# King Kong (2005)



## Winters_Sorrow (Feb 11, 2005)

Is anybody else just thinking that this could be the movie of 2005?

What do you think it'll be? 
Travesty or Triumph?


----------



## red_temple (Feb 11, 2005)

To me, Peter Jackson has certainly proved himself to be a talented director. I have a feeling that this will be an excellent version, so definitely not a travesty. I'm not ready to put it in the "movie of the year" category yet. Besides, Jackson needs to save some of his Karma for "The Hobbit."


----------



## Circus Cranium (Feb 11, 2005)

Man, this will be the third version of this movie. King Kong was the first movie to scare the bejeezus out of me as a little kid. I guess it's a labor of love for him to make this film, but it just seems like an odd choice. We had Faye Ray, Jessica Lang, and now....Naomi Watts is it? Sure hope she can scream.


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 11, 2005)

hmm. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy..but I think there are certain films that become so iconic that remakes seem irrelelvant. I think Jackson is a fine director but why remake this when the original is so heavily ingrained in cinematic history?


----------



## polymorphikos (Feb 12, 2005)

http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml

(it has a video production diary with stills and stuff)


Normally I'd agree, but this is one of the few movies a remake might actually be justifiable for. The original is a classic to some, but to many it's laughable, out-dated, hidden-away and never watched. We need something like this to make people realise that Kong is cool again. (This version'll be quite M-rated, with violence savagery on Kongs part). That, and the chance to see dinosaur fights with modern technology.

Above all, not only will this give people a chance to see a Lost World film outside of the waning Jurassic park franchise and bad TV-movies, but it might manage to reinvigorate the Lost World genre. If this is a hit there'll probably be another JP to capitalise, and then someone else will make a smaller one to undercut it, and so-on. This coupled with films like LOTR and the Matrix are pumping new life back into fantasy cinema. 

That, and I've always wanted to see Kong on the big screen. I have a Land That Time Forgot obsession fuelled by deprivation.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Feb 12, 2005)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> hmm. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy..but I think there are certain films that become so iconic that remakes seem irrelelvant. I think Jackson is a fine director but why remake this when the original is so heavily ingrained in cinematic history?


 
I agree in the most part (remake Casablanca?  ) and it can be done badly (like the remake of King Kong in 1976  ) but I do think that a lot of people who don't watch B&W movies because they're B&W - fools I agree! - will go to see this, and I hope they're blown away by it!


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 12, 2005)

I do hope that this film is a success – and through that success, people are encouraged to look at the original (which was quite violent for its time if you look at the uncut 1933 version rather than the edited 1938 re-issue).


As to folk not watching B&W just because it’s B&W is just sad because they are missing many a good movie.

Here’s something that happened the other day: I told a workmate that I had recently bought Blake’s 7 on DVD. “Oh,” he says, “I used to love that, but now it’s rubbish.”
I had a hard time getting through to him that it’s not Blake’s 7 that has changed but his perception of it and his raised expectations – which leads to disappointment. 


This same logic applies to old films, the quality of the acting or special effects – or whatever - doesn’t deteriorate with time; they are fixed within the celluloid.  It’s our perceptions and our own laziness that taints our opinions. We have been pigging out on CGI for so long now that we are failing to appreciate the artistry and ingenuity that went into all those old movies. 

Ok, I think I’m finished ranting and raving for now.  

As for remaking Casablanca – Blasphemy!!!


----------



## Circus Cranium (Feb 12, 2005)

I originally had the same feeling. I get annoyed at all the films being re-made, some of them not all that old. And King Kong is such a classic. We can only hope that because it's in such good hands it will do it justice.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 13, 2005)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> hmm. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy..but I think there are certain films that become so iconic that remakes seem irrelelvant. I think Jackson is a fine director but why remake this when the original is so heavily ingrained in cinematic history?



I have to agree - is it just a self-indulgent project for Jackson, or can he really bring such a cinematic icon into the modern world and have near the impact?

Somehow I doubt he could - it was stop-motion that made King Kong - I can't see a new version really working unless we all pretend CGI doesn't exist for a moment...


----------



## polymorphikos (Feb 14, 2005)

Apologies, but if this becomes a debate over the relative values of stop-motion and cgi I may go mad.

If it looks right and is used right, it's right.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Feb 14, 2005)

polymorphikos said:
			
		

> Apologies, but if this becomes a debate over the relative values of stop-motion and cgi I may go mad.
> 
> If it looks right and is used right, it's right.


 
There's always stop-motion CGI like with Gollum in LOTR


----------



## Tsujigiri (Feb 18, 2005)

Whether it's the film of the year or not, it's bound to be a damn good couple of hours, even if all it end up being is another popcorn paradise.


----------



## Cenerue (Mar 16, 2005)

Isn't Andy Serkis supposed to pose as King Kong the way he did for Gollum?


----------



## polymorphikos (Jun 29, 2005)

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_splash.html

Jungle (damsels (Savages + dinosaurs) + machine-guns) = awesome.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jun 29, 2005)

Just need some fricking sharks with fricking laser beams now....


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 29, 2005)

Channel 4 recently aired an interview with Jackson (and a trailer) and I have to hold up my hands and admit that it looks pretty damn good. Let's hope it has the substance to back up the very impressive visuals.

Now, has anybody got some salt for this hat of mine


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 29, 2005)

That was a very good trailer - it actually suggested Jackson may be able to pull this off in a distinguished manner.


----------



## longplay (Jun 30, 2005)

I've seen the trailer and I'm still 50/50.  Not sure how he's going to really involve the audience (I have seen the earlier versions, but not for a while, the story is a little hazy).  I'm worried it'll be all about the giant ape, which won't work imo.


----------



## kaneda (Jul 1, 2005)

didnt know jack black was in it. not sure whether to woot or hmmmmm lol


----------



## Calis (Jul 1, 2005)

I'll just wait for the porn - King Schlong.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 4, 2005)

Amazing mixture of the the earlier King Kong versions, The Lost World and Jurassic Park making one heap of all special effects!
Agree with WS, freaking sharks with freaking lazers, starship troopers, Jedies with lazer swords - it's gonna be a brilliant compote! 
To win spectator, Hollywood now competes not in original scenarios but in overloading movies with effects! I regret that Peter Jacksson, a really good director, is involved into such a remaking.


----------



## Leto (Jul 4, 2005)

Seen the game trailer, changed my mind about the movie, will go and see it.


----------



## Dave (Jul 26, 2005)

The trailer for this remake has been showing with 'War of the Worlds' and the 'Fantastic Four', although its not being released until December.

It seems to follow the original story almost exactly and my initial thoughts were 'why bother?' But the special effects and locations are all better; it's in colour, and the acting looks better too.


----------



## ray gower (Aug 6, 2005)

The trailers do look awfully good, which puts it ahead of all of the remakes to-date.

Thinking back to the original and when I saw it first, it was much improved by the rather rickerty structure of the Akrotiri Astra wobbling when Kong roared. Sort of sharpens the worry muscles when you think the whole cinema was likely to fall down around your ears.

This is a film I will look forward to.


----------



## moviefan (Oct 24, 2005)

when is this out ?


----------



## Leto (Oct 24, 2005)

December 17th in France, must be around the same date in UK.


----------



## Yoda (Dec 1, 2005)

I've been looking forward to this film all year, as I like monkeys I know I will enjoy it. It goes on for three hours. I already have the official Kong movie plush toy.


----------



## Teir (Dec 7, 2005)

*Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

Opinions and expectations please!.......Some personal reviews on this, Peter Jackson's new film, as it is released and seen would also be great 

This site contains trailers and other info
http://www.kingkongmovie.com/


----------



## GOLLUM (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I'm very much looking forward to seeing this if Jackson's last effort LOTR is anything to go by.

Not sure when it is released in OZ??


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Dec 7, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I was never struck by the story of King Kong.
I thought the 1933 movie was amazing from a technical standpoint, but the plot always had an antiquated Victorian/Verne feel to it, like the 'Lost World' with dinosaurs running amok in it. That's not to say I'm not looking forward to this adaptation of it (I shudder to use the proper term "remake" as that just sends shivers down my spine), I very much rate Adrian Brody & Jack Black as actors, and it's nice to see Jack having a go at serious acting (very interested to see how that turns out).
Plus, it's going to be a joy to see Andy Serkis & Peter Jackson back in action.

So all-in-all, I'm catiously optimistic 
I'll try and remember where the hell this thread is, closer to the time I see the movie


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 8, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I'm a big fan of the 1933 version. As WS says, a very simple storyline but I just love Stop-Motion animation - and the guy behind the 1933 version was Willis O'Brien who went on to become a mentor to Ray Harrhausen (being an O'Brien myself means that I am definitely biased )

On the Jackson version - initial reports from journalists at previews has been very encouraging. The one criticism so far is that the movie is around 3 hours long. It seems a lot but compared to Jackson's previous Magnum Opus, it is probably par for the course


----------



## Dave (Dec 8, 2005)

It's supposed to be the most expensive film ever made. Let's hope it is a success or it may be the last we'll see of Peter Jackson.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Dec 8, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I'm afraid it's going to be a disappointment, I don't know why, just a feeling.


----------



## Teir (Dec 8, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*



			
				Marky Lazer said:
			
		

> I'm afraid it's going to be a disappointment, I don't know why, just a feeling.



I got that too. Its this creeping suspicion that all the marginally cool bits were put into the trailer and the rest will be mediocre or a let down......I mean the whole King Kong against T-Rex thing looks awesome in small clips, but whole scenes played out in okayish CGI (they could have done better with the T-Rex in my opinion, Jurassic Park is a brilliant example), would have the tendency to cheapen the whole thing for me.
 But then I look at LOTR and it was done fantastically with the most brilliant application of CG, so the disappointing vibe I'm getting from King Kong  is confusing me right now. I spose I'll have to wait and see.....*shrug*


----------



## Culhwch (Dec 8, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I'm going to trust PJ on this one, but I'm not going to go in to it expecting a LotR style experience. Like WS, the story of a giant ape doesn't particularly do much for me....

Goll, I believe it's out here next Thursday, which would make it the 15th, I think....


----------



## Salazar (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I better go and see it I suppose, If Peter Jackson made it.. it shouldn't be that bad... If though I know what happens


----------



## MoonLover (Dec 11, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

Well the critics are apparently liking it, according to the hype junket. King Kong never did much for me, but I'm more likely to see it now that most people are saying it's not too bad. PJ sure has a lot of public expectation riding on this movie hasn't he? I hope it doesn't flop for that reason because I think he's gifted film maker.

Karen


----------



## Thunderchild (Dec 12, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*



			
				GOLLUM said:
			
		

> I'm very much looking forward to seeing this if Jackson's last effort LOTR is anything to go by.
> 
> Not sure when it is released in OZ??



Wedensday 14th


----------



## Marky Lazer (Dec 12, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I heard Jack Black (Tenacious D) is playing a part in King Kong. I think he's funny, but would it fit into the movie? Or does he really play a _serious_ role?


----------



## Salazar (Dec 12, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

He plays the director of the movie the characters are filming on King Kong's island.


----------



## kyektulu (Dec 13, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

*I dont really want to see it because it looks like too much of a far fetched plot and just specil effects galore. Not my type of movie at all.

 Unfortunetly I have to go and see it 'cos my partner wants to.*


----------



## polymorphikos (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I just saw it and it was thoroughly awesome. It wouldn't have hurt to have been edited slightly, and the second scene of the film is awful, but otherwise it's just three hours of gorgeous visuals and excitement, and the relationship between Anne and Kong is beautifully-done.


----------



## Culhwch (Dec 18, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I saw this today. Wow. What a dissappointment. I just felt it was absolutely ridiculous. The first hour, hour and a half dragged as they were travelling to the island, and I'm sitting there thinking, 'Just get to the bloody island already!' And then they get to the island, and I'm thinking, 'Just get off the bloody island already!' I've never known action scenes to drag so badly before. They just kept on and on. I know it's fantasy, and I'm all for suspension of belief when it comes to movies, but this just kept defying all logic. A line had to be drawn. Jackson has gone over the top, and then has just kept going until he reached ludicrous heights....

Good points: The tribespeople, very creepy, even though they inexpilicably dissappear entirely half way though. And Jack Black's performance as the unhinged Denham I felt was quite good.  

There's probably a half-decent hundred minute movie lurking in those ponderous three hours somewhere, just screaming to get out. Needed a heavier hand in the editing suite.


----------



## Dave (Dec 18, 2005)

I went to see this because my son wanted to see it. I didn't expect it to be that good, I've seen the original and knew there was a story to go with it, but I was actually very impressed.

The characters are much better developed in the first hour and the period costumes, mood and scenes are very well done. For kids the first part will probably bore them.

The second hour in the jungle is fantastic. The FX and fighting scenes are just incredible. Every film I see now gets better and better at this, but these creatures were indistinguishable from the real thing. The race down the narrow gorge, hanging from the vines and the creepy-crawly pit are all excellent. I wondered why 'Revenge of the Sith' couldn't have had action scenes like these.

The final scenes in the theatre and on the Empire State Building are again well done. I really enjoyed it, even though it is an incredibly long time to sit in a cramped cinema seat.


----------



## PTeppic (Dec 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dave _
> *The second hour in the jungle is fantastic. The FX and fighting scenes are just incredible. Every film I see now gets better and better at this, but these creatures were indistinguishable from the real thing. The race down the narrow gorge, hanging from the vines and the creepy-crawly pit are all excellent. I wondered why 'Revenge of the Sith' couldn't have had action scenes like these.*


I agree - though I thought the human/creature visuals were still a little mis-matched in terms of colouring/brightness/contrast, as per 40-80s stop-motion. But the creatures themselves were top notch. 

Inside my head (which is a very strange place) I knew that Kong was not real, and that it was CGI and based on Andy Serkis motion capture. What that totalled, to my weird little brain was: it's Andy Serkis in a suit. Yes, the CGI was so good it felt physical, and the only "fictional" part of the manifestation was the scaling up of Andy (in a suit he never wore!). CGI comes of age.


----------



## Rosemary (Dec 20, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I haven't seen it nor do I intend to.  An article was in the West Australian newspaper - 

"The film  has opened around the world with a wimper'.


----------



## GOLLUM (Dec 20, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*



			
				Rosemary said:
			
		

> I haven't seen it nor do I intend to. An article was in the West Australian newspape -
> 
> "The film has opened around the world with a wimper'.


Oh that's intersting because it's been getting extremely good reviews in Melbourne and Sydney and from what I've seen of snippets the King Kong Character, his realtionship in terms of the use of facial expressions to transmit various emotions etc.. with the leading lady plus the production values of the film look great!....


----------



## dreamwalker (Dec 20, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

Yeah, its been getting extremely good reviews because people didn't really expect it to be half decent.

I saw it last week.
It felt like the entire movie tried to jusitify some sort of lame emotional connection between anna and kong.

I don't think it was too long mainly because it looked pretty good but sorely missed some decent charator development in Jack blacks charater (and what the hell was between the boy and the first mate??? did anyone else feel that was a lose sub story???)

Overall, the general outline of the plot:   big massive gorilla falls in love with blone girl (or is it the other way round?) on the remote "skull island", gets transported to new work to kill scores of people and eventually clime and fall off the empire state building.

.... Leaves very little to be inspired by. I'm just more puzzled as into why this was pete jacksons favorite film as a kid.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 20, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*



> I'm just more puzzled as into why this was pete jacksons favorite film as a kid.


 
It was one of mine as well. I think that, way back then, it was as much the magic of Stop-Motion as anything else that made it so awesome in my child-like eyes. Now PJ has got some toys to play with (CGI) and decided to get them out.

As for the plot - it's just Beauty and the Beast retold, and this kind of hopeless love has always enthralled the people of this world


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Dec 20, 2005)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

Beauty and the Beast indeed! Also a good freudian metaphor on the male Id I'm sure! 

Well, I saw the movie on Sunday and have to say that overall I very much enjoyed it.

Not sure if there's any point doing this but, ****SPOILER WARNING!!****



Unlike Cul's earlier comment, I was quite glad it too them so long to get to the island as it gave us more character development and background on the main leads (although I think Jamie Bell's character is fairly pointless, as is Lumpy the chef).
I found the tribe pretty creepy although (agreeing with Cul this time!  ), I found it a bit hard to believe they all just run off and never return - after all, where can they run too anyway? The village is virtually in the sea as it is!

I found the relationship with Kong & Ann Darrow easily the best part of this movie - I was wondering how he would pull that off - but I do feel that PJ anthromorphised Kong a little, especially in the eyes. Having said that, the great apes are our closest genetic neighbours so maybe they have a right to act more like us than we would expect.

Best parts for me were the scenes in the valley floor (except for Jamie Bell's Annie-Oakley display of shooting prowess) for sheer yuck value and the dinosaur stampede.

Neither of which feature Kong after thinking about it, but hey-ho!


----------



## ray gower (Dec 21, 2005)

Almost parse to say it but it is a standard Peter Jackson film- Accurate reproduction, brilliant effects, half hour too long and something small but important missing.

The first hour ought to serve as an excellent snapshot of mid-thirties New Deal America for history scholars- sights of shanty towns of destitute, soup kitchens, penny arcade music halls, all rubbing shoulders with the rich and socially gratifying Broadway. Goes a long way to giving Denham (and others) a purpose, apart from being a slimey toad, not to join the apple sellers in Times Square.

On the island, there was something not quite right with the allosaurs, being fresh from my Walk with Dinosaurs, they seemed a bit portly? But certainly nothing to get alarmed about.

Anybody who saw the trailers may wonder where the filming of Ann on the island went too, or where it even fitted. Perhaps that bit will be put back in when the full version appears on DVD?

And on back to the big city and it was here that the small but impotant bit was missing. Ultimately the poigniancy of Kong's death and the emotional attachment of Ann and ape got lost somewhere


----------



## RobGrant (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

Wotcha

I have a very personal reason for why this was one of my favourite films as a kid, and for that reason it will always remain one of my favourites.

Contrary to Rosemary's posting, it opened to rave reviews and critical and public acclaim on a global scale.  I can only assume that Western Australian journalists have tried starting the inevitable Peter Jackson backlash early - can you spell envy?

I've seen it, and it met every one of my expectations for a King Kong movie.  It was truly exciting with some great performances and breathtaking special effects - not just the ape, 1920's New York looked incredible - and while it _is_ 30 mins too long it's a terrific movie, albeit one about a giant gorrilla that falls in love with a dizzy, blonde, would-be starlet - please, get some perspective people!

Cheers!

Rob


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*



			
				RobGrant said:
			
		

> I can only assume that Western Australian journalists have tried starting the inevitable Peter Jackson backlash early - can you spell envy?


 
Don't know why they would be envious - it's thanks to directors like Peter Jackson that the Australian/New Zealand film industry has become a popular destination to shoot movies, although I think The Matrix and it's sequels probably was the first to cement that idea that huge A-list films could be entirely produced outside North America 

And there were some at least partially negative reviews on King Kong in the British Press too - mainly concerned with the film's length more than anything.

Oh, and hi Rob


----------



## dwndrgn (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I haven't seen it but my roommate and his dad saw it and both were horribly disappointed.  They both felt that it was way too long and they thought that it was ridiculous that Kong ice skates in the end.  Those were their only remarks.

I have to say that I never enjoyed the first (too depressing from an animal lover's point of view - and I hate to cry in the theater) and have no intentions of seeing this one.


----------



## hedgeknight (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

KONG!
Next to the big ape, Naomi Watts stole the show. Jack Black sucked ass - why Jackson ever thought this overrated comedian could act is beyond me. His cheesy ass line at the end of the film - "...it was beauty that killed the beast." - is about the lamest thing I've ever heard on film. (Worse than David Caruso's one liners on CSI: Miami.)
Some of the scenes on the island were a little unbelievable, but then it is a Peter Jackson film and still exciting to watch and try to figure out - "How'd dey do dat?"
I loved the battle with the T-Rexes and the creepy crawlers gave me the willies for days. Next to that, the best part was Kong trashing New York. 
-g-


----------



## ravenus (Jan 7, 2006)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif] Saw *King Kong* yesterday which, although could have done with some heavy trimming of an overblown screenplay, was a better movie than I expected with its storyline and staggering length.

The 30's ambience adds a nice vibe to the movie and Jack Black is pretty apt as the mean ******* megalomaniac movie-maker, who cares only about his film even as his crew is being taken apart. The parts set on Skull Island kick ass and are by the far the best aspect of the movie. The cannibals look genuinely ferocious. Although Kong's initial appearance seems a bit shaky (what exactly is he doing, pointlessly shaking Watts after he first makes off with her), the fight scenes between him and the T-Rexes are awesome, especially when they're all caught up in the vines. I also liked the giant bugs and leeches attack. These parts are almost like different levels in a game, where in each level you see a different creature design It doesn't make sense from a pure logical POV (why aren't roaches more prevalent in the island, where do the cannibals go later) but it's pretty fun to watch. I personally would have appreciated more gore here but I understand that the huge budget wouldn't allow for such liberties.

However, some of the juxtaposition of actors aganst the CGI is really bad, I think its because of a noticeable variation in the lighting intensity between the actors and the graphics. This is mainly seen in the brontosaur stampede and some of the initial scenes between Watts and Kong. The actors look quite apart from their backgrounds, and it spoils the hard work gone into the skinning and animation of the monsters, which is immaculate.

The last act of the movie with Kong captured and exhibhited in New York and then him running riot are also pretty nicely done for most part. There is a fair amount of mushiness happening here but come on, that's practically expected of a Kong movie, he's a big ape obsessed with a blond chick.

There are 2 definite things I consider bad about the movie:

1. The contrived and "as convincing as a cheap wig" romantic angle between Brody and Watts. Wimpy Brody could have worn a "token leading man" badge and the chemistry between him and Watts runs into the negative scale. Chopping this right off would have also saved some 20 minutes of dead-dead-dead screen time.

2. It'd have helped to have a less blatant distinction between the survivor characters and the cannon fodder artistes whom you know are going to drop like flies. If you want the audience to feel involved with the dangers your characters face, surprise them by killing off a character they expect to survive. Here the survivor characters practically glow with an aura of invulnerability.[/FONT]


----------



## stencyl (Jan 11, 2006)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

I think that this movie again proves that Jackson has found his niche in the "big movie." 

I agree with the criticism about the flat characters though, and I found that the references to Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_ extremely heavy handed, especially when they are read by a kid that we are supposed to think is some sort of feral child...


----------



## Alysheba (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: Thoughts on the new King Kong movie*

This movie was really well done. Jackson held true to the original version and it had that old film kind of feel to it. The only thing I found "fault" with is that some of the dino scenes could've been shortened a bit. Other than that, the actors (especially Naomi Watts) were wonderful. The CGI, well, it was terrific as you would imagine. I must admit I was a bit skeptical of this film when I first heard about it, but PJ did a very, very good job.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Mar 26, 2006)

*King Kong*

I finally watched PJ's remake of King Kong last night. And I didn't really like it. Anyone else had this feeling?


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Mar 26, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

Yup - it was ok but no more than that.

Here's other people's opinions

http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum/8624-thoughts-on-the-new-king-kong-movie-2.html?highlight=king+kong


----------



## kyektulu (Mar 26, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

*I didnt enjoy the film at all.

My partner thought it was great, we generally have a huge difference of opinion on films.*


----------



## weaveworld (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

*I haven't seen it, I didn't really fancy it to be honest but I will give it a look-see*


----------



## ravenus (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

It was I thought a pretty decent movie, it's main defect being an absolute lack of chemistry between Naomi Watts and Adrian Brody, and Peter Jackson's "Now that I've made LoTR, people expect a 3 hour excruciatingly explicit saga-gaga from me" attitude.


----------



## polymath (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I really quite liked it. But I did go in with the attitude that it would be an entertaining romp and on that level it did the trick very well. Technically it was excellently done too, which I find quite important.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I liked the original from - what is it '33? - better.


----------



## Thunderchild (Mar 28, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I thought it was just too darn long. I liked it but everytime i thought of watching it agen I didn't like the idea of sitting through 3 hours of it agen.


----------



## steve12553 (Apr 9, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I finally saw it last night. I have to think it was the second best version. Much better than the 1976 version but the story was changed too much for the worse. Ann Darrow's fear changing to love happened way too fast. In a kidnapping situation that typically takes weeks not hours. She should have been scared S%^$less for quite some time before identifying with her captor. I believed the giant ape easier than I believed her attitude. Add to that it violated the Alfred Hitchcock rule of movie length (movie length should relate directly to the strength of the bladder's of the audience) without adding anything wonderful to the story, I can only say that it was still better than the Dino Di Laurentiis version with Rick Baker in a Gorilla suit.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 9, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I have not seen Jackson's version yet but I am a fan of the original. The problem with remakes of such iconic movies (I think) is that Kong was a film of it's time - made with technology so new that it seemed almost magic. We all know what CGI can do so, in a way, it has lost its sparkle. Willis O'Brien, on the other hand, was pushing the envelope with both Stop-Motion animation and Miniature Rear Projection when he made the effects for Kong in 1933.

The script was also less sophisticated and the story a much more linear affair than viewers would expect today. 

I think in many ways remaking these old films is like teaching a kid of today Semaphore - he would probably say "yeah, waving flags is all well and good - but why bother learning this stuff when I've got a mobile phone?"


----------



## steve12553 (Apr 9, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*



			
				Foxbat said:
			
		

> I think in many ways remaking these old films is like teaching a kid of today Semaphore - he would probably say "yeah, waving flags is all well and good - but why bother learning this stuff when I've got a mobile phone?"


 
I see so many cases of modern youth and even adults failing to understand the steps that came before. Using a windows computer with no concept of DOS commands. All technology stands on the back of the previous steps. To understand the past is to understand the present.


----------



## genisis2 (Apr 10, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I have just finished watching King Kong 5 times with my daughter this weekend. Not by choice and oh my lord its bloody long. It was Ok nothing surprising and the special affects were good.


----------



## rune (Apr 23, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I watched it this weekend.  It was OK, the beasties looked good.  Didnt care much for the performances though, felt it lacked something.


----------



## Wolfeborn (Apr 25, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

Finally saw this the other day, not much cop if you ask me was bored after about an hour and a half started off well then turned into mega special effects and the plot be damned.  The sfx wwere nice and dinosaurs looked good etc, but most of the performances were cring worthy.  I shant be watching this again, now wheres the  original when you need it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 7, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

Watched it today - quite enjoyed it overall:

Bad Points:

- everything before the dinosaurs I found to be a bit lame: the attempt to make us care for the characters was weak and simply used up time; the ship scenes often stank of CGI; and the shift in filming ie to blurred movement I felt didn't work.

- the insects scene was overdone - would have preferred it not to be in at all. The part where the lamprey thing goes over the man's head...I was waiting for it to cut long before it did.


Good points:

I think the female lead and King Kong were done pretty well - really enjoyed the development there. Also, King Kong's death I think was done well and in a very dignified manner, which satisfied.

2c


----------



## pokernut951 (May 7, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I liked it ok.  I thought that the Dinosaur stampede and the King Kong fight w/ the three T-rex's were awesome sequences.


----------



## purple_kathryn (May 7, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I liked the film - I'm easy to please movie wise.

Although the long, deep starting into each others eyes really annoyed me.

and I thought it was too long.


----------



## The_Cosmic_Quest (May 12, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I thought the beginning and end of the film was terrible....the middle of the film when they were on skull island was good.


----------



## heron (May 12, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

i was enjoying it right up untill they did the king kong on ice routine after that i just couldnt stop laughing.


----------



## weaveworld (May 12, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

*I still haven't seen it, waiting for it to come on to Front Row on NTL, but I have heard that the character that Jack Black plays, is a bit of a swine.
*


----------



## splitofalr (May 13, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

The Ending Did Bore Me a Little, but it was necessary.
The movie did have depth to its sub-characters.

Regarding the characters:

In King Kong, the director had vision which the writer and actrist lack. The writer used the director's drive to place him in a new situation. The actrist feared the city and every person in her life that was important abandoned her. When she got on the boat, was she accepting her abandonment or was she hoping of a new future. The villagers were twisted by their fear and sacrafices to King Kong. King Kong fought for the actrist, because she was the last thing he could fight for. She was different. And she was so hurt by everyone else through abandoment that her strangth came from confronting a possible hurt (the power of King Kong). So, her fear of King Kong was overcome by her past. The writer learned to fight for his desire from the director. The director of course perverted his conquest by showing King Kong Off. The director thought that he was all about the finer arts, but he was about exploting people in a different way. If all the glory came to him, he was just fine.


----------



## steve12553 (May 14, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

splitofalr, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly if you were talking about the 1933 version but the Peter Jackson version stretches the suspension of disbelief of the audience beyond limits. That girlshould have been dead from being slung all over the place.


----------



## heron (May 14, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

the way she acted through most of that film i thought she was dead.


----------



## nicobam (May 17, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

I don't think they blended the FX and the real shots as good as they do in some other movies like spiderman and a few others the Hulk was not done to standerds either.


----------



## Paige Turner (May 17, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

It lost me during the brutally long _Cirque du Soleil_  T-Rex sequence. And, as much as I expect to suspend my disbelief in a giant-gorilla-and-dinosaur movie, I really question the odds of emerging unscathed from a tumbling vortex of stampeding 12-ton dinosaurs. "Gosh, _they_  were lucky."

It's amazing how quickly a scene wears out its welcome when the director decides to just go nuts with the CG, when there's nothing of any consequence to the story going on.


----------



## splitofalr (May 26, 2006)

*Re: King Kong*

The long ending is always hard to watch.
The blending of the fx was not too wonderful.
The woman should have been dead from the ride.
But the movie was so good with its action that I have a hard time watching it the second time with the same shock and awe.


----------



## TK-421 (Dec 11, 2006)

I wanted to get this on DVD but can't make up my mind which version to get. Do I get the theatrical version or the deluxe extended edition? I am tempted to get the later as I have the extended editions of the three LOTR films and Peter Jackson did an amazing job on those. Any advice?


----------



## roddglenn (Dec 11, 2006)

Go the the extended every time imho.  I always prefer additional footage than not as a rule (with one or two minor exceptions).


----------



## ravenus (Dec 11, 2006)

From what I hear, Peter Jackson says that the theatrical release is the director's cut. And frankly, the theatrical release itself seemed so painfully stretched out to me that the prospect of an extended edition is anathema.


----------

