That is all.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I've heard that from everyone that has seen it so far. I just don't know if my back can survive more then 3 hours in the theatre, 4 probably with commercials, previews, and getting there in time to get a good seat.
Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
I just saw it last night.
I was just... wow. The most romantic movie I've ever seen. I almost cried several times. It also had some of the most horrifying scenes of any movie I have hever seen. It was beautiful. I loved just about every minute of it.
I now forgive Jackson for wrecking Lord of the Rings. Well... mostly, anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mild spoiler about the appearance of one monster
Saw it yesterday, really enjoyed it. It's interesting, the shades of grey some characters have, and how some of them make strides and change, and others change...a tiny bit...and it also gets credit from me for one of the most horrifying movie monsters I've seen. When they were trapped in the canyon swamp and the enormous insects and arachnids began swarming, and the cook (I forget his name) was near the mire, the things that started out looking like slugs or leeches opened their...ummm...portals? in front and exposed their real mouth, the several-foot-long spiked-teeth tentacle and started latching on to the poor guy, ever so slowly? *vomit*
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I really, really enjoyed.
Good: Kong, Ann, Driscoll, Skull Island (the fights!), all of New York, the sunset/sunrise. Kong. Did I mention Kong?
Bad: a couple of pointless subplots; annoying slow-mo, twisty, weird-angle close-ups in action scenes; clumsy dialogue in a couple of spots
Ugly: some really bad special effects in the bronto chase scene
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
Some effects were not so good. This would be a great movie if it were about 50 minutes shorter. At almost 3 1/2 hours long, it's just way too long. Jack Black is borderline terrible in the film.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It was actually 3 hours long.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Hey, just in case anyone is interested in a weird piece of information ... the cook is Andy Serkis. Andy Serkis is King Kong. Andy Serkis is Gollum. And Serkis is the cook. I thought that was pretty interesting. My amazing friend picked up on that and made us watch all the credits to make sure.
And also, I thought it was Great ... but I wouldn't see it again. It could have been soooo much better if Carl had been better cast. Also, it was pretty disgusting at parts. Not that I minded that, but I've had to reconsider recommending it for my younger siblings.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
No gorilla as big as Kong can jump. Period. Fact of Physics. Other than that, I'm seeing it tomorrow or Sunday, most likely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why on earth would that be a fact of physics? For one thing, we don't even know if Kong is merely a giant ape, or something quite different that looks like a giant ape. There were certainly other creatures on Skull Island that were not just ancient, but also totally different from animals we know.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh, my man, elephants can't jump. They are too heavy. There are limits based on bone density/strength/flex and muscle strength. Maybe Kong can levitate via advanced physics, but if he is a normal monkey, no way can the big guy jump.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
By definition, he ain't no normal monkey, bruddah!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone arguing about this, but I like the movie and I'm a geek, so...
How do you know what Kong's bone density and muscle characteristics are? Not to mention that in the film we see the bones of Kong's ancestors. Perhaps once they couldn't jump, but have changed in their long history.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh, there's a reason that creatures like vertebrates develop wings. Ever notice how any flying vertebrate needs wings or membranes to catch the air? I've never seen or heard of a flying vertebrate without some kind of air-catching membrane. Not one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd forgotten just how deep and rich the Twilight Zone can be...
Steven, King Kong is not a flying vertebrate.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Is Kong the only surviving member of his species in this movie, or is he part of a population of them?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rakeesh--So? There's no clear line betwen flying and jumping. One equation expresses both. Air resistance/mass.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Slight Spoiler
The only evidence you ever see of other Kong-like creatures is their bones. While there was no mention of this, I believe that one reason Kong seemed so...well, sad, really, is because he was lonely and probably doomed to be the last of his kind, whether plummeting from a skyscraper or dying alone in his native jungle.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you're playing off my going deeper into the twilight zone remark, then you're doing a bang-up job...
A creature can jump while being totally inable to fly on its own. A creature does not need to have wings to jump
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Did any of you like it who went in expecting to hate it? I really am not interested in seeing it--have never seen the original Kong movie except the clips everyone has seen.
But if other skeptics have become converted, I might give it a shot. Or if my nephew wants to see it when he's in town.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I never saw the original either, beyond a few brief film clips. I'd say I've never seen more than five minutes total of the film in my lifetime. Mostly I saw it because of the director, Peter Jackson, and because the previews looked cool.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Uprooted-
I was tired, the movie didn't start until 6:45, it was three hours long, I wasn't excited about the company I was going with, and I had no desire to see the movie. But I had made a commitment to go...and... I loved it, and highly recommend that you go see it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The weird biological phenomenon of Kong actually borders on the realm of Chaos Theory and Quantum Physics in many respects.
For example, there may or may not be other living members of Kong's species. Like Shroedinger's cat, whether they are alive or dead all depends on those who will observe the phenomenon. Although in this case their status isn't unknown until the results are viewed. Their status is unknown until enough people view the movie that a sequel becomes inevatible, or impossible.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I want to see it, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get over Jack Black. I hate Jack Black.
-pH
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I hate Jack Black as well. But I thought he was really good in this movie. He fit the role perfectly.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I've never seen the original, so when I started seeing all of the trailers I became surprised and confused.
As far as I can tell the story is about a giant gorilla and a human woman who fall in love? have an affair? But everyone's scared of the gorilla because he's so big, and they try to kill him, even though really he's good at heart which is why the woman is in love with him.
Is that basically the story? Or are the trailers just not very comprehensive. Which has happened before, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I really liked Jack Black in School of Rock and High Fidelity.
He is perfect for those oblivious, obnoxious character roles.
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
I thought the movie was way too long. Cut about 40 minutes of it (maybe the mindless get on the boat/get off the boat stuff) and it'd be better. It was about 2 1/2 hours worth of good stuff, which means about 50 minutes too long Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Obviously, spoilers are in this post.
I thought Jack Black was perfect simply because his limited acting ability is ideal for someone trying to look sincere when they aren't. I was getting annoyed at all his overly dramatic and cheesy lines, until I realized they were letting him end the movie with the classic line from the original. Then it makes sense, he has to be cheesy to pull off that line.
As for the movie, I liked it despite some of it's more ridiculous points, and I went in expecting to hate it. That brontosaurus chase was 9 different kinds of outrageous. You cut that from the movie and it makes more sense and is a little bit shorter. The T-rexes hanging from the vines and fighting Kong for the girl were also a bit out there. I was unable to suspend my disbelief for those scenes. There's no way so few people died while running beneath the legs of stampeding giant dinosaurs in a narrow canyon. Not possible.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Just to throw in some dissenting opinion.
I didn't like it very much at all.
Niki (Valentine014) absoluted hated it.
I would post more into the reasons why we didn't like it, but I need to go to bed now.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I thought it was GREAT!. It was far far better than any version of King Kong ever made, including the originals.
I had no problem with Jack Black's casting. I thought he was good. Naomi Watts was absolutely perfect.
Even the least realistic of the special effects (which I'll admit was the dino-stampede) was still pretty good, and exciting to watch.
The movie was only 3 hours and 7 minutes. I was not bored at any point. Even scenes that were probably technically "unnecessary" were still exciting. I was exhausted about 2/3 of the way through the movie from the action alone.
What the movie got 100 percent "right" and which the original didn't even get, was the relationship between Anne and Kong. It was a love story, but you have to be pretty twisted to think of it as any kind of "affair". (sorry blackwolve ) Anne is appropriately terrified of Kong, then comes to see the majesty and wonder of his very existence. She understands him in a way no one else does, and more importantly she respects him as no one else in the movie does.
Jackson has created a fully enjoyable, and believable tale (even if not literally so, at least in the sense that I had no problem suspending my disbelief where necessary to enjoy the real story within). A movie like this is a movie about wonder and adventure on the outside, but with a real story about love and respect, selfishness and exploitation within. Jackson clues us in on this through having one of his characters experience the same thing by reading Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I think he acheives this very well. I was excited and thrilled by the outer story and touched by the inner one. What else do you want? I'd see this movie again in a heatbeat. I'll definitely buy it when it comes out on DVD. And I'll definitely see whatever Jackson decides to do next.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
There are 2 reasons why Kong can't jump.
#1. Unless his bones are made of titanium, his skeleton would shatter with the kind of impact that much weight coming down would make.
2. No non-human vertebrate has got the necessary muscle strength to lift that much bulk off the ground.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Those flashy pink, fanged worms eating Andy Serkis?
DISGUSTING.
The various sub-plots among the Venture's crew? Laughable, and telegraphed which characters were cannon fodder.
The dino stampede? So cheesy and badly done. Weta digital really dropped the ball on that sequence.
A sack of cocaine-crazed weasels trapped inside of pale sack: Jack Black's face.
That said, Naomi and Kong himself were wonderful. The bond seemed real.
Still, I started to flinch whenever a tender moment occurred between the two. It was always the cue for something REALLY crappy to happen to Kong.
Peter sure had fun with meta-fiction references in this film. From the mention of Fay Wray to the "natives" performing at the theater.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Rakeesh--So? There's no clear line betwen flying and jumping. One equation expresses both. Air resistance/mass.
What's on the other side of the equation? Air resistence divided by mass equals what? Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
If you can't even muster enough suspension of disbelief to accept a jumping Kong, stay away from this movie. Remember that we're talking about a movie that features living Tyrannosaurs, murderous insects the size of a man, and carnivorous bats the size of pteranodons. Oh yeah, and a 25-foot tall gorilla. Leave the Bad Astronomer home and you'll have a shot at enjoying yourself.
Anyway, I loved it. As a movie fan, I agree that it could've used a lot of trimming- the Brontosaur stampede was egregious to the extreme, and the whole Hayes/Jimmy side plot could've been removed entirely. The special effects were also surprisingly iffy. While Kong himself was just about flawless, there were numerous moments in the "smaller" action sequences when you can tell that Weta were really stretching their resources to get this movie done in time. Bad compositing, some weird visual glitches, unrealistic-looking physics etc.
However, what "King Kong" lacks in judicious editing, it makes up for in heart. In that sense, it is very much like my other favorite action spectacle of the year, "Serenity" (though "Kong" mostly lacks Whedon's dry wit). The people who describe "Kong" as the new "Titanic" are right: it is a romance surrounded by action and visual effects, not the vice versa. The relationship between Anne and Kong crackles with energy... Jackson, Watts, Serkis, and the Weta team all deserve massive praise for hitting every emotional beat to perfection. The latter two, in particular, take what they started with Gollum and bring it to a whole new level. There's really no question at this point: when the film history books are written, Serkis and Weta Digital will be remembered as the first kings of CGI acting.
That last shot of Kong as he falls... holy crap. The Best Actor award goes to the giant ape.
I thought that Jack Black played Carl Denham perfectly. There were a few moments at the start of the movie where Black's usual persona breaks through, but for the most part, he made Denham a believable man: the closest thing the movie has to a villain, but one who I couldn't help liking for his single-mindedness, even as I internally railed at the irony of his last line ("'Twas beauty killed the beast").
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:#1. Unless his bones are made of titanium, his skeleton would shatter with the kind of impact that much weight coming down would make.
2. No non-human vertebrate has got the necessary muscle strength to lift that much bulk off the ground.
Cue Serling!
You don't know what his bones are made of, and I think you're pulling the titanium bit from your backside anyway.
There has never been a non-human vertebrate that we know of that is so big, so how can you possibly state that as fact?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There has never been a non-human vertebrate that we know of that is so big . . .
quote:n the movie, Kong appears to be about 25 feet tall in a crouch--about seven times the height of an actual silverback gorilla. At that size, a very rough estimate tells us Kong would weigh anywhere from 20 to 60 tons.
That would make it quite difficult for him to get around. "Given that Kong would be supporting his mass on two legs, I strongly doubt he'd be athletic at all. He might even have a hard time moving faster than a slow shuffle," says Hutchinson. "In a worst case scenario, which is still quite likely, he couldn't even stand. Kong's appearance is basically that of a gorilla writ large; this is not what we'd expect from a giant gorilla. His dimensions, especially the robustness of his legs, should be much more extreme than a big male gorilla's."
Kong's massive bones might be strong enough to support his weight, but he likely wouldn't have enough muscle mass to move around. If he tried to run, jump or tackle something, there's a good chance he'd simply crumple.
So, if this guy is right, it's not impossible for an ape that size to do those things, and the problem isn't bone-cracking, but he would have to have bigger legs to account for weight increasing in a cubic function of height.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hehe, OK, the sloth might have done it...I meant to say there isn't such a specimen alive that we can experiment with.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
So you still think Kong can jump, Rakeesh? Just curious. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I enjoyed it very much.
Way too long. Why show something once when you can show it three times from five different angles? Three teary goodbyes between Kong and Ann? This isn't ROTK! There aren't fifty storylines to wrap up!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Clearly King Kong can jump. Well, not any more, but clearly he could jump.
The question is, "how?" Alien technology? The bite of a radioactive grasshopper? Magic?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
CGI. Duh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Cross-species Grasshopper Infection?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Worth investigating.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I loved the movie. And yet, as always, I have to suggest changes.
The dino stampede should have been quick and brutal, lasting maybe 10 seconds. The Kong-fighting-Dinos scenes should have been cut back. A lot of the crew interplay seemed to drag. And I marveled at how well Ann resisted the freezing cold in her light dress on top of the highest building in the world, which for some reason had little wind up there. And should Kong have at least buckled the street when he fell, if not actually gone through to the subway?
But I really, really loved Kong. Serkis needs awards for this.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I agree with all of the above. Especially the dino stampede, and the Jimmy character, who just seemed like a useless subplot that should have been cut.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I think a few things could have been trimmed, but I don't think it was unreasonably long, considering what happened. For all the unnecessary sub-plots, I was never bored, and most of the time I was entranced.
The stampede could have been cut, but the Kong/T-Rex scene could not have. The little vaudeville act on the cliff explains why Kong loved Ann, but the T-Rex fight was the main reason that Ann, and vicariously the audience, loved Kong. There was a lot of Enormous Dumb Killing Machine to overcome before I was ready to see him as a sympathetic character, without which the entire film would have failed. And if I hadn't seen every last excruciating, painful and terrifying second of what Kong did for Ann, I may not have bought it. The entire hour in the jungle was worth it just to frame that scene.
And, just to answer a previous question, I saw it mainly out of curiosity. I ended up liking it way, way more than I expected to. It wasn't a perfect movie, but it was certainly a spectacular one, and one well worth seeing.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
One other thought about the Kong/T-Rex fight. Without it, the final climactic scene on top of the Empire State Building wouldn't have made a bit of sense. The very idea of a sane woman climing that ladder amidst a hail of machine gun fire to try to save Kong rather than hitting the elevator and heading home strains credibility far more than a jumping ape. But, juxtaposed with the jungle fight, it's far more understandable. Ann was utterly unable to defend herself against a trio of hungry dinosaurs, so Kong risked his very life to save her. Kong was just as helpless against airplanes and machine guns, but Ann knew she may have been able to call them off. So, as dumb as her choices seemed, she did no more for him than he had done for her. It turned her actions from idiotic to poetic, and made it that much more poignant and sad when she failed.
It's another reason why the T-Rex scene was so pivotal, and cutting or deleting it would have done the entire film a great injustice.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
I liked the T-Rex scene. It could perhaps have been shorter, but it definitely couldn't have been cut altother. The brontosaurus stampede was much more goofy, almost cartoonish.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Three hours? How'd they get away with that?
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I just saw it, and thought it was pretty enjoyable. I can't say that I loved it, but it was a good time at the movies. Naomi Watts was awesome.
I don't understand the complaint about long movies. As long as there's not a bunch of crap that could have been left on the cutting room floor (and I can't say there was any in Kong), then the longer the better.
quote: And I'll definitely see whatever Jackson decides to do next.
According to IMDb, his next directing project is Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
My complaint is that if King Kong is 3 hours, then the Harry Potter movies can be 3 hours.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Too many dinosaurs!
I love PJ, but somebody needs to tell him when to cut some CG. seriously.
I really liked the Jack-Ann love story, though.
Ni!
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
the can/can't jump discussion's nearly as dumb as the shakespeare ruined roman culture one
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I haven't seen the movie yet, will see it either Thursday or Friday, but here's something about the movie that intrigues me: the giant wetas (the insects) that I believe Kong fights. There's a recently published novel, written by a New Zealander, titled "Tarzan Presley", which has Tarzan raised by gorillas in the wilds of New Zealand (no gorillas actually in NZ, by the way), fighting off giant wetas. I'm wondering if the giant wetas in King Kong are Jackson's nod to the book. The book is seriously weird, because once Tarzan, who has discovered he can sing thru finding a functioning radio that is able to pick up late 40s pop songs, gets taken back to the US, he ends up being adopted by the Presley family, whose truck-driving son Elvis has recently been killed, and he becomes a singing sensation who eventually fakes suicide and ends up living on a remote farm in Australia. It's a hoot! It will almost certainly never be published in the US as the Edgar Rice Burroughs people have said they will sue if it's ever published outside NZ, and the Elvis people ain't happy either. So any way, my guess is that Jackson has given a little nod to the author by including giant wetas, as well as to the name of the special effects company. Wetas are particularly scary looking, by the way, and I won't go near one, they're about 3 - 5 inches long.
Oh, looks like it may be able to be published in the US after all. Worth a read if you come across it.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
If you haven't seen the King Kong, here's a synopsis:
It's very much like watching Jurassic Park I & II back to back. Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cashew: the can/can't jump discussion's nearly as dumb as the shakespeare ruined roman culture one
Thank you oh so very much for an uncalled for insult, when in fact my "complaint" was in jest. Sometimes people aren't always 100% serious.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Apologies kojabu, the "insult" was not intended as an insult. The discussion reminded me of ArCHeR's heated and pointless attack on the use of English accents in 'Rome', and I thought this discussion was as silly. Didn't mean to offend. If you'll look you'll see my own contribution to the can/can't jump debate wasn't exactly serious either (p 1). Once again, sorry, didn't mean to offend.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Whoops, sent it twice. Deleted the second one...
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I thought the movie was great. I was probably the most uncomfortable I have ever been in a movie at the end with the scenes on top of the Empire State Building. I kept feeling like I was going to fall off, and heights don't really bother me. Been Sky diving several times, love roller coasters.
A few of the FX scenes were a little to long. I agree the T-rex fighting from the vines was a bit absurd. A couple of times on the island I could have used a little break. That island must have the high percentage of large animal per acre on earth times ten.
Over all thought it really was a good movie. When I heard Jackson was doing this movie I thought here comes a big flop. But I will not question him again. Peter make what ever movie you want to next. I'll go see it.
Oh yeah, I remember thinking when I saw Jurassic Park II, “wow they totally stole that from King Kong”.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
My sorta jumbled review:
The 1st hour just dragged along. There was some decent character-building stuff in there, but there were lots of dead spaces that didn’t seem to serve any purpose. I think the 1st hour could easily have been cut in half and not lost any of the character development and set-up for later that was there.
The 2nd hour on the island. . . it was pretty cool up until Kong came and got the girl. After that it was just stupid. The stuff in it was just so impossibly wrong that I couldn’t suspend my disbelief far enough to just enjoy it. Things like Kong running as fast as he could through the jungle, yet she didn’t die from the shaking in the 1st few minutes, the way she was constantly getting hit by sticks and branches, ended up running around barefoot, sliding down hills, etc, and there wasn’t a mark or bruise on her until AFTER she was rescued from Kong, and then once she was safe she seemed to magically grow a new scratch each time the camera cut back to her – but even then only on her face. Nothing on her arms and legs.
The “running of the dinosaurs” Pamplona style was pretty cool for the 1st 30 seconds or so. But then it just went on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on. And it got progressively more ridiculous as it went, until by the end all I could think of was to wonder who decided blowing that much budget on CGI for nothing was a good idea.
Kong’s fight with the dino’s was so over the top as to annoy. Especially the way the dino’s mostly didn’t attack him, but rather the girl in his hand. So he had to keep jerking her around and tossing her from hand to hand so she wouldn’t get snatched. . . except the 1st time he did that she would have died from a snapped neck or back. And then when they all fell down in the ravine, yet the dino’s didn’t worry about getting untangled from the vines or survival – no no – they kept snapping at the blonde snack.
When the rescue party was fighting the insects, and unskilled boy used a machine gun from 10 feet away to shoot bugs off a man’s body. . . and he didn’t look like he was aiming too carefully either – sorry. . . . he would have missed entirely or killed the other guy. Not managed to get all the bugs just as his clip burned out.
Back in New York, she wore a sheath dress with no coat or leg protection, yet was out all night with the gorilla. . . in the middle of the winter, and he took her up on top of a tall tall building and there was barely any wind and she didn’t look cold at all. Ice all over the roads, lake in Central Park frozen over – her in no coat and outside for what had to have been about 10-12 hours. . . . .and she didn’t die of exposure, nor even look cold at any time. She was surrounded by falling pieces of the building and lots of broken glass fell on her. . but again, never a mark on her. And again. . . .the whole 3rd act just dragged and dragged and dragged with soooo much dead space.
It was just too stupid. I can’t turn my brain off that far. And it was poorly edited so that it just felt like I was enduring it, rather than enjoying it.
And finally. . .as much as I love Jack Black – he was absolutely the wrong actor for that role. I cringed every time he was on the screen. And his character simply wasn’t believable to me either. The lies he came up with were just way too transparent, yet everyone seemed to buy them hook line and sinker. . every time. . .even after all his prior lies were expose, they kept believing him.
Maybe if I’d seen it with someone who enjoyed it then some of that might have rubbed off on me. As it was. . . . . I didn’t like it. I wouldn’t recommend it.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I loved this movie. Peter Jackson, you little genius of movie direction, you!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, PJ, get to work on The Hobbit.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The Hobbit is currently a no-go. The film rights are held by New Line...but the distribution rights are held by MGM.
Until the studios work out a deal, it's going to be the 10th of Never before we see it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The camera loves Naomi Watts. I was touched by the movie. I don't have anything else to say other than I appreciate the fact that they didn't cut the first hour.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I wouldn't have cut anything. The movie was brilliant and brought more heart to the story of King Kong than any other version including the original.
But it's still King Kong, fer cryin' out loud! It's not like PJ was even attempting to remake Hamlet. Next you'll be telling me The Empire Strikes Back sucked because AT-AT walkers were completely impractical for a snow assault and what was with that asteroid scene? Totally impossible! Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I have to agree. For all of you who couldn't suspend your disbelief. It's King Kong. You know going in its about a 30 ft gorilla, and from the promo you knew there were dinosaurs, so if you can't get past that don't go. I'll admit some of it was way over the top, but it was fun.
I am curious, were there any Jack Black haters that liked this movie. It seems most of the people who didn't like the movie, complained about him. I thought he was OK in the role because the role was made for someone like him. I never read the other characters as really believed any of his lies except for his assistant who seems to know better, but chooses to go along with it.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
But not even the people who completely loved the film have made a compelling defense of the film's biggest flaw:
The Mr. Hayes/Jimmy sub-plot.
What the heck was up with that?
Other than being a transparent excuse to quote Heart of Darkness and an attempt to pretend that the non-Kong and Anne characters had lives beyond this story...there was _no_ reason for it to be in the film.
Should've been cut.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
The "running of the dinosaurs" was pretty stupid.
But man, when Kong fought those dinosaurs, the 8-year-old part of me thought it was the greatest movie in the history of mankind.
Deep down inside I just want to see a big monkey smash dinosaurs good.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I am curious, were there any Jack Black haters that liked this movie.
I'm one. Then again, I don't hate Black, I'm just disturbed by him in a complex way.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Just got back from seeing it and wow I'm in awe. I don't mind Jack Black, not my favorite guy, but he was definately a good guy for that role. I loved Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts did a great job as well.
I definately agree that the dino stampede was a bit off, and the T-Rex scene could have been a tad shorter. The only scenes that were shouting "Hi, I'm a blue screened shot" (IMO), were the log scene and the scene where Anne is hanging from the ladder.
The bugs creeped me out. Eep.
Has anyone seen the original? What did they change from that?
I'd just like to know how much chloroform they needed to get Kong back to the states.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, once he was actually chained up they could probably just keep Anne there with him to quiet him.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Ah true, and they'd have to keep the other guy away from him.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: But not even the people who completely loved the film have made a compelling defense of the film's biggest flaw:
The Mr. Hayes/Jimmy sub-plot.
What the heck was up with that?
That's my number 1 complaint as well. It seemed like an actual subplot was developing there, I kind of expected that Jimmy had maybe escaped from Skull Island as a youth or something. But....nothing. It's like they were going to go somewhere with it and just dropped it. Very annoying.
However, I do have to disagree about the Heart of Darkness quote. For me (the only version of King Kong I've seen was the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror) the quote served as useful foreshadowing: this would not be an adventure, but a tragedy.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
How is that disagreeing with me?
I'm not objecting to there being a Heart of Darkness quote. I'm objecting to characters who (as it stands in the current cut) seem to have no other purpose than to give that quote, then generate drama when one of them dies a telegraphed-from-the-first-moment death. Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I don't have much to say about this except that it disturbed in some ways more deeply than any other movie I've ever seen. I sobbed pretty much through the last hour of it. That said, I'm very glad I saw it. It was beautiful, and it takes something pretty powerful to move me the way Kong's majesty and emotion did. Movies in which animals suffer always affect me more than those with human suffering, I guess because too many humans do assume that anything unlike them is, actually, "just a dumb animal". I'm not really sure why it made as sad as it did, but it was almost hard to watch at times. I knew what was coming, and I think that made it worse, watching Kong turn from monstrous into a creature of gentle dignity. I don't regret seeing it, but I do wish I could get it out of my head.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
This was a fabulous and faithful remake of one of the most beloved movies of all time. Both the original and this one unabashedly play up the Beauty and the Beast theme, and give us thrills. It's good entertainment, even if suspension of disbelief is required in heavy doses.
THERE BE SPOILERS HERE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jackson updated the original in some very good ways (unlike his predecessor who botched it badly and still managed to get Oscars for it). I particularly liked that Ann Darrow is a vaudeville comedienne as this motivated her antics with the ape and made it plausible that she was as athletic as she needed to be in running through the jungle. And it helped establish that Kong was a thiking animal and had a sense of humor not unlike that of 1930's NYC dwellers.
I thought the casting was superb here. Jack Black was amazing as the self-absorbed director/producer. Adrien Brody was great...Serkis was amazing. It was all great casting, IMHO. Again, in contrast to the 1976 one that had Jessica Lange as the female lead (wretch) alongside Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin.
I think that special effects-based movies all fall prey to their effects at some point. The original Kong showed off how great stop-action animation was and thrilled audiences. The new Kong showed off how life-like CGI can be with dinosaurs and such. The giant bugs was over-indulgent too, and it boxed Jackson into a corner of how the heck to get rid of them, leading to a silly "Jimmy fires tommy gun" thing that was just goofy. It made those scenes too long, but hey, that's faithful to the original too, in a sense.
Okay there WERE things I thought were just silly:
- Standing atop the Empire State building is simply not possible for your average human barring some really good harnesses. A size-4 woman in a shift would've lasted approximate 1/2 second before being whisked off by the CONSTANT wind, especially in winter. I'm sorry, but it just wasn't even remotely plausible that she would stand up atop the building, or go into a passionate embrace with the, perhaps, even skinnier Adrien Brody. Jack Black and Kong might've been able to stand flat-footed up there, but no-one else in the cast would've dared.
- The sappy look of love on Naomi Watts' face as Kong lifted her up towards the end was just too stupid for words. She got it wrong, IMHO. Her performance was almost flawless through the rest of the movie, but somehow the particular emotion displayed at that moment was just too WRONG for her character. She blew it, just that once.
- Kong's fall from the tower -- too graceful. He should've bumped the lower tiers on the way down and gotten some rotational spin out of it. And then crushed the sidewalk when he hit.
- The boat they were on couldn't have actually transported Kong back anywhere. It was too small. This was the one thing that the 1976 movie did better. It had a decent sized ship to do the transporting.
- Running barefoot through the rocks and jungle. I'm sorry, but that girl would've been hobbling on two bloody stumps after about 100 yards of that. It just didn't work for me. I've seen very few people who can run full tilt on bare feet. Even motivated by fear, the pain of such a thing is not for the untrained.
- The "beautiful" thing on Skull island and at the top of the Empire State Building was just hokey. They had it so right with the ape most of the time, but his instant grasp of communication was a little bit much, IMHO. At least they didn't make him talk, though.
Things that were WAY better in this version than in the original:
- Kong had great presence and emotion. Believable ape-like behaviors and a real range.
- We get to see that Kong really is the last of his kind.
- We figure out that Kong is young -- maybe a teenager-equivalent. Not yet a silverback. It explains so much about his behavior.
- Carl Dennim's character plays better as slightly-to-moderately crazy than simply opportunistic and grasping as in the original.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Lavalamp--
I really enjoyed your comparisons. I rented the other two versions before going to see PJs version. I was going to post most of what you have already said.
I really enjoyed this movie. I really like the change in Ann's characterization. The 76 version made Ann out to be a flighty, cheap tart. Didn't really like her in the 76 version. PJs version shows Ann is not only talented, but has morals and some ethics. I was glad she didn't participate in Denim's farce of a show at the end. And I disagree with your assessment of her last gaze on Kong. I think she nailed it.
I read this thread before seeing the movie and many of you posted an objection to Ann being outside for so long in that little dress. She spent the majority of the time in Kong's warm palm, though I do see the point many of you made about the wind at the top of the Empire State Building.
I felt for Kong in the other two movies, but not like in this version. The 76 version showed Kong's "softer" side with he helps bathe Ann after she gets dirty. The 76 version also shows Kong laughing and smiling and helps create more sympathy for the ape than the 33 version did.
I also felt extreme dislike for Dennim. Someone posted earlier that people continued to listen to his lies. I didn't get that sense. I felt they were growing tired of them, too. There was just little they could do in the situation. The last line of the film infuriates me. "Twas beauty that killed the beast." Whatever you manipulative, conniving, little prick! That means Black did his job as an actor. Though, I feel that way about Black in most of his films. Is he a type-cast or is that the only character he can do well? I think he was perfect for the role.
I agree that the other casting was done well. I'm glad I read this thread and knew to keep an eye out for Serkis. And, I didn't find the sub plot of Jimmy and the other guy...can't think of his name...the black guy...distracting. It explained why he was so attached and protective of Jimmy. It made me care about the other characters and dispise Dennim all the more. All those lives needlessly lost for his greedy pursuit!
Kong truely is a tragedy, though touching on many levels.
Edit for stupid typos
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Again; an ok one and one half hour movie, crammed into three hours.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: - We figure out that Kong is young -- maybe a teenager-equivalent. Not yet a silverback. It explains so much about his behavior.
We did? What gave you that impression?
IIRC Kong's back fur looked silver. Judging by the bleached skeleton Kongs, I'd think it's more likely he's middle-aged. I don't think even the fiercest juvenile giant gorilla could've survived Skull Island on his own.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Re: wind at the top of the Empire State Building -- one thing I can think of is that they were up there at dawn, when wind is usually pretty calm.
Still... she's wearing heels while she's up there?? Even if she doesn't have any fear of heights, that seems really dumb...
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
Liked the movie... but I think they could have cut about an hour and not lost anything.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
To me it didn't really feel like a 3 hour movie.
I shouldn't've had that huge Diet Coke, but other than bladder distress, the time passed pretty quickly.
I didn't really see his silver back...but then, it could be a different species thing too.
I just thought his romp on the iced over pond and his flexibility of behavior denoted a younger animal. IMHO.
Not all that critical a plot point, of course.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I found it altogether worthwhile to watch. But it was a little wierd.
For a positive start, it reflected in better colour New York of the 1930s, using 2005 technology, then the 1970s' version I once saw. But as for Skull Island, while it was an elegant making, I found the disappearance of the locals after screeching "Tura Kong!" a little artificial and forced. The whole technology of that bridge was against all physical knowledge I have, and impossible to build, not to mention the fact that when the bridge is lowered it doesn't slam down - with those twigs holding it up.
King Kong is way too large, and you can notice different sizes and different proportion when looking at his size compared to other animals'; also, his behaviour is completely different from a real gorilla's. He is not the most powerful thing in the forest, and yet he has the best lair, and has a clear path to the shore. I have no idea what the hell a clan of Diplodocodes had to do on the island and how, when the crew fled the stampeed they weren't overrun by the huge feet. The T-Reges had three fingers, not two, and they don't hunt in clans - as far as I know.
The topography was distorted, and the whole island seemed a horrible design of a food-chain and physical landscape.
As for New York, why was King Kong brought there and not a dinosaur? Also, why did day and night change so soon? It seems a little wierd.
But I enjoyed the film, altogether. Nice ship-crew psychology.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't see how you end up thinking he wasn't the most powerful creature in the forest? The top of the dinosaur food chain x3 couldn't stand up to him?
I think the point of King Kong is that he's not just a gorilla but really big.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
That's the thing! He's a vegetarian and according to initial reflections quite weaker and smaller than a T-Rex. So he gets three of them and beats'em all up, while he's incapable of keeping a close guard on "his love".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't understand what you mean by "initial reflections".
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
The way he's introduced, reflected and impresioned at first.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Jonathan - Could you provide a few details? I don't know why you think it was initially implied that Kong couldn't take on a T-Rex.
quote:The topography was distorted, and the whole island seemed a horrible design of a food-chain and physical landscape.
The movie so emphatically rejected all such concerns that only a particularily joyless or imagination starved audience could find fault with this.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Is he a type-cast or is that the only character he can do well? I think he was perfect for the role."
I wondered that when I saw School of Rock on DVD. Then I watched the commentary, which is basically just Black talking about how wonderful he is. And everyone else in the cast/crew talking about how wonderful he is. And all I could think was that all these people knew they were lying, but had to do it in order to sell the movie.
I certainly hope the Academy doesn't mistake an inspired piece of casting for an inspired piece of acting.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think that this is the sort of movie where I want to know everything I can before I see it, so I know what to look for.
I don't really intend to suspend disbelief so much as to critically analyze the film, so it's still worth watching.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This is an aside, but something I noticed watching bicycle races, is how shocks travel upwards through muscle as the bike runs over bumps. Not something I ever would have expected, but it's a neat effect.
As to the Kong jumping thing: when he lands his muscles would continue travelling downwards, and probably tear themselves off of his bones.
I don't have a problem with suspending disbelief there, but it's the sort of detail I'd want to add if I were doing the animating; an abbreviated version of the shock through the muscle thing, to add to the impression of how large he is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: The Hobbit is currently a no-go. The film rights are held by New Line...but the distribution rights are held by MGM.
The serious part of the fight is between New Line and Sony, who as of a year ago, owns MGM. It's too bad New Line couldn't have bought MGM back when it was for sale, the movie library and rights alone would have made the sale worth it. I guess Sony just offerred more for it. But watching two movie giants slug it out is going to be painful for the next few years. I think they won't get over it until PJ is older, and they realize time is an issue. Or unless PJ were to actually put the screws to them, and fan support forced their hands.
As for Kong:
I don't know. I liked it as a whole, but I was laughing more throughout this movie than anything else. So far as I was concerned it was a comedy. It was cheesy, in the extreme it was cheesy and corny, but I let that go because of the setting, assuming it's supposed to be a period piece so to speak. The CGI was over the top. I find it hard to believe that anyone could say the CGI in this was okay, but that it was too much in Star Wars. There must have been CGI in almost every shot of the movie.
The bronto chase scene and orgy that ensued at the end was a goofy. The T-Rex vine fight that reminded me far too much of Emperor's New Groove , snapped my ability to stay in the realm of forgiveness as far as believability goes.
Let's see, the relationship between Hayes and Jimmy, like someone else on here said looked like a cheap ploy to get Heart of Darkness lines into the movie. It was especially cheap given how that relationship abruptly ended, and given the lack of explanation for the much ado about nothing drama over Jimmy's mysterious past.
The Captain of the boat was a little silly, seeing as how every five minutes he threatened to desert them only to swing back around and save them at the last minute. The multiple fight scenes with the T-rexes just, way, too much. Kong vs 3 with a girl in his hand? What's next? Kong fights Godzilla, Mothra and a half dozen raptors with both arms tied behind his back?
"The first thing about Jurassic Club is, you do NOT talk about Jurassic Club!"
Despite my attacks on the goofier parts of the movie, I really did like it. It seems like almost every individual scene in the movie can be pulled out and hacked apart for flaws, but when you put it all together, somehow it gels into something enjoyably watchable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is pretty much how my friends felt about the movie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought it was self-indulgent, and I'm afraid studio execs and PJ himself learned the wrong lessons from the success of LoTR.
The T-Rex scene was ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. It could have been such a good scene on a flat piece of land, even if they insisted on including two of three of them. Kong's jumping/punching style against the T-Rex's chomping style should have made for great coreography (if that word applies to all CGI scenes). Especially Kong's repeated blocks of the jaws. They should have shown a T-Rex missing Kong and utterly destroying a tree trunk in one chomp to establish the "rules" of the fight: Kong is faster and basically stronger, but if Kong is bitten, he loses. In RP terms, Kong has a higher attack bonus and dexterity AC bonus, but does less damage per hit.
No explanation should be needed as to why the vines were stupid, stupid, stupid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Technically Dag, those terms are D&D terms, not RP I agree with you. Suspension of disbelief comes naturally to me, being such an inveterate liar and all , but I had trouble with the bites and the vines, too. I guess those were steel cable vines like they build bridges with. I still enjoyed it, but I agree that it had too much of an LotR flavor to it in that they put in too much detail...the story of King Kong doesn't sustain that much detail. Or at least, that type of detail. But I still enjoyed it.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
I had to go so far into back pages to find this thread that pobably no one wil read my contribution, but never mind. I've just seen it, and LOVED it! Some of you guys over-analysed it, it's MEANT to be over the top, it's a 30 foot gorilla for pete's sake!! So what if the vines couldn't have been strong enough to support 40 million tons of ravening beast, just sit back and enjoy the fun. I thought the whole point of having Kong fight the T Rexes while holding Ann was that he could beat 'em one-handed, and didn't you notice he was holding her in his right hand most of the fight, so he actually beat them left-handed! The whole movie was in the spirit of the B movie spirit of the original, and the original's era. Read some early Tarzan and science fiction stories to get a feel for what Jackson was after, and stop being so literal! You spoil the fun. As for the running thru the jungle without getting any scratches, remember Indiana Jones's hat never coming off in all sorts of dangers (in the first movie anyway)? Same thing: larger than life, B movie spirit. Lighten up. On a personal note, the Alhambra theatre that Kong tears up is actually the old Civic theatre in Auckland that I've been going to movies at since I was a kid. No cgi in the way that place looks, everything you see on screen (previous to Kong's demolition of course) is exactly the way it is. Loved the movie!!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Anne is appropriately terrified of Kong, then comes to see the majesty and wonder of his very existence. She understands him in a way no one else does, and more importantly she respects him as no one else in the movie does. ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)