|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Jackson's King Kong
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 01-08-2006 09:01 PM
I liked this film also (but agree that it was too long.) Sometimes I think that posters on this Board will put down anything by anyone successful, regardless of the merits. It's amazing to me that this film garnered more negativity than the average teen comedy or TV show derivation piece-of-crap. At least this film attempted to develop a story line with emotional resonance beyond the action scenes.
While there were some CGI problems and it was too long, I think that overall, this was an exciting, well-told and well-crafted movie.
When I first heard that Jack Black was casted as Denham, I had my doubts. But I think the change in the Denham character from a stand-in for Merian C. Cooper to a more reckless characterization of an Orson Welles-type (and Black looked kind of like a young Welles) worked quite well. I also thought that Naiomi Watts was terrific - someone else posted that she "can't act." What was it exactly about her acting that was poor? The relationship she had with Kong was fun and completely credible within the context and world of the movie.
I do think that some of the action scenes were roller-coaster in nature and an attempt to out-Spielberg Spielberg. I think they thought, "okay, not that we've done that, let's pile this on top of that and now let's do this bigger thing on top of that and now let's compound it even more by doing this on top of that...."
There was one important thing about Black's performance (or Jackson's directing) that I didn't like. I thought the last line...."it was beauty that killed the beast" was not delivered well - it didn't sound like Black was into that line. It could have been either stated more emphatically or the opposite - vastly underplayed, but it didn't work for me as it was.
If I were making the film (ha!), I wouldn't have thought of casting Black or Watts. But look at the 1976 version: it had really great actors (Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange), but the film was a travesty.
When I saw videos of the sets, I thought that Manhattan looked terrible. But in the movie, it looked amazingly good and very realistic, even though there were some geographical errors. It was so good that I found myself looking for the office that my father later worked at before thinking to myself, "wait a minute...this is just a miniature set and computer renderings." They got so much right, that I'm surprised at what they got wrong. The theatre where Kong appears was actually at the location of the Loews State, although that was probably purposeful. The Loews New York that was shown up the block was amazingly realistic - they got the marquee completely right. But they showed a shot of the Rivoli that was actually a block or two south of where the actual Rivoli was located. And when they showed Kong in front of Macy's, they showed an elevated train line behind him and I don't believe there was ever a 6th Avenue El. But these are just nitpicks - it all worked within the context of the film.
I saw it at the Empire #25, screen #6. Very large theater and screen, but the sound sucked: the digital sound was too loud and very metallic and brittle sounding. I suspect this was a SDDS presentation. If it was, I wish they'd dump those SDDS boxes already.
I'd give the film 4/5 stars.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-09-2006 12:45 PM
quote: Greg Mueller
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.
I am surprised no one else mentioned this. It was my least favorite bit of the movie. Roger Ebert's review mentioned that the people somehow managed to occupy the exact same space as the dino's legs, yet not get stepped on. There are a few too many instances of people falling impossible distances without getting a scratch, or people running through a thick jungle but never tripping on anything or even stumbling.
The best part was the airplane sequence. I've been able to stand in the back of the theatre and watch people duck as the planes fly over. Cool! It was a great looking movie all around, especially the NYC sequences. I've always been a fan of the Empire State Building anyway.
I thought the beginning was too long, and yes it could have easily been a 140 minute movie. Nearly all the action scenes could have been shorter too. But, I've been listening to the crowds as they exit and literally no one has been griping about the length. (Often I'll hear teenagers saying, "I thought it would NEVER end" coming out of a long show, but not on this one.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic