FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » King Kong (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: King Kong
kojabu
Member
Member # 8042

 - posted      Profile for kojabu           Edit/Delete Post 
Three hours? How'd they get away with that?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fitz
Member
Member # 4803

 - posted      Profile for Fitz   Email Fitz         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kojabu
Member
Member # 8042

 - posted      Profile for kojabu           Edit/Delete Post 
My complaint is that if King Kong is 3 hours, then the Harry Potter movies can be 3 hours.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kwsni
Member
Member # 1831

 - posted      Profile for kwsni   Email kwsni         Edit/Delete Post 
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!

Posts: 1925 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cashew
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for Cashew   Email Cashew         Edit/Delete Post 
the can/can't jump discussion's nearly as dumb as the shakespeare ruined roman culture one
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cashew
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for Cashew   Email Cashew         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Here's a link to the cover illustration:
http://www.additiverich.com/archives/2005_06.html

Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cashew
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for Cashew   Email Cashew         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, looks like it may be able to be published in the US after all. Worth a read if you come across it.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Wink]

Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kojabu
Member
Member # 8042

 - posted      Profile for kojabu           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cashew
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for Cashew   Email Cashew         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cashew
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for Cashew   Email Cashew         Edit/Delete Post 
Whoops, sent it twice. Deleted the second one...
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SC Carver
Member
Member # 8173

 - posted      Profile for SC Carver   Email SC Carver         Edit/Delete Post 
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”.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Magson
Member
Member # 2300

 - posted      Profile for Magson   Email Magson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Altáriël of Dorthonion
Member
Member # 6473

 - posted      Profile for Altáriël of Dorthonion   Email Altáriël of Dorthonion         Edit/Delete Post 
I loved this movie. Peter Jackson, you little genius of movie direction, you!
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
OK, PJ, get to work on The Hobbit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puffy Treat
Member
Member # 7210

 - posted      Profile for Puffy Treat           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
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!
[Wink]

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SC Carver
Member
Member # 8173

 - posted      Profile for SC Carver   Email SC Carver         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puffy Treat
Member
Member # 7210

 - posted      Profile for Puffy Treat           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kojabu
Member
Member # 8042

 - posted      Profile for kojabu           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, once he was actually chained up they could probably just keep Anne there with him to quiet him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kojabu
Member
Member # 8042

 - posted      Profile for kojabu           Edit/Delete Post 
Ah true, and they'd have to keep the other guy away from him.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BaoQingTian
Member
Member # 8775

 - posted      Profile for BaoQingTian   Email BaoQingTian         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puffy Treat
Member
Member # 7210

 - posted      Profile for Puffy Treat           Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]

Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Avadaru
Member
Member # 3026

 - posted      Profile for Avadaru   Email Avadaru         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aretee
Member
Member # 1743

 - posted      Profile for aretee   Email aretee         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Artemisia Tridentata
Member
Member # 8746

 - posted      Profile for Artemisia Tridentata   Email Artemisia Tridentata         Edit/Delete Post 
Again; an ok one and one half hour movie, crammed into three hours.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puffy Treat
Member
Member # 7210

 - posted      Profile for Puffy Treat           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
plaid
Member
Member # 2393

 - posted      Profile for plaid   Email plaid         Edit/Delete Post 
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...

Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
babager
Member
Member # 6700

 - posted      Profile for babager   Email babager         Edit/Delete Post 
Liked the movie... but I think they could have cut about an hour and not lost anything.
Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jonathan Howard
Member
Member # 6934

 - posted      Profile for Jonathan Howard   Email Jonathan Howard         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jonathan Howard
Member
Member # 6934

 - posted      Profile for Jonathan Howard   Email Jonathan Howard         Edit/Delete Post 
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".
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't understand what you mean by "initial reflections".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jonathan Howard
Member
Member # 6934

 - posted      Profile for Jonathan Howard   Email Jonathan Howard         Edit/Delete Post 
The way he's introduced, reflected and impresioned at first.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Foust
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for Foust   Email Foust         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Scroll down to the December 21st entry about King Kong and watch

This is pretty much how my friends felt about the movie.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Technically Dag, those terms are D&D terms, not RP [Wink] I agree with you. Suspension of disbelief comes naturally to me, being such an inveterate liar and all [Wink] , 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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cashew
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for Cashew   Email Cashew         Edit/Delete Post 
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!!

Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2