Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Peter Jackson's King Kong

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Peter Jackson's King Kong (Page 2)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: Peter Jackson's King Kong

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-15-2005 12:00 AM

Running that film for the better part of a year, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing him die over 800 times. [thumbsup]

quote: Greg Mueller
When I saw who was playing the male leads, all I could think of was "School of Rock"

Tonight on Conan O'Brian, they show a clip of Jack Black picking up a copy of the School of Rock DVD that he insists Claire Daines dropped.

| IP: Logged

Jennifer Pan
THE JEN!

Posts: 1219
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 12-15-2005 12:37 AM

Just got back from seeing it... and I had a feeling it was going to be a long one... After all its a Peter Jackson film [Roll Eyes]

The man has lost a bunch of weight though... I think its some other dude with an untamed beard.

I love the look of the movie... just kick ass gorgeous scenery. With my crappy eyes I think the graphics were pretty dang awesome and the action scenes are the best part. Freakin' sweet movie as a whole.

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 12-15-2005 05:36 AM

So does that mean that Jackson is hot now?

quote: Greg Mueller
When I saw who was playing the male leads, all I could think of was "School of Rock"

What, Adrien Brody was in "School of Rock"?

Jack Black is perfectly cast in the role of the producer. He delivers a very good, slightly understated performance which works very well.

I thought this movie would massively blow and bomb, but it is actually very well made and entertaining in its way, and it seems to do well at the BO. That is a pleasant surprise, of course.

Basically what it is is a pretty impressive 3-hour monster show, but despite the length I didn't find it boring. But I was also more or less completely uninterested in the story and the characters. You just sit there and watch a lot of monsters chew up a lot of people and a lot of people falling from a lot of high places. Some also get trampled. At the end, Kong falls off the Empire State Building. That's it. Why did he climb up there in the first place? There is no food there and it is a very bad place to defend himself.

Am I the only one who thought that Kong seemed to be smaller in the second half of the film?

Naomi Watts looked really great, kind of like Nicole Kidman but without the funny nose plus a small dose of Minnie Driver.

| IP: Logged

Jennifer Pan
THE JEN!

Posts: 1219
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Nov 2003

posted 12-15-2005 09:20 AM

quote: Michael Schaffer
So does that mean that Jackson is hot now?

It means someone killed Jackson... [uhoh]

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-15-2005 09:52 AM

quote: Michael Schaffer
What, Adrien Brody was in "School of Rock"?

Yes, but all his scenes were left on the cutting room floor.

| IP: Logged

Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 12-15-2005 03:09 PM

Granted the movie should have been 2 hrs and 20 min, but overall I really enjoyed it. Some of the best action scenes put on film. Kong himself, as a special effect, should win an Oscar.

quote: Michael Schaffer
Why did he climb up there in the first place? There is no food there and it is a very bad place to defend himself.

I thought he just wanted to be alone with Naomi Watts. Not really stupid when you think about it.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-15-2005 04:03 PM

...possibly of the natural habitat of the animal: to be in high places to be alone, protect themselves and away from danger. Plus since NYC had no "trees" - and the Empire State Building, to Kong, looked like a tree, he had no choice and used his only instinct he knew.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-15-2005 05:11 PM

Count me in with the people who have no desire to sit through this. The trailers with the godawful cgi clips were enough to turn me off.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-15-2005 05:17 PM

Even the original Kong puts me to sleep.... The new blood pressure medicine maakes me gogogo... I can't sit that long....too many pee breaks... so I have no worry about having to endure it.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Eric Hooper
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 532
From: Fort Worth, TX, USA
Registered: May 2003

posted 12-15-2005 06:41 PM

B-

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-16-2005 04:43 AM

quote: Allison Parsons
Good, but WAY WWWAAAYYYYY too long.

That's what they said about GREED, too!

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Is anyone else so sick of the trillion dollar advertising campaign that they have no interest in seeing the film?

quote:
The trailers with the godawful cgi clips were enough to turn me off.

The first TV chunk with Kartoon Kong bouncing around preparing to fight the dinosaur put the movie on my "Oh hell no" list.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-16-2005 12:53 PM

I have not seen the movie yet, but did want to comment on the "awful CGI" in the movie trailers.

There has been two different renderings shown in "King Kong" trailers -and final revisions weren't even finished on much of the footage used in the last movie trailer. Check out this example:

I don't have high expectations over CGI quality in movies these days, since it seems more studios are just interested in cranking out HDTV quality CGI at faster (and cheaper) rates. On average, there doesn't seem to be as much drive in Hollywood to do ground breaking visual effects work as there was in the late 1970s through early 1990s.

Still, I'm expecting the visuals in the final cut of the film (at least the theatrical cut) to look a bit better than what was shown in the trailers.

| IP: Logged

Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 12-16-2005 02:29 PM

Some of the CGI in Kong was bad. For example, they have a Skull Island native pole vault onto the ship to steal Ann. That shot looked very fake and ther were a couple of others.

But most of the CGI is great. Kong himself is amazingly life like, especially his facial expressions and eyes, both of which are very convincing.

| IP: Logged

Patrick Matthews
Film Handler

Posts: 86
From: Kansas City, MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2004

posted 12-16-2005 02:43 PM

quote: Matt Fields
Some of the CGI in Kong was bad. For example, they have a Skull Island native pole vault onto the ship to steal Ann. That shot looked very fake and ther were a couple of others.

But most of the CGI is great. Kong himself is amazingly life like, especially his facial expressions and eyes, both of which are very convincing.

WETA (in my opion) is guilty of this in every movie that I have seen of theirs. In all of the LOTR movies the majority of the CGI shots are beautiful and look almost seemless...but there are one or two in every movie that just look HORRIBLE. Off the top of my head one in The Two Towers was of Legolas jumping off of a cliff, it looked incredibly fake, yet the next shot of him jumping on a horse looked great.

In King Kong the pole vault scene as well as the initial scene of the crew going onto the island on small boats looked horrible where the rest of the movie looked great.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 12-16-2005 03:20 PM

An animal as big as Kong could not move as fast as he does
in the film. He´s jumping around like a normal size gorilla.
If his movements had been slower he would have appeared more
realistic.

I think the 1976 King Kong was better than this one.

Thomas

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.