This is topic Peter Jackson's King Kong in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001043
Posted by James Nash (Member # 2836) on 12-13-2005, 11:23 PM:
 
It was phenomonal.

Peter Jackson did a perfect job with this film. All of the digital effects were suburb, and the animation of Kong was just beyond belief.

Suprisingly, there was only dialog in about 1/2 the movie. He did the non dialog scenes excently.

It met and exceded all of my expectations!

[ 12-14-2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-13-2005, 11:29 PM:
 
Edit the title of this thread to the movie's proper name, please. I think it is called "King Kong starring Peter Jackson" or something mega-retarded like that, but it should be in the thread title nonetheless. I don't want to have to do it for you. Do it or you will be BANNED.

They really should have given the Jack Black role to Will Ferrell or Gilbert Gotfried, though. Everyone hates Jack Black!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-13-2005, 11:35 PM:
 
Joe, I LUV Jack Black only 2nd to YOU!

OBTW: The movie was stupit, corny, and sucked big time!
 
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 12-14-2005, 02:10 AM:
 
Good, but WAY WWWAAAYYYYY too long. Could have easliy been a 2hr 20min. movie. Loved the fight between Kong and the dino's. I did think some of the jungle scenes looked really bad (CGI wise). Cried like a baby at the end. Just like I did when I saw the orginial when I was a kid [Smile] I'm a girl, I can't help it.
 
Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 12-14-2005, 02:44 AM:
 
Again....way too long. Jackson could have trimmed 30-45 minutes off the SKULL ISLAND footage, and still had an enjoyable film. CGI of Kong was awesome, but I can't say the same form the other litle critters! And if it moved fast on the screen, the CGI looked cheesy. Audio mix was impressive. I think that Jack Black did a great job, and I'm not a big fan of his. I don't see this film as a family feature. No darn kids are going to sit still for 3 hours and 7 minutes. The CGI footage of NY was really kewl! What about that movie palace....another kewlness. Uhmmmm, if Kong falls to his death from the Empire State building, then why didn't he end up below the street pavement?? If ya drop anything from the top of the building, it would cause massive damage. I loved the art deco look as the credits rolled, and the choice of background colors. I didn't think that I could actually sit through that lengthy of a picture, but I did. Therefore, I'll give it 3 out of 4 stars. Its an impressive remake, but thats about it. How many times can you tell the story of beauty and the beast???
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-14-2005, 04:05 AM:
 
quote: Don Anderson
If ya drop anything from the top of the building, it would cause massive damage
Probably did, but as you noticed all the closeup scenes was done where the ground wasn't shown.

Jack Black was perfect for his role as a struggling moviemaker who wants to be with the big boys - showing some "greed and evil" to his normal crazy,insane side.

What a love story! It might give chase to "Titanic", but I think that 1997 classic love story will never be overtaken.
quote: Don Anderson
What about that movie palace....another kewlness.
I do believe that movie palace is located in either New Zealand or in Australia - a landmark theatre for one of those two countries. (someone can help me here on that one..)

(yes, enter the full name in your re-edited topic header - have to be more precise in topic headers descriptions in these forums..)

-Monte
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-14-2005, 05:50 AM:
 
I was absolutely blown away. I'd be hard pressed to find any major flaws in this film. Sure its long, but it kept me fully entertained every second.

quote: Don Anderson
If ya drop anything from the top of the building, it would cause massive damage.
FALSE. Little thing called "Terminal Velocity". Kong, of course, would have left damage. But something like a penny would meerly discomfort someone standing bellow. It wouldn't kill them or go down six feet in cement as some believe.
 
Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 12-14-2005, 06:58 AM:
 
quote:
I do believe that movie palace is located in Australia or in New Zealand
King Kong was made entirely in New Zealand.

Peter Jackson showed today at a press conference in Wellington, the model King Kong he made at nine years of age. It is about nine inches high and was made from his mother's fur stole that he decided she no longer required. It is really a very good effort from a nine year old and it was a very touching moment for those assembled, when the model was revealed for the first time. Peter Jackson has had a long time ambition to remake King Kong from when he first saw the 1933 original on TV as a boy.

Naome Watts remarked, as she held the model in her hand, that she was able to hold King Kong rather than the other way round.

Peter emphasised that making films is not a dictatorship but that it is the combined efforts of many creative people working as a family that produces the final result.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2005, 12:55 PM:
 
James Nash, you suck at the internet.
 
Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 12-14-2005, 01:12 PM:
 
If you bother to post a new topic then you should bother to read it at least a few times after you post it.

EDIT: I noticed that there is no option to rename the title. Or am I just blind?

EDIT #2: Nevermind, I'm just dumb.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-14-2005, 01:33 PM:
 
So noted.

Is anyone else so sick of the trillion dollar advertising campaign that they have no interest in seeing the film?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2005, 04:13 PM:
 
I personally have no interest seeing the movie. The theater experience isn't very good anymore 'round these parts... especially for a 3 and a half hour version of a movie I've already seen!
 
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 12-14-2005, 06:35 PM:
 
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?
Our home office made us do a lobby display for it. THEN a week after I busted my butt, we recieved two standees, one bus shelter, 30 1-sheets and t-shirts! My theater is a 10 plex that is in a somewhat small town. We seriously do not need 30 1-sheets, let alone the rest of what they sent us.

I was SO sick of seeing the trailer that I almost didn't see it. And I'm proud to report I've never seen Titanic [Smile]
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-14-2005, 06:38 PM:
 
When I saw who was playing the male leads, all I could think of was "School of Rock"

What were they thinking?
 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-14-2005, 11:31 PM:
 
quote: Allison Parsons
And I'm proud to report I've never seen Titanic
Well you should see it. It is one of the greatest moments in movie history when Leonardo Dicaprio FRIGGIN DIES!!! YEAH [evil]

Ciao
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 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.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 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.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 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.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 12-15-2005, 09:20 AM:
 
quote: Michael Schaffer
So does that mean that Jackson is hot now?
It means someone killed Jackson... [uhoh]
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 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.
 
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 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.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 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.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 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.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-15-2005, 06:41 PM:
 
B-
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 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.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 
Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 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.
 
Posted by Patrick Matthews (Member # 2705) on 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.
 
Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 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
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-16-2005, 05:33 PM:
 
CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: Shaky boat scenes can cause motion spoilers

This movie is NO "Titanic", and won't even come close to its box office gross. Reason number one: Jack Black. Chicks don't dig Jack Black. Reason number two: Bugs. This movie is full of gross-out giant cockroaches, spiders, Gila monsters, and some weird fleshy finger looking thingies with teeth. Women will NOT be repeat viewers.

We basically have three one hour B-movies tied together here. The first one is a lot like driving through Nebraska. Sure you see something interesting once in awhile...like the Gothenburg Runza...but for the most part you're thinking "Are we there yet?" The second hour is a Jurassic Park sequel with some fantastic action scenes. This is the most impressive part of the movie. The third hour starts cold in New York and is a wacky "fish out of water" sequence that ends heroically or tragically depending on your point of view. Throw in a couple of pretty sunsets, a romantic ice skating date, and the build-up of the blonde/ape bond, and there you go. It's a good thing the acting and dialogue was minimal, becuase I was drawing comparisons to 1998's "Godzilla" there.

This is one of those films that will gross nine figures, make its money back, and STILL leave the studio disappointed.

One girl leaving the auditorium said to her friend, "..And during the whole dinosaur stuff...If I were King Kong, I would have told her she was too high maintenance and dumped her!"

EXACTLY!
 
Posted by Matthew Taylor (Member # 2310) on 12-16-2005, 06:42 PM:
 
Would they really have had a Chevrolet billboard in NY in that period that had scrolling advertising messages?

.....for me, that was where they lost it........I just didn't find that believable [Wink]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-16-2005, 08:02 PM:
 
quote: Thomas Jonsson
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 agree with both points, but with some reservations.

Consider this: an adult African elephant is so heavy that if he could jump with all four feet leaving the ground the bones in his legs would fracture or break when his feet hit the ground.

However, if we confined the storylines in all movies to practical limits of physics the movie industry would be pretty damned boring.

The second point, speed of object in relation to scale, is a good one. This is a frequent cause of making many visual effects sequences look horribly fake. ILM had well established and widely known formulas on how best to make miniatures look large and translating that into a relation of object speed to film frame rate. It seems many visual effects companies don't apply any of those formulas to a lot of CGI scenes.

However, there must be balance with that rule as well. Rules can often be broken. But they only should be broken if the result makes the act worth it. When the CGI scene winds up looking fake then the gamble obviously wasn't worth it.
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 12-16-2005, 11:01 PM:
 
quote: Sam Graham
and some weird fleshy finger looking thingies with teeth
You mean the uncircumcised-penis-monsters?

What is wrong with a little fake looking CGI? It IS fake, thats why its a special effect. Would everyone that is complaining about an odd-looking movement (or whatever "fake looking" implies) prefer some "never looks fake" stop motion? How about a real gorilla filmed against a green screen? Honestly, I was blown away by the simple movements of fur and subtle facial expressions. You would never ever get that with miniatures. If the argument is that this was simply bad CGI, then aparently I've never seen good CGI. It seems most people are agreeing with Jack Black's line from the film, "Monsters belong in B movies." [Smile]

Anyway, I thought the film was a ton of fun, although the way Kong dispatched with the last T-rex is probably one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a while.
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-17-2005, 08:39 AM:
 
I agree with Adam on the whole CGI thing...Kong looked spectacular. Was there some cheese things going on, yes there was. But the movie was spectacular. Didn't seem like three hours at all. The only part that bothered me was when Adrien Brody was in the Taxi and running from Kong, the speed that the car was going in reverse was a little too far fetched for me...other then that I give the movie 5 out of 5, a good fun film.

The Final V-Rex fight was awsome, you couldn't help but laugh when he played with the mouth after killing it...that scene there was some of the most amazing CGI I've seen in a film, all the way to where he pushed the Rex out of the way to get back to Ann
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-17-2005, 10:11 AM:
 
Matthew Taylor wrote:
quote:
Would they really have had a Chevrolet billboard in NY in that period that had scrolling advertising messages?

.....for me, that was where they lost it........I just didn't find that believable [Wink]

I guess that wink is to let me know this is a joke. I didn't get it at first, but since Times Square looks the same way in the original, you're referring to the gratuitous complaints of all things CGI in Kong? Forgive me, I'm not awake enough yet to catch irony.

Now what's all this about Leonardo DiCaprio dying in "Titanic"? Thanks alot SPOILERS!

[ 12-17-2005, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Hillary Charles ]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2005, 01:30 PM:
 
quote: Adam Wilbert
What is wrong with a little fake looking CGI? It IS fake, thats why its a special effect. Would everyone that is complaining about an odd-looking movement (or whatever "fake looking" implies) prefer some "never looks fake" stop motion?
I think you're missing the point -well, at least my point of view on the thing.

I don't care if a special visual effect is practical/analog or "digital" CGI. The only thing that matters is whether the end result of the effect looks real. I think there is a silly notion held by many people in Hollywood that if the CGI shot was made in a computer it is automatically perfect. Bullshit. It's another area where digital does not equal perfect.

I have seen a good number of CGI effects over the years that did look very real and amazing. I've seen analog effects from older movies look very real as well -including some stop motion work.

Regardless of technique, the visual effects people must pay extreme attention to detail. When most folks speak of "bad CGI" they have noticed particular details with an effect that indeed looked fake. The fake area could be in how an object or CGI character moved. The failure could occur with poor levels of detail or too crude of a 3D model being used. The difference could even be something as subtle as a difference in color or lighting quality.

The best visual effects are ones we don't realize are visual effects at all.

Take the 1980s movie "Explorers" for example. There is a shot where a police helicopter circles around this home made spacecraft built by some kids. I knew the spacecraft was fake only on the principal nothing like it existed in real life. The helicopter totally fooled me. It looked absolutely real, right down to the way the spinning helicopter blades appeared on film. But it was really a miniature shot against a blue screen.
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 12-17-2005, 02:01 PM:
 
miniatures of hard metalic objects with straight edges, such as helicopters and spaceships, are much easier to pull off than a "living" breathing, furry animal. Between Narnia and Kong, there is no way to get that level of detail with a model. I was watching Terminator a couple of weeks ago and commented that the end scenes of the stop-motion endoskeleton and the actors against a blue screen didn't look any better than Jason and the Argonauts and there was thirty years (?) separating the shots.

Bobby, I completely agree with you about fretting the details, but I think that as a viewer, one needs to give the effects some leeway. ... until they're just so bad that it is unbearable to watch. Maybe this tolerance level is just different from person to person. For me, the effects in Kong weren't distracting in the least. I don't think that digital equals perfect in its own, and I really doubt most people do. The effects in Kong obviously took a lot of work by a lot of people. I do, however, get the feeling that some people think that CGI is done by some kid in china with a copy of 3D Studio Max. I have no doubt that the people working on Kong wrote a lot of custom shaders and were working on the cutting edge of CG. I guess my point is that though the effects might not be 100% believable, it's the best there is. If that isn't good enough, then we'll just have to stop making movies about giant apes.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-17-2005, 04:03 PM:
 
I think it looked pretty good most of the time. Yes, the pole vault thing looked surprisingly bad given that it was just a silhouette, it must have been one of the easiest things to do (maybe that's why).
Some of the CGI dinosaurs looked a little flat and pale. All the brontosaurus scenes were less than convincing. The first shot of them wasn't very good, and when they interact with the actors during the stampede, there are several shots where they look like they are in the background even though they are supposed to be partially on the same plane with the actors. It looks too much like a 2D background.
But some other stuff was very nice, like the encounter between Kong and the T-Rexes.
Obviously, we know that all these shots, however good or bad, are effects. My rule is that when I watch and don't concentrate on the effects as such, when it jumps at you that this is an effect because it blows the bubble of illusion, it's not good enough, and when I watch but don't specifically see myself reminded that I am watching an effect, it's good.
 
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-18-2005, 01:11 AM:
 
You know, I never once thought any of the CGI looked fake in this one....
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2005, 02:30 AM:
 
I just love it when Universal HAS to plug famous icons from their company - with the street marquee in NYC and the ever famous "T-Rex" of "Jurassic Park"
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2005, 05:27 AM:
 
To me it's always the physics that give away bad CGI. The shit looks great in stills, but when you see it in motion it looks completely fake because the physics are all wrong. One great example is when Orlando Bloom climbs the mutant elephant towards the last 5 or 6 hours of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. He climbs up it and kills it. The whole sequence is probably some of the worst effects I've ever seen on screen due to the complete disregard for physics that immediately tells my brain "FAKE FAKE FAKE!" There is alot of that same stuff in Kong, though Kong hisself looks pretty good. The dinosaurs don't look as good as Jurassic Park, though... not even the first one.

Also about Kong, I noticed a ton of Peter Jackson "sweeping wide view shots" that make the sets look like models (it's actually CGI). He loves to do that sweeping shit. It's getting old, Petey! We don't need sweeping panoramic camera movements for every new scene! Jackson's a guy who gets his hand on a technique, sees it in action, loves it, and then overuses it. Also, what's with the low-framerate footage during the first few hours when they arrive on the island? Seemed out of place and didn't add anything. Oh, and notice how crowded New York City is. Then suddenly it is deserted when Naomi Watts walks onto the screen. It stays completely devoid of all other life for awhile, then suddenly it is immensely overpopulated and overpanicked again. WTF? Also, when did Jack Black do the show where Kong was in chains? Was the show at 2 or 3 in the morning? By the time they get to the top of the Empire State Building, the sun is already rising. In winter. It comes up later in winter. WTF?

The movie didn't feel like 3 hours to me. It felt like 14.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-18-2005, 09:43 AM:
 
Before I start the review, I'll state that I've never seen a previous version of King Kong.

I thought this film was fantastic. It didn't feel like 3 hours at all. I loved the "feel" of the film from start to finish. The actors did a good job and the CGI of Kong himself was great. I thought the story was told very well and it wasn't just a 3 hour monster movie.

Could I nitpick some of the effects, sure. The thing is that I was enjoying myself too much to be paying attention to what looked real and what looked like CGI. This is also a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen (which I did, Auditorium 1, AMC Pleasure Island, about 65 feet scope).

Great, entertaining and fun movie!

4.5 out of 5 stars
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-18-2005, 10:33 AM:
 
Monte the V-Rex in Kong looks nothing like any of the T-Rex's in Jurrasic Park I, II, III
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2005, 01:47 PM:
 
True, no comparison. But one couldn't help about thinking about it since "JP" turned our lives around that summer of '93 with "T-Rex" and the introduction of DTS.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2005, 05:59 PM:
 
What the hell is a "V-Rex"?
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-18-2005, 06:44 PM:
 
Virtual Rex
 
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-18-2005, 09:03 PM:
 
LOL, not sure what V-Rex stands for but thats what Peter Jackson says they are.

Monte-I know what your saying, and I agree
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2005, 09:24 PM:
 
Okay, watched "King Kong" this afternoon.

It was a pretty good movie, probably even worth a repeat viewing or two. But I don't agree with the four star reviews some critics have been giving it. It rates at least a solid three stars for me.

I guess the main flaw with the show is that it could have been tightened up in a few places. The early scenes dragged in a few places. Sure, there is the necessary character introduction and development stuff. But that could have been handled in a faster and more entertaining way.

The movie really gets its legs underneath it on Skull Island. Lots pretty cool action set pieces there. The Kong versus T-Rex battle is obviously the best one. The scene down in the canyone with the giant bugs and man-eating worms was pretty cool -but it will turn off lots of more squeamish people from repeat viewings.

With all the time spent on the early scenes, I was a bit puzzled by the immediate jump from Skull Island to New York. What did they do to get King Kong on the ship? Lots of other questions follow that. But the show chooses to cut immediately to "opening night" for the 8th wonder in the world in New York.

On the visual effects, the King Kong character was handled very impressively. It's easy to tell Weta Digital spent a lot of time studying gorilla movement and behavior to give King Kong some personality. The T-Rex versus Kong battle was cool. However, some of the spiraling and circling camera movement made it difficult to keep track of just what was happening. Peter Jackson pulled the same thing in "Fellowship of the Ring" with the Cave Troll in the Mines of Moria. The flying camera work was enough to make a viewer queasy. The pole vaulting native did look a bit fake, although it wasn't as bad as I was expecting.

Pretty good surround track on the show. Naomi Watts is looking off into the forest and you hear all these trees crunching and snapping behind you in the surrounds.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-18-2005, 10:14 PM:
 
So far I've managed to make it to the end of reel-2 on my second attempt at viewing it. The steam engines in that steam ship were a nice sight, the rest is way too lame to consider a third viewing attempt.

Mark
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2005, 11:05 PM:
 
Speaking of Skull Island, what the hell was up with the scene where Adrian Brody was typing "SKULL" onto the piece of paper? There were zooms in to each key and massive sound as each key hit the paper. All for the word "Skull". It was perhaps the worst part of the movie. It was trying to be dramatic or something but it just came off as, well, lame. I want an explanation for this and the reason for its inclusion.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-18-2005, 11:11 PM:
 
Joe,

I think that Peter Jackson was inserting some educational value. Since the youth of today don't spell very well, he was just teaching everybody how to spell "Skull."

I agree that the scene was stupid and not needed.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-18-2005, 11:11 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
So far I've managed to make it to the end of reel-2 on my second attempt at viewing it. The steam engines in that steam ship were a nice sight, the rest is way too lame to consider a third viewing attempt.
Just start watching it from the time the ship hits the rocks at Skull Island. You'll save yourself most of the pain in doing that.

Also, is anyone else pretty familiar with the footage shown on the trailers versus what was actually used in the movie? In the first teaser, there's this scene where Denham is directing Ann Darrow on the beach and making her scream. That bit wasn't in the movie (or if it was I missed it -I did have to hit the bathroom, damn you, Mr. Pibb). And then there was another action shot with the black fellow firing his Thompson .45 caliber machine gun from a cliff at a drooling 'raptor. That didn't seem to be in the theatrical cut either.

Hmm. Beginning to put it together now. We'll probably see a 4 hour version showing those cut scenes and possibly with how the guys got Kong on the ship and transported to New York.

quote: Joe Redifer
I want an explanation for this and the reason for its inclusion.
I think the overly dramatic typing of "SKULL" was a subliminal marketing ploy on the part of Universal to revive sales of their catalog DVD title, "The Skulls."
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-18-2005, 11:33 PM:
 
I totally agree with Mark. Other than some of the CGI stuff, the film sucked.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-19-2005, 12:45 AM:
 
I was on the edge of my seat as SKULL was typed. So much dramatic tension going on there. I figured that something exciting was about to happen, like the typewriter exploding in his face when he hit that last "L", or maybe a zombie drops from the ceiling or something. But then nothing happened. Maybe that's what it feels like to be on the verge of impotence?

There are some wankers who are calling this movie racist - that the plot symbolizes how western colonialism went to third world countries, enslaved and exploited the native population, and [most importantly] individuals of African decent love white chicks. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 12-19-2005, 12:59 AM:
 
Ok, Joe....Did you happen to notice the sneaky little shit that worked on the boat down where they were? Carl didn't want anyonw on the ship to know, but Jack typed it and spelled it....Still doesn't explain why the drama, but....oh f&*^ it.

On to my review!!

Damn, this was a REALLY intense movie. I honestly didn't even notice the time pass. It did lag in a few parts, and the natives on the island really annoyed me. I do agree that I'd liked to have seen how they got Kong on the ship.

Overall, Extremely well done by Peter Jackson. I expect this to get many nods in February. Jack Black was great. I have been a fan of Adrian Brody since "Oxygen", Expect him to get a nod in Feb too.

Naomi Watts gets my Greco Factor of course....Even in her circa 1930's clothes, she still gets a 7/10 especially when the shot where you could see right down her shirt!!! [Eek!]

Overall, the film was one of the most intense I've seen this year! Definately a 9.5/10 for me.

.5 deducted due to the lack of story in how they got Kong to NYC.
 
Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 12-19-2005, 02:04 AM:
 
"With all the time spent on the early scenes, I was a bit puzzled by the immediate jump from Skull Island to New York. What did they do to get King Kong on the ship? Lots of other questions follow that. But the show chooses to cut immediately to "opening night" for the 8th wonder in the world in New York."

This is a throwback to the original KK, which also left that part out. It's actually something of a famous omission.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-19-2005, 02:39 AM:
 
quote: Kyle Anderson was the last to post
bit puzzled by the immediate jump from Skull Island to New York
Interesting. Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin didn't explain that one either in the '76 De Laurentiis version. But, you least saw Kong inside the ship's hold and good ol' Jessica Lange would have to fall into that hold with Kong just to get some attention.
 
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 12-19-2005, 07:19 AM:
 
King Kong at the World Exchange (Empire 7) in Ottawa

Attendance: 80? for a 4:10 matt

This film is way to long!! when a couple of buddies found out that it would be 3 hours and 20mins with all the trailers they left the theatre and got a refund... they wanted to watch the Toronto VS Ottawa hockey game instead. Anyway the film has its moments.. I wanted more from Jack Black though and some of the dino stuff was a little much. Also the entire print had full frame scratches down it on the right side, the film has been out less then a week!!! Poor King... the ending on the Empire State building is cool.. but then again it was done pretty well in 1933.. Also how did they move Kong onto the ship after they knocked him out?

Overall I give it a 2.5 out of 5
 
Posted by Olivia Coleman (Member # 3193) on 12-19-2005, 01:25 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's easy to tell Weta Digital spent a lot of time studying gorilla movement and behavior to give King Kong some personality.
Actually it was movement made by the same guy who did Golem. Watched a making of on HBO...
 
Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 12-19-2005, 03:11 PM:
 
Andy Serkis. I have his autograph hanging on my booth wall over my desk.
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-19-2005, 04:33 PM:
 
Kyle Anderson and others stated that he is confused by the immediate jump from Skull Island to New York. In the original King Kong, right before the scene jumps from Skull Island to New York, they did state that they were going to the ship to gather tools and equipment to move Kong to the ship, but they did not actually show the work.

I have not seen the new film, yet. But is it not amazing what they were able to accomplish in 1933 with that wonderful stop-shot anamation! The origonal Kong was an 18in tall machined skelton covered in rabbits fur!

K.
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 12-19-2005, 07:33 PM:
 
I heard that Jackson got ahold of the original model and re-animated it, or something like that. It was posted to his online diary at kongisking.net. I can't find it right now, but I'm sure someone here would have the link.
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-20-2005, 01:22 AM:
 
Turner Classic Movies had a special called "I Am Kong" about M.C.Cooper. The actual model was shown on this program.
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 12-20-2005, 06:09 AM:
 
Okay, I talked to my brother, and he said that the video that Jackson made with the original Kong was removed from the site because they're planning on packaging it with the goodies on the Super Special Collectors Edition 12 Disc King Kong DVD. So... look for that around February.
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-20-2005, 06:09 AM:
 
Peter Jackson owns the stop-motion brontosaur model from the original, and based the design of the CGI versions upon that one. AFAIK, the only surviving Kong Armature is in the posession of famed gorilla impersonator (and cool movie prop collector) Bob Burns. On tv, I saw Jackson holding the Kong Armature at the NYC premiere of his movie, and as he described it, it was apparent the only people interested at that point were him and me--Linsday Lohan was coming!

I so agree with you Will. The performance of the original, done a frame at a time, without the benefit of video preview, is an amazing testament to Willis O'Brien. There is anger, humor, curiosity and sadness in a performance, which for all it's technical flaws, is surprisingly powerful for what really is an inanimate object.
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-21-2005, 02:25 AM:
 
Saw it tonight. First of all, I kinda liked the set-up of the depression in NYC. But I thought the tone of the film was a little wavering, especially when Jack Black's character entered. It seemed not to match the tone set earlier. I also felt this movie was too much of a good thing. The action sequences were well-paced, but there were just too many of them.

Having said that, I must say it did what it set out to do, and that was to entertain. It's not a movie I will see a second time (at least in theatres)but it is one I can recommend to others.

Screening: Edwards Bakersfield 14, Excellent projection and sound, properly focused and framed. Very sharp for Super 35 origination. Curious about the complete absence of any changeover cues. Never seen that on a 35mm print before.
 
Posted by Olivia Coleman (Member # 3193) on 12-22-2005, 09:20 AM:
 
Yeah, we had a screener miss all the changer over cues. I did, however, see most of them when I was watching the movie with the husband. Some I think got lost in the dark scenes...
 
Posted by Sally Burgess (Member # 1493) on 12-22-2005, 03:06 PM:
 
I give this movie 8 out of 10...unlike the LOTR films this felt way too long in parts, the Jimmy character (played by Billy Elliot's Jamie Bell)I thought was unnecessary. Strangely I didn't feel that moved when Kong finally bit the big banana, I must be getting cynical in my old age. But that dino fight was bloody brilliant. Shame the print was scratched... [Eek!]
 
Posted by Jason Miller (Member # 2341) on 12-22-2005, 04:01 PM:
 
Anyone notice the SUMARIAN RAT MONKEY cage from the Peter Jackson movie "Dead Alive" in the cargo hold?
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-22-2005, 04:14 PM:
 
Turner Classic Movies has a clever little saying they are using now. It says something like...."Watch the movies that inspired the remakes" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-22-2005, 06:16 PM:
 
quote:
it was apparent the only people interested at that point were him and me--Linsday Lohan was coming!
Isn't Lindsay a distant cousin of the "Armature" anyway?

Mark
 
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-22-2005, 08:29 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
What the hell is a "V-Rex"?
Vastatosaurus rex
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-22-2005, 11:29 PM:
 
What?
 
Posted by John Pommon (Member # 648) on 12-23-2005, 01:56 AM:
 
<<<<<<In the first teaser, there's this scene where Denham is directing Ann Darrow on the beach and making her scream. That bit wasn't in the movie>>>>>>

You're right they didn't use it. Maybe 'cause it didn't work.

Black's reaction-shot after hearing Kong's alarming immense growl for the 1st time didn't seem to work . . . . instead of Black making a surprised worried double-take (which would have added terrific comic-relief and suspense) . . . Black's reaction in the teaser shows just his interest in another opportunity to add something to his film . . . without any fear. (Black's reaction played down a great opportunity to look really surprised, scared yet provide some comical move to pursue his movie at the same time)

[that reaction was effectively used by Jeff Goldblum in the 1st Jurassic Park & The Lost World]

[ 12-31-2005, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: John Pommon ]
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-23-2005, 02:25 PM:
 
I am sick and tired of seeing lame tv fast food commericials advertising crappy movies Bollyhood is puttin out! The latest is this stupid BuggerKing King Kong commerical, and now there is a King Kong video game! Next on the list...King Dong video game starring Jenna Jameson and John Holmes! [sex] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-23-2005, 04:07 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
What?
The V-rex is supposedly a decedent of the T-rex ... as evolution continued on Skull Island, the T-rex wouldn't exist as it was millions of years ago.
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-23-2005, 04:10 PM:
 
quote:
The latest is this stupid BuggerKing King Kong commerical,
I used to think there was nothing more creepy and disturbing than the plastic-head Burger King commercials, like when some guy finds the king in bed with him, and another finds him looking in his window, both times the men are quickly accepting food from this strange stranger.

However, after seeing the Kong tie-in, I stand corrected. A giant plastic-head Burger King is much more disturbing, although I do miss the homoerotic overtones. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-23-2005, 04:18 PM:
 
quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
The V-rex is supposedly a decedent of the T-rex ... as evolution continued on Skull Island, the T-rex wouldn't exist as it was millions of years ago.

So what happened to the U-Rex ?
 
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-23-2005, 04:21 PM:
 
maybe it went the way of the dodo, just like the T-rex [Confused]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2005, 06:02 PM:
 
quote:
I am sick and tired of seeing lame tv fast food commericials advertising crappy movies Bollyhood is puttin out!
I didn't know American fast food chains were promoting movies from India.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-23-2005, 06:14 PM:
 
Hot tip, Will: John Holmes died of AIDS YEARS ago and has long been rotting in his grave. Even IF they could raise his "legend", I'm sure by now "it" would be very diminished and rotted too... [Razz]

But I do agree with you and others about that lame BurgerKING plastic guy! He/it is totally scary! I won't even get into the bestiality aspect of that commercial... Ummmm OR the movie.

Edit: Poster corrected Holmes cause of death. Not murdered as originally posted, but died from AIDS. See below posts.

[ 12-24-2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-23-2005, 08:58 PM:
 
Phil

I know the "Big J" has been dead for years...I was just making a sick joke! [Big Grin] [Wink] [Eek!]

And notice my numerous intentional misspellings in that post 'cause I'm goin to college to be edumacated! [Big Grin] [Confused]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-23-2005, 09:20 PM:
 
I know you know, Will...and I "got" your joke. Notice the smiley in my above post. [Razz] [beer] [Wink] [Big Grin] [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2005, 11:34 PM:
 
Murdered? I thought John Holmes died from complications of HIV.
[Confused]
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-23-2005, 11:35 PM:
 
I agree. That plastic Burger King king is really creepy. I wonder who comes up with idiotic marketing like that. Just like the other chain with the guy with the huge round head. I think it is Jack in the Box. I never go there because I am afraid if I eat their stuff, my head will look like that too. Masterful marketing.
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-23-2005, 11:57 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Murdered? I thought John Holmes died from complications of HIV.
He did die of AIDS.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-23-2005, 11:58 PM:
 
Bobby, you're absolutely right! My bad. I was thinking of something else...namely his involvement in the horrendous bloodbath drug slayings in Studio City.

Holmes History.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-24-2005, 12:57 AM:
 
Finally, this thread just got interesting... a history of John Holmes! Who cares about this damn dirty ape movie. [Wink]
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-24-2005, 04:43 AM:
 
You don't die from AIDS.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-24-2005, 11:04 AM:
 
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.
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 12-24-2005, 12:07 PM:
 
And this is related to the movie "King Kong" how?
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-24-2005, 12:21 PM:
 
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]
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 12-24-2005, 12:49 PM:
 
A Very Large.............Ego?
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-24-2005, 12:53 PM:
 
Ah, but how do we know for sure? Do they show Kong's "unit" ?
 
Posted by John Pommon (Member # 648) on 12-24-2005, 05:15 PM:
 
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.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-24-2005, 05:21 PM:
 
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?
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 12-24-2005, 05:25 PM:
 
OY VEY! WHAT HAVE I STARTED! [Big Grin] [Razz] [beer] [sex] [Eek!]
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 12-27-2005, 08:25 PM:
 
http://www.civictheatre.co.nz/home_index.html

The Mighty Civic, with the most uncomfortable seats in the world.
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 12-29-2005, 09:59 AM:
 
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
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-29-2005, 08:45 PM:
 
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.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-30-2005, 08:07 AM:
 
Things I liked:

Things I didn't like:
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-03-2006, 09:38 AM:
 
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.
 
Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 01-07-2006, 03:40 PM:
 
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.
 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 01-08-2006, 05:38 PM:
 
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.
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 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.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-09-2006, 04:05 AM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
But these are just nitpicks
One nitpick occurs to me, both in the original and the remake: after Kong falls off the Empire State Building, the crowd are all gathered neatly round his corpse, gazing at it. If there had been large crowds around the base of the building at the time Kong fell off, then presumably some of them would have ended up being squelched by 16 tons of falling gorilla. But no-one seemed to be in the least bit concerned about that...
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-09-2006, 04:33 AM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
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...."
But isn't that the point of a monster show? To show us something spectacular we haven't seen before. I don't think there is any philosophical dimension to watching a giant monkey fight dinosaurs, it's pure spectacle. If he had done less, people would have said "but there was more monster action in Jurassic Park".
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.)
 
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-10-2006, 10:28 PM:
 
quote:
quote: Martin Brooks
But these are just nitpicks
One nitpick occurs to me, both in the original and the remake: after Kong falls off the Empire State Building, the crowd are all gathered neatly round his corpse, gazing at it. If there had been large crowds around the base of the building at the time Kong fell off, then presumably some of them would have ended up being squelched by 16 tons of falling gorilla. But no-one seemed to be in the least bit concerned about that...
In both versions, the airplanes were fighting Kong for some time and you hear police sirens even before Kong climbs the Empire State Building. So the base of the building might have been kept clear by the army and/or police until after Kong falls, then they couldn't keep the rush of people back.

To me, the bigger flaw of logic (although it's necessary for the movie) is that Kong is still in one piece when he hits the ground. But would you have rather seen gorilla guts spread out over Fifth Avenue?
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-11-2006, 06:59 AM:
 
Yes.
 
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-11-2006, 07:39 AM:
 
quote: Martin Brooks
...."it was beauty that killed the beast" was not delivered well -
I read that Fay Wray was to have a cameo as a bystander & was to be the one saying that line ... but she died before filming the scene.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-12-2006, 12:57 AM:
 
quote: Michael Schaffer was the last to post
Yes.
And it would have been great if the onlookers had been sprayed with gorilla blood and brains. That would have been a nice stylistic reference to Jackson's earlier work.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2006, 12:53 PM:
 
Dam, I finally made it through this one.... Watched it at the Teton Theatre in Jackson Hole, WY last week.
The trick for me was to begin watching at the end or reel 2. After that its a pretty good film overall. Better I think than either of the others, definately way better than the second one. The effects are really good as was the cinematography and sound mix. If there's ever a dorectors cut hopefully the first two reels can be greatly shortened... say to about 1000' in length.

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.
Gee I seem to remember that some of them were stepped on or kicked out of the way... outlandish for sure.... Of course none of the main characters got squished... somehow I just knew the sound man and cinematographer were doomed from the beginning.....

Mark
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 03-17-2006, 12:33 PM:
 
Pretty good movie, I agree it could have been a half hour shorter. I personally could care less how fake the monkeys CGI toungue looked or any of that other stupid stuff that people hates movies for. It kept me entertained and that is all that matters to me.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-19-2006, 01:18 AM:
 
Wow, there is a nice side to Chris...

I also agree about the CGI... honestly if I can't do that stuff, I shouldn't be complaining.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2006, 11:46 AM:
 
So basically you're saying you shouldn't complain about ANY movie?
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-19-2006, 12:03 PM:
 
Stuff that I can not do... like CGI. If I can act better than the actor... I'll complain. If I can direct better and write a better story then they could I'll complain about it. If I can edit better than they could, I will complain. I've taken acting classes and directed in them as well, yes it doesn't quailfy for much but if they handed me a script and told me to act or direct I'd be willing and able to do it. Everyday I put myself in the directors seat and watch how normal people act around each other. I observe every movement, every mannerism, and the list keeps going. As for CGI and the like I have no business giving a bad comment on something I have no idea how to do myself. On occassion I agree that sometimes the graphics look like they haven't been improved over the years but give or take they will improve over time.

I'll complain if the print is scratched or if there is shadowing or even if the sound is too loud, because I usually can do a better job than whoever threaded and started that movie.

Going back to the review... I think the sweetest part of the movie was when they were on the ice covered pond.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2