|
|
Post by amphiboid on Dec 16, 2005 17:45:18 GMT -8
I didn't see any threads on the new King Kong movie and thought I would ask what everyone thought of it. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lunkhead on Dec 16, 2005 17:56:21 GMT -8
I want to see it, but don't know how soon I'll get the chance. Gotta do the Christmas shopping this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Dec 16, 2005 23:59:19 GMT -8
i'll see it sometime, not sure when. three hours is a long chunk of day to give up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lunkhead on Dec 17, 2005 6:39:08 GMT -8
...a three hour tour, a three hour tour ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Zone Fighter on Dec 17, 2005 7:44:05 GMT -8
According to Kim Komando the movie is a flop.
|
|
|
|
Post by GMAN2887 on Dec 17, 2005 10:24:36 GMT -8
Saw it at midnight, Tuesday with about nine other friends. It was great, very, very close to the original.
It's easier to sit through as well, the pacing is a lot faster than any of Jackson's LotR films, so its more enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Dec 17, 2005 13:00:31 GMT -8
i can wait til next week to see it.
i doubt it will be a flop- see if business picks up over the weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gwangi on Dec 18, 2005 12:00:50 GMT -8
Saw it on Friday. I’m giving it my thumbs up! For me, the movie is in top form when we are on Skull Island. It really looks fantastic. There is something about Weta’s effects that make it look more interesting than that of ILM.
Without going into any spoilers, Kong’s fight with the T-Rexes was first rate! Some people had a problem with the bronto stampede. I actually liked it. It was almost like a homage to Cooper and Shoedsack’s elephant stampede seen in “Chang”. I don’t think I’m letting out any spoilers, but yes, in this one we do see giant insects and they look impressive. The Empire State Building sequence was first rate and also the look of NYC from a 1933 standpoint.
I did have some problems though. Denham here isn’t the “man in charge” personification we saw in the original, nor do we really hear of his past adventurous (and reckless) exploits. Looking at it, one realizes just what a great job Robert Armstrong actually did.
Naomi Watts as Ann does a fine job and she’s easy on the eyes as well. However, watching her relationship with Kong, I felt as if Jackson was overreaching on the sentimentality. Ann, in the original “Kong” never showed any passion for him and for that, O’Brien’s creature became much more of a tragic figure, at least that’s how I see it.
The next day, I go to Hollywood to see both the original “Mighty Joe Young” and “King Kong” and in watching them, you realize how fun they are. It is really enjoyable to see these movies, something we don’t get in today’s features. While Jackson’s Kong may be superior technical-wise, somehow it just didn’t seem as fun as those two features.
Anyway, using Leonard Maltin’s rating scale, I’d give it *** stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zone Fighter on Dec 18, 2005 14:57:30 GMT -8
For the sake of Jackson's ego it would be better if King Kong was a flop. Maybe I shouldn't judge a film by its TV ads, but I don't care for the look of Kong in the tv ads.
|
|
|
|
Post by GMAN2887 on Dec 18, 2005 21:43:28 GMT -8
Naomi Watts as Ann does a fine job and she’s easy on the eyes as well. However, watching her relationship with Kong, I felt as if Jackson was overreaching on the sentimentality. Ann, in the original “Kong” never showed any passion for him and for that, O’Brien’s creature became much more of a tragic figure, at least that’s how I see it. See, I felt that Ann's affection towards Kong in this version aided in Kong being a tragic figure. I simply felt sorrier for Kong in this one. In any case I agree with you for the most part. I gave it ***1/2. The original is, of course, better, so why bother comparing? Jackson didn't intend for his to be better. (Which is more than I can say for two men who felt their version of a certian monster was better.) The movie is still really close to the original and I enjoyed how the characters were taken a few steps further with this one as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Gwangi on Dec 21, 2005 16:07:03 GMT -8
Naomi Watts as Ann does a fine job and she’s easy on the eyes as well. However, watching her relationship with Kong, I felt as if Jackson was overreaching on the sentimentality. Ann, in the original “Kong” never showed any passion for him and for that, O’Brien’s creature became much more of a tragic figure, at least that’s how I see it. See, I felt that Ann's affection towards Kong in this version aided in Kong being a tragic figure. I simply felt sorrier for Kong in this one. Well, I guess it’s all subjective. For me, both the original King Kong and Karloff’s Frankenstein are the most tragic movie monsters of all time. In the first two Frankenstein movies (considered the best), no one cared for the monster. It was either they feared him or they wanted to destroy him. The lone exception of course was little Maria in the first one and the blind old man in the second. But eventhough their appearances were minimal, Maria and the old man were powerful enough characters to get the most important people to feel anything for him, and that was us, the audience. That is the same way I feel for Kong. Only in the end does Denham show any pity for Kong, when he is lying their dead. As a kid and to this day, I always felt sorry for him, and that was the key thing - us, not the main characters, that showed the greatest of sympathy. |
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Dec 21, 2005 21:38:15 GMT -8
i've yet to see it, maybe this weekend. but if i were being carried around by a giant gorilla, i know the last thing i would do is have pity for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by GMAN2887 on Dec 21, 2005 23:43:05 GMT -8
i've yet to see it, maybe this weekend. but if i were being carried around by a giant gorilla, i know the last thing i would do is have pity for it. Even after he rescued you from three T-Rexes? I dunno, I think the picture might be clear at some point that he doesn't mean any harm. |
|
michael the dink
Jungle Patrol
not that there's anything wrong with that...
Posts: 8
|
Post by michael the dink on Dec 25, 2005 5:35:34 GMT -8
According to Kim Komando the movie is a flop. Shut up you sprocking moron. Your a real peice of work zone fighter. Your website sucks, your taste in toku sucks, your opinions are bias as hell, and nobody likes you. Your just a sad pathetic geek. How does it feel to be 41 years old and still single? |
|
michael the dink
Jungle Patrol
not that there's anything wrong with that...
Posts: 8
|
Post by michael the dink on Dec 25, 2005 5:37:30 GMT -8
For the sake of Jackson's ego it would be better if King Kong was a flop. Maybe I shouldn't judge a film by its TV ads, but I don't care for the look of Kong in the tv ads. That's because your an idiot. King Kong is beyond awesome. It's probably the most amazing movie I've ever seen. It was just breathtaking. And I won't take kindly to any bias idiot insulting it. King Kong rules, Zone Fighter sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Dec 25, 2005 9:40:07 GMT -8
wow, what a dink. you certainly need a life Michael. at least you are providing much enjoyment for the rest of us, so thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by amphiboid on Dec 25, 2005 19:39:06 GMT -8
Your website sucks, your taste in toku sucks, your opinions are bias as hell, and nobody likes you. Your just a sad pathetic geek. Only one response to this nonsense: S T eff up NooB |
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Dec 28, 2005 17:16:03 GMT -8
This is a repost of my thoughts on kong at the sma forums:
I finally saw KK 05 today. The thought that kept going through my head was "just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something".
I've pointed this out about Lucas' follies in the past and I find it true to this movie too: too much spectacle can wind up being like static on a tv screen. When there is so much going on that a person's eye never has a focal point of reference, then it becomes uninteresting. It's just visual noise.
After the dino stampede I had to force myself to not walk out of this movie. It reminded me of one of those "one man band" guys with turrets syndrome trying to do a song and dance routine on a high wire. That's not entertainment, it's just teeth-gritting and headache inducing.
Also along the lines of Lucas-isms is just how horribly stilted the characters and dialog was. Maybe Jackson needs someone like Gary Kurtz to keep him from going off the deep end of self indulgence.
Too bad, I didn't "feel the love" of someone who was inspired by the original. I felt like I was seeing someone trying to one-up the whole world of fantasy movies. "Hey let's not just have Kong fight a t-rex, let's have em fight THREE. Not enough? How about he holds Ann the whole time. Not enough? How about they fight in some vines? Not enough?? Oh and we need a stampede of brotosauri. Not enough? How about some Raptors chasing them. Not enough? How about we have the ship's crew in the middle of it? Not enough?..." and so on. it's never enough it doesn't seem.
It's crazy! It's gonzo! It's over the top!
blech.
(I will say though there are some great moments in it. Some great effects and very nice and even touching scenes. But it can't make up for the rest of it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by amphiboid on Dec 28, 2005 19:25:07 GMT -8
I'm sure no one will take it the wrong way when I say that for me, no remake yet has managed to replace the original 1933 film. I'm happy with it the way it is, and I think it holds up beautifully.
I wasn't opposed to a remake, and I still believe you could remake Kong well, but this 2005 version did not achieve that, in my opinion. I thought it was spending a lot of time trying to update and embellish upon the original myth, and failed to tap into the almost childlike simplicity of the original story.
I liked Robert Armstrong's Carl Denham as he was written. I hated Jack Black's Carl Denham as he was written. Denham is the impetus that gets the story rolling in the first place, and I felt the character worked as a blindly enthusiastic, charismatic showman, but not as a callous, dishonest Hollywood psycho.
However, the new film is going to make money anyway (there's a lotta kids out there with ten bucks!), and the original 1933 film is now in sharp focus again thanks to the cross-advertising. The 1933 film's DVDs are selling well, last I heard. So to Peter Jackson: Good try. It wasn't what I wanted to see, but it looked nice, and I believe Jackson does love the original film. Jackson is certainly a great filmmaking talent, but perhaps it was not as easy to redesign Kong for today's audiences as he imagined. Jackson comes off fairly well in the 1933 film's DVD supplements, though! The insane obsessiveness on display in the recreation of the Lost Spider Pit Sequence is something to see, and worth the price of admission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Dec 28, 2005 20:39:45 GMT -8
both reviews are well stated. Shonokin, you should post that at MZ... then it won't just be me saying things like that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Dec 28, 2005 22:05:51 GMT -8
I thought about it David, but my faith in humanity is already pretty low and posting anything that goes against the grain there brings out the worst in people. I rather save my "standalone" type opinions for folks with less immature attitudes and more adult sensabilities of arguing different viewpoints.
|
|
