posted
I just saw the trailer for Peter Jackson's "King Kong". It is slated to come out next month. To me the trailer looked great. But now for those of you that have seen all the renditions of King Kong, here's the question of the day.
Do you think it'll be worth going and seeing or just a waste of 10 bucks?
I know if I have a chance, I'm going to go and see it.
posted
When I first heard they were doing another King Kong, I groaned, but it does look kind of cool in the previews.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the preview also, but I still think it is a movie to see with friends at about 2:00 am when everything seems amusing. Nice graphics, but what can you really do with the plot?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember the previous King Kongs very well, or if I have even seen the first one. I do know the basic plot, they find a giant ape on an island, bring it to NYC, it escapes, kidnaps a woman, climbs the Empire State Building, gets shot down, dies...
Normally I wouldn't see it. But Peter Jackson has earned my trust with LOTR. So I'll give it a shot myself. Of course, this might unearn my trust...
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited November 20, 2005).]
posted
I think the fact that Joe Black is in it will make up for the lack of surprises in the plot. I don't know that I'll cough up theater prices for it. But I will likely see it at some point.
btw... I just got back from seeing Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.... heh
posted
It looks seriously cool in my opinion. It comes out on December 14th for us Australians, but I don't know the release date from anywhere else though.
Posts: 384 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(no spoilers) Harry Potter IV was, as they've all said, darker than the previous 3 movies. I wouldn't want to take a young child, and I think the PG-13 rating is appropriate. The humor would escape a young child anyhow, as much of it deals with subtle nuances of adolescents grappling with the opposite gender. A small child would miss the humor and find that part boring. If you liked the previous 3 movies, you will feel this movie was worth theater prices. I don't regret going.
Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Monolith, I would recommend reading the Potter books to anyone. They have their faults, it is true, but nothing serious enough to ruin them for me. I love the quirky humor especially, which is mostly evident in the earlier books. Each one gets darker than the last, but the plots are fairly compelling and the characters are pretty interesting.
As far as King Kong goes . . . I dunno. It's one of those movies that just doesn't need a remake, in my opinion. The concept was fantasy even at the time it was originally made, but back then technology was still undeveloped enough that a viewer could watch the movie and think to themselves that it just possibly COULD happen. Now, though, whatever credulity it once possessed has completely vanished, and I have a hard time seeing how this film will appeal to a modern audience. Maybe that's just me, though.
posted
I think King Kong will be a prime candidate for DVD renting. I've seen the previews and while I did ogle at the special effects carrot, I'm a bit dissapointed in Peter Jackson. I thought he'd choose a more original project than the movie starring the giant ape that gave the Empire State building its international recognition back in what? The '30s?
I'm a bit tired of remakes that deliver nothing but flat characters and barely transformed plots. Studios are relaying too much on special effects these days (and this comes from a person who *loves* big explosions and car chases).
But, I might be wrong and King Kong turn out to be a smashing success.
Anyhow, I still remember paying to see Godzilla; the memory of wanting to pull a Hulk, growl and demand my money back are fresh.
Monolith: About Harry Potter, I'd recommend the books. If you liked the first three movies chances are you'll love the books.
posted
Definitely worth a look on rental...I think I'll pass on actually *going* to see it. I'm not a big moviegoer...the last one I went to see was the last "Star Wars" movie...I have the remake of "The Producers" (the movie of the musical of the movie) penciled in on my schedule, but haven't definitely decided to go or not...
Still, it might be worth a look on Jackson's rep. I *did* see all three parts of "The Lord of the Rings" in the theaters, and found the experience worthwhile.
But, for bladder's sake, why don't they put intermissions in three-hour movies anymore?
posted
Does anyone remember the 70's remake of King Kong? I only faintly remember it. Anyway, we'll probably see it on video. Same goes for HPIV.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, you want awful, the Dino De Laurentis "King Kong" from the seventies is it. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad updating-to-a-modern-setting. (The last is a pitfall, I believe, that this new version has avoided.)
One problem with that version couldn't possibly have been anticipated. The aforementioned updating had Kong scrambling, not up the Empire State Building, but around the World Trade Center towers. As we all know, these buildings could not take jumbo jets crashing into them. Would a giant ape scrambling up the sides do more damage than it did?
quote:I've seen the previews and while I did ogle at the special effects carrot, I'm a bit dissapointed in Peter Jackson. I thought he'd choose a more original project than the movie starring the giant ape...
Maybe it would make more sense to you if you realized Peter Jackson's emotional attachment to King Kong. It's the reason he wanted to become a director. This movie is an act of love, that he's made because he now has the money and clout to do so. Not because the world needed another version of it. Because of the great job he did with LOTR, I'm willing to see this version; not because I need to see another version of King Kong, but because I trust Jackson to provide me with a couple of hours of brainless entertainment. And some days, that's enough.
quote:Expanding on his personal connection to Kong, Jackson added, “I owe King Kong a huge debt personally because it really did get me wanting to be a filmmaker. I truly don’t think I would have been a filmmaker if I hadn’t been exposed to that movie on TV in New Zealand when I was about nine years old. It just got me so excited about fantasy and the escapism of film. I was swept away and transported to another world when I saw that film. It was a love affair that began at that point with me for fantastic cinema and storytelling.”
posted
This movie is slated to be 3 hours long... I don't think I can handle 3 hours of the monkey.
Am I the only person who was pissed off after seeing his LOTR adaptations? I kept asking my brother if he thought Jackson danced around the set ripping out pages from the book saying, "I can do better, watch this!" and "Tolkien's ending to Return of the King sucked, watch mine!"
After that nonsense I decided that J. R. R. Jackson wouldn't get another dime of mine.
Then I see this. 3 hours of turn your brain off action, and a CG character that doesn't speak.
I may rent it (or steal it off the internet ) but I won't drop 1800 yen to see it in the theatre.
posted
Well, movies operate on "show, don't tell." Tolkien did a lot of telling. If you filmed, say, the Council of Elrond section absolutely straight, you'd have a bunch of people sitting around telling stories of events that happened over several thousand years. Dramatic to read---dramatic to be in---but in a movie?
Nearly every scene Jackson filmed seems based on that kind of call. Whereas some alterations were regrettable (I miss the Scouring of the Shire and didn't care for how the fate of Saruman was handled), the movies as a whole were a great ride, that kept Tolkien's ideas and themes intact.
I suppose, in fifteen, twenty, thirty years, somebody will acquire the rights to "The Lord of the Rings" and film them again. Maybe that one will be better yet...certainly it'll be different. "King Kong" has officially been filmed twice before, to say nothing of spinoffs and ripoffs...the upcoming "Narnia" movie has also been filmed twice before that I know of.
Even "The Lord of the Rings" was filmed before---that cartoon theatrical version in the seventies that stopped halfway through the story, only to be taken up at that point by a "singing / dancing" TV version by the guys who did "The Hobbit" earlier that way.
And there were worse possible versions. At one point, the Beatles were going to buy the film rights to "The Lord of the Rings" and star in it themselves. Paul would play Frodo, Ringo would play Sam, George would play Gandalf, and John would play Gollum. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
posted
Oh, one other thing...for anybody interested, I understand a proper DVD release of the original "King Kong" is out, or about to come out. (That's a great way to get something released on DVD---have somebody remake it.) Clean print, deleted scenes, missing frames restored, the works. And I already know this version of "Kong" is great...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At first, I too balked at some of the choices PJ made regarding LOTR. That's not how it went, I'd whisper to my wife in the theater. Later on I understood and accepted his version.
I don't agree with every choice to the Nth detail. In particular in TTT, I'd have minimized Arwen's roll and not had Aragorn fall off the cliff and have a confusing dream sequence. But I came to the conclusion: Thank Tolkien I didn't do it!
The way I'd envinsioned it years before Jackson had his hands on it, was having ROTK open with a long musical prelude, like Traffic's Freedom Rider, while watching Aragorn riding around on his horse.
PJ had much better ideas...
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited November 25, 2005).]
posted
Oh-- the original version of King Kong came on TCM the other night, and I watched the all the way through for the first time. Mainly in preperation for PJ's version.
I have to say the acting was atrocious. And when they showed KK for the first time, I had a good laugh. But suprsingly, though it was pretty hokey, I really felt for him as a character.
And I was left angry at the end. Yeah, I know, it's just a movie and entertainment.
But King Kong was not responsible for killing people in NYC or on the island. Men were. The natives who offered the maidens for a sacrifice, the filmmaker who trounced into Kong's home, killed wonderous creatures along the way that belong there, dragged Kong out of his home, subjected him to captivity. The filmmaker was totaly responsibly for any death's caused in NYC. What right did he have to kill the dinosour or to rip Kong from his home? But in the end, he got off without punishment, where King Kong died. There was no thought even hinted at that he was responsible, that they did anything wrong. Wouldn't at least, he subject to a lawsuit?
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited November 25, 2005).]
posted
When I was watching Two Towers in the theater, I found myself periodically coming out of the story simply to marvel at how well Peter Jackson matched the visuals with the mental imagery I had developed over the years with several re-readings of "Lord of the Rings." I was in just such a state of musing during the warg attack during the march to Helm's Deep. I was sitting there, aware of everyone in the theater around me, and feeling a bit jealous of the ones who were watching this story, learning it for the first time. "I wonder how it would feel to be watching this movie and not know what's going to happen next," I thought to myself.
And then Aragorn went off the cliff. "OH! I thought. THAT'S how it feels!"
For that reason alone, I'm glad Jackson inserted that scene. It gave even those of us who were intimately familiar with the story a bit of a jolt. I regretted the omision of several scenes, like the Scouring of the Shire. But I don't fault Jackson for having to make the adaptations he did in order to assure the film's success.
And as for King Kong, the story is almost more relevant today than it was in the 1930's. What right does man have to destroy the habitat of any natural beast, large or small? It's a question we all ask each other. And as for the relevance of redoing such an old tale? I think ChrisOwens nailed Jackson's reasons when he said, "I had never seen the original." Yes, we know the story. But how many people really HAVE seen the original? Good tales beg to be retold.
posted
I plan to see it within the next few days...at a small theater in Annville, PA called the Allen. It happens to be a restored theater from the early days of cinema, complete with stage and red curtains that retract for every show. The place is phenomenal...only one screen, but the state-of-the sound system really brings films to life. I saw War of the Worlds there a month or two ago...it was the loudest movie I've ever seen, and I was glad. It really made you feel like you were there. I hope the same is true for Kong.
Inkwell ----------------- "The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp." -Anonymous
posted
Hahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahah. Inkwell, oh my god. Oh, my god. There was a theater in the town I live, Middletown, about thirty miles from Harrisburg. We had a theater here that was exactly the same, red curtains, all that, and the kick-ass sound system. The guy built it himself, and it won all kinds of awards, and when that theater shut down about half a year ago, he moved to a theater in Anneville and took his incredible sound fxperience system with him. Hahahahahaha. Funny coincidence if it's the same system, which it seems likely it is. Anyway, the reviews say the movie (and game, surprisingly) are both very good. Personally I like Jackson, he did a good job of taking things that might seem dry or trite in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (prepare to have fifty fanboys assail me for that one) and making them fresh. He earned my trust and sure, why not, I'll shell out eight bucks to go see the new Kong. Oh, and P.S. Inkwell? The Elks is a performing arts theatere now 0_0 A performing arts theatre in our quaker-infested second-highest-white-supremacist-count-in-the-country pennsylvania, and my crappy little nothing happens suburb to boot. AAGH!
[This message has been edited by arcanist (edited December 15, 2005).]
posted
I just got home from seeing the movie. It's really, really good. My personal review is on my blog here if you're interested. There are spoilers, but I have indicated them so you can be sufficiently warned.
posted
LOL! Not that kind of spoilers. I mean it in the true sense of the word. I don't want to spoil the experience for y'all! Posts: 470 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's probablly one of the best movies I've ever seen.
There are three nitpicks: (1) As in the original movie, it never shows how they get Kong onto the ship, a momemental feat to be sure. It just skips to NYC.
(2) The Carl Denam thread (forgot how to spell) never is resolved. He's the greedy bad guy, responsible for all the death and mayhem. Does he go to jail? Does he get sued? Is his career over? We never know.
Carl says, 'Twas beauty that killed the beast'. No... I wanted to yell, 'You killed him!' It was greed, fear, and ignorance that killed him.
(3) Jimmy. A pure cliche. The young man who always begs for his chance to help. You know the kind of guy who's like, 'Gee mister, let me hold the gun. Just once. I won't let you down. I'll be real good. You'll see.'
Otherwise, it was a movie that suprised me at every turn. It elicited strong emotion in me, anger at ignorant greedy humans, sadness for Kong. However, I was able to hold it in.
Now, ordinarily, I don't go for all that 'entertainment teaches xyz' type stuff. But I guess I was wrong. Entertainment teaches and influences either for good or bad.
And I think I walked away from the movie a better person or perhaps reinforced to be a better person: To be kind, not to retaliate, not to harm a living soul, to be understanding while minding my own business.
The movie portrayed violence, and ironically, it was fashioned in such a way, I came away having a greater distaste for violence. In particular, I never wanted to see another gun in my life.
posted
Best love story I've seen in a long time. And I was so impressed with how they kept Kong an ape. No overt anthropomorphizing.
(Spoiler)
I agree with everything that ChrisOwens said, plus I'd like to throw in:
(4) The complete bloodlust of the T-Rexes. I'm sorry, but hanging over a huge cliff, I'd have more on even my feeble predator mind than some snack hanging next to me.
posted
I hate to be the curmudgeon, but I thought King Kong was... OK. I've had friends who have waxed poetically about it. It was the movie I expected it to be. It was King Kong. It was good, but I doubt I'd consider it the best thing I've ever seen. Part of the sad reality is that when you've waited 2-3 weeks to see a movie, you hear about all the good parts from friends. So nothing much was a surprise for me. I thought the visuals were very well done, and I don't regret paying the price of a theater ticket. It WAS nice to see it big screen but in retrospect, it would not have been tragic to wait until it went to the video store.
Jackson did well with an old, well-told tale. He'll be able to write his own ticket for darned near anything he wants to do from here on out.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
) but I won't drop 1800 yen to see it in the theatre.
