King Kong

David Ryder 12-13-2005 07:53 PM
Judging from the clips I've seen, it might be ok. Also it's good to hear that jackson wants to go back to lower budget zombie movies. Bad Taste was a riot and also insanely violent that it was hilarious.
Mr. Peabody 12-14-2005 07:17 PM
I saw King Kong this morning and I loved it. Peter Jackson was very respectful of the original film.
Sharpshooter005 12-14-2005 07:27 PM
quote:
this is why I don't like Godzilla movies rather than King Kong because the crap never mind any type of logical sense to me

Thats why I like them though, especially mechagodzilla. It's a robotic version of Godzilla thats continually destroyed, then rebuilt by time travellers of some kind..then destroyed..AND IT JUST KEEPS GOING!

Oh that and how theres always some little kid, who pretty much always has an encyclopedic knowledge of the giant beasts that come from beyond the solar system to attack earth, and how their physiology can't handle microwaves aimed directly at their heart or something, while the top military and scientific officials are just kind of going "I DON'T KNOW...UM...FIRE SOME MORE MISSILES TOWARDS IT?!"
corrupt 12-14-2005 07:46 PM
King Kong looks pretty good actually...
Hanyou 12-16-2005 11:02 AM
Probably going to see it today.

Am I like the only person on the face of the earth who LOVES the running time, though? Whenever I go to a three-hour movie I actually feel like I'm getting my money's worth.
Travis Bickle 12-16-2005 11:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hanyou
Probably going to see it today.

Am I like the only person on the face of the earth who LOVES the running time, though? Whenever I go to a three-hour movie I actually feel like I'm getting my money's worth.


Yes, but not much is done in 3 hours to warrent such a long time. It could have been a much shorter movie
Almasy 12-16-2005 11:33 AM
Ugh. This movie was so damn boring. It should have been 2 hours instead of 3, and all the corny/jokey stuff should have been cut out--then it might have been good.

All the stuff with the dinosaurs got really old...it's like, "same sh**, different day"--we've seen all that stuff with Jurassic Park, and Jurassic Park did it so much better, and that was years and years ago.I really wasn't impressed with this movie's CGI at all.

Also, the casting, with the exception of Ann, was horrible! Adrian Brody? Jack Black? No thanks! Movies can be really boring when everyone's ugly.
Hanyou 12-16-2005 12:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Almasy
Ugh. This movie was so damn boring. It should have been 2 hours instead of 3, and all the corny/jokey stuff should have been cut out--then it might have been good.

All the stuff with the dinosaurs got really old...it's like, "same sh**, different day"--we've seen all that stuff with Jurassic Park, and Jurassic Park did it so much better, and that was years and years ago.I really wasn't impressed with this movie's CGI at all.

Also, the casting, with the exception of Ann, was horrible! Adrian Brody? Jack Black? No thanks! Movies can be really boring when everyone's ugly.


About the casting...what the f***? First order of business: I'm a heterosexual male but I've always though Adrian Brody was a good-looking guy, as far as looking the part of a classic hollywood actor.

But but but...that's not the point! XD I agree that it SHOULD matter how people look, but ONLY to the extent that it fits the character. Again, I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm convinced: Jack Black is probably PERFECT for his role. He reminds me or Orson Welles. And Watts...well, it's a given that she was a good pick.

But you can't SERIOUSLY tell me you were bothered by the fact that the actors weren't all great-looking! XD I mean, come on, if everyone were singing that song then LotR wouldn't have been so successful, given that about half of its actors are ugly as hell.

That said, I can't really fight with your taste in movies on the whole, since I'm assuming you like Narnia, and you already stated you like Jurrassic Park. So I might do well to actually listen to you.

While Jurrassic Park is certainly one of my all-time favorite movies and I doubt King Kong will be as good, you gotta realize they're aiming for different things. Now, I've been a fan of JP most of my life, since the day the movie came out really, and I've read the book and whatnot. The objective of the movie is to portray the dangers of science and methods such as cloning and whatnot. It's about the ethical limits of science, and to that extent it's very realistic...it could happen.

King Kong is almost the opposite. The dinos, and the ape, are in their natural environment. It's about primitivism. On top of that, it's a fantasy film, so it's meant to be over-the-top. In that way I'm actually pretty excited to see how Jackson pulls it off, however good the CGI turns out to be.

And let's not forget that, much like Kong, JP had almost a full hour of exposition before things really started cooking. I think the extra hour is called characterization. And once that's through, Jackson's reeled you in well enough for 2 hours of mayhem that you end up finding convincing however over-the-top it is.

At least, that's what I'm expecting. That's what he did with Lord of the Rings.
Randolph 12-16-2005 12:20 PM
I have not watched it myself, but from what I have seen
it doesn't look like classic, buy-the-DVD-and-keep-it-forever material.
I won't be seeing it.

I get the feeling that JP's burned out a good deal of his creative passion on the Rings films. Which, by the way, I doubt he will ever top.

The Narnia film will likely be the big deal this time 'round.
Mr. Peabody 12-16-2005 12:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rekkoha
I get the feeling that JP's burned out a good deal of his creative passion on the Rings films. Which, by the way, I doubt he will ever top.

The Narnia film will likely be the big deal this time 'round.


Peter Jackson's wanted to film his vision of King Kong for several years. The film has no signs of him burning out. Kong thunders with creative energy. I think Jackson's moving on to smaller projects because he fears he will eventually burn out.

Narnia might top Kong for several reasons, the main one being its source material. There was a school field trip in the theater lobby waiting to see Narnia while I was leaving after seeing Kong. Schools are going to help Narnia at the box office.
Randolph 12-16-2005 12:51 PM
My apologies. It is merely my opinion.

It is simply rather disheartening to see such a glamorized Hollywood
"flick" on the heels of his life's masterpiece.
But if such is the will of Mr. Jackson, I have no right to complain.
Hanyou 12-16-2005 01:10 PM
Narnia was a good movie, and it was the first children's movie I'd seen in a long time that wasn't rediculously insulting to its audience and that managed to hold my attention throughout (the last one of similar quality I saw was The Princess Bride, but let's face it...Narnia's better than that).

The very thing I like about this is the fact that it's poised to be a classic, unlike the dime-a-dozen hollywood films of late. It's truly epic, not a pseudo-epic like Alexander.

But we'll see. Kong's up against Narnia, Batman Begins, Walk the Line, and Star Wars III for best film of the year in my book. I doubt it'll top Walk the Line, as far as quality is concerned.
Jim Starluck 12-23-2005 09:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Almasy
Ugh. This movie was so damn boring. It should have been 2 hours instead of 3, and all the corny/jokey stuff should have been cut out--then it might have been good.

All the stuff with the dinosaurs got really old...it's like, "same sh**, different day"--we've seen all that stuff with Jurassic Park, and Jurassic Park did it so much better, and that was years and years ago. I really wasn't impressed with this movie's CGI at all.


...

Okay. Few things here.

First, there were dinosaurs in the first King Kong. Kong fighting a T-Rex predates Jurrasic Park by SIXTY YEARS.

Second, Peter Jackson is, from all accounts, like my brother (and to a limited extent, me). He watched the original movie in his childhood, and it was a major influence on how he turned out. From what I've heard, watching King Kong was what got PJ into movie-making in the first place.

I personally believe that this film is made for people like himself: People who loved the original as the classic it ways, who were inspired by it. His version is the perfect remake. The story and characters of the original (which were, to be honest, rather two-dimensional) are fleshed out and given depth, and EVERY major scene is re-created anew. There were only two sequences that have no counterparts in the original: The bug pit and Kong & Ann playing in Central Park. And the bug pit was a cut scene from the first film, that they couldn't manage to do because of budget constraints. The only scene from the original that wasn't in this version was the monster in the swamp, which presumably got cut because we see them on the edge of the swamp at one point.

Third, partly based on that, is that no, it couldn't have been shorter. Because I can't think of a single scene they could have cut out that would not have seriously degraded the quality of the film, which IMHO is of the highest caliber.



Rekkoha, if you could ask Peter Jackson, I'd be willing to bet good money he would tell you that Kong, and not LotR, is his life's masterpiece.
Travis Bickle 12-23-2005 10:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Almasy
Ugh. This movie was so damn boring. It should have been 2 hours instead of 3, and all the corny/jokey stuff should have been cut out--then it might have been good.

All the stuff with the dinosaurs got really old...it's like, "same sh**, different day"--we've seen all that stuff with Jurassic Park, and Jurassic Park did it so much better, and that was years and years ago.I really wasn't impressed with this movie's CGI at all.

Also, the casting, with the exception of Ann, was horrible! Adrian Brody? Jack Black? No thanks! Movies can be really boring when everyone's ugly.


Pretty much sums up how I felt, except I like Adrian Brody.
David Ryder 12-23-2005 04:30 PM
Actually like several people said before there where dinosaurs in the 30's version.

quote:
Also, the casting, with the exception of Ann, was horrible! Adrian Brody? Jack Black? No thanks! Movies can be really boring when everyone's ugly.


Ummm yeah, that's what makes or breaks a movie are the actors looks. but i'll admit I could have done without Jack Black, he's just not funny.
Tickle Tickle 12-23-2005 06:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Gaddes
but i'll admit I could have done without Jack Black, he's just not funny.


Ditto, I'm not too fond of him. Overall, I liked the movie. The casting was good, nice CGI, yeah it's a bit long but hey that's the story of Kong. The other scene I didn't really like was the bug scene. Creeped me the hell out, I can't stand insects. Also, I didn't like how the final scene was handled. Jack Black should NOT have the last line. I think the last scene in the 70's version fit better. But that's just me.
Mr. Peabody 12-23-2005 07:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Naojiro
quote:
Originally posted by Gaddes
but i'll admit I could have done without Jack Black, he's just not funny.


Ditto, I'm not too fond of him. Also, I didn't like how the final scene was handled. Jack Black should NOT have the last line. I think the last scene in the 70's version fit better. But that's just me.


I disagree, Jack Black did a wonderful job of portraying a director obsessed with completing his dream project. Didn't anyone notice him crying while filming Ann's glamor shot aboard the Venture? He was also so caught up with his dream and filming it on Skull Island, that he never noticed the Kong drawing on the map until Driscoll pointed it out.

Black saying the famous last line works because he exploited Kong for his Broadway show, although he is very honest and mournful when he speaks before Kong's body.
088nd 12-23-2005 09:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Almasy
Ugh. This movie was so damn boring. It should have been 2 hours instead of 3, and all the corny/jokey stuff should have been cut out--then it might have been good.

All the stuff with the dinosaurs got really old...it's like, "same sh**, different day"--we've seen all that stuff with Jurassic Park, and Jurassic Park did it so much better, and that was years and years ago.I really wasn't impressed with this movie's CGI at all.

Also, the casting, with the exception of Ann, was horrible! Adrian Brody? Jack Black? No thanks! Movies can be really boring when everyone's ugly.


Sorry, but the dinosaur avalanche was the greatest thing I've ever witnessed. I'd see it again just to see that part again. I actually didn't mind the acting, thought it was incredible, compared to the acting in Narnia for example.

I really enjoyed King Kong. Probably one of the better movies I've seen this year. There were some parts they could have cut down, but for the most part I thought it was a well-made movie.
Mugiwara Luffy 12-23-2005 09:27 PM
It was too long, the dinosaurs and King Kong looked fake on many occasions, I couldn't take Jack Black seriously, the bugs creeped me out, and the story was pretty retarded.

Yet I enjoyed it. How odd.
DorothyFan1 12-24-2005 06:29 PM
Time for my take on King Kong. I loved this film. My regret is the tragic ending...but perhaps Peter Jackson's version will get the Oscar recognition the original never got. If I could ask PJ one question about the film...it would be this: why didn't PJ think of letting Kong's blood get spattered on Ann's dress while the bi-planes were cruelly pouring lead into the last giant ape?

If I could make a little change...I would have made the beginning of the movie be all about Ann Darrow and not Carl Dehnam. This way the unlikely romance between Ann and Kong becomes all the more tragic. As tragic as it ended up being...I could have done without that scene with Jack Driscoll showing up on the Empire State building rooftop to be with Ann right after Kong nosedives to his death. However it immediately made me think of the original fairy tale...of beauty and the beast...where the beast was killed and immediately the prince emerges. Like a symbolic metamorphasis of horrible beast sublimed in favor of "humanity". The same thing gets played out year after year in the showing of the Met's The Nutcracker ballet with the Bolshoi troupe. Wooden soldier dies in beauty's arms and out comes the prince to claim his bride.

I don't think I'm far off from predicting the Oscar race for best picture will come down to a battle between homosexual cowboys and the beauty/beast romance of King Kong. I, for one, hope politics don't prevail in this one and let the mighty ape carry one off for Peter Jackson. I'd be thrilled if Naomi Watts could beat Charlize Theron for her performance...but then again, Kate Winslet's performance was ignored for Titanic. The real oversight in this coming race is the complete overlooking of director Christopher Nolan for his incredible revival of the Batman franchise. He shouldn't be overlooked for a DGA award. I'd even nominate the film Batman Begins as Oscar material for Best Picture as well.