|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Dec 28, 2005 22:10:36 GMT -8
ah go ahead, it will be fun!
|
|
|
Post by Gwangi on Dec 29, 2005 11:41:32 GMT -8
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. Though I didn't hate Jack Black as others have, for me, the ultimate Denham is still Armstrong. It's like we've known Robert Armstrong. Robert Armstrong was like a friend of ours. Mr. Black, you're no Robert Armstrong! ;D And Shonokin, though I probably enjoyed the movie a little bit more, your review is very well taken. It does not insult anyone liking the movie, (I think August also posted a somewhat similar review) so perhaps you can put it on MZ.
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Dec 29, 2005 16:29:44 GMT -8
I actually thought Jack Black did a great job for the character that he was portraying and in fact found him quite riveting at times. I absolutely agree though, that the character of Denham in the 05 script was very misrepresentative of one of the leading characters of the 33 movie and the backbone of the expedition. The 05 version is more like Mr Bean, sort of stumbling victoriously through bad situations that he accidentally comes out on top in. Knowing the roots of Denham being gleened from Cooper and knowing the legends of Cooper shooting in various rough situations (up a tree with a tiger trying to eat him?), I think this was very far afield of a central part of the story. As for MZ, I've been fed up with EVERYONE'S opinions on there for a while. Or more accurately I'm fed up with the really assinine reactions to people's opinions. Therefore I check the board for news, ask questions and post news that I might have. I no longer "converse" there. Your answer to me, Gwangi, is a case in point as to why I post my actual opinions at a place like Xenorama. I trust to get intelligent responses and have an actual conversation. Thank you for that
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Jan 1, 2006 22:06:32 GMT -8
"Michael" notwithstanding...
i thought about going today, but may try for a matinee tomorrow, though i still want to avoid the crowds.
thanks for the kind words about Xeno, though!
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Jan 2, 2006 10:01:13 GMT -8
There's a pretty good conv going on in SMA forums right now in the "king kong 2005" thread. There's a surprizingly high number of people there that liked it.
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Jan 2, 2006 21:29:30 GMT -8
i just got back from seeing it. it's an OK movie, much better than kino 76, that's for sure, but there are too many flaws for it to be more than good. the first part was quite good, actually. didn't mind the change to Driscoll, and if Jack Black had been 45 years old he would have been a lot better in his role. this Denham looks "wet behind the ears" and certainly doesn't look to be in any kind of shape to be racing through a jungle without dying of a heart attack. he was mostly subdued, but there were a few moments when "Jack Black, the overbearing" came out.
the rest of the cast was good. i like the real hero of the movie, Englehorn, but coming to the rescue twice, in the same way? not a good idea.
i would have greatly enjoyed the rex scene more, had the camera quit moving- that video game action is too much for me. Ann must be the strongest woman alive, to take the beating she did and not even suffer a bruise.
the apatosaurus stampede didn't look any better or worse than most of the cgi in the movie, there was just too much of it- this is an homage to excess as well as the original movie.
Kong in NY was decent, although did we really need another backward car chase scene? no.
as far as Kong himself, well, aside from looking like a regular ape, he acted like a spoiled baby, which seemed to detract from his character a lot. i mean, having a hissy fit when Ann rejects him? right. and Ann herself needs some therapy, that's for sure. sure she was safer with Kong, but man, i doubt any sane woman would have ever bonded with something that threw you around so much.
all in all, the picture suffers from being too long (a common theme i've seen). it's excessive to the point of detraction. people want this photo-realistic ape, but then there's no breath in NY- it's COLD there, as we can see from the stupid frozen pond scene. Ann should have been shivering and Kong, as much as he was exercising should have been steaming. granted, that would have detracted from the scenes, but a little breath would have gone a long way to making him look like a live animal. heck, you couldn't even see Ann's breath!
but i give it a C. it's decent entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by amphiboid on Jan 3, 2006 7:26:23 GMT -8
This post is actually not a review of the film, it is a joke inspired by Jack Black's "Tenacious D" album (meaning, if you haven't heard the record, you won't get the reference):
HEY.....Kong PASSED the test, OKAY?
You know what it got??
F PLUS..............CLICK.
|
|
|
Post by Gwangi on Jan 3, 2006 8:54:25 GMT -8
Nope, never head Jack Black's album. At last, we get a review from David! While I probably like it a little more than you did, there is some truth to yours and Shonokin's criticisms. Sometimes less is better! Taking advantage of some free movie passes I got for Christmas, I decided to see it again yesterday. Sometimes seeing it a second time, you can either appreciate it more or it could have a less impact. My views on the movie stayed exactly the same. It was a good *** movie. No classic by any means, but good enough for me to enjoy it. My biggest faults are still the Ann-Kong relationship that Jackson, I thought tried to over-sentimentalize.
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Jan 3, 2006 15:25:30 GMT -8
Alright alright, here's my more even-handed review that I put in at MZ.
I liked some aspects of it. I liked the interplay (injokes) between Kong 33 and Kong 05 realities, such as Ann and Driscoll's first major '33 scene on the ship being filmed as a scene in Denham's movie in 05. And Denham cursing about Cooper, etc.
Some of the effects were amazing. The panoramic scene of New York with Kong on top of the Empire State building and the bi-planes coming in from the right was really something. I thought to myself "so that's what that would look like in real life".
I loved all the details on Skull Island with all of the moss-covered sculptures alluding to a very ancient past. I didn't mind the natives and thought it was more fitting for a group that sacrifices women to a monster than the genteel manner of the 33 natives. I didn't like that the old woman looked basically like an orc.
I liked the padding given to Ann's backstory as a Vaudeville performer. But didn't like Denham the way he is written in this script, though I thought Jack Black portrayed that particular Denham OK.
I thought the Bronto-apato-sarous stampede was too over the top and silly. And felt basically the same way about the 3-way V-rex fight. Maybe if Kong wasn't holding Ann the whole time I would have felt it a little less put off by it.
I actually liked the Bruce Baxtor swinging in with the tommy gun to save the guys in the spider pit.
Of course the movie would have been much shorter if there were some physics going on, since Ann woulda been broken to pieces after Kongs initial run with her through the jungle. If she'd survived that then she'd surely be deaf, with blood spewing from her ears from Kong screaming at her 3 feet away from his mouth.
I kinda liked the juggling stuff on Skull Island that endures Kong to Ann. And I understand her feeling protected/connected to him since he saves her from a lot of horrible things. But in the end he's still a big freakin terroriffic gorillililila and the lasting affection she has seems "unnatural" to say the least.
I can't say I felt any warm fuzzies for this movie and I won't bother to see it again. I give it an A for effort but a D for lasting overal effect on me personally.
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Jan 3, 2006 17:34:54 GMT -8
what the hell was the deal with Jimmy and Mr Hayes? they waste all that time building up that story, then nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Jan 3, 2006 19:49:34 GMT -8
They were happily dispatched for having the most hackneyed, cliche and trite lines in the movie?
|
|
|
Post by Gwangi on Jan 4, 2006 13:43:24 GMT -8
I didn’t have that much of a problem with Hays. It is funny to think that they took Jack Driscoll and transformed him into three characters – Hays the first mate, Bruce Baxter the dashing hero and Brody in namesake. As for Jimmy.....well If that storyline served a purpose, I guess it was the meaning of trust; Hayes was the father figure to Jimmy and protected him and Jimmy knew it, while the same could not be said for Denham and the people who worked for him. That's my best interpration of this whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Jan 4, 2006 14:34:43 GMT -8
^ but what's it there for? There's no moral result, no lesson learned, no lynch pin situation that they help make the movie go in a certain direction. I'm guessing Hays was given filler lines to make him seem aged and all-knowing in order to have the giveaway lines on the secret of Skull Island.
That was a lot of minutes of cardboard pontification just for something they could have had Denham know and say, especially since he had the map and all.
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Jan 4, 2006 16:13:47 GMT -8
AND they could have had Jimmy stay back, when Bruce returned scared Jimmy could have led them to the rescue. at least SOME character development there. but no, just nothing.
i liked the Hayes character as well, but figured he'd be some food for something. too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Giganfan on Jan 6, 2006 16:20:10 GMT -8
I just got back from seeing it for the second time. As I suspected, my views did change somwhat. When I saw KONG '05 for the first time, I went in a die-hard fan of the original, and did not forget that. So, my enjoyment of it was seriously hampered. However, this time, I was able to appreciate it more as a movie in itself. The three-and-a-half hour running time still didn't bother me. I thought the story unfolded at a comfortable pace, and I was wholly indulged in it. As is, I liked all of the new interpretations of the characters. Naomi Watts gave an excellent performance, I thought. She definately shines throughout. The score by James Newton Howard (is that his name?) was really cool too. And of course, Kong and his Skull Island habitat were breathtaking. My favorite parts in the movie were when Kong battles the three T-Rexs (that scene was f*cking incredible!) and when he stands atop the Empire State Building, challenging those sunsabitches to knock him off (equally incredible!). I rooted and sympathized with him all the way. Jackson handled the relationship between Kong and Ann surprisingly well. Instead of parody, the affection felt between the two has just the right amount of sentimentality and understatement. The scene on the ice pond and the "beautiful" interplay were both extremely touching, I don't care what anyone says.
All in all, I think Peter Jackson did an outstanding job. KING KONG '05 is a really great movie. If you go in expecting to hate it, however, that's probably what's going to happen. Let's just leave the original alone. We all know it's a classic (and the most influential movie of all time) and be it, this new film will not. On it's own, I thought it was fantastic. On my rating scale (out of five stars) I give it **** and 1/2.
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Jan 6, 2006 19:37:01 GMT -8
mostly this and kino proved that there was no reason to remake KING KONG in the first place.
gotta love people saying "wait until the even LONGER version comes out on DVD, that will explain more things- shouldn't a movie of this length be ABLE to do that the first time?
this is the one that should be the DVD version.
|
|
|
Post by Giganfan on Jan 7, 2006 7:31:35 GMT -8
Well, we can always say that there is never a reason to remake this movie or that movie. The fact of the matter is, evidently, it's going to happen. And as far as KONG is concerned, well, here it is, so the best we can do is roll with it. I agree with you, David. The original is such a singular entity, every single thing in and about it stands out so much because it was made with so much honesty. There really is no point to try and remake it, or "re-envision" it. I wish Hollywood (and filmmakers in general, for that matter) was a bit more creative these days, but sadly, all their doing is taking things from the industries illustrious history, and trying to "make it better," and more accessible to modern-day audiences. Now, I'm not saying that everything out there sucks, but really, try something new every once in awhile.
Still, as long as a movie is good, be it a remake or not, I'm all for it. I really enjoyed Jackson's KING KONG, as well as Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS and BATMAN BEGINS. Hell, even without a fraction of the imagination that Tanaka, Honda, Sekizawa/Mabuchi and Tsuburaya had, I like most of the modern-day Godzilla movies. Remakes aren't always a bad thing (although, make no mistake about it, most of them suck horribly).
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Jan 8, 2006 21:17:35 GMT -8
i think there's a difference between remaking a movie adapted from a different medium, i.e. Batman or WAR OF THE WORLDS- books or comics, and something that was made expressly AS a movie. there's not much room for change there, and Jackson really didn't add anything to the themes of the movie at all.
|
|
|
Post by Shonokin on Jan 10, 2006 11:00:32 GMT -8
Sunday night I saw the original King Kong at the Castro with several stop motion buddies and made some new friends, such as animator Misha Klien and another a dude whose name I can't remember off hand who actually worked with Harryhausen building some of the models for Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger. Also along was Justin Kohn who animated the stop mo stuff in The Life Aquatic , and my buddy Jim Aupperle who works at Tippett but used to do stop mo, including the demon dogs in Ghostbusters, RoboCop and tons of other stuff . We got a wee tipsy beforehand and had a great time talking animation geek stuff. We threatened to do a Rocky Horror type thing and get on stage and re-enact the movie as it played. Of course we didn't do that since that would be beyond the pale of animator dorkiness, but we still had fun. Seeing the original King Kong on the big screen is really something. I was very aware of a ton of stuff I never really noticed on video/dvd. It really is a timelessly impressive and awsome (in the truest sense of the word) movie.
|
|
|
Post by Giganfan on Jan 17, 2006 12:42:37 GMT -8
i think there's a difference between remaking a movie adapted from a different medium, i.e. Batman or WAR OF THE WORLDS- books or comics, and something that was made expressly AS a movie. there's not much room for change there, and Jackson really didn't add anything to the themes of the movie at all. Of course, you could say the same thing about the Godzilla series, after a certain point. Hell, there are so many movies, they've pretty much done the same formulas to death! And regardless of whether or not a few of them are good, I feel that everything after GODZILLA VS. DESTROYAH was completely unnecessary. Tomiyama really dug the franchise into a ditch with that "brilliant" move. Mind you, I do agree with what you're saying, David. But as someone that liked Jackson's movie (and some of the Millennium Godzillas for that matter), I'm just arguing another side of the point here.
|
|
|
Post by Xenorama ™ on Jan 17, 2006 17:26:36 GMT -8
there is a lot to like about the new Kong, but there's TOO much of the movie for it to be "great". i think the general public realized that as well, which is why the movie is "underperforming" by Hollywood standards.
most of the VS series of Godzilla movies were pretty bland- i prefer the newer ones to them.
David
|
|