Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Peter Jackson's King Kong (Page 7)

 
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Author Topic: Peter Jackson's King Kong
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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


 - posted 12-24-2005 11:04 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Blah. If anyone wants to get technical you really only die from one thing: hypoxia. Lack of oxygen to the brain. If your heart stops pumping blood, no oxygen is supplied to the brain. AIDS, HIV, cancer, a locomotive slamming into your car at 100mph, etc. they're all just elements that can lead to that hypoxia thing.

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Greco
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1180
From: Plant City, FL
Registered: Nov 2003


 - posted 12-24-2005 12:07 PM      Profile for Richard Greco   Email Richard Greco   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
And this is related to the movie "King Kong" how?

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 12-24-2005 12:21 PM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Richard Greco
And this is related to the movie "King Kong" how?
Well, John Holmes and King Kong both met an untimely death after a career in movies, and they both may have shared a "certain" attribute. [Big Grin]

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Greco
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1180
From: Plant City, FL
Registered: Nov 2003


 - posted 12-24-2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Richard Greco   Email Richard Greco   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A Very Large.............Ego?

 |  IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 12-24-2005 12:53 PM      Profile for Greg Mueller   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Mueller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, but how do we know for sure? Do they show Kong's "unit" ?

 |  IP: Logged

John Pommon
Film Handler

Posts: 25
From: San Francisco, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 12-24-2005 05:15 PM      Profile for John Pommon   Author's Homepage   Email John Pommon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just saw KONG Gregg . . . no signs of the 'big fella' . .
. . . . . besides if he was anatomically correct the Mcnuggets might have taken out a few parapet walls.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

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


 - posted 12-24-2005 05:21 PM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Gorillas actually have surprisingly small "units" in relation to their overall body size. No primate is as "well endowed" as home sapiens - by far.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Blah. If anyone wants to get technical you really only die from one thing: hypoxia. Lack of oxygen to the brain. If your heart stops pumping blood, no oxygen is supplied to the brain. AIDS, HIV, cancer, a locomotive slamming into your car at 100mph, etc. they're all just elements that can lead to that hypoxia thing.
What if somebody drops a 100 ton weight on you? Does that count as hypoxia, too?

 |  IP: Logged

Will Kutler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1506
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 12-24-2005 05:25 PM      Profile for Will Kutler   Email Will Kutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OY VEY! WHAT HAVE I STARTED! [Big Grin] [Razz] [beer] [sex] [Eek!]

 |  IP: Logged

David Favel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 764
From: Ashburton, New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 12-27-2005 08:25 PM      Profile for David Favel   Email David Favel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.civictheatre.co.nz/home_index.html

The Mighty Civic, with the most uncomfortable seats in the world.

 |  IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted 12-29-2005 09:59 AM      Profile for Greg Mueller   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Mueller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
King Kong Review

What a big furry turd...
this movie is.

Naomi Watts can't act nor Adrien Brody and especially and above all Jack Black.
The only reason I can think of for them getting the roles they did is that they must have been black mailing Peter Jackson. This is the most miscast movie of all time.

This movie is a string of inspired special effects (the closeups of KK) strung together with moments of absurdity.

There are too many to list, but here's a few of the parts that I am trying to forget.

The natives of Skull Island are way over the top. They tried to make them look scary but just wind up making them unbelievable

The story would have ended, during the first scene where KK is whipping Ann Darrow around. I've seen my dog break rabbit's necks with less force than that. In fact I think her head would have been launched, leaving only her body behind.

The 3 dinosaurs would have won, no problem. Once their jaws were clamped to KK's arms or legs it would have been "game over"

What did the penisauruses/cockroaches/spiders/scorpions/centipedes (who all happily coexisted) eat before the guys fell off the log to feed them? When any group of animals overpopulates it's feeding ground, they starve and reduce their numbers. Eventually they arrive at a balance. Except, I guess at S-K-U-L-L Island

Can you imagine running along side a dozen or so cattle stampeding in a narrow canyon, with ravenous wolves trying to take you down at the same time? Our heros do it and succeed, except it's brontosauruses and velociraptors.


AND IT'S WAY WAY WAY TO LONG

Stay home and wait for it on HBO. Take the money you would have spent on a ticket and buy the original King Kong on DVD. It's far more believable

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

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


 - posted 12-29-2005 08:45 PM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Greg Mueller
What did the penisauruses/cockroaches/spiders/scorpions/centipedes (who all happily coexisted) eat before the guys fell off the log to feed them?
Each other? Maybe they only coexisted happily when they weren't hungry. Or maybe they just all lived there, and would go out into the jungle to hunt, and the slimepool worms would eat the leftovers.

 |  IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 12-30-2005 08:07 AM      Profile for Leo Enticknap   Author's Homepage   Email Leo Enticknap   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Things I liked:

  • The extended 'On Top of the World' opening sequence, which offered a brutally explicit impression of what Depression-era New York must have been like;
  • Replacing the 'I must get a girl' scene on the ship in the 1933 film with the screening room scene in the remake - you got a sense of who the moguls were that Denham was up against;
  • Rescripting the Driscoll character as a Federal Theater playwright, thereby creating another reference to the specific historical period in which the action is set;
  • Rescripting and expanding the Englehorn character;
  • The references to Heart of Darkness
  • Intelligent 'quoting' from the original without the remake being tied down by it: the title sequence design, Denham's 'We'll be millionaires, boys!' monologue and then the incredible jump cut to the theatre marquee, quoting the tribal dance music from the original film in the extended stage sequence in the remake.
Things I didn't like:
  • Rescripting Carl Denham as a crass, culturally insensitive, cultural imperialist moron. There was no sense in this film that the Denham character is supposed to be a parody of a real person (Merian C. Cooper) and that a lot of the political incorrectness in the original is tongue-in-cheek, with reference to the exploration documentary genre that was popular in the mid-20s (not just Cooper, but film-makers such as Flaherty, Martin & Osa Johnson, etc.). I'd have preferred John Goodman to Jack Black in the role.
  • The film was about 3 reels too long, with most of the excess length being taken up by extended dinosaur fights and long, lingering expression shots (e.g. Ann gazing at Kong) which make their point in 10 seconds but go on for 50. It was like Jackson was directing at Lord of the Rings pace, but this called for much tighter pacing, with the three phases of the story occupying closer to equal length. Another down side with the dino fight is that yes, the CGI was impressive; but impressive CGI is nothing new now, and needs a decent script to support it.
  • Technical blunders. We see a sound recordist making tests on the ship and a hand-cranked Mitchell camera; obviously, no hand-cranked camera would have been used to record sync sound.
  • Making the romantic attachment between Ann and Kong far less ambiguous. In the original we were left guessing where her sympathies lay, to a certain extent; but not in this one.

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999


 - posted 01-03-2006 09:38 AM      Profile for Mark Lensenmayer   Email Mark Lensenmayer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I had high hopes that Peter Jackson would respect and cherish the Kong we have known and loved. I was wrong. This is a not a good picture and I'm sorry I went to see it.

It is just plain TOO LONG. Just because one has the technology to create racing dinos and yucky slugs doesn't mean it helps tell the story.

Leave the first section alone, cut 2/3 from the Skull Island section (where did all those people go, anyway?), and trim up the end, especially that silly ice sequence. That ice would have to be VERY thick to support a creature of that size. Besides, it was not a good scene.

I thought I would care about the relationship between Kong and Ann. Nothing there but some gooey looks.

I hated this picture and am actively trying to erase it from my memory.

Viewed at the new Drexel Gateway independent theatre across from the Ohio State University campus. Nice facillity. Excellent sound and projection, but the image was strangely tilted. It wasn't apparent during the picture, but it was obvious on the green band of the trailers. Nice to see DOLBY TRAIN, but wish the original was was back. Admission ticket from the FRIGHTENERS DVD was accepted with no problem.

 |  IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001


 - posted 01-07-2006 03:40 PM      Profile for Christian Appelt   Email Christian Appelt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Definitely the last time I have wasted time and money on a Jackson movie. It's just that I've had enough of his bag of tricks, he hasn't learnt a new one for years.

Two hours after I left the theatre, to me the movie is fading away at breakneck speed.

Mr Jackson obviously couldn't decide whether he wanted to impersonate Cecil B. DeMille, James Cameron or Steven Spielberg, so he tried to do all of them and ad his own bad taste as a topping.

I felt bored, everything was predictable. Ten dinosaurs do not excite me more than one dinosaur. I get tired after watching endless sequences of people nearly trampled to death by rubberish looking CGI characters.

Kong's closeups and gestures were OK to me, but his movement in long shots was not a bit more convincing to me than any classic stop motion character. More fluid, maybe, but not convincing when compared to better CGI characters like Gollum in LOTR.

Jackson tries to connect elements that will not connect for any audience. The "romantic adventure" audience feels disgusted by the spider/"penisaurus dentata" sequence, and the scifi/horror fans get bored by endless exchange of looks between Kong and Ann - too much "Titanic" kitsch here.

To me, KING KONG feels like an overlong trailer combined with a non-interactive video game in demo mode. Acting was substandard, and while I found Naomi Watts OK, Jack Black's ugly face is certainly hard to watch in what seem five hours of shot-from-below wideangle closeups.

Total lack of humor, every line of dialogue predictable, every character a cardboard cliché and even the better scenes drag on forever and ever and ever. As for the music score, the less said, the better.

When Kong went iceskating, I was waiting for diffused slow motion footage and white doves. How about a sequel with the two of them getting married (remember, they did a sequel to the 1976 version!)?

At least Mr Jackson could get rid of his leftover Ork army from LOTR, they were simply recast as a bunch of repulsive natives on Skull island. Welcome back to racial stereotypes, the 1933 inhabitants of Skull island at least had a certain dignity of their own, but disfigured zombies are infinitely more interesting, aren't they?

Some composisting work was unbelievable bad, all elements in the long shot of the expedition party at the deep trench were "sawing" against each other.
Many Kong shots had heavy aliasing around the head, every single long shot was slightly soft and without realistic detail. In some composites, different levels had mismatched grain structures. Some greenscreen shots of Miss Watts on top of Kong's mountain look like matte work from 1956 THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (but without that film's campy charm). Less effect work with more care spent on quality would have made a better looking movie.

What a waste of time.

 |  IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001


 - posted 01-08-2006 05:38 PM      Profile for Hillary Charles   Email Hillary Charles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe I'm just not critical enough. The original Kong is one of my favorites (see my post in the favorite movie poster thread), and while I recognized many of the flaws that have been mentioned here, overall, I liked Peter Jackson's version.

It can never achieve the status the original has, but as a retelling, it has its moments. I almost feel like I'm at an AA meeting when I stand up and say I LOVED the ice sequence. It was bittersweet, as Kong's last happy moment on earth. And I liked the Empire State Building sequence in addition to others. I agree it could be an hour shorter, and lose a few characters, but I was never bored.

However, casting Jack Black as Carl Denham is missing the point that the original Denham was a charicature of Merian C. Cooper. Black's reading of Robert Armstrong's memorable lines sounded wrong, like he didn't really understand what he was saying. I have fewer problems with turning Jack Driscoll into a playwright, even though it is one of those aspects which clutter up an originally straightforward story.

The realization of 1932-33 NYC was impressive, and I didn't catch many of the digital artifacts that have been mentioned, although the picture was slightly out of focus (this was noticed during the trailers, and alerting a staff member didn't help), so I cannot complain about the effects work. For several minutes there was a pulsating yellow fog on the right side of the picture, as if the filmstock had been partially fogged before processing--unforgivable.

Not a perfect movie, but I cried when the monkey fell.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.