refund by one single thing: Andy Serkis as Lumpy. He's the best "salty" character I've seen in a long time, and I didn't wanna disrespect the man's amazing work. Yes, I'm serious.

I was in a MASSIVE theatre, where I've never seen a screening that's EVER been less than half full, and there were literally 6 or less people seeing Kong. It was already moved to cinema#9 as well, which at my theatre, means they weren't bothering to have it in a THX-equipped space anymore.

Are we seeing the same movie? Did different reels get distributed? This movie CAN'T be getting 10/10, because it loses at least a point for the slow-mo BS. Maybe it wasn't so bad in other people's versions? I'd give the movie I saw a 2/10 by itself, or maybe a 5/10 if you don't mind knowing the only reason you're watching a movie is for the SFX.

To repeat: Lumpy was the only reason I didn't get a refund. And I am completely serious.

Doug

12-17-2005, 04:48 PM

Kong has Titanic-Like Start

(taken form the Numbers site)

What should have been a weekend the movie industry would celebrate is now one filled with dread and foreboding. Saying King Kong didn't get off to the start the studio was hoping for could be the understatement of the year, but even so, a lot of analysts are cautiously optimistic that the film can rebound. Right now it's just a case of wait and see, but by the time Thursday's numbers are in, we should be in a much better position to know what the future holds.

I read a lot of box office predictions as part of my job, and the expectations for King Kong ranged from huge, to enormous to record-breaking. I even read some predictions that suggested the film could break Titanic's all-time record. Well, its opening day sure can be compared to the Titanic, but it was more like the boat than the movie. In fact, when I saw the initial Wednesday box office, I assumed it was a typo. It took four sites all confirming the same result before it sunk in. At first glance $9.8 million on Wednesday may seem like, well, like a disaster. But to put this into historical perspective, that's just behind the Wednesday opening of Catch Me If You Can and just ahead of Armageddon and those films went on to earn $165 million and $202 million respectively. And, in both cases they opened during school holidays. So King Kong could recover and its word-of-mouth should be amazing, but the massive expectations that some had are all but crushed. Best case scenario has the film earning $60 million over the next three days and about $80 million overall. Worst case scenario... I don't even want to talk about the worst case scenario other than to say it involves the film missing top spot by a substantial margin, something nobody thought was a possibility just a couple of days ago.

- Kong has raked in a WHOPPING 30 million including friday, so things look grim to say the least. The good news about all this is we wont be seeing a remake of ET or Indiana Jones anytime soon!!!

silentasylum

12-17-2005, 05:36 PM

I'm planning on seeing it again next week. I've read a lot of postive reviews on this movie so I have to ask you if we're seeing the same movie?

I agree godzilla was a crap and that was a movie that bored me towards the end. it was a movie i had hoped would be great and wasn't.

Also have you seen the King Kong re-make from the 80's? Now that is a re-make gone bad. Watching it only makes you appreciate how the new film does not screw it up but ends up giving creating a character with real feelings

10/10

No doubt about it.

I think once people start wacthing it and telling other people about it, it will have staying power.

HyperToniC

12-17-2005, 05:37 PM

I saw Kong this past Thursday. I saw it on a day where ice was falling at a steady pace, and hardly anyone was in the mood to go to the theater. Luckily my friend and I are crazy enough to venture out in the bad conditions to see it. Surprisingly, we weren't the only idiots on the road, cause the theater did have some people in it, I'd say for Kong, the theater was almost half or almost half full.
So were sitting there...for 3 hours...in the end, the only thing I had on my mind, was how bad the car would be covered in ice and that we'd have to chissel our way out of the parking lot. Well once we did that, we talked about the movie.
All and all, it was a great movie. 05 didn't have much, though this was a final nice one to see to put an ending cap to a year of bad stuff. I think people going to see the movie that listened to all the hype would be disappointed or angered by how it's not doing so well. I don't mind how it does because I watch movies for my enjoyment, not really others, though it is sad that, Peter Jackson, who is an amazing director, is gonna take a hit directly after his huge masterpiece, LOTR.
The movie was definitely too long, though I didnt' really feel it for some odd reason. I guess it was paced pretty nicely. As much as I love LOTR, you can definitely feel the length of it throughout. I think this movie stayed at a mellow pace that even when the action kicked in, it seamlessly continued after it died down. Everything about the movie was pretty good. The acting, the CGI was amazing, the cinemotography was great. Music had it's high and weak points. I just don't know how you could bash this movie. It's an amazing remake to a at the time, incredible movie. It even goes as far as being able to surpass it. While we don't need more remakes these days, this one definitely took advantage of the technology available and rather than make up it's own BS to the point of losing the original's idea, Jackson payed a lot of tribute to it. I'd give this movie 8/10 or 9/10.

inglourious basterd

12-17-2005, 07:14 PM

My concern about the film is that I already know what to expect from the film (in terms of plot). I know that Kong will kick some dino ass on the island. I know that they will take Kong to NY. I know that Kong will rip shit up in NY. And I know that Kong will eventually be taken down in some way. I haven't seen this film or read any spoilers yet, but this seems obvious to me based on my knowledge of the trailers and the original.

I'm honestly somewhat hesitant to spend the time/cash when the framework of the film seems fairly obvious.

I suppose my concern is that knowing the framework of the film will take away from my ability to be immersed in it. Does anyone think that this is a potential problem?

chinton

12-17-2005, 07:20 PM

so what if you know the framework its still a good movie. Like I said Ive seen it 8 times 7 for work and I still find myself getting caught up in it

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-17-2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Doug
Kong has Titanic-Like Start

(taken form the Numbers site)

What should have been a weekend the movie industry would celebrate is now one filled with dread and foreboding. Saying King Kong didn't get off to the start the studio was hoping for could be the understatement of the year, but even so, a lot of analysts are cautiously optimistic that the film can rebound. Right now it's just a case of wait and see, but by the time Thursday's numbers are in, we should be in a much better position to know what the future holds.

I read a lot of box office predictions as part of my job, and the expectations for King Kong ranged from huge, to enormous to record-breaking. I even read some predictions that suggested the film could break Titanic's all-time record. Well, its opening day sure can be compared to the Titanic, but it was more like the boat than the movie. In fact, when I saw the initial Wednesday box office, I assumed it was a typo. It took four sites all confirming the same result before it sunk in. At first glance $9.8 million on Wednesday may seem like, well, like a disaster. But to put this into historical perspective, that's just behind the Wednesday opening of Catch Me If You Can and just ahead of Armageddon and those films went on to earn $165 million and $202 million respectively. And, in both cases they opened during school holidays. So King Kong could recover and its word-of-mouth should be amazing, but the massive expectations that some had are all but crushed. Best case scenario has the film earning $60 million over the next three days and about $80 million overall. Worst case scenario... I don't even want to talk about the worst case scenario other than to say it involves the film missing top spot by a substantial margin, something nobody thought was a possibility just a couple of days ago.

- Kong has raked in a WHOPPING 30 million including friday, so things look grim to say the least. The good news about all this is we wont be seeing a remake of ET or Indiana Jones anytime soon!!!

Things aren't grim. The flick should have strong legs. Hell, Shrek 2 even had a Wednesday opening of "only" 10 million and it went on to make over $400 million. There's no telling what this flick is gonna do.

Rated R

12-17-2005, 08:45 PM

MAYBE A SPOILER OR TWO

It was great. For a three hour movie it had great pacing, character development, plot development and action sequences galore. So what if some of the CGI was noticeable, or even all of it, that really doesn't bother me. I love the way Jack and Kong are portrayed as the only ones who really do not let Annie down, and are the ones that truly care for her even though they are fighting each other for a large part of the second half.

I honestly think this solidifies Peter Jackson as a top tier director. From his campy horror start through LOTR, Kong has put him to the top. I was skeptical because I figured he may have hit the roof on LOTR and would never go above it in terms of quality, but I like Kong more. Personally, I am not the biggest fan of the Rings and would rather watch Bad Taste or the Frighteners, but Kong is so well put together.

All in all I was pleased, no real complaints...some dialogue wasn't great from the executives early on or some of the crew but that's a small price. Great movie, #4 on my top ten of the year so far.

9/10

HyperToniC

12-17-2005, 08:49 PM

I think it's the 3 hours that is what's making people say, No thanks. People know the story and have seen 2 versions of it already(most I'd assume or at least seen 1 version of it), and they figure, what the hell more could be in a 3 hour version? Without actually seeing it to discover it, they shrug it off and say pass. I'm not much of a hater when it comes to going to the movie theaters, though as we all know, nowadays, a lot of people would rather wait for DVD to hit. A 3 hour movie, means longer sitting in that annoying chair with annoying people making noises and throwing stuff to disturb your enjoyment. While this hasn't happened often in my theater, I can still imagine it happening, and I too would be annoyed. So I think the bottomline is the 3 hours is scarying people and making them hesistant to go see it, yet they are gonna be missing out on one of the best remake movies ever made! :rolleyes:

Mr. Durp

12-17-2005, 09:47 PM

okay, just walked out of this one. must say it's definitely one of the 10 best i've seen this year. included everything from the original, and the changes made were for the better. all that was added was great, for the most part, especially background stories for the characters, extended scenes on skull island, and a more in depth look at the relationship between anne and kong.

pro's: acting was very solid, with the standouts being naomi watts and jack black. not particularly a fan of adrien brody, but he did a good job. it's said that the most important part of acting is reacting, and to think the cast reacted most to what wasn't there is pretty incredible. the cgi effects were amazing, just what you'd expect. like i said, the story is greatly improved as well. i also thought that those who worked on the set and costumes did a fantastic job - they really got the feel of the 30's down.

now for the con's, which were few. first off, let me say peter jackson did a great job directing. but i did have a problem with some scenes on the island. those who have seen the flick, you know the one's i'm taking about, where he changes the filters and takes out the sound, playing loud noises and using unnecessary close ups. didn't like those. also wasn't a fan of the relationship between the black guy and jimmy. that wasn't the least bit significant, all it did was waste time and add messages that are irrelevant to the picture. and lastly, the final scenes - namely, the scene with kong and anne on ice and the prolonged scene ontop of the empire state building. the scene with kong and anne on ice was just awkward and pushed that relationship to a weird level for me. at that point, it seemed as if she was falling for kong as if he was one of her species and not a 25 foot tall ape. a little strange. and with the empire state building scene, the planes should've shot him down the first time - would've shaved a bit of time off the final cut. other than those though, the rest was great.

all in all, the amazing spectacles of kong overshadowed the minor inefficiancies. a great movie going experience and in my top 10 for the year. 8/10

Snowboy

12-17-2005, 09:53 PM

KING KONG - 9/10

This is what a blockbuster film was meant to be. Action-packed and emotionally gripping, Peter Jackson's reimagining of KING KONG was the second best film I've watched this year. I can see why some people have been turned off by it, the 3-hour runtime is a bit much....but as the film's action slowed down into more quiet moments, I couldn't help but want more. The connection between Watts' character and Kong gave the film just the right amount of emotion it needed.

If you've yet to see this, do yourself a favor and buy yourself a ticket. A few kleenex might be handy, too.

APzombie

12-17-2005, 10:24 PM

To be honest I don't understand why it recieved 'outstanding' reviews. I was looking forward to the film just as much, perhaps more so than most others. Sure parts I really enjoyed, the opening 30's montage was a dazzle, the last half an hour was a spectacle, the snipets with Kong and Ann are very emotional (the icey pond sequence being my favorite), but Jackson shows no growth as a filmmaker beyond the improvements of technical effects.

His pacing is terrible, his consistant gimmicks in all of his films are repetative to all ends (the shacky slow-mo in the worst places S--k---u---l---l!!!! island!!!! that he couldn't shake since his monstar gore days, the narrative over images with no sound effects was done well in the Two Towers and Return of the King, but I found Hayes voice over narrative terribly out of place and lacked purpose beyond its gimmick when they reached the island). Jackson pays much more attention in how he'll encorporate tacky effects on skull island than he does on how to create character, tension, suspense and most of all pace. The characters are paper thin, and even when they take an unnecessary long time out of the story to try to develop individual ones, it fails to flow and often is deemed 100% trivial (Jimmy was found in the cage scene for one). As an elaberate B-movie with an abstract pallet, almost like Jackson's Dead Alive, I could approach it at face value, but it longs to be so much more, and it dissapoints when its ambitions of an emotional core are bombarded with scenes that are, in point, far too silly.

I can honetly say even The Lost World: Jurassic Park is much more a spectacle in the ideals of actual lost islands than all of Kong, not to mention it builds more character developement in the first half hour than Kong did in its entirety.

NightStalkerGtx

12-17-2005, 11:24 PM

Just got back home from king kong first i wanna say the theater was packed.

Okay now onto the movie i'll make it short and simple The performances are a mixed bag they range from bad-good nothing special, The action is amazing for its first half of the scene after that the scene just goes on and on... on what shouldve been an amazing 5 min action scene turns into 5-10 extra minutes that just dragged it down. At times the movie had terrible effects, but 90% of the time they were fine not amazing. B4 the movie came out i remenber a couple of people saying it looked like hulk effects well i kinda got that same feeling but got used to it and was able to enjoy the movie more (which isnt saying anything) So what started of like a great action/drama/romance movie turned into a long boring overused excuse for a remake that should've never been made (dont get me wrong i wasnt agasint this until i saw it i didnt like the original) This movie wouldve been great if it was 25 minutes shorter better acting and better effects... Now the movie did have its moments there just wasnt enough to carry it through. A big dissapiontment.

4/10

HyperToniC

12-18-2005, 12:39 AM

You know, I didn't want to think of Hulk going into seeing this movie, which I didn't until after. Man! What a difference! Hulk, you really get nothing out of that CGI character. I got no feelings out of him or belief. I had to tell myself at the end of Kong, that Kong was CGI. It was too hard to believe because he was so damn real and his interactions with Watts were incredible. I gotta hand it to WETA, they know their sheet when it comes to the effects department, and Andy Serkis rocks!

DareDevil

12-18-2005, 07:52 AM

Spiel-who?

This movie kicked ass, and was SO MUCH BETTER than War of the Worlds.

Peter Jackson will now publibly be considered THE director.

I'm suprised that i'm not hearing more praise for Adrien Brody, who out of the 3 main cast impressed me the most....

One of the years 3 best IMO

9/10

NightStalkerGtx

12-18-2005, 11:28 AM

i was getting to believe kong was real until the t rex fight he had about 3 or 4 coming at him and an ape managed to take them all down? bull shit The shouldve went one on one, not 4 on one. The worst part is that scene got broing after 5 minutes but hey lets just keep on going for an extra ten minutes which gave them A loud boring dreadful action scene.

HeavyFknMetal

12-18-2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
i was getting to believe kong was real until the t rex fight he had about 3 or 4 coming at him and an ape managed to take them all down? bull shit The shouldve went one on one, not 4 on one. The worst part is that scene got broing after 5 minutes but hey lets just keep on going for an extra ten minutes which gave them A loud boring dreadful action scene.

Yea, realism's the first thing I look at when I'm watching a movie about a giant ape on an island with dinosaurs.

Billdemart

12-18-2005, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by chinton
Also I thought it wa s interesting it was the 8th time Ive seen this film and its still depressing in the end.

Anybody notice how the light literally goes out in Kongs eyes.

8th time? Wow. I have only seen it once but I still get sad when I think of the inevitable end of that movie. I can only compare it to when I was watching Revenge of the Sith and the whole time I am thinking to myself... "No Anakin don't do that... You can still...... Ahh damn never mind..."

The end is inevitable. Poor Kong is doomed. Even when we know the outcome, I think we become emotionally invested in the character and a small part of me sentimentally wishes the outcome could be different.

Yeah I know I'm a sap.

Billdemart

12-18-2005, 12:03 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HeavyFknMetal
Yea, realism's the first thing I look at when I'm watching a movie about a giant ape on an island with dinosaurs. [/QUOTE

Thats exactly what I was about to say. What is it about some people that get upset about the lack of realism in a movie about dinosaurs and giant apes.....

But if we want to go there I would say Kong, the last survivor of his kind obviously has learned how to fight the dinosaurs on the island. He always seems to go for the jaw snapping as soon as he can in a fight. So we know he knows the easiest way to defeat them.

He's an ape, a primate, as intelligent as a non-human animal is. Dinosaurs are universally regarded in the scientific world as incredibly stupid animals. Gigantic lizards with very small brains.

T-Rex's had no natural predators. They were the highest on the food chain so they probably didn't evovle and adapt to fight animals that could kill them.

They were also solitary animals. They probably didn't know how to attack as a group or a "pack" if you will. Kong was probably strategizing how to fight more than one while they both just charged forward and attacked with no thought.

Then take into account that once they were all in the vines they were definitely in Kongs domain. He had the absolute advantage at that point.

NightStalkerGtx

12-18-2005, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by HeavyFknMetal
Yea, realism's the first thing I look at when I'm watching a movie about a giant ape on an island with dinosaurs.

They can still make it perfectly realistic? Judt cuz a plot has dinosaurs and a giant ape doesnt mean its not realistic you can still make it realistic, but if peter jackson expects me to care for the ape at least try to make him real (ur right he's not realistic thats why my score is 4/10 but hell i take it u relate to unrealistic things so um do u relate to a pencil as well?) like damn i can relate to him and have him get into a fight with one t rex not 3 or 4 thats just pushing it.

Fine lets put the reality aside the movie was fucking cheesy whos going to believe a wimp like Arien Brody is going to become a big hero in the jungle. The whole bug thing was just "Cheesy".

As well as how about the 3 hour running time feels like 6 hours to much shit went on forever where it shouldve just been cut. and when Carl offers chocalate to a native come the fuck on thats just cheesy and fucking retarted.

I went into the movie with the best intentions and i came out dissapionted now shut the fuck up and get over it.

HeavyFknMetal

12-18-2005, 01:27 PM

With that logic you cant like Sin City (one of your favorite movies) because it's quite unrealistic that Marv could leap out a 4th floor window while being shot 30 times.

ur right he's not realistic thats why my score is 4/10 but hell i take it u relate to unrealistic things so um do u relate to a pencil as well?

Big difference between a pencil, and a movie. When I'm going into a movie about a giant ape, little things like a fight between a giant ape and a few dinosaurs, just doesnt seem to bug me.

As well as how about the 3 hour running time feels like 6 hours to much shit went on forever where it shouldve just been cut.

That's a solid argument IMO. Jackson seems to have that problem, and I noticed that in his LOTR Trilogy.

I went into the movie with the best intentions and i came out dissapionted now shut the fuck up and get over it.

I have no problem with you hating the movie, that's perfectly fine, I just cant seem to buy the whole, "not realistic" argument. You don't like Peter Jackson it seems, so I wouldnt say its far fetched to also say you're not the biggest fan of fantasy movies which lack in realism. I wouldn't watch the original King Kong if I were you, your brain might begin to melt from all the unrealistic special effects and giant worms.

daddiefatsacks

12-18-2005, 01:40 PM

50 mil for the weekend....66 total for the 5 days, not impressive, but who gives a shit, the movie was amazing

APzombie

12-18-2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by DareDevil
Spiel-who?

This movie kicked ass, and was SO MUCH BETTER than War of the Worlds.

Peter Jackson will now publibly be considered THE director.

I'm suprised that i'm not hearing more praise for Adrien Brody, who out of the 3 main cast impressed me the most....

One of the years 3 best IMO

9/10

Why are you comparing it to Spielberg's work? If, and I have to be fair, you are going to compare it to a SS film, it would be Jurassic Park, which is a far superior film.

Don't get me wrong, I found some creative aspects in Kong, but not many, and certainly not to the degree of most of Peter Jackson's die hard fans.

Lets start with the paper-thin characters, in comparison, since we fallen into Spielberg territory, with Jurassic Park.

Carl Denham (jack black), the fearless cinematic dreamer is in many ways similar to John Hammond (Richard Attenbern), the wild visionary of a theme park filled with prehistoric animals. If Denham was in Hammond’s position, no doubt he would do everything in his power to fulfill a similar dream. But at no point did I really feel Denham has any interest in the magic going on around him, just the proposition of what he would get out of capturing it all on film. Hammond is a wildly colorful character that has his dream explored through the movie, from his heartwarming scene talking about his first attraction, a flea circus, and how he longed for something people can touch, to his teary eye's looming over the mosquito on the tip of his walking stick, looking at its potential, with the somber, magical John Williams music playing over, emphasizing a longing to give people a spectacle unlike any the world has seen. With Denham, we were shown his eagerness to capture everything happening on screen, but to what ends? To earn his way out of going to jail on his voyage back? Money? Fame? A two bit gimmick to make him a comedic relief? The two characters differ in that, when shit hits the fan, John lets go his dream in order for the people he put on the island to be safe. "All that matters now are the people we love. Allen, Lex, Tim. There out there... People are dying." Whereas Carl continues risking the crew to film more and eventually to capture the giant gorilla, with slightly humorous snippets of a "he died for the good of the movie, the proceeds will go to his family." And in the end, with a smirk on his face, he shows his creature to the theater crowd. '17 men gave their life, let’s now laugh that a woman tamed it'. Why should I care about such a beast (I’m still speaking of Denham)? Is there no respect for human life? And while he comes across more as a cold blooded one dimensional Walt Disney, he isn't shown looming over the simple spectacle of what he has found. Take for instance, his first sight of the braceosauruses. They take time to show a five minute stampede scene but don’t give a second to emphasis how magical the situation is, he just quickly shoots his actor in its realm. And its all set up to get a quick laugh at Baxtor running away leaving the rest behind, like out of a damn Mummy film. Now let’s take a glance back down memory lane when Grant, Malcolm, Ellie and John first come across a braceosaurus. The magic is captured through their wide eyes and low jaws, the slow pan up to the edge of the animal’s neck, the music, the ability to hold a camera on the characters expression for more than five seconds before shaking it away. The utter excitement of the situation, as grant puts his head between his knees, barely keeping up his breathing. The sun brilliantly beaming along the water, the whispers "how did you do this?"
At the amount of time our "heroes" are on Skull Island, they never had a chance to just stand there and use there character as a means to communicate the awe of the situation, instead, they are used to quickly set up the next jump at the screen or the next gimmick to exploit a silly joke.
Now let’s move to Kong. Yes, Kong was better characterized than the dinosaurs, but can reptiles create a sad puppy dog face? Was it even their purpose? Was the characterization of Kong more than just the amount of polygons used to curl his eyebrows up at the site of Ann? Yes it was, but if it wasn't so pretty to look at would the technique in crafting the scenes have still worked if it was just human actor? Was the T-rex not a similar hero at the end of Jurassic Park when he attacked the raptors from eating our hero's? It’s not the beast’s intention to save the characters, unlike Kong, but those in the reptilian ancestry don’t have the capability to fathom an understanding of caring for those outside their species, in which case it is unfair to compare the animals in Jurassic Park to Kong.
Even the goofiest character, Malcolm, is deep. Although he's the more animated character in the film he was much more than just the pretty actor who at heart was just really scared or some Jimmy kid who does nothing more than annoys us by wanting to be in the thick of it. How long does it take for Jackson to explain to us about Jimmy? A good minute and a half about where they found him and that he stole a book. That’s not good writing of a character. It’s hardly decent, is this a videogame film? Malcolm was able to emphasis aspects of his character in his short chaos theory explanation, or even in the projection of the lines "life finds a way." Jimmy wants to be a man, "I can do it Hayes, give me a gun!" What more was he than a dose of childlike boyish charm? And what more is Hayes than a some 'look at me, I’m a bad-ass' first mate? "It's not about honor Jimmy." What satirical pulp comic did they drag that from? What does it really have to do with what’s around them? Or his character? I did not see growth in any human characters outside Ann embracing Kong and Jack having the fortitude to talk to Ann... and learns how to kick a dinosaur. In Jurassic Park, Alen becomes a caretaker and fatherly figure to Lex and Tim, in a man who has always hated the prospect of children; he embraces them warmly on the helicopter at the end. John explores the angles of responsibility for his actions, subplots of Nedry's financial greed overpowering by his irresponsibility are explored, the scientist explore their lives after the park - "I guess we'll evolve too." And most of all they all learn about responsibility with technology and power "we never had control, that’s the illusion! I was overwhelmed by the power of this place! But I made a mistake too. I didn't have enough respect for that power and it’s out now." Playing God, 'raping the natural world and selling it. That’s characterization.

As far as suspense and excitement, I’ll tell you one scene that blows any fancy thing Jackson can pull out of Weta's design and animation... The ripples in the glass of water. Something a child can do with an 8mm camera can create the amount of tension Jackson never reached with all his carved skulls, lavishing sets, or jerky camera bobbing in and out of focus at a goofy frame rate. Not to mention the scene of Lex and Tim in the kitchen, its using the effects personally like that that really gets my blood pumping, not the amount of dinosaurs that can fit on screen, no matter how many you pile up (pun intended).

I don't have a problem with the abstract pallet Jackson uses to encompass the film, but it is still used very amateurishly.

I suppose I'm upset that the general 'film-buff' aficionado's would prefer a mediocre film like this to domething as brilliant as JP.

Fidelio1st

12-18-2005, 02:17 PM

**MAJOR SPOILERS***

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/king_kong/newyork1.jpg

The opening leading up to the ship, the first 25-30 minutes, is absolutely amazing. Jackson shows us 1930s New York City, Orson Welles like love of film through Carl, and just a fun playful mood. Once the main characters board the ship to sail for the uncharted island, the film goes downhill from there.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/king_kong/_group_photos/adrien_brody16.jpg

While on the ship, the playful attitude is lost, and it takes too long for them to get to the island. Supposedly, this is more character set up, but we got enough of that in NYC, and the romance between Jack and Ann becomes Titanic cheesy, and once they get on the island, the script becomes very lacking.

When they encounter the indigenous people, the thought kept coming to my mind that this is quite racist. On top of that, Jackson uses this fast jerky slow motion that really ruins the scene. It's quite violent (this film is definitely not for little kids), and he uses the fancy editing to tone down the violence. But I say don't ruin the film just to tone it down.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/king_kong/_group_photos/naomi_watts4.jpg

Kong looks great. But some of the CGI looks really bad. For instance, when they're running away from the dinosaurs and get mixed in with them, it looks so fake. You can tell Jackson used a blue screen.

The bug sequences are on par with Starship Troopers, and that's not a compliment. The action scenes on the island becomes laughable. While it's a bit cool at first to see Kong wrestle the T-Rex's, after awhile it seems like your watching WWF.

It gets better again in the 3rd Act when they return to NYC. But the Empire State Building sequence is entirely too long. This did not need to be a 3 hr film, and it's very over-bloated.

I believe one review stated that King Kong outdoes Jurassic Park, while J. Hoberman in The Village Voice says, "The spiritual father for Jackson's dinos is, of course, Steven Spielberg, and Skull Island's interior is a second-rate, jumped-up Jurassic Park of unrelenting dinosaur stampedes and interminable trapeze acts." I completely agree with Hoberman.

Jurassic Park, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, and for that matter War of the Worlds are all superior films to Jackson's King Kong. And yes, I do realize the 3rd Act of Lost World is indeed a rip of King Kong, but it is so much better than what Jackson did here. Spielberg understands that you don't need to overbloat an adventure film and make it 3 hrs long. He also uses special effects that look real.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/war_of_the_worlds/_group_photos/dakota_fanning21.jpg

War of the Worlds, another remake of an old film, is a much better film (I'm sure I'll get slammed on this statement) because Spielberg understands human nature, and actually has a compelling story. Don't get me wrong, like Kong, WOTW is a B-movie popcorn flick...but it's fun as hell.

In my book, Spielberg is still king of the big budget adventure film. And Jackson sure could learn a lot from him. King Kong, while may be worth seeing for the first 25 mins, was very disappointing. Not a terrible film, but not worth the hype.
__________________
Visit Fidelio’s Film Central:
http://www.geocities.com/fidelio1st/film.htm

Best Films of 2005
2046
Brokeback Mountain
Mysterious Skin
Good Night, and Good Luck
Sin City
The Beautiful Country
Junebug
The Squid and the Whale
Nobody Knows
On the Outs

"When you don't take 'no' for an answer, there is still a chance you'll get what you want."-Chow, 2046

NightStalkerGtx

12-18-2005, 02:19 PM

I have seen the original king kong and while i cant say i liked it i can say i enjoyed it a tad more then then the new one.

As well as i didnt have a prblem with the t rex fight at first until it started using up to much time and it started to geting broing chessy and just un enjoyable.

Sin City i read the graphic novels i loved them i loved the movie the way it was adapted and thought it was a unique film done right and it didnt drag. Was it unrealistic? Yes, but it was done right with style and good performances and u can tell a lot of hard work went into the project while in king kong i dont no what to think. Maybe it will get better on more viewings i look foward to giving it another shot on dvd but as of right now its the on my top 10 worst films of 2005. Yes i have seen worse but i wasnt as let down as i was by this in the whole year thus cuzing it to get a a spot on the top 3 on my list of the worst movies of 05.

gspawn

12-18-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by APzombie
Rant abotu Speilberg and Jackson

It's all about time-frame. Let's look back to the past:
Spielberg:Close Encounters, E.T, JP, (bla bla bla)
Jackson: The Frighteners
Winner by far: Speilberg

Recently:
Jackson: LOTR
Spielberg: I have no idea what Spielburg was doing, but whatever it was, I know didn't see it.
Winner: Jackson

Now:
Jackson: Kong
Spielberg: WotW
Depending on how the box office flows for Kong, which may or may not see a second wind, I think this one's a dead tie. For me to poop on.

Kong: Praised by critics, bombing at box offices.
WotW: Half-and-Half on both fronts (I think? I wasn't online much around that release).
Winner? No winners here.

Results:
Spielburg: Master of the past who hasn't done anything really incredible lately, unless you consider Schindler's List "Lately".... [or have I forgotten something?]
Jackson: The Frightener's guy pulled off "Lord of the Rings" pretty damn well. That's enough of a career for anyone, and even if Kong goes down, he used to be the friggen' dude from the Frighteners for cryin' out loud!!!

Spielberg is one of the greatest directors ever, even if he isn't pushing out anything incredibly epic at the moment. Give the man a few years and a mid-life crisis or two, maybe he'll pull out of it and give us E.T.II or something. Comparing anyone to him isn't going to be fair.

But personally, barring me actually going to see a Uwe Boll work this year, both WotW and Kong are fighting for my "Worst of the Year". So in my humble opinion at least, I don't really care about seeing any films from either of them right now, so this race doesn't matter to me very much at all. Except, wait... Jackson is in charge of the Halo movie....

Oh dear.
:(

NightStalkerGtx

12-18-2005, 03:03 PM

while i dont think we should compare king kong to war of the worlds now that its been brought up War of the Worlds is a better movie (8/10)

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-18-2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by gspawn
It's all about time-frame. Let's look back to the past:
Spielberg:Close Encounters, E.T, JP, (bla bla bla)
Jackson: The Frighteners
Winner by far: Speilberg

Talk about forgetting a bunch of Jackson's films. Bad Taste, Dead-Alive (which are considered cult classics of the horror genre), Heavenly Creatures, etc.

And it's really unfair to compare the two anyway. Spielberg's been directing since the early 70s, Jackson got his start in the mid 80s. Of course Spielberg's gonna have a stronger list of films.

ChemicalRomance

12-18-2005, 05:08 PM

King Kong Weekend Estimate:

$50,148,000

Bring it's 5 day total up to: $66,200,000

...Uhhhhhhh...

Jon Lyrik

12-18-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by gspawn
Kong: Praised by critics, bombing at box offices.

Isn't it too early to be claiming that?

CMAGUS

12-18-2005, 05:42 PM

maybe this is a sign that people are tiredof seeing remakes.I mean how many times can you watch a king kong movie.Granted this film looks great visually

Joshmo

12-18-2005, 05:51 PM

Those numbers dont sound too good

I aint a numbers cruncher, but this seems like it will be lucky to pull $150 - $160 mil domestic and thats being generous. My first guess was about $148 mil. Thats not good nor was it expected.

I think Jackson ws too close to his pet project and had nobody to tell him to trim some stuff and make some cgi better. I really liked it, but my initial reaction has now dropped to an 8/10

jolanar

12-18-2005, 05:52 PM

King Kong

Good movie but waaaaaaay way way way way too long. I won't go into detail because pretty much every complaint I have has been said before in this thread.

5/10. Not bad, but not good. Way overhyped.

Jon Lyrik

12-18-2005, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Joshmo
Those numbers dont sound too good

I aint a numbers cruncher, but this seems like it will be lucky to pull $150 - $160 mil domestic and thats being generous. My first guess was about $148 mil. Thats not good nor was it expected.

I think Jackson ws too close to his pet project and had nobody to tell him to trim some stuff and make some cgi better. I really liked it, but my initial reaction has now dropped to an 8/10

It's the holiday season and has the best word-of-mouth of any movie released in the last two years.

DareDevil

12-18-2005, 07:02 PM

“Why are you comparing it to Spielberg's work? If, and I have to be fair, you are going to compare it to a SS film, it would be Jurassic Park, which is a far superior film.”
I am comparing it to War of the Worlds because of a few reasons, first they are both epic adventure movies from this year, they both have big ass budgets and they fall into the same category. But JP and Kong share their similarities too, but with time JP is mediocre and best, if released by today’s standards would be considered below average.

Lets start with the paper-thin characters, in comparison, since we fallen into Spielberg territory, with Jurassic Park.

”Whereas Carl continues risking the crew to film more and eventually to capture the giant gorilla, with slightly humorous snippets of a "he died for the good of the movie, the proceeds will go to his family." And in the end, with a smirk on his face, he shows his creature to the theater crowd. '17 men gave their life, let’s now laugh that a woman tamed it'. Why should I care about such a beast (I’m still speaking of Denham)? Is there no respect for human life? And while he comes across more as a cold blooded one dimensional Walt Disney, he isn't shown looming over the simple spectacle of what he has found.”

It’s almost like you don’t understand the movie it seems, His character is almost metaphoric for what certain people in the industry are capable of just to entertain and have their name in big lights, doesn’t matter how many casualties there was as long as he might become famous, does his character ever grow? Watch the last 2 minutes again

”I don't have a problem with the abstract pallet Jackson uses to encompass the film, but it is still used very amateurishly.” That’s self contradicting if you read your whole statement again.

”I suppose I'm upset that the general 'film-buff' aficionado's would prefer a mediocre film like this to something as brilliant as JP.” Each their own my friend, I couldn’t disagree with you more, people seem to be all like “This movie was so unrealistic, running through dinosaurs legs” but as also stated previously…. WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING!!! I had minor problems with the film, but I it is utterly obvious that this film is light years ahead of War of the Worlds, and Jackson thank you for not making this a modern day re-telling of King Kong in recent day New York.

By the way I felt that War of the Worlds was not only the worst movie this year, but the worst movie of the new millennium.

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-18-2005, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Joshmo
Those numbers dont sound too good

I aint a numbers cruncher, but this seems like it will be lucky to pull $150 - $160 mil domestic and thats being generous. My first guess was about $148 mil. Thats not good nor was it expected.

I think Jackson ws too close to his pet project and had nobody to tell him to trim some stuff and make some cgi better. I really liked it, but my initial reaction has now dropped to an 8/10

You gotta love how people try to make a $66 million opening sound bad.

Jon Lyrik

12-18-2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Fred Krueger
You gotta love how people try to make a $66 million opening sound bad.

Yeah. It's a little disappointing, but this movie will be a marathon runner instead of a sprinter, as the last movie to have word-of-mouth as good was Jackson's last movie (see Yahoo, and while CinemaScore doesn't have it ranking quite that high it is still at a very healthy A-) and it has the holiday season and Oscar buzz. Bit early to be calling it a bomb.

Digifruitella

12-18-2005, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Isn't it too early to be claiming that?

Don't stress it man. The same thing happened with Batman Begins past summer. I post on BOF and all the fan(boys) were like "That's it it bombed!!!" when they first heard the #'s of the opening weekend box office. Look what happened though, it passed 200 mil mark domestically and made 400+ total.

jolanar

12-18-2005, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
It's the holiday season and has the best word-of-mouth of any movie released in the last two years.

That's an exageration by far. Much of the movie going public has lots of complaints. Walking out of the theatre I heard nothing but grumbles and complaints. Plenty of them coming from me and my family.

Not saying it has bad word of mouth but it has plenty of bad to go with the good.

Tyler_Durden_208

12-18-2005, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by DareDevil
“Why are you comparing it to Spielberg's work? If, and I have to be fair, you are going to compare it to a SS film, it would be Jurassic Park, which is a far superior film.”
but with time JP is mediocre and best, if released by today’s standards would be considered below average.
I actually just watched Jurassic Park again the other day and I thought it held up remarkably well... The sequel... Eh, not so well.

darkface

12-18-2005, 10:03 PM

I can't believe what I'm hearing from you schmoes. Have you all lost your movie-going minds?! I just came back from this movie feeling like I feel in love with movies all over again. I just can't believe so many people would put this film down, because it was unrealistic having an ape fight 4 T-rex's, or how it went on for too long, or how it didn't make that much over the weekend. WHO cares man, just be happy we actually saw T-rex's in a movie, especially when they fight against an ape. How many movies have you seen try to do the same as this movie, with huge sets, some new angles never before done. I left this movie feeling like a kid, after watching all that movie magic. And please stop comparing PJ with SS. You think only SS can make movies about dino's? Let's congratulate PJ on his accomplishments! The people who put this movie down need to take a step back and not be so picky about movies. If King Kong couldn't impress you, then I don't know what will.

CMAGUS

12-18-2005, 10:13 PM

Even if this didn't end up doing great at box office this is the kind of money that will score big on dvd. 66 million is alot but you can bet this film cost alot more to make it looks good though I'll probably check it out this week sometime

TylerDurden182

12-18-2005, 10:21 PM

Lemmywinks

12-18-2005, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by jolanar
That's an exageration by far. Much of the movie going public has lots of complaints. Walking out of the theatre I heard nothing but grumbles and complaints. Plenty of them coming from me and my family.

Not saying it has bad word of mouth but it has plenty of bad to go with the good.

I saw the movie last night and a lot of people were complaining. I dont think this movie has the best word of mouth recently at all. Almost everyone who I saw it with were dissing it in some way. Mostly because of its lenght, and the tediousness of some of the scenes. I agreed with most of thier complaints.

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-18-2005, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Lemmywinks
I saw the movie last night and a lot of people were complaining. I dont think this movie has the best word of mouth recently at all. Almost everyone who I saw it with were dissing it in some way. Mostly because of its lenght, and the tediousness of some of the scenes. I agreed with most of thier complaints.

Ah yes, the old, "People were complaining about it in my theater so everyone must be complaining about it" argument. The reviews and the majority of people coming out of the theater liking it (most polled gave the movie an A-) show that the movie has good word of mouth. Not to mention a jump from $15 million on Friday to $20 million on Saturday (business is usually a little bit down on Saturday).

Good word of mouth means that the majority of movie goers are liking the movie, with maybe minor complaints (such as my complaint about the First Mate and Jimmy). That's what this movie has going for it.

BigRedNeck

12-18-2005, 11:23 PM

I walked out thinking WOW and that was the best movie of 2005 and on my list of my all time favorite movies.....

APzombie

12-18-2005, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by DareDevil
It’s almost like you don’t understand the movie it seems, His character is almost metaphoric for what certain people in the industry are capable of just to entertain and have their name in big lights, doesn’t matter how many casualties there was as long as he might become famous, does his character ever grow? Watch the last 2 minutes again

To each their own man, I didn't really concider the last line of the movie a growth in Denham's character, infact I think it seemed quite forced, as the famous last line was even intended to be given to Fay before she passed, If Jackson had his way. It seemed dropped on Jack Black's lap.

As far as the bringing down WotW by comparison due to this remake taking place when the original one did, they are attempting different things. Jackson wanted to make an abstract depiction of the depression because he is a fan of the original and its time piece, an admirable venture, Spielberg placed WotW in today because he wanted it to dwell heavily in post 9/11 fears. Apples and Oranges.

Doug

12-19-2005, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by darkface
I can't believe what I'm hearing from you schmoes. Have you all lost your movie-going minds?! I just came back from this movie feeling like I feel in love with movies all over again. I just can't believe so many people would put this film down, because it was unrealistic having an ape fight 4 T-rex's, or how it went on for too long, or how it didn't make that much over the weekend. WHO cares man, just be happy we actually saw T-rex's in a movie, especially when they fight against an ape. How many movies have you seen try to do the same as this movie, with huge sets, some new angles never before done. I left this movie feeling like a kid, after watching all that movie magic. And please stop comparing PJ with SS. You think only SS can make movies about dino's? Let's congratulate PJ on his accomplishments! The people who put this movie down need to take a step back and not be so picky about movies. If King Kong couldn't impress you, then I don't know what will.

- The fact he fights three T-Rexs is counter-point ...... its the believability factor, running time and poor character dev. that drag Kong down to an excruciating grinding pace. I also agree that the first Jurrasic Park is by far a more superior film in every way.

- Peter Jackson payed close attention to details in all three LOTR films but then miraculously throws any consideration for them out the window in KIng Kong .... why?, its not like the film wasnt long enough :confused: -- Its like they greedily rushed this movie to the theatres for the holiday season without applying any finishing touches or fixing details.

In LOTR I saw more amazement, fear and tenseness with Frodo and crew when they first witness the black riders then I did the entire time in KK. All the ships crew react to every baddy on Skull Island as if its an everyday occurance .... even to the point of carrying on cheerfull conversation while dekeing legs in a brontosaur stampede. This lack of urgency and sheer sillyness drained any excitement I had from the scene & made viewing it rather laboursome.

Why PJ paid so much attention to details in the LOTR trilogy and then completely omits them in King Kong really baffles me. I really think PJ could have really benefited from a couple years rest to re-charge his creative batteries before tackling KK.

As mentioned previously, the plot holes in KK are unacceptable and short explanations could have easily been written into the script. The white savages in black face :confused: (what was all that about?) suddenly dissapear from the island altogether and I guess were suppossed to believe their shaking in fear & hiding in their huts, but have enough balls to pole vault onto an alien vessel & successfully nab hostages. A much better scenario could have been rendered for this entire sub-plot.

The entire Jimmy fiasco has everyone equally mystified ..... what was the point of this character if at all? -- If im following correctly he was rescued at sea, raised by Mr Hayes and hails from a mysterious island; great, now what? ... we saw him become a man?. The map with the mysterious smudge that falls into the ocean ..... where DID that come from?. The mysterios wall & rock formations .... this could have benefited from an explanation. How DID they get Kong to NY? ..... they just cheerfully loaded him up onboard with no hassle from the natives and steered their way home following a breadcrumb trail? Jeesh Peter, your capable of so much more than that!

King Kong was rather well done and credit must be given for getting this part right, however its nothing overly spectacular and after seeing Treebeard and Gollum I was pretty confident PJ would have to get this right. If it came right down to it though i'd have to give the edge to Treebeard and his kin for their attack on Isengard -- looked better & cooler than KK's rage in NY.

Oh well, Kong has come and although I was expecting a helluva lot more I guess i'll wait to see another remake in about 15 years :(. Unless your in your teens I just dont see this film reaching to the older moviegoing audience and gathering the wide appeal it desparately needs to break even or turn profit. Im 34 years old and the magic just wasnt there for me to invest an excruciating three hours in this mind numbing experience.

ilovemovies

12-19-2005, 01:40 AM

SPOILERS!

What I thought of the movie in a nutshell:

Begining = Good
Middle = AWSOME!
End= Good

I don't think the movie is as amazing as most people seem to think it is, however the entire sequences in Skull Island rock! The scenes between Watts and Kong are great and the action sequences unbelievable! I especially love the stampede of dinosaurs sequence and when Kong fights the 3 T-rex's! I was actually almost literally on the edge of my seat for the those scenes! Once we get back to New York the movie isn't quite as good although the shot of Kong falling from the empire state building was awsome. Naomi Watts is breathtaking in her beauty. She also deserves an oscar nomination for her work in this movie. She is the heart of the movie and I absolutely love her! Jack Black is friggin' awsome here! I've always been a fan and I think this might be his finest performance yet. Adrien Brody is great too. And Max, er, Thomas Kretschmann is cool in his role as well.

The CGI is just about flawless. I think the CGI on Kong is even better than the CGI for Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies. Kong looks utterly convincing. It's perfect. Especially the eyes.

I was amazed at how fast paced this movie was. It's three hours plus running time flies by really quickly.

Personally, I don't think this movie is as great as The Lord of the Rings movies. I think the LOTR trilogy will forever be Peter Jackson's crowning achievement. King Kong is a very good movie but it's no masterpiece. As I said, only the middle portion of the movie really blew me away. Honestly, I'm not sure if this movie will make my top 10 list of the year. In a lesser year it would for sure. But I happen to think that this has been a very strong year and because of that there is a chance it will not. Still, the movie is very good, occasionally great with a really awsome middle portion.

8/10

Mr. Fred Krueger

12-19-2005, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Doug

All the ships crew react to every baddy on Skull Island as if its an everyday occurance .... even to the point of carrying on cheerfull conversation while dekeing legs in a brontosaur stampede. This lack of urgency and sheer sillyness drained any excitement I had from the scene & made viewing it rather laboursome.

As mentioned previously, the plot holes in KK are unacceptable and short explanations could have easily been written into the script. The white savages in black face :confused: (what was all that about?) suddenly dissapear from the island altogether and I guess were suppossed to believe their shaking in fear & hiding in their huts, but have enough balls to pole vault onto an alien vessel & successfully nab hostages. A much better scenario could have been rendered for this entire sub-plot.

Oh well, Kong has come and although I was expecting a helluva lot more I guess i'll wait to see another remake in about 15 years :(. Unless your in your teens I just dont see this film reaching to the older moviegoing audience and gathering the wide appeal it desparately needs to break even or turn profit. Im 34 years old and the magic just wasnt there for me to invest an excruciating three hours in this mind numbing experience.

You act as if the lack of reaction to the dinos wasn't the same in the original Kong.

"What do you call this thing?"
"I think it's a member of the dinosaur family."
"A dinosaur, eh?"
"Yeah, Jack. A prehistoric beast."

That's it. No true surprise, just acceptance.

I would assume that the natives ran into their huts like scared rabbits, much like the inhabitants in the original Kong.

The older audience has been going to see this. Most polled were 25 and up. Notice the lack of teenagers. Just because the magic wasn't there for you doesn't mean it wasn't there for the rest of the "older" crowd. And it should make it's budget back at least. It's already made 32% of it's budget back and is showing no signs of slowing down at the moment.

Digifruitella

12-19-2005, 03:33 AM

gspawn

12-19-2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Digifruitella
[B]When was the last time you sat down to watch a 3 hour long movie not having to look at your watch? Huh?

Harry Potter. Heh.
I've never, in my life, checked my watch as much as I did during Kong. I thought about timing some scenes just to see how long they kept going past the time when all sensibility ended.

And there weren't different reels passed around? Everyone REALLY saw the same movie? I'm still reeling from what an absolute turd this movie turned out to be, but comments seem to still be putting it firmly in Oscar-land. Normally, even if I don't like a movie I can see the point of view of people who "got it"... but Kong dragged for so long and in so many places...

I absolutely love long movies, and I would have been all over a longer Potter to get some key sequences back into the film (Quidditch!), but Kong just dragged its ass all over my patience.

Someone please tell me there's some secret plot with improperly cut reels being distributed... I really still do hold out this much hope that Kong's a better movie than the one I saw alongside 5 other people in an otherwise super-crowded theatre.

Arc

12-19-2005, 11:16 AM

How... Underwhelming.

That was it? That was the big event of 2005? Honestly, Batman and Potter seemed bigger. Hell, even War of the Worlds topped it. This one isn't epic, it's just long and pointless.

You can put up with dialogue like this? THIS movie made you love film all over again?!? You can justify the bug sniping, the terrible stampede effects, Jimmy, the first act, and countless other major flaws. We're talking flaws that are built and built and go nowhere. No one can explain to me the whole reason for the car chase. Hell, the guy caused more damage in the end. It was all like a mundane videogame, from one level to the next.

This flick just has too many problems for me to recommend it to you guys. Sorry. :(

Lemmywinks

12-19-2005, 01:22 PM

I didnt say everyone who saw it didnt like it. I just said that mostly EVERYONE I WAS AROUND were complaining of something. And I heard SOME people saying that they didnt like it. I'm not saying that everyone in the entire theater hated it, I'm just saying that audiences are different everywhere, but my audience didnt seem to like it too much. From what I've heard here a lot of the complaints are all the same. One of my biggest issues with the film is how much staring there was in it. I know it sounds stupid, but seriously, i was sitting there saying "how long are people just going to stare at each other?!" Thats mostly what everyone did throughout the entire movie. Stared. Naomi had said like 4 words in the entire last half of the movie. "No", "Jack", "No", and "beautiful." She didnt really do much.

jolanar

12-19-2005, 04:02 PM

I like how Kong takes on 4 T-rexes at once, but gets stopped in his tracks by 1 harpoon shot from a rifle.

I found it pointless to develope the Jimmy character and his mentor and then just have him completely dissapear in the 3rd act without even mentioning him.

I'd also like to know how they manage to drag Kong onto a ship that is hardly any bigger than Kong and then manage to bring him all the way back to New York.

I love how Jimmy shoots a fucking machine gun at Jack and manages to only hit the bugs that are fucking an inch away from his body and face.

Oh... and when Jack goes to rescue Ann from Kong on the cliff, a long tree branch rope magically appears out of nowhere.

Lemmywinks

12-19-2005, 05:15 PM

And why wouldnt the t-rexes just go after kong instead of the small french fry size Ann. Wouldnt Kong be like a feast?

NightStalkerGtx

12-19-2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by jolanar
I like how Kong takes on 4 T-rexes at once, but gets stopped in his tracks by 1 harpoon shot from a rifle.

I found it pointless to develope the Jimmy character and his mentor and then just have him completely dissapear in the 3rd act without even mentioning him.

I'd also like to know how they manage to drag Kong onto a ship that is hardly any bigger than Kong and then manage to bring him all the way back to New York.

I love how Jimmy shoots a fucking machine gun at Jack and manages to only hit the bugs that are fucking an inch away from his body and face.

Oh... and when Jack goes to rescue Ann from Kong on the cliff, a long tree branch rope magically appears out of nowhere.

And the list goes on and on.

Thank you lord i wasnt the only one that disliked this movie (4/10)

If there was one or two flaws in the movie fine i can deal with taht but theres a big list of them.

Dark Face Quote
I just came back from this movie feeling like I feel in love with movies all over again. I just can't believe so many people would put this film down, because it was unrealistic having an ape fight 4 T-rex's, or how it went on for too long, or how it didn't make that much over the weekend. WHO cares man, just be happy we actually saw T-rex's in a movie, especially when they fight against an ape. How many movies have you seen try to do the same as this movie, with huge sets, some new angles never before done.

Okay so because this movie has 4 t-rex going agasint an ape i have to like it? Because i complain about the running time its not really a valid reason towards disliking the movie? Because not that many movies tried this b4 i should like it?

Well first of I was happy at first during the t rex scene until more kept on coming and the scene went on forever thus failinig to create any excitement for the viewer.

2nd the running time is a valid arguement for disliking the movie because so much shit went on forvever that made the scenes boring dull and un interesting. So how about Jackson cuts the film 15-20 minutes then well see how much better it couldve been. (as well as improve the acting and situations)

3rd so not that many movies tried this b4 okay awsome this movie tried something diffirent i'll give pionts for that, but now i'll subtract those pionts for failing.

Dark Face Quote
I can't believe what I'm hearing from you schmoes. Have you all lost your movie-going minds?!

No sir i believe its just you...

NightStalkerGtx

12-19-2005, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Lemmywinks
And why wouldnt the t-rexes just go after kong instead of the small french fry size Ann. Wouldnt Kong be like a feast?

Indeed true another reason i disliked that scene and the more i think of it the more i dislike the entire film overall.

darkface

12-19-2005, 05:54 PM

poopontheshoes7

12-19-2005, 06:07 PM

I agree with darkface. I dont care whether you hated or not,hate it all you want, but I just find it funny when people complain about it not being realistic when all you have to do is read the premise and KNOW it aint gonna be a realistic film.

Duke Nukem

12-19-2005, 06:17 PM

To answer how they brought Kong to New York, it is implied that 3 months pass between Kong's capture on the Island and the fade-in to New York. They had to have called for more help and a bigger ship (and a lot more chloraphorm) to move Kong.

Oh and also, Kong didn't get knocked out immediately by the chloraphorm. They threw a couple at him, then one right in his face to make him pass out. It took him a while, in a midst of sad glances between Anne & Kong, Anne and Brody, Anne & Kong, Anne & Brody, Anne & Kong, etc., before he finally passed out from it all.

So, stop exaggerating these and so many other "flaws" and pay better attention to the movie.

Jon Lyrik

12-19-2005, 07:49 PM

EDsoulsurvive*

12-19-2005, 08:02 PM

I also agree with Darkface, it seems like you guys are being nitpicky and are trying not to like it.

12-19-2005, 09:06 PM

Peter Jackson was quizzed about the size of the boat in relation to Kong, and he said in reply that Kong could easily fit inside the lower compartment of the boat. They worked it out for self-satisfaction because they knew people would gripe about it.

So there you go, Kong could fit in the Venture.

Danger^Cart

12-19-2005, 09:14 PM

The film contradictes itself around every corner, and is filled with so many cliche's it was almost painful to watch. Was the squinty old sea dog really necessary? Was the relationship between the young, troubled youth and the experienced, surly surrogate father really necessary? NO. It was not. Perhaps why this movie ran for THREE FUCKING HOURS.

Why would the so candidly dubbed comic relief, the actor, insist on a rescue party when he abandoned them, and has already been labeled a coward from the audience perspective? You can't take an antagonist and make him a hero HERE AND THERE, it doesn't work like that. Let alone have him swing from a godamn rope, spraying his tommy like some godamn superhero.

When you have such high production values, and spend so much time making a film like this...you have GOT to fix plot holes. You can't just ignore them because you went 90% of the way and well, shucks, that's good enough.

Duke Nukem, I'm interested where it was implied it took them three months to get Kong back to New York? Just the fact that the majority of the people arn't as well informed as you says a lot. If something as important as the transportation to the mainland isn't explained well enough so the audience is aware, then you might as well not "imply" it at all.

Another thing that I'm not sure if anyone caught (I'm not about to read through seven pages to find out) is the GIGANTIC ladder continuity on the Empire State. Did anyone notice that somehow Jack MAGICALLY gets to the top devout of a ladder for assistance? The elevator he is riding in only goes up to the observation deck, while Anne is standing at the very top, 20 feet above him. Anne got up there using a ladder, but thanks to the impressive shooting of the U.S. Air Force, the ladder is no longer there when Jack makes his ascension. So...unless Jack is secretly Peter Parker...I really don't find this very plausible.

This movie was crap. The only thing worth seeing this film for are the carniverous dog penis's. I've always wondered what a dog penis would look like if it had three rows of teeth and devoured people...and now I know...thank you Peter Jackson.

Side Note: I found the perfect metaphor for this film in the scene where Anne is juggling to entertain Kong; Although the film is moving, it changes direction, and some variables are tossed in...it's all just an elaborate illusion of progress, and it's really going nowhere.