Has anyone else seen it? What did you think if you did?
Posted by Reboot on :
I think Darrow should have taken a small dive off a tall building after Kong at the end
Posted by Sketch Rhino on :
I just got home from the movie moments ago.... I loved it. I'm a sucker for dinosaurs, first of all, so the scenes that included them rocked my world!
Based on the previews, I was concerned that Naomi Watts was simply not beautiful enough to do the job, visually, for me, but it seemed Jackson was very interested in showcasing her beauty with several great shots of her. She really was lovely. I suppose I just can't get the Jessica Lang visuals out of my mind, from her turn as Kong's Beauty. I was at that age back then...
The effects, especially for Kong himself, were amazing. So many scenes that take your breath away.
It is a complete fantasy movie, though. Obviously they were not trying for true realism. A few times I caught myself very aware that it's just a Hollywood stylized depiction and I approved.
Posted by Blockade Boy on :
The interpersonal stuff went very well for me. I grew an affection for Kong, which really sucks given the ending is no secret. When it comes to fighting, Kong's the man.
Some people died, I wished hadn't. Some people lived I wish hadn't.
The visuals were awesome. Though Skull Island is the star, the visuals of 1930's Manhattan took my breath as much.
Downsides: The scientist in me kept getting in the way. Kong's shaking of Ann Darrow as he ran would have killed an astronaut.
Did they just drop the ball on Jimmy or did I miss something?
Jack Black did MUCH better than I thought he would. I had concern of a Jim Carrie type performance but it all went very well except, In MY opionion, Jack Black/Peter Jackson blew the last line. I hope they re-do it before the DVD.
Posted by Director Lad on :
I loved it. I found it to be incredibly affecting and effective movie. I found myself able to totally buy into the movie's reality. The shot of Kong slipping over the edge was so moving I was teary. Just a really great movie.
Posted by Sketch Rhino on :
I do have to say that I have a bit of a fear of heights, so all the action taking place on top of the building had me woozy!
Posted by Ultra Jorge on :
quote:Originally posted by Sketch Rhino:
Based on the previews, I was concerned that Naomi Watts was simply not beautiful enough to do the job, visually, for me, but it seemed Jackson was very interested in showcasing her beauty with several great shots of her. She really was lovely.
Sketch, I am glad you wore your glasses to the movies. Naomi is beautiful. (ok she's getting old but geez man!) Posted by mon-el73 on :
It's a rarity to find a movie that can meld action/adventure/semi-horror/drama into one, but Mr. Jackson seems to be creating his own niche. His action scenes ellicited reactions from my posse, ranging from, "Oooo yeah!" to "No way!" all the way to "Stopitstopitstopit!" And all his intense still moments were gripping! Beautiful naomi watts (and even the Kong himself!). The start kinda dragged itself a bit, but I'm willing to concede his (Mr. Jackson) need to establish the story. Agree with Blockade Boy about the last line though. Did kinda blow it.
Posted by profh0011 on :
"blew the last line"
Not having seen it, I'm wondering-- is this like how in FORBIDDEN PLANET you can't HEAR the last line Leslie Nielsen says because he's muttering under his breath and the "music" just gets too loud for one critical moment?
I had problems with the sound in ALL 3 LOTR films. The music & sound effects were mixed SO loud, you were left either having your eardrums blown out, or, not being able to hear half the dialogue in the films, depending on what volume the theatre ran the films at. (Unfortunately, this has been far too common in too many movies in the last 10+ years.)
Posted by mon-el73 on :
Guess you'll see when you watch it, but for me, it has more to do with the line being somewhat anti-climactic or poorly delivered (the only line I really have a problem with)... Otherwise, a definite rollercoaster ride once you get over the first loop!
Posted by profh0011 on :
"Guess you'll see when you watch it"
You mean-- in Peter David's terms-- it's a "YET" film? (As in, "Have you seen it YET?")
Posted by Hey you on :
I started out loving everthing... up until the canyon stampede. For a bit, it seemed PJ forgot he was remaking Kong - not Jurasic Park. Some of the dinosaur scenes were great - but others - bojemoi!
The stampede bit was too tedious - humans running under dinosaurs in a tight space, no one gets trampled? It just happens to lead to a cliff-top... humans jump from rock-to-rock as it crumbles? Cammon! We've seen that kind of stuff far too many times already.
All the Kong bits on Skull Island were fine; if the T-rex/chasm bit was the biggest stretch, I'd have been happy.
From the escape through the gates & onward, it resumed being almost flawless - particualrly Naomi's feelings for Kong. Minor NYC quibbles: If it's cold enough for lake ice to remain frozen under Kong it should be a LOT colder atop the Empire State Building! and windier! having been up top (observation deck, not radio-top) in winter, I can tell you, it'd be a freezing-wind bitch up there! Especially once you run out of a protective wall. Quibble #2: she really climbed that ladder - in icy winter - in heels!?
That said, the finale scenes were so well done, I was feeling vertigo as if I was watching it up there with them!
Posted by Greybird on :
"King Kong" has compelling turns from several actors, "real" and not. Jack Black does far better than I'd expected, as the shady entrepreneur of a director who gauges his reactions to others theatrically and is looking for the main chance, dishonest or not. Adrian Brody is soulful and of striking fortitude. Naomi Watts actually interacts with the gorilla and shows more dimensions than Fay Wray could ever manage. The beast itself is utterly convincing, down to twitching fur.
But it's at least 40 minutes too long, mostly due to reaction shots. The money is all up on screen -- you believe you're in the sort-of-Jurassic era (as "Jurassic Park" never managed, to me), or on top of the skyscraper in 1933. Yet it's drawn out for conscious attempts at resonance. Unfortunately, it also makes one twitch in a theater seat, even if you don't have to go to the restroom (as I did after 2:40).
If it were merely an hour longer than the original, at, yes, 2:40, it would have made twice as much money. As it is, it's hardly a failure. But it also will never work on DVD. Yes, we do still have films that demand a theater visit, and this is one of them ... once, anyway.
Posted by Blue Battler on :
To be honest, I thought that Ann caring about Kong was the thing that Jackson got wrong in the film. She SHOULDN'T have cared about him ... not to that extent anyway.
For one thing, I don't think someone raised in the early 20th Century would react that way. Animals weren't Disneyfied back then. To Ann, a regular gorilla should have been a thing of terror, let alone a 25 foot tall one.
Second, she knows that Kong has killed the other women who were presented to him in the past. She saw the bones.
Third, she's SEEN him kill people ... including the people who risked their lives to save her.
It just didn't hit the right note for me.
Carl Denham's character in Jackson's film isn't as interesting as the one in the original either if you ask me. In the 33 Kong Carl Denham was based on Meriem C. Cooper's personality, and he REALLY was the kind of guy who would have been shooting down dinosaurs and throwing gas bombs at a giant gorilla ...
The effects were outstanding. I did like Driscoll, Jimmy, the first mate, and even Ann except for her inexplicable Kong-love ...
Posted by profh0011 on :
Meanwhile...
I was flipping channels last night, and AMC was running... OH MY GOD!!! --THAT film. AUGH!!!!! I only caught a few minutes of it, but MAN... it's even TACKIER than I remembered. (And I have not seen a frame of it since it was in the theatres around 30 years ago!)
"He lived in the jungle where he was BORN the king! His great strenght made him lord of EVERY thing! No creature crossed his path and lived for LONG His name, so legend tells us, was King KONG!" --Jimmy Castor
Posted by legionadventureman on :
Would this be the version starring Jessica Lange as a dyslexic actress?
Posted by Blockade Boy on :
I don't recall the original being "Tacky." Been a long time since I've seen it. "Tacky" means bad taste?
Posted by Hey you on :
quote:Originally posted by Blockade Boy: I don't recall the original being "Tacky." Been a long time since I've seen it. "Tacky" means bad taste?
He said it was in theaters about 30 years ago... that would be the 70s Lange version, not the original. I only saw it once - on TV. It was fairly unmemorable; I can't say whether or not it achieved tackiness.
I do remember on the island, Kong loved these two conveniently identical stone pillars, which the World Trade Center reminded him of... thus he climbed it in NYC.
Posted by Blockade Boy on :
That sounds tacky.
Posted by legionadventureman on :
The remake in the 70's reeked of tacky and cheap production - altho the giant Kong was impressive...
Posted by profh0011 on :
You know, without even meaning to, I watched the original TWICE on TCM this month. DAMN, that thing's good! And boy, does it MOVE! I mean, there's not a moment of waste anywhere in there. I think that's part of the reason it can be watched over and over and over-- "slow" it's not!
Whenever it gets to that last moment on the island, when Robert Armstrong yells, "THE EIGHT WONDER OF THE WORLD!!!", I find myself yelling back at the TV-- "No doubt about it-- THAT MAN'S CRAZY!!!"
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)