Cool News
Harry's KING KONG Review!
SPOILER ALERT !!
I was very terribly nervous, excited and anxious to see KING KONG when it unleashed upon the screens of Butt-Numb-A-Thon 7. The audience was primed, they all knew it was going to play. I never even really made a pretense of it not playing simply because… well, frankly – there was no point. Everybody that’s familiar with my name knows that I’m a kongaphile. I love the big monkey.
My favorite film of all time is a tie between Michael Curtiz’s THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD with Errol Flynn… and Merian Cooper’s KING KONG. Right now, Kong has a slight edge on Robin Hood, just cuz – I’ve been watching that magnificent original 33 DVD and docs like a shivering recovering addict.
There really is no need to go into my love for the original, most of you know that. Instead, this is about my love for Peter Jackson’s remake. And yes, it’s love. I swear the movie felt like a blink to me. All this talk of it being a long movie, to me, it simply wasn’t long enough.
Is it better than the original 1933 movie. To me? Absolutely not. I prefer the rhythms of the dialogue, the pulse of Steiner’s score and the nightmarish dream that the black & white infused upon it all.
When you sit around and you think of your favorite films. Or, more specifically – the film that impacted you most. The one that gave you the emotional lift that possibly altered your entire way of thinking. A film that is your obsession, compulsion and that film that makes you glow in that zealot manner when you talk to others about it. For a few of us Kong fans, that’s KING KONG. No one more so than Peter Jackson. He’s thought about, not so much about remaking KING KONG – as much as offering up his dream of KING KONG. Because that’s what this is.
For when you walk into a theater playing his KING KONG, you’re not walking into a film quite like any film you’ve seen before. You’re walking into gobs of loving detail and passionate takes on the Rosetta film, from which this was pulled. This is a film about a life long pursuit to celebrate the joy of adventure, fantasy filmmaking. This is Peter Jackson so in love and happy that he’s throwing caution to the wind and just making the movie that he’s dreamt an entire life about making.
There are too few filmmakers that work with this intense level of passion. Now – is it perfect? Not to me. I love the film dearly – but I really do disagree with the portrayal of Carl Denham in the screenplay and as a result of that misstep – I feel it slightly skews the entire production. By having Denham, Driscoll and Darrow all at odds at the end, Jack and Ann disliking Carl. Ann and Jack not together on the stage in front of Kong and by strengthening the bond between Ann and Kong – there’s a major shift in the type of story that’s being told.
What is precious about the original Kong is that everyone respects Kong. Denham was exhibiting him for profit, true. But that wasn’t a malicious act of exploitation in his mind, that’s very important. Kong represented the great untamed unknown. In the early thirties, the idea of the “lost world” and the “great unknown” where opportunity and greatness laid waiting for modern man to bring her to civilization – it was the era. Here, they’ve overtly made Denham a shameless exploiter, to such a degree – that to sell KING KONG to the world – he’s altered the truth of the tale to lie as to who the hero that saved Ann was – and to cast someone else as Ann to the public.
As a result we end up being force fed our sympathy to Kong, where in the original – it simply came naturally. Here we have no choice, because he’s the only pure character. By making Ann long to be with Kong out of her respect for his simple love of the sweet things in life and the protection he gave her, never mind that he is who put her in danger to begin with by abandoning her in the jungles of Skull Island… It’s a fundamental change to their story.
By making Ann a willing participant of Kong’s affections, there ceases to be unrequited love. It is now, while completely non-physical, a co-dependent relationship. In the original, Kong died for a love that was not returned or understood. Here – he dies for a love that is shunned by all, but the one he loves. He finds love before the end. That is a very powerful emotional place to take the audience. In fact, it is where Ang Lee takes us in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. A film where an unspoken, unacceptable love is hatched in the wild mountains of Montana. Where the constraints of society and the times forces the separation – and ultimately the unfortunate issue of intolerance breaks into this private matter. Essentially – Peter and Ang are exploring the exact same territory, only… KONG is a helluvalot more fun.
Everybody that loves KING KONG, the original, loves different things about it. My favorite character in the original wasn’t King Kong or Ann Darrow… It was Robert Armstrong’s Denham. I loved his cocky sense of adventure, his ability to pull triumph from the clutches of defeat. How the idea to bring Kong back to the world wasn’t a driving pursuit, but the results of defeating him with a desperate throw of a gas bomb.
I loved the rhythm of his dialogue, the way he held himself, how he walked away from the natives at the beginning, how when he told the tale of Kong on the stage there was a sadness to his voice when he spoke of Kong on his island. Jack Black’s Denham is portrayed as a smarmy desperate huckster that’d sell his own Grandma for a chance at success. He doesn’t care about anyone, but himself, if even that. This is a radically different character from the original. And is an interesting exploration of the “exploiter” character. As a result, I don’t believe the last line should be his anymore, it belongs to Jack.
Adrien Brody’s Driscoll is a wonderful reimagining of the character. Based less on Bruce Cabot’s rough and tumble sailor, and more, I believe, upon Jack London’s Humphrey Van Weydon from SEA WOLF – a fellow writer forced to write upon a steamer heading for a fog of its own. In Michael Curtiz’s SEA WOLF – I believe the most amazing tone and unrealized marriage exists for a KONG film. Putting Wolf Larsen and George Leach and Weydon and Prescott and Ruth Brewster on SKULL ISLAND – oh… that’s my dream. Of course – I’d only ever be happy if it were Edward G Robinson as a blind Wolf Larsen chunking gas bombs in the general direction of the roars. With John Garfield leveling off a Tommy gun and Knox realizing he’s a novel of the lifetime playing out before him.
One could criticize Peter Jackson’s KING KONG for a million things that it isn’t, but that would be to entirely miss the point of what it is. This is a full exploration of what PETER JACKSON saw and wanted to explore in the original film – and to bring out. The mad insane crazed bits of action. The train wreck of brontosauri, it’s unlikely, horrible and sad. Looking at that broken tonnage of flesh, I couldn’t help but think about the various predators on this island that would feast for weeks upon this humbled herd of broken sauropods… the long necked creatures belching out their tortured agony, writhing about trying to walk upon their broken limbs – we don’t linger, but my mind did.
The V-rex battle is simply heaven. As a boy that loves his monkeys and lizards – this was bliss. Of course, I’d be happy to just see an Ape fight an Alligator in a cage match. And in my Shaw Brother films – watching monkey vs. cobra… is just amazing. I do think the sound design on the original Kong was a bit better in an odd mono-fetishistic way. The Rexes here just don’t seem as “evil” as that original Rex. I do have to say though – for while I was watching KING KONG – I was only ever 9 years old and watching through a blissful smile.
I’ve seen the film twice now. Once with the greatest audience on Earth – that cheered and applauded everything that was magnificent about the film. And another that was listless and bored at a pay screening. I was still clapping. I was still cheering, so was my nephew. It just felt like such a completely different feeling. Amazing the difference you get between just a regular audience – and one of the most primed and rearing to go audiences on Earth. I wish all films had an audience that loving, attentive and alive.
Alex Funke’s model work and photography deserves a special Academy Award in my opinion. It’s just… amazing. While certainly, I don’t necessarily want to vacation on Skull Island, well maybe with Allan Quatermain, but those jungles remind me of when I was a boy in the rain forests of the Yucatan – at Palenque and Tikal. Ruins and Jungle and the teeming living wall of living sound around you. I remember once, Mom, Dad and I were walking along a trail at night at Tikal – and we heard through the canopy of the jungle a javelina boar and a jaguar fighting. It was the most amazing and frightening sound I’ve ever heard. There’s a part of me, that almost wishes that Peter had made two movies out of KING KONG. One focused on SKULL ISLAND – that involved multiple days of tracking Kong through the jungle. I long for a campfire scene in the jungles of Skull Island. The men, all too scared to sleep. The jungle alive with it’s battles.
If anything, my biggest disappointment with KING KONG is in the fact that it ever had to end. I want to see a film of the guy that got the map off the island that drove a knife through his heart. Who did he lose on the island? What did he see? How did he end up there? What was his crew like? I know, I know. For most of you 3 hours and 17 minutes is enough in Kong’s world. For me, it’s an appetizer.
Lastly – I can’t express enough my love for the “prologue” that took place in front of the shackled Kong. That “recreation” of the Kong villagers dance spectacle – it had to make Peter giggle for hours. Outstanding. Without a doubt this will be one of my most often watched films of 2005. My fave Kong moment? His confusion at trying to find the right blonde. Classic. We’ve all been there.
This is the great adventure of 2005. The culmination of a magnificent obsession. Personally I hope Peter takes some time off to just relax and renew. Kong’s the sort of movie that you can smell the blood, sweat and tears that went into making it. Wonderful.
It is most definitely my 2nd favorite KING KONG film. Seeing happy Kong is one of those things I just never thought I’d see. How brilliant are those moments of bliss for the beast? How precious are those moments for each of us? I love this KING KONG.
-
+ Expand All
-
the movie was fantastic. But I did have a couple of issues...the most glaring of which is the pedestrian score. The '33 version's music was infinitely better. I would have trimmed 20 minutes out of the first hour, and 20 minuters out of the skull island sequence. But you know what?? Who fucking cares. The movie was the best experience at the movies I have had all year. The esb sequence was everything I hoped for and more. I was really sad when the furry fucker slowly slipped off the top. Tear. What movie will I obsess over now that Kong has come and gone???
-
Dec 15, 2005 1:59:19 PM CST
Now why would Harry relate to a gigantic, hairy, best of a monst
by mahaloth
I wonder.
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:01:54 PM CST
"Without a doubt this will be one of my most often watched films
by nomad202
haha, better get crackin' Harry, 2005 ends in a few weeks.
-
The Drudge Report is just hammering away at King Kong, calling it a bomb around noon of it's second day of release?? He's posting statistics that show how poorly Kong is doing at the box office, and I'm like "now we don't even give films their first weekend before condemning them??". He's also blaring comments that say King Kong is a racist film and is about black people being brought here for slavery. Oy fucking vey.
-
Harry after your LAND OF THE DEAD review I had been waiting months for at least a few thousand words on your history and worship of this film. I know it sounds stupid but that stuff really entertains me and makes your reviews different from Ebert or Turan or even Mori. I know you had given bits and pieces here and there over the past 12 months in your news stories but this I thought was you be your "Ring Cycle," your "Messiah." Although the line, "but those jungles remind me of when I was a boy in the rain forests of the Yucatan
-
that was a very honest review. I had the same experience seeing it with a paying audience. Several walkouts, several people falling asleep, including some kids. It's good, just too long. The last hour is stunning.
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:11:59 PM CST
Harry, you basically ruined Brokeback Mountain in that review!
by ashfett
I've seen King Kong, so I didn't have to avoid your review. But I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, and nor have many yet, since it's only in limited release. Yet you basically completely give away a major plot point about it in the middle of your King Kong review!
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:12:31 PM CST
You have to give this much to Jack Black, his face is incredible
by 007-11
His line delivery could definitely have used some tweaking, but his expressions and the intensity of his eyes were fantastic. The only performance to outshine his is, of course, Naomi Watts. It didn't bother me that she was juggling CGI rocks and hats because everything else about her performance had such a realistic depth to it. Overall, it's a pretty good movie. Any higher praise than that is kind of out of place. I couldn't help but feel that this was a rushed movie. Like Peter Jackson was hurrying to get this done in the window of golden time that LOTR had afforded him. I just can't see the loose ends, unnecessary elements, bad dialogue, and camera shots being left as is and as unpolished as they were. Still, worth the price of admission.
-
AICN should leave the reviewing to Moriarty, Quint and others. Harry is just too involved with the movies he's reviewing. Roger Ebert stopped writing scripts (thank god) because he felt a critic shouldn't also be part of the creation of the film. After seeing Harry all over the King Kong DVD and after being a fixture on Jackson's sets since Fellowship of the Ring, his reviews are just too loaded with "yeah but these are all his friends and employers" doubts.
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:13:51 PM CST
Love to see this type of passion involved in big Hollywood movie
by vinceklortho
Kudos to Jackson for going all the way with this. One thing that loses it too frequently in the industry is the passion to make a movie that you and your friends just want to watch. One that you wanted to make as a little nerd. It's a fun and exciting movie. Good review Harry, and thanks for pointing out how important it was for Petey to make this movie.
-
He's definitely playing the "bomb" card. If this film does bomb it won't be because people don't want to see it. It would, in my opinion, have more to do with the length and theaters' reluctance to book multiple screens. I was dying to see this last night but only found a 9:45. At that time, I wouldn't be out until after 1am with previews. Anything prior to 8 or 9 would overlap with my kids' bedtime.
-
"I remember once, Mom, Dad and I were walking along a trail at night at Tikal" I cry bullshit you've never walked anywhere in your life, Harry! Now that that's done can we go on with life...we've made the requisite fat jokes, the requisite hairy jokes and the requisite smelly jokes. Nice review, Harry, and this is from a guy who thinks you're a complete dork. Do more like this!
-
...and I agree with Harry! Great film! Everybody who hates it deserves to die! P.S.: Am I the only one who is happy to see Kyle Chandler from "Early Edition" again?
-
Just thought you should've SPOILER-marked your comments about BROKEBACK. Luckily, I've seen it.
-
I really hope this does well at the box office. If this film fails to do so alot of other projects in development right now might get shelved.
Also, just the effort and creativity the WETA people bring to their projects..it's exciting to see. -
Dec 15, 2005 2:20:10 PM CST
Really, This is Three movies in one - and only one of them was a
by movietool
The more I think of it, Peter Jackson has really made three movies here. First, "The Voyage" which is a melodramatic character study/love story. Second, "Skull Island," Which is a balls-to-the-wall fantasy adventure flick. Lastly, "The Beast in New York," which is a full-out tragedy. The Skull Island segment is the only real homage to the original Kong. The other two segments seem overdone, overwrought, and (if it makes any sense) simply too overt. This movie is amazing to experience, but in the end, making me care so much about the beast makes the ending too sad, and as Harry said, the fundamental change to Denham's character left a sour taste in my mouth. When the '33 Denham utters that famous last line, it's such a wonderful, simple expression of what happened to this amazing creature. When this new Denham says it, all you want to do is scream at the screen: "BEAUTY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT - IT WAS YOU, YOU ASSHOLE!" It really changes the entire tone of the movie. Too much for me. If the movie had ended at the close of the second act, I honestly would have liked it better. There's somthing to be said for the "thumbs up, thumbs down" appraoch to movie reviewing, because it forces the reviewer to actually say "Yes, go see this movie" or "No, don't bother." Personally, as much as it dazzled me, I have to give Kong a thumbs down.
-
Pay him no heed.
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:22:05 PM CST
Okay, still pissed about Brokeback being spoiled, but some Kong
by ashfett
It's not a great movie. It has great stuff in it. But the first hour is flat out bad. I thought the stuff on the boat was just bad in every way. The crew members were horrible cliches, and I especially loathed fucking Jimmy the Kid. That same lame character was in Matrix Revolutions and I hated him there too. And the hammering over the head with the Heart of Darkness connections was just lame. And the slow mo as Jack types "S K U L L" was just cheesy. The movie picks up big time when they actually get to the title character, an hour in. And stuff like the fight with the T-Rex's is awesome. Kong himself is wonderful: Great effect and great character. But so little else in the movie really works. The Jack/Ann love story doesn't work. Carl's just sort of meh... the Heart of Darkness thing only pointed out to me that we don't really get the idea that he is obsessed or why he's obsessed. We just see him wanting to finish his movie and make money. It just didn't really work for me. And god, that first hour...
-
I'd bet people at Uni are probably on the verge of shitting a brick from the first day reciepts. Go look at the Box Office Mojo stats page, and realize that this is the wekeast opening for Jackson yet.
-
has a very good site with great links to stories you don't get anywhere else. And he's simply reporting estimates for Day 1.
Remember, Titanic didn't break box office records its opening day, weekend, etc. Not enough showings per day.
Maybe this will be one of those 30 million weekend after weekend films that never goes away? -
Dec 15, 2005 2:27:17 PM CST
Druge Great Links To Stories you don't get anywhere else
by minastirithii
You can get the stories from the sites he links too. He's too bitter.
-
THE GOOD: Loved Kong, himself -- he seemed so real, I still feel a little depressed today over his death. Skull Island and NYC were beautifully realized. The first hour flew by -- I don't know why people say it's too long (does no one have any patience anymore?). The Empire State building scene was magnificent.
THE NOT SO GOOD: Really BAD water effect CGI during the Venture arrival. REALLY BAD -- totally took me out of the film. Where did the natives all go? Some of the scenes in the first hour seemed choppily directed -- especially Ann and Dnham in the restaurant, it felt like each shot was filmed months apart. The overall pacing was a little herky-jerky, too.
OVERALL: 8 out of 10. -
I felt seeing KONG the same way I felt when I first saw 'The Shinning'. My intitial reaction, after so much anticipation, was a major letdown. That being said, 'The Shining' is one of my top 10 movies ever today and it just never feels old-it definately grew on me. I suspect KONG may (may) be the same, as in both I had some serious expectations in including certain stuff that was missing in both from their original sources. Now, I LOVE all the NY stuff way more than the Skull Island stuff. And the Slo-Mo/blur stuff will always suck, as will the occasional CGI and machine gun shooting bugs off Jack and the fact that Ann isnt freezing her ASS off on the Empire State Bld. I miss images of KONG staring through the windows of blds trying to find Ann. However, this is a good movie, but I am still in a bit of a fog about it. I do think, however, that KONG WILL HAVE A SEQUEL. Yes, I am willing to bet it does, and I am also willing to bet that it will be better than this one, because it will be an entirely different story and we wont know what to look for. I hope that it outdoes this in the same way ALIENS outdid ALIEN, that SUPERMAN II outdid SUPERMAN, that GODFATHER II outdid GODFATHER. Make it so....
-
yes but not at ONE site. That's what I mean. You can go to drudge and use that to go to hundreds of other places.
He did put a question mark after "Bomb" after all. He didn't come right out and say "Kong's bombing! It's doomed!"
He was just posting reported estimates, again reported estimates, not actuals, and then listing its ranking on openings and his own questions about what it might mean.
Again, I don't think we can know anything yet until week #2. It might be a long-distance runner like Titanic, not a sprinter. -
Seriously, that was completely unfair. No "Brokeback" spoiler warning whatsoever and no chance to avert our eyes. Not even sure I was going to see it, but that was pretty fucked up nonetheless, Harry.
-
that's all he links too now a days, he's too conservative and very anti-hollywood, he relishes in anything that is negative towars hollywood
-
actually - with commercials and trailers and what-not - it is pretty close to the 3h20m mark... and not nearly enough... i wanted so much more as well... i loved it - and i did get a little choked up in the end cause kong was so amazing and it was so tragic... i'll go again this weekend with the girlfriend... and over on boxofficeguru he talks about how ya - it only made 10 mill opening day - but it not being a sequel or anything like that - the 3 hour running time - the weekend should be much better - and put it up against all the other movies that have had huge weekends - i think this one will have much stronger legs - also mentioned was the fact the first 3 LOTR movies did not have a movie the size of narnia open up only a couple of days before its release... only time will tell - either way - it's a classic...
-
genro- I think you misunderstood my post.. I was saying it's ridiculous to say these numbers were a bad sign..
Saner- I do like the Drudge Report, but you know that he is very editorial with his selection of photos and headlines, and often has a smarmy sense of humor. In this case, he's either just being sensational by saying the most awaited film of the year has failed, or he has a thing against the filmmakers/studio/film. -
Dec 15, 2005 2:37:38 PM CST
Really, the '76 Kong explored the requited-love angle pretty
by spike fett
And thanks for ruining BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, cocksmoker.
-
...although it seems you DO shill a bit too much for your friends in the "industry," this type of review reads like you cracked your heart open and spilled it on the keyboard. Outstanding work, and thanks for giving all of us that feeling we had when watching the 1933 Kong. I can't wait to see Pete Jackson's take on the big ol' ape.
-
1. I haven't seen Kong yet.
2. I haven't seen Brokeback mountain. HARRY WHY ARE YOU SPOILING BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN???
Glad I haven't read the review.
And Harry- write reviews for films you didn't a) work on b) jerk off too and c) that everyone in it is a best friend of yours. Sheesh. -
That must be frustrating for him, as I imagine no one wants to line up behind that giant, white, red-whiskered booty of his. And who here didn't know that Brokeback Monkey would contain a touching story about the deep and meaningful relationship that developed between King and the T-Rex on Skull Island before Ann Darrow showed up. You want to know why the lizard was pissed? Because that woman was straightening out his big gay gorilla, that's why. And Kong wasn't knocked from the Empire State Building (any coincidence he gravitated toward the biggest phallus on the horizon?). He jumped out of guilt and depression over what he'd done to his former lizard lover...once he realized none of Naomi's orifice's could accomodate his mammoth blackness, that is. I haven't seen a love story this complicated and meaningful since the all-musical episode of Oz. And, no, I have absolutely nothing meaningful to contribute here. I won't even get to see this until next week.
-
...Drudge acts as an editor on the stories he posts. That's his job. However, he also links to numerous news orgs you can go to and search news from there.
There's also just alot of stories he highlights that includes stuff not covered on one site. -
King Kong is nuthin' mo' than the white mans' fear of the big masculine black man takin' away his most treasured commodity...The blond-haired blue-eyed white devil's concubine. Word to yo mama!
-
I love the Drudge Report. I go to it every day.
Sometimes I like his underhanded editorializing and sometimes I think it's over the top. But it is a phenomenal site. -
are you saying black people look like apes??? Cause I never thought Kong was a black person. He kind of looks like an animal.
-
Im sure he kinda liked it
-
Is that Peter jumped from Skull Island to New York, just like the original. I read something earlier on this site where someone was complaining about the fact that they don
-
Who cares?
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:56:02 PM CST
I'll see it and probably like it, but I kind of want it to b
by spectrebeeyatch
So these studio's will drop big remakes. I really dislike them. I know a couple people who are not seeing Kong simply because it is a remake, why spend 10 dollars and sit in a theater for 3 hours when I can sit in my home and watch a better version of that movie on dvd? Remakes suck ass.
-
Harry, spoiler warning this biatch please, brokeback mountain man. I even avoided Mori's review just cause of the spoiler warning (how much can you really spoil the story of Kong anyway, even if you haven't seen the original, the story of Kong has become common knoweldge. You can now pick it up just from osmosis, but I digress). Seeing Kong today. Killer monkey creatures rule. spolier warning. spolier warning.
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:58:53 PM CST
Great review of a great film Harry. You still da man.
by alucardvsdracula
"If anything, my biggest disappointment with KING KONG is in the fact that it ever had to end." That's why we tune in to this site Harry, you're barking but God bless you for it, buddy.
-
where is the Kong undressing Ann scene. I'm not saying this just because I would like to see Naomi Watts in the nude. I already own "21 Grams". What I miss is the absolute helplesness of Ann at that moment in the hands of Kong.
-
So, Harry, lemme get this straight: you didn't like that Jackson was smart enough to recognize that Denham is a greedy imperialist exploiting the uncivilized "native" for his own gain? In other words, you prefer the uncritical colonialist narrative of the original, where any cultural or racial difference is reduced to the exoticism of a "lost world" waiting anxiously to be brought to civilization by glorious, white "modern man"? If this is indeed how PJ's Denham comes across, then I applaud him for rectifying the problematic subtext of the original. Sorry that your fanboy nostalgia blinds you to the original troubling (if inadvertent) ideology...
-
It was a time of mystery, romance, and adventure.
Like Conan Doyle and Edgar Rice Burroughs.
CountGroovy, name one post-modern classic. -
What is this refrence to? I know Rosetta was a small Belgian film which won the Cannes film festival in '99 but I doubt Harry has seen that. Anyone want to clear this up for me?
-
thanks for ruining the ending for everyone reading this talkback who might not've caught harry's spoiler. bitch.
-
Dec 15, 2005 3:20:16 PM CST
Knowles - the fact that you did not call PJ out for "borrowing"
by genro
I'm guessing your friendship with PJ made you dance around it in your review, but the changes by PJ makes the character O'Hara, not Denham. The change in Ann's relationship with Kong is also more akin to how Jill was to Joe. It's these differences that make Kong *Kong*, and Mighty Joe *not* Son Of Kong II. I know you don't give a fuck, but I'm so disappointed that you did not acknowledge this...any other review where you've been close to the production, (The Faculty, for example), I've let it slide because those were just products. But this is Kong, and the film holds a huge, huge place with me as with you. The fact that PJ cannot discern the differences between Kong's story, MJY and Beauty & The Beast...amazing. It's these changes that make me believe PJ doesn't love Kong-the-movie, but Kong-the-memory, (your review said something similar). And in that sense, what is the point of a remake? If PJ really wanted to do Kong-as-memory justice, he would have created something original. Think of it this way - Star War is *Star Wars* because Lucas decided not to pursue the rights to Flash Gordon. Indiana Jones is "Indiana Jones" because Spielberg and Lucas did not pursue the rights to Quartermain. PJ could have done the same thing. I mean, he could have made a flick called "The Eight Wonder" and set in a deep future that looked like Depression-era NY. As your boy Quentin would call it, a "homage". But to call it Kong and then use the relationships from MJY...
-
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
Post a friggin' spoiler warning before giving away that shit about Brokeback Mountain! I'm still going to see it, but, c'mon man.
-
The girls take afiled trip to Skull Island, where Natalie is captured by Carl Denham and brought to New York in chains. Just as Denham is about to exhibit her, Mrs. Garrett intervenes with her Peach Crumble Cobbler and saves the day. Armed witha new understanding of each other, Natalie hits on Denham, who promptly refuses. In anger, Natalie bites his head off and throws her own feces at the audience. At home, Jo and Blair pull taffy.
-
Damn, Harry, can you review one movie without ruining another? Thanks for fucking it up.
-
Dec 15, 2005 3:38:56 PM CST
If anything, my biggest disappointment with KING KONG is in the
by angrykirby.tk
I hate you harry, between this godawful comment and the fact that you were cheering in a crowd of people trying to watch the movie. you suck. you're that one jerk who claps and laughs in the middle of the movie pissing everyone off and taking their minds out of the movie. people go to movies to escape annoying crap like that. yarg
-
If I was in a cinema with an audience "that cheered and applauded everything" DURING THE ACTUAL FUCKING FILM WHICH I'D PAID TO WATCH, I'd have to kill each and every retarded one of them. Seriously, it would be time to get mediaeval on some asses.
-
Cool. Harry's review is finally posted and look who chimes in...Ringbearer9. Shocker. I'm a little disappointed in you though Ringrod. You took WAY too long to get here and say basically the same thing you said in Vern & Moriarty's TBs. Best of luck, chum.
-
Dec 15, 2005 3:39:52 PM CST
Help!, I can't find Harry's review of KONG anywhere on t
by orionsangels
He didn't write it big enough
-
Dec 15, 2005 3:40:12 PM CST
Um, Harry...you realize you just spoiled Brokeback Mountain, rig
by crimsonghost
aw, c'mon big guy, you're smarter than that, what the hell are you doing????????
-
and yes - ringbearer - from re-reading all your posts - and checking between the lines and the subtleties and tones in your voice - i can tell that you actually love peter jackson and kong... you're just disappointed that you haven't seen it 5 times and you weren't one of the cameoed people in the bi-planes at the end... it's all about interpretation right...
-
How many read Ringbearer's entire post?
-
i read the short one - the long one seemed to be a re-hash of everything he's been trying to cram down our throats for awhile now...
-
whoa- simulpost!
-
Dude, did you not get enough attention with your rants yesterday! Note to readers-Don't encourage this guy. He obviously wants to start some shit and have it be "ringbearer day" once again. Ignore this fuck.
Good reviews from Harry and Mori-It's why I keep coming back. -
ya... i feel it too... i'm all tingly...
-
Yeah - I know he only acted in it - but still I was applying the auteur theory to the actor.
-
First, you need a spoiler alert for the stuff you talk about in the Kong review. I've already seen it but many have not. Second, you need to invent a "(Fill in the blank) Movie Spoiler Alert" for movie reviews that spoil other movies that aren't in major release yet. Brokeback Mountain isn't playing anywhere near me. It's only in 8 theaters. 8! EIGHT! 4 + 4! 2^3! That's what they call a "Limited Release". Some of us may not have seen it yet. Even if you had a normal spoiler alert, I still would've been spoiled because I've seen Kong and I would've still read it. A spoiler alert usually refers to the movie in question. So if you're going to do this in the future you might want to figure out a way to warn us. For Kong, most of us know the basic plot so maybe there isn't that much to spoil. For everything else, I'd really rather not know. By-the-way, Drudge is full of shit about Kong's opening day. It's a three hour movie. That limits the number of times it can play in one day. Even with that it still got the 21st all time Wednesday opening. Imagine how much more the take would've been if it had opened during Christmas vacation instead of a school day.
-
And that seems to be what keeps people pissed off at you. Why don't you leave the junior psychologist kit at home next time and quit trying to tell everyone what Mori and Harry are "really" saying and just concentrate on your own opinions.
I can read what they're saying just fine, thank you very much. -
which is why i'll breeze through a talk-back, but avoid dissertation-backs.
-
Harry, I have to respectfully disagree with your reading of PJ's version of Carl Denham. The real difference between him and 1933 is that the original Denham was a mad genius, and this Denham is more of a mad hack. But he doesn't have only contempt for Kong. As Colin Hanks' character tells us, everything he loves, he destroys. I could see the love for Kong, and the story, and the spectacle, in the writing and Jack Black's performance, but this Denham can't quite pull it off, can't make it come together, and of course he can't convince Jack and Ann to participate. He's just doing what he knows how to do, and I believe that his shock and horror at the ending came from a genuine place, with a taste of the same self-loathing you get while he swills the scotch and remembers his cameraman.
This is certainly a different Denham, and you're well within your rights to prefer the first one, but I hope your love of the original doesn't prevent you from appreciateing this Carl Denham on his merits.
Oh yeah, and the movie ROCKED. -
I believe the "Rosetta" reference was to the Rosetta Stone and not the film of that name, but in Harry's excitement and dodgy grasp of grammar, the meaning was garbled...
And while I sometimes wish I could share the idealistic view that narratives of "adventure" and "mystery" in "exotic" lands are just that, I'm unfortunately a bit more jaded by historical awareness. All I'm saying is that imperialistic societies tended to justify their colonialist endeavours by portraying the colonized and their lands as wild and exciting, ie. in need of "civilizing". I'm hardly the first to read "Kong" this way, and there are much more nuanced ways to understand it than the poles offered by Harry and by Matt Drudge...
And even though post-modernism generally rejects the very idea of a text being "classic" (I don't particularly feel like defending pomo, because I don't know what exactly it is I'm defending), I can oblige: Kurt Vonnegut? Ellis' "American Psycho"? The films of Tarantino, Lynch and the Coens? -
Dec 15, 2005 3:51:46 PM CST
I hate Harry-bashers but FUCK dude you had to spoil the favorite
by brucecampbellsrh
That is 1-dumb and 2-very low and 3-not usual for you... what the hell happened? You need to apologize, seriously.
-
Dec 15, 2005 3:53:27 PM CST
Brokeback Mountain: Skull Island Edition: KONG'S DONG GOES B
by zombiesolutions
in addition to the regular 800 thousand million hour cut of KING KONG, Jackson's has made an alternate cut -- running a scant 600 billion hours long -- featuring the heartbreaking tale of steaming hot interspecies manlove between KONG and T-REX. various fundamentalist religious wackos and zealots from around the world are already furious and calling for Jackson's immediate assasination. everybody else is still in the theatre wondering if the film is ever going to end...
-
C'mon, it's your site, just put up some spoiler warnings if you must discuss the ending of a film about gay cowboys in a review of King Kong. Are you just sadistic? Or maybe... you wanted to mess up the film by spoiling it... maybe even because it's competition for the film you were a part of and also reviewed despite the obvious conflict of interest.
-
probably wasn't gonna see BM anyways, so thanks for the spoiler, now i really won't see it. didn't see the eastwood boxing movie for the same reason after finding out she ****spoiler*** broke her neck and died in the end***end spoiler***. i do know BM will be a huge hit here in San Fran, though.
-
Over the past week, he's been posting all this positive hype about the film. The last couple of days, it's been one of his largest featured stories. Now that BoxOfficeMojo has some initial figures, he is touting it as a possible bomb - i.e. "Kong Bomb?". (If he had been a little wittier, he would have said "King Bomb?") It's interesting, I suppose.
-
We're still pissed that you repeated the spoiler here. I didn't read the review because the talkback headers had all these complaints about the spoiler for BM, but I still wanted to talk about Kong. You made a mistake, so don't call us retards when you did the same thing Harry did. That said, I think Harry should explain himself because he's much more media savvy than the average TB'er (clears throat, Gus) and knew what he was doing.
-
He's also missing the big story of the day on CNN: Iraqi police think they captured Zarqawi and let him go by accident!!
-
I agree with everyone who protests the inappropriate spoiler. I thought I was reading a review of King Kong, I didn't expect a big spoiler about an unrelated movie. Not Cool!
-
to spoil the award-magnet competition.
-
Harry can't edit out the spoiler for BM right now. After he posted his review, he went out back to fire up a big fat spliff - fire it up buddy!!! Get way stoned and chill out with the Flintstones Season 1 DVD set - that's the best way to come down off a Kong Review
-
ringbearer springs to Harry's defense...nice!!!! Play the role of the harshest critic, then defend his honor. I am sure Harry will make you his best friend now!!!
-
So I doubt Universal would shoot itself in the foot.
-
Because like me you'll know not just that spoiler, but who it happens to. I was looking forward to "Brokeback Mountain". I'll still see it, but it won't be as good as it could have been had I not known.
-
I'm reserving judgement until I see the film, but what's with the panting rabble of naysayers practically praying for Jackson's failure? It makes "only" 9 million on opening day (what a ludicrous plane Hollywood grosses exist on). Failure, they bleat. Garners overwhelmingly positive reviews. They're actually negative reviews, they bleat. I'm sorry that so many snarky anonymous fanboys have been so spoiled by PJ's embarrassment of entertainment riches that any flaw, any mis-step is a sign of a career apocalypse. Get over yourselves. Enjoy the film or don't, but do it honestly...
-
Why oh Why, did Jackson try to make this film "Realistic"?? Kong was great. Andy Sirkis and Naomi Watts--fantastic. V REX/Kong fight - one of the greatest action scences...ever! Everything else...CRAP!! Especially the Skull Island Natives...Who knew the Uruk-Hai lived on skull island? Not Me, but live and learn. They have these amazing people in New Zealand called the Maori, who are real pacific islanders...why not make a small community of them? Grrrr... the more I think about the missed opportunites of this movie it pisses me off. They should have cut out every needless secondary character moment, except where Denham, Driscoll and Darrow were involved... The Tone of this film was just wrong: too pessimistic and cloying...Skull Island in the original was much more interesting and dream-like. The scenery should have been more Tim Burton-esque , more expressionistic--with the way all the color was washed out, it might as well been shot in Hawaii, around the corner from LOST! And Why did Anne like Kong? Who is she, Dwan from the '76 version? They should get an apartment together and start a sit-com....Ugh. I am going to pop in the DVD of '33 version and watch a real movie...
-
Don't get me wrong, special effects were good, and it was a decent film.. but in my ever so humble opinion this was nowhere near the great, groundbreaking film the press was making it out to be. Watch it if you're interested, but I doubt many people will be taking in multiple viewings. As for my viewing, it was marred in the last 15 minutes of the film where Kong was up on top of the Empire State Building, swatting at the planes and WHOOPS the film burned right then and there. Jesus. It was going to be 20 minutes before the theater would be able to fix the problem. Nah.. I figure I'd seen enough and I left with everyone else. Now, maybe I missed a really touching moment as Kong died, perhaps.. but there weren't any tears shed by anyone at the screening I attended. Ah well.. I'm glad Petey J. got his shot at making his "dream" picture.. but perhaps some things just don't translate that well from dream to film.
-
This is a talkback for KING KONG. I am reading this talkback because I saw KING KONG and am fine with spoilers for, again, still with me? KING KONG. I did not expect a spoiler for Brokeback mountain in this talkback. Especially because so many people were pissed that Harry spoiled it. Common sense would dictate some spoiler warnings in your message if you're going to spoil the movie and, Gus, you spoiled the movie.
Yes, Harry should apologize. And you did apologize, rightfully so. -
but I still think Harry is just too connected with the filmmakers to be a good critic. Jackson and company are his pals (at least in his own mind), and this makes me question the innocence of his messing with another movie.
-
FTR: I'm not calling for your banishment. But much like your experience in Mori's TB, there is grounds for your expulsion. Nitpicking the AICN reviews is one thing. But trying to turn the writers' words around in an attempt to negate what they originally said is another. To do so, could be seen as an attempt to imply that they are somehow "on the take" or that they are contracted to write positive reviews, etc. Some may call that slander. So, remember your registration terms. Just a thought. After all, you have been warned before. Now...back to the FLAMIN'.
-
i think this movie is forcing word of mouth to guard it with it's life.
-
Dec 15, 2005 4:28:08 PM CST
I only have 3 major complaints. Kong's death took the usual
by citizen arcane
Just die, Kong, die. No, don't climb up another level, die. Don't look longingly into Anne's eye again, DIE! That's it. Ok, we've acheived death and...oh fuck he climbed up again to look at Anne. DIE! Why can't Jackson kill a character or end a movie in a timely fashion......The jump cut between when Kong is captured and NY. WTF? Every other moment of the film is shot in excruciting detail but the little matter of hauling Kong's ass to the boat and the weeks that followed, meh. Not necessary. Probably because the logistics were impossible to film convincingly......And finally Anne in NY. What is wrong with her? Ok, she loves Kong, he's the only one without a nose the size of Florida who has ever protected her, fine. So she goes ice skating with him? Doesn't she know that the Man is coming around the corner? I know that there's no way to warn Kong and that she must know that it's inevitable but she doesn't even show the slightest hint that she's worried or afraid. When the bombs and bullets come she's in shock. WTF?.......And Jack was completly vestigial. He served no purpose. Say what you will about the '76 remake, the relationship between Jessica Lange and The Dude was much better than Anne and Jack in this one. Anyway, otherwise good, fairly forgettable film. Worth a rental when it comes out, don't see myself sitting through it too many more times in my life.
-
Two words come to mind: "bloated" and "excessive." The Central Park scene--I called it at the very same time I started to dread it. At that moment the film lapsed into just plain silliness (after some pretty damn silly moments before that point). People here at AICN talk about fetish films as if they are a filmmaker's god-given right, but a fetish film like this will only play to existing Kong-nuts like Harry. Look for disappointing box office.
-
So we go to an island, filled with creatures thought to be extinct for millions of years and we bring back... a giant monkey?
-
Dec 15, 2005 4:30:11 PM CST
al that's missing from B. Mt. is the pudding - South Park
by grubstreeter
C'mon guys - a critical darling about gay cowboys - and you can't predict on your own that one of 'em is gonna croak? You don't see enough movies. Harry didn't spoil anything.
-
Dec 15, 2005 4:32:43 PM CST
I'VE READ THE BROKEBACK MT. SHORT STORY, SO I WASN'T SPO
by the dude abides
that was still pretty fucking rude Harry. Have some class, man.
-
Maybe this will make Hollywood rethink remakes. Kong didn't even break the $10 mark on it's opening day! Maybe it'll pick up over the weekend when schools let out, but maybe not. This is a HUGE disappointment for such a highly anticipated film.
-
Now he's blaming us for being pissed at his dumbass repeating the BM spoiler TWICE? Fuck you moron. You could've complained about Harry spoiling BM without repeating it jackass. And this is a King Kong talkback, almost everyone here knows the story well, so there's little to spoil. We all know what happens to the ape. We all DON'T know what happens in BM. Harry's at fault, but you're worse for calling him out on it and then repeating like the tool you are. Go sit in the corner and think about what an idiot you are.
-
C'mon, now. Did any of you who are whining about spoilers actually think a gay cowboy movie was going to have a "happy" ending? No. Of course not. This isn't a 'story' movie. It's a 'message' movie. Like gay films before it, such as "Boys Don't Cry", at least one of the gay characters was going to meet a brutal end at the hands of some right-wing christian bible-thumping conservative. (Bet they have thick hick accents too).
-
The LOTR films came out on Christmas week when everyone was on vacation.. But Kong is coming out 2 weeks before Christmas when: college students are either taking their finals or studying their asses off for them, office workers are stressed and working long hours because everything becomes hellish right before the holidays, and just coincidentally, this week much of the country has been mired in really bad weather. Here, it's been below zero and snowing like a motherfucker. I was going to see Kong, but changed my mind because of the snow delaying all the transit trains.
Just a mistaken release date. Had they waited till Christmas week, they would have taken in over 20 mil on wed. easily. -
Jake and Heath's characters are actually BROTHERS, separated at birth. There, I said it.
-
Not everyone is a goober with no life who can rush out to see a three-hour film on a Wednesday night. What a bizarre world we live in when people can confidently write off a film as a bomb after one friggin' day in release. "Titanic", if you remember, only made $30 million in its opening weekend, and we all know what happened there. Anyway, no one I know is seeing this before the weekend, at which point everyone I know is seeing it. Get some perspective, dipshits...
-
Dec 15, 2005 4:46:42 PM CST
Cheers for ruining the gay cowboy flick from the guy who ruined
by brody77
Not really.
Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass about that film, other than seeing Anne Hathaway nekkid again!
As for King Dong?
I'm so fed up of the Peter Jackson AICN publicity machine that I might just avoid it!
Are there any elves on skull island?Hobbits?Evil wizards?No?
How many endings does it have?
Will there be a 26 hour special edition dvd just to keep Harry happy?
Oh yeah, one last thing - you are a sell out money grabbing bunch of b'stards, whoever it was put out the 2 disc "making of" DVD in the UK.
That's a goddamn disgrace.
-
HA! But whatever, Ring. You're the boss, right? "One of the nastier talkbackers"??? Why Ring, I never knew you cared! Seriously, I think I've been rather reserved when it comes to your torments. I've even extended my virtual hand in courtesy. Remember dude, I told you I would ease off. Reading your posts has given me consistent amusement...like a cat playing with a ball of string. But after awhile, that becomes real boring and tiresome. Carry on, sir. I'm moving on to new horizons.
-
..those were some great examples of some pm "classics". Good job.
"And while I sometimes wish I could share the idealistic view that narratives of "adventure" and "mystery" in "exotic" lands are just that, I'm unfortunately a bit more jaded by historical awareness. All I'm saying is that imperialistic societies tended to justify their colonialist endeavours by portraying the colonized and their lands as wild and exciting, ie. in need of "civilizing"."
I too am a history buff and aware of some of the tragedies following clashes of civilizations.
But what is the original Kong, a piece of dramatic fiction forged in the time of a culture with "little lost worlds" still possible, or a historical treatise?
And history is not objective anyway. History is a weak science based on points of view;consequently,it reflects biases, one-side to a story, prejudices,etc.
It's the great balance between mysticism and pure science. -
"How the idea to bring Kong back to the world wasn
-
There was this girl sitting next to me, saying to her boyfriend: "If I had known that it was this kind of movie, I wouldn't have bothered..." Some people should've been banned from seeing any movie ever again...
Pure and brilliant entertainment and kudos to the team behind LORD OF THE RINGS to make KING KONG one of the most entertaining, big blockbusting, bad-ass movies since, well, Lord of the Rings, actually. -
...it's too early to say that.
-
Dec 15, 2005 4:57:06 PM CST
Jesus Harry, take it easy on the font size, it wasn't that g
by shermdawg
-
Dec 15, 2005 4:57:15 PM CST
Denham had to be changed, and I'm sure after a couple more v
by performingmonkey
The scene that explains what Peter is doing with this movie is when we see Denham shooting Ann and Baxter on the deck of the Venture. The dialogue is straight from '33 Kong, and is cheesy with overracting. Peter is showing us that he isn't pretending that he's making this movie in '33, where scenes like this would be common. He's giving us a more realistic view. People didn't really talk and act like that in the '30s. They did in MOVIES in the '30s. This is why Denham simply COULD NOT BE the cheesy characature that he is in the original movie. If he WAS like that, people would just laugh in 2005. What Peter gives us is a realistic character. Denham has NOTHING in his life but his pictures, and he is on the verge of having it all taken away from him. It is his destiny to go to the island, which DOES give the movie a certain mystical feel that I'm glad is there, but most of his choices come down to desperation. When he loses Herb, and finally his film, he is so desperate he will do ANYTHING, including throwing chloroform into Kong's face. He isn't a coward, but he just doesn't see until it's too late how his own personal ambition leads to death and destruction. Seeing Kong dead at the end is the culmination of it all. We can assume that after this, Denham is going to be arrested and that is basically the END for him. One thing I DO wish is that there was a little more of him in New York at the end, instead he appears out of nowhere to deliver the final line - which doesn't suit his character. 'it was beauty killed the beast' isn't something that he would say because he doesn't know anything about the relationship between Kong and Ann. The last line is correct for the movie, but not for Denham. I would have preferred the movie to have ended with Denham being dragged away by the police in slow-motion as he stares at Kong, and the last line said by Preston or someone who was in the theater. The original idea of having Fay Wray say the final line was pretty cool. Sadly, she passed away, but I don't think Peter would have done this anyway. Anyhow, it's a great movie, and shouldn't be compared to '33 too much, despite the great homages to it that Peter scattered in the movie (my personal favourite was the shot where Ann and Jack are running through the jungle - if that was in monochrome it just would BE the '33 movie. That was like Psycho shot-for-shot remake stylie).
-
I mean...literally. I really thought I was looking at a live gorilla. Shows what spending a few weeks in the bush with real ones can do when imitating them for a movie. Congrats Andy ol' boy, you did it again and I just know Smeagol/Gollum were delighted at your performance. While I agree that the movie was a bit stretched, I didn't start looking at my watch or anything. It all flowed smoothly and kept my interest even with the Heart o' Darkness referenced scene. I thought it was kinda cool and gave the two shipmates an insight to why Denham was such a fanatic. What can I say, I loved this movie and enjoyed every second EXCEPT for the over used slow-mo bits. C'mon PJ, once, eh, but five or six times? Lawks but those bugs creeped the living doody out of me and I haven't felt that way since seeing Alien. Eesh...for bug-phobics like me, it were a real squirmfest! The triple rex vs Kong tag team fight was pure joy and it didn't get the confusion factor going that so many of PJ's fights in LoTR gave me. Realism, schmealism...if the premise of a movie concerns a giant silverback gorilla the I think a two gallon bucket of "belief suspension" is in order. I gues the only time that really bugged me was Ann being so scantily clad in NYC...particularly on the frozen pond (though I enjoyed it 'cuz I'm still a wee lad at heart)...I mean, she didn't even pop her radio knobs (if you take my meaning)! Eh, if I wanted that sort of realism I'd have skipped this and watched the History Channel at home instead. Finally, what surprised me was the underlying sweetness that came through after Ann and Kong accepted each other in their own fashion. Surprising, coming from PJ, but there it is. It was what finally endeared the film to me and made it something more than just another monster movie. Wonderful work, as usual, PJ and please get your ass in the negotiations to bring us the Hobbit. Um, but no burpy-farty Dwarves this time, if you please.
-
Dec 15, 2005 5:12:49 PM CST
Oh stop acting so indignant about Brokeback Mt, you twats.
by citizen arcane
Like you were just now getting dressed to see it.
-
I'm quite sure your compliments on my half-hearted defense of pomo were sarcastic, which is fine since my argument was never a post-modern one anyway, rather it was post-colonial, a much harder framework to dismiss with hand-waving semantics...
You make a good point about history: it's a discipline fundamentally in denial about what it does and how it does it, which is why I chose to study texts and culture instead. Scholars of English are able to (or at least are hopefully able to) own up to their biases and at least consider other viewpoints, and I'd like to state that whatever disagreements we have, I respect your opinion and am glad that we can have some civilized debate amongst the calls for Harry's head and over-hasty negative opinions...
But anyway, my point is that a society's concerns and anxieties are visible not merely in their "official", institutionalized narratives (history books), but in their "low", popular narratives, too (films like "Kong"). I'm not denouncing the original "Kong" for its biases, but I do object to Harry's intimation that the same biases should be translated directly and heedlessly into a modern reinterpretation of the original text, as Jackson's film is. If an astute filmmaker were to tackle a project like remaking "Birth of a Nation" (which may not be as foolish an idea as it sounds), I doubt anyone would argue that the same noxious racism should be transposed onto the modern screen. There is still a useful story to be told in the birth of the KKK, but it would have to be one that is critical of the group's racialized ideology, even at the expense of the "heroism" of the Klan characters in Griffith's film (I don't mean that they were heroic in any way, shape or form, but the film certainly wanted them to come across that way)...
So, I'm just saying that, given the underlying subtexts of the material, subtexts that some might see but others might not, it's to Jackson's credit that he came at the colonialist angle from a more studied direction...
But what about those mean, subhuman natives on the island? Not quite so canny about racist depictions there, huh? -
That last line no longer belonged to Denham but after winning the girl Driscol couldn't say it either cause he would be putting the blame on the girl he just won.
It would have to be someone else that noticed the beasts love for Anne.
The few moments on the pond almost made it all worth it for the big guy. The film had a lot more feeling in it and realism than the original. I loved it too. -
Nice going Fat Ass You Spoiled one movie while sucking the dick of another.
-
wait?? the ending of brokeback mountain wasnt already obvious??
-
Dec 15, 2005 5:19:16 PM CST
The beauty killed the beast line didn't belong to anyone in
by citizen arcane
It didn't make sense for anyone to say it and when Black did, it looked forced and contrived. They shouldn't have shoehorned it in just for nostalgia's sake. The '76 version didn't and you know what, it actually had the better ending. The girl being carried away by the press while Jack gives up and leaves. Better than the two of them kissing on top of the ESB. Blech.
-
I'm really looking forward to see it but in a strange way my expectation on Kong is not that high as it was for BB, ROTS or WOW this year. Hope i'll fuckin' love it.
Harry, P-U-H-L-E-A-S-E write the reviews of SympathyForLadyVengeance and V for Vendetta as soon as possible!!! THX -
So far, most reviews of the film have mentioned the frozen pond scene, either finding it corny and silly or finding it beautiful and touching. This seems to me to underline what I've been saying for a few weeks: the success of this film lies in whether or not filmgoers buy the Kong-Ann relationship. Some clearly do, some clearly don't. And I'm not sure it has all that much to do with whether Watts and Serkis "sell" it or not, or how well it's written. Some people are just never going to buy into a tender, affectionate relationship between a woman and a giant ape, and some are all too happy to. Of course, there are also plenty of moviegoers who are mindless adrenaline junkies who balk at anything approaching human emotion onscreen (the same trolls who still kvetch about the "hugging hobbits" in ROTK as if their contrarian voices could somehow erase that film's triumph) and only care if something is "cool" or "bad-ass", but nobody really cares what they think anyway...
-
Dec 15, 2005 5:28:47 PM CST
Screw Brokeback Mountain. So a cowboy dies horribly. What a sh
by fluffyunbound
BTW, the Denham character hasn't been changed. They're the exact same guy. Jackson merely understands the character better [not because of some genius of insight, but because time and distance allow for better perspective on all the Denhams of the world] and shows us MORE of him. Anne is substantially changed. But Denham is the same - and, I think, Kong is the same. We're just wiser than the 1933 audience the original was made for. [Yes. We are. Sorry.]
-
Dec 15, 2005 5:31:41 PM CST
Damn, people are really sticking it to Harry for brokeback mount
by doc_strange
Harry, your rebuttal?
-
Really. he had a vendetta against Tim Burton's version of Planet of the Apes way back in 2001 as well. the folk making Curious George better watch themselves.
-
Dec 15, 2005 5:35:21 PM CST
The movie would have been a lot better if Jackson only had 100 m
by retrace
He seemingly spent all his time and attention on CGI sequences that were over done and rediculous. Ala Lucas. The brontos, the insects, the bats....this all should have been cut for more character development. Some meaningful dialog...rather than "Jimmy....its dangerous out there". The screenplay seemed at times written by a 10 year old. Jackson said he rewrote the screenplay after his experience with LOTR. I'd hate to see what it was before. Its a shame...I was looking forward to this movie for a year.
-
I'm seeing it tonight. Lay off. And yes, once it gets a shitload of Oscar noms, it will make upwards of $80 million, so don't act like nobody is going to see it.
-
Dec 15, 2005 5:40:05 PM CST
As I said before, the only reason the pond sequence doesn't
by citizen arcane
Is because being the human in the couple, Anne should have suspected and shown at least the slightest concern that maybe someone was coming around the corner.
-
Not sticking up for the guy, but I was went there do to the TB. Turns out that yesterday he linked to an article that Uni predicted a $110+ opening weekend. That it would level Titanic. Now he linked to Boxoffice.com and stated that it did worse than Pokemon: The Movies opening Wedensday... Just like a lot of people here would have if he didn't beat ya to the punch...so what? Also, about that 'racist' statement...It's also a link to an offsite comentary. Some doofus wrote an inflamitory editorial and the press picked it up... Just like others here would have made the same comments...if they were not beaten to it. So what's the big deal? In the end, those seeing a racsist allegory are idiots and have brought that into the film themselves.
-
In the 20's and 30's, the public could still admire the "Big Game Hunter", Teddy Roosevelt / Ernest Hemingway persona. The passage of time has made it clear that these individuals were worthless cunts. If a boatload of assholes finds a Pacific Island inhabited by dinosaurs and 25 foot apes, and decides to go ashore and MACHINEGUN EVERYTHING, those people are also cunts. Denham was wrong. He was wrong in 33, and he's wrong in 2005. There's an enviable innocence to the "conquistador" attitude the 33 film represents, and it's quite interesting in a philosophical and psychological way. What it isn't, is "wise". It is entirely possible that some types of wisdom really aren't desirable, and it is entirely possible that there was a ruddy health to the earlier outlook which we have now lost. These things have to be conceded. But don't come around trying to convince me that standing outside of that outlook doesn't give you a better angle from which to stare into the heart of things as they are. Because it does.
-
I'd been eagerly awaiting your review, knowing what love you have for Kong and your insider's knowledge of this version. You just blew me away. I am totally tapped in to your observations of Denham. I, too, love the original character and I stronly agree with your description of Denham as an adventurer type that revels in the greatness of Kong, not just someone focussed on exploitation. The original Kong movie had understanding and respect for Denham. Of course it did, Denham was Merrian C. Cooper! Sounds like this remake doesn't "get" that bigger-than-life spirit that is embodied in Denham. The remake has the "politically Correct" or "post-modern" Denham (or whatever you want to call it.) Its a modern take, because these days, of course you can't have respect for anyone who actually captures living things or *gasp* seeks to display them for *gasp* money or entertainment. PETA would be all over that! But in the 1930's, the sentiments were different. Those were the times of Frank Buck and Merrian C. Cooper, and only a short while after the explorations of Richard Burton. The whole thinking was just different. In those times, Denham wasn't a villain, he was a hero for conquering the beast and "bringing him back alive." Kong was the villain. Even Ann was terrified of him. You're dead right about Denham in the original, and I'm so pleased that you put it in words, better than I could have. And, while I'm gushing, I freakin' love the comparison to Brokeback Mountain. Pulling that kind of reference, so wierd yet completely valid and totally relevant, is what being a rabid film fan is all about. You find echoes and references in the unlikeliest of places. Well, well done. I'm really impressed and can't wait to see the new Kong film. Thanks again Harry.
-
As much as I've advocated to see this and the disgust by most of the talkbackers in response to the movie, I'm suprised.
-
being completely sincere. Those were good choices. Did you think I was trying to be post modern in my own post?
You make some good points, but I think that adventurous pov tends to look at "alien" cultures as strange,wild, "savage", etc.
I don't have a problem with that because I understand that was a prevailing attitude at that time.
The west thought they could civilise many provinces and territories by bringing western culture to those areas.
However, I reject the idea that Kong represents the black savage man. Heck, Kong DIES in NYC after all..that bastion of "civilization". -
Doesn't ANYONE have anything SPECTACULAR to say about this movie? How can you verbally taint such an extraordinary film. It's just beyond my comprehension. I mean, examine the drawbacks and whatnot, but shit, there were more great elements than bad to this film. I just don't understand. Are you all just trying to kiss the ass of most everyone else on this talk back and talk all the shit you can talk about Harry and Universal and Peter Jackson? I'm not sticking up for them but DAMN!..think of something ELSE to bitch about! I walked into the theater, already fucking psyced about this, not because I'm a fan of the original, or because I've been keeping up with kong updates for the past 3 months, but because I KNEW this movie would take me into a state of mind I have never been before. There was just so much to it. I was so intrigued, so captivated, almost in shock at what was presented. Not only was it was a visual fest, but tug at me emotionally as well. Hell, I can't think too many movies I've seen this year that were touching at all. I'm not hating on haters...Ringbearer's posts are AMAZING and I love the controversy he creates...but I've read the same shit on here about what people disliked about the film. Enough already...ps: JAGUART, I thought your post about THE TWO COWBOY FAGS WERE BROTHERS AND SEPERATED AT BIRTH was halarious ;-)
-
....you are exactly right about an pure adventurous/hunter type like the '33 Denham not working as a hero to todays audiences. But my point is that you can still look at the classic Denham in a good way because he was a product of his time. Cooper was living that stuff. We have the benefit of time to see some of the consequences(along with some benefits) those attitudes and policies wrought. We've learned from them. It's because of their actions that we're able to see what can happen as a result...good or bad.
We have a hard time looking at Denham as a heroic figure in the same way audiences then did because time and consequence has sobered us to those results.
But he's really not a evil guy. He's just ignorant about things we oursleves would likely be ignorant of if we came from same time and place.
We stand on their shoulders.....hopefully wiser. -
Geez louise, will people stop taking the damn film so seriously. All this racism talk is nonsense. You can argue that some of the concepts were influenced by attitudes at the time, but my nuts, it's a movie about a big gorilla! Just enjoy it and move on. Analyzing the politicial and social commentary in "King Kong" is like analyzing the number of hairs on a pig's back. ** http://www.tailslate.net/reviews/film/reviews.asp?ID=221
-
Titanic had 8.7 million opening day, and a 28 million opening weekend. (3 day)
I wouldn't worry, yet~ -
King Kong confirms the fact that from Braindead onward, Hackson has either deliberately or negligently displayed the most blatant racism in his films. The LOTR films were particularly nauseating for their obvious racial coding - although you could at least blame Tolkien in part for that. Now Kong trots out a whole bunch of racial stereotypes with its treatment of the 'natives' of the island. Sticking a token African-American into the cast does nothing to obviate this disgusting racism.
On the positive side, however, I note from photos that Jackson no longer has a whole heap of fat to fill out his skin - instead it just hangs limply off his face. -
Fire breath, baby.
-
I've been waiting for Harry's review of this almost as long as I was waiting for the movie...
-
I disagree wholeheartedly. Does geography mean absolutely nothing to you racial alarmists? I mean come on, use your head a little. What color should these natives be if they are located somewhere in the South Pacific? Purple? Would that make everyone happy if a race of purple natives showed up? That couldn't possibly offend anybody now could it. And I'm a little tired of the way too casual throwing of the race card on LOTR. Read Tolkiens' letters sometime; he addressed the issue himself.
-
NZ wants nothing to do with a loser like you.
-
actually Temple of Doom was blasted by critics for its portrayal of both child slaves and indians.
And Ford Davies character went a long way to balancing out Raiders sword swinging evil arab. The most cardboard charcaters in that whole film were the Nazis.
And this:
"recovering the Ark of God for the Good old U.S.A."
I disagree. H decided to do it for discovery and knowledge....much like the original Denham. And remember the end of the film?
Indy: Fools! bureaucratic fools!
Hardly a government sympathizer. -
Dec 15, 2005 6:36:21 PM CST
as bad as Harry spoiling Brokeback is, what's worse is the T
by hypeendshere
as much as people may differ about things (especially as important as movies!), i would never ruin the experience for someone. imagine you sit down and read a review about American Beauty and the guy casually slips in that Bruce Willis is a ghost in the Sixth Sense. WTF is THAT? for shame, bitches.
-
Hollywood is "liberal". Hollywood put alot of hopes in this movie saving the box office this year. So Drudge builds up the movie that it'll beat Titanic (nobody in their right mind thought that) and then takes the opportunity of the 10 million opening to tear it down and have a laugh Hollywood's expense. Everything Drudge does is poltically motivated, youve gotta realise that.......... That really was pretty rotten for Harry to spoil Brokeback; I can't believe he did that. Pretty good review though.
-
I never intended to see Brokeback Mountain for 2 reasons. #1-I do not like cowboys #2-I am straight. But Harry just said that one of the characters is killed? Well that's a spoiler if I ever heard one.
-
... like:
A. How did they bring Kong back inthat dinky little ship? And what did they tie him up with? And what did they keep him sedated with for the long haul back.
B. Why does Skull Island have a wall? I mean, what goodis a wall against a creature that climb the frigging Empire State Building?
C. If Adrien Brody risked life and limb to rescue Naomi Watts, then why are they not together afterwards?
D. How did the men fight all those creatures and none of the lead actors ever got wounded or even badly scratched? Especially after the snake pit sequence?
E. Why didn't Adrien Brody just jump off the boat as it was pulling out of the harbor?
F. How come the railings etc. on the roof of the Empire State Building weren't crunched and crushed from Kong's weight?
G. Finally, this movie is not a remake of King Kong - it is a remake of Jurassic Park 3.
This movie is a long, loud & hollow bore. I'm not surprised Harry liked it - he liked RENT for God's sake!
That is all.
-
"This emphatic ABSOLUTELY NOT from Harry ought to be a big warning sign, no matter how much he pads this review with his obligatory-to-Jackson love for it." - This stern "big warning sign" from Ringy should be a signal that the unending rant continues.
"Note that Harry doesn't say 'this is a film about the lifetime pursuit of ADVENTURE'. He says 'adventure filmmaking'. The original KONG was made by people who had actually been on adventures in foreign lands, making documentaries about real native peoples and lands. As Harry says, this movie is a boring REFERENCE to the FILMMAKING of Kong, it doesn't really capture the ADVENTURE feel." - Note Ringy talks about "people who had actually been", unlike him and his real world non-existence, not working in Hollywood, on a movie, or any form of mass entertainment. As Ringy says, his rants are a BORING reference to actually EXISITINCE. "NOTE! Harry has told you what YOU, the real audience will likely experience in the theatre, NOT surrounded by hordes of primed, enthusiastic, indoctrinated Geeks. Harry makes an elitish assumption that his audience was a BETTER audience than the audience that will be composed of YOU, the general public, but he has told you the truth, since Butt-Numb-A-Thon social events are NOT what your money will buy you." - NOTE! Ringy has told you what YOU, the average human, could experience in the theater, IF seated next to a sullen, bitter, bitchy Ringy. Ringy makes an ass of himself by implying that being in his audience would actually be ENJOYABLE. But his posts tell you the truth. And money can't buy him friends. "Um, I think it's significant that while Harry tries to say that THIS film takes us to a powerful place, he instinctively does it by referring to another movie which has done it, instead of focusing on how this Kong movie did it. Chances are, this means that, for Harry, this Kong movie FAILED to do what BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN succeeded at doing. Kong may be a 'helluva lot more fun' but it doesn't seem to be because there is real emotion at it's heart". - Um, I think it's fair warning that while Ringy tries to attack Harry, he actually wants to take him to a powerful place, like Brokeback Mountain. A place, if I can read between the lines, where this Ringy won't FAIL to do what Brokeback did and make sure it's "a helluva lot more fun". "Yes, and this is the same problem I had with Jackson's take on GANDALF in the TWO TOWERS Extended DVD commentary.... Jackson likes to drag loved, or seemingly heroic characters down into the mud and slime". - And this is the same problem I had with Ringy's extended take in Moriarity's Kong review. He said he was making valid points, when 2/3 of the time, he was citing erroneous, insignificant facts. Much like he did in Vern's TB, and all the LOTR TB'S, and the Star Wars TB'S, and at home with mom, etc..etc..Ringy likes to take benign TB's and drag them into mud and slime. "Note how Harry is drifting into imaginations of what a perfect KONG film would be? That means he was pretty disappointed by this Kong film, if I may 'read between the lines'. - Note how Ring drifts into an imginary world where his endless posts makes a difference? Ths means he think he's responsible for Kong's weak opening...If I may read between the lines. "EXACTLY!!! It wasn't about the original KONG, or even love for the original KONG, it was about those petty, sadistic, elements that JACKSON wanted to bring OUT of Kong, the "Brain Dead" director finding his "Brain Dead" crap in a more moving and adventurous, and even more EPIC movie". - EXACTLY!!!! It wasn't about the original review, or even enjoyment of movies, it was about those petty, sadisitc elements that RINGY wanted to bring OUT of every Talkback, the LOTR DVD obsessed geek finding his LOTR DVD obsession in every Talkback. "... this is reminiscent of what was mentioned on the LOTR DVD commentary..." EXACTLY!!! " I think I'd have rather seen Harry's". Once again, Ringy returns to Brokeback Harry. "Harry actually seemd to genuinely love" - and again. "Note how Harry says he loved" - Ringy emotes, trying to pry into Harry's personal life. And bedroom.
"...if I may...go on about...his love" - Well, that's just overt. "Again, Harry wants to see a movie that Jackson DIDN'T deliver too him. Harry is disappointed and putting a good face on it". - Again, Ringy goes on about stuff that really no one else but he has any interest in. Ringy knows this and is disappointed, but puts on a windex smile. "Sadly, this is the real reason reviewers should never be involved with production, because you KNOW of all the blood, sweat and tears that go into the making of even the worst bomb". - Frighteningly, this is the real reason open Talk Backs should no longer exists, because you KNOW all the loons, crackpots and soiciopaths will crawl out of the woodwork and comment on even the dumbest things."And if a movie is GOOD, you should be transported into the story that was created by that 'blood sweat and tears', not be thinking of the blood sweat and tears". - And if a TalkBack Comment is worthy, you should want to read it and not be thinking "what the fuck is wrong with this guy"? "That Harry is doing so indicates that he's been influenced by knowing the people who worked on it (or watched all the production diaries) AND that he was distracted by that knowledge from fully enjoying the movie, or the movie just isn't good enough to transport him by itself". - That Ringy continues to do so indicates that he's become obssessed with people in TB knowing who he is, AND that his entire life has become diverted by this obssession from fully enjoying THE REAL WORLD, because it just isn't good enough for "him by itself". "How about moments of bliss for YOU while watching this, Harry? Never mind Kong, what about YOU"? - This is when Ringy's Brokeback love turns to violence, much like Buffalo Bill...if I can 'read between the lines'. "Oh...look...Harry...a good face...I feel...his pain...his love...PISSED ALL OVER!...allow your actual feelings to come through..." - I think that's pretty clear. -
Dec 15, 2005 7:08:50 PM CST
So if KING KONG bombs I guess that NARNIA is the breakout hit mo
by orbots commander
-
Dec 15, 2005 7:32:58 PM CST
the reason king kong only made 9.8 million yesterday is because.
by mcluvin
it's finals week. the movie's key demographic is right smack dab in the middle of the most important week of school testing.
-
Didn't any of you douchebags watch the Brokeback Mountain Trailer? They gave you the fact that one of the cowpokers dies when the other one was hugging and smelling the dead ones clothes..... Sometimes you dumbasses can't get your heads out of your own pretentious asses to actually see a trailer or movie except to just find reasons it sucks or how you, in your hack ways, could do it better...... sheesh! Nice review Harry.
-
I know a lot of kids are going tonight or tommorow to Kong. That's when they could actually go. This weekend will blow up with Kong viewers. I'll be one of them.
-
Yo! You right, King Kong is racist. All y'all need to remember that you were all negroes before Malcolm... My brothers.
-
After so many pleas for Harry to post his review, the usual shit happens. Each and every word is stripped and put under the electron microscope for intense scrutinisation. Ringbearer et all. Get a fucking life. All I wanted to know is what Harry thought of the movie like the rest of you. He did but the original version is still the King in his eyes. What exactly were you guys expecting to happen here? Did you think he was gonna toss his old gorilla toy into a bin in favour of the new super duper deluxe version? And now I read that people are in a big uproar about Brokeback Mountain. And one of you is demanding an apology. That's just really sad. Give the guy a break. He's only human.
-
Dec 15, 2005 7:43:32 PM CST
He managed to squirt his semen through my screen and onto my key
by rivercb
Harry, you owe me a new keyboard for Festivas
-
Oh you won't because you're too busy crying "Racism" in escapist fantasy instead of actual racism driving a throng of 5000 to beat down some arabs.....oooohhh I guess in order for it to be racism they have to be black.....
-
Dec 15, 2005 7:49:52 PM CST
Ang Lee is my favourite director and I was avoiding Brokeback re
by laserbrain
Brokeback is not released in some parts of the Rest Of The World, Harry. Why none of you AICN writers can manage the journalistic discipline to pen a review without any spoilers at all is beyond me. I started reading this Kong review in full knowledge that, given my familiarity with the original, there wouldn't be much to spoil. But you FUCKIN SLIPPED ONE PAST ME, DIDN'T YOU!? Assholes.
******** Of course if you were referring to a figurative "death" then please accept my aplogies. I'm not reading any more to find out though. -
That's the most shocking, surprising and unexpected news since "Unrest in the Gaza Region"...
-
Kiwi Guy is from New Zealand. What has the peace riots in Australia got to do with him? Two totally different countries with a whole lot of water seperating them. Geez.
-
The best reviewed film of the year is a remake of a remake! I mean christ almight, there has been nothing but sequals, prequals, and remakes, comic book and video game adaptations. I want original material WITHOUT A BUNCHA GAY COWBOYS EATIN' PUDDIN'.
-
All these people in here are looking for a Godzilla vs. King King flick. The stipulation being that Godzookie makes a cameo doing a breakdance routine and then being eaten by Kong, thus making Godzilla petrify his monkey ass into a crisp. Kind of like the end of Ghostbusters with the BBQ'd dogs. 100 million opening weekend, guaranteed.
-
Dec 15, 2005 8:29:53 PM CST
Goddamn those are some seriously cunt hair splitting nitpicks
by citizen arcane
Most of them are nonsense and others are simply a lack of any suspension of disbelief whatsoever. The remaining 3 or 4 are somewhat valid.
-
Aquaman can't marry a woman without gills. Seriously, dude, get a life.
-
would have been if they set it in the real old cowboys times. Wouldn't it be a hoot to see cowboys like Clint Eastwood and John Wayne playing Butt Darts?!
-
That post was teh meh.
-
Not cool Harry. Not cool at all. What the hell were you thinking?
-
..the word on the street was that it was going to 'bomb'. Contrast that to the premature ejaculations over 'Kong'.
It's obvious Joe Public is tired of bloated, 3 hour shit.
Anyone think 'Kong' is going to get anywhere near to "Titanic" numbers needs a check-up from the neck up. -
He only said that on of the guys dies , he didn't say which one. He may have, but I'm not gonna check. I can't believe that many people wanna see that. I mean, I do, but man, I'm surprised.
-
...and ended up making a gajillion dollars in the end. I think most people are waiting until the weekend to see this because they know it's over three hours. Think about it. Most people have jobs. They get out around 6. If they're lucky they can make it to a 7:30, 8:00 showing, which after commercials and trailers means they would get home around midnight, so screw that. It can't be word of mouth because the word, from critics and fans, for the most part has been fantastic...But I could be wrong. I do know that if this movie tanks a lot of people will just quit the movie business altogether. If a film of this pedigree and hype can't find an opening weekend then there's no hope for any movie...Scary times.
-
What planet were you on when that movie was being marketed? It had me convinced I was going to see the cinematic equivalent of the second coming of christ.
-
The reason why all these animals are so intent on eating Ann is because she represents the ultimate prize. The white man has this annoying habit of projectin' his irrational objectification of the blond-haired blue-eyed she devil on anything that ain't a white hetero-sexual male on everything celluloid, afterall, how do you explain that ugly-azz Kirsten Dunst gettin' cast as Maryjane in Spiderman.
-
Dec 15, 2005 9:05:48 PM CST
Rowan, I know the difference between Australia and New Zealand.
by dogsoup
I know the difference better than KiwiGuy knows the difference between percieved racism in interpreting symbols from MOVIES and REAL racism that drives 5000 drunken idiots to riot. What difference does it make WHERE it is?!?! Damn...
-
Glodene shut the fuck up with your hate. You KNOW you'd fuck her.
-
It had gotten bad press for cost over runs, Cameron's previous water bomb- Abyss, etc etc.
-
Dec 15, 2005 9:20:12 PM CST
PJ said the last line was supposed to said by Fay Wray
by zinc_chameleon
or perhaps the old mentor from the beginning of the movie. It was supposed to be just someone in the crowd. Must have changed his mind.
-
Some people really just like to bitch and pound thir chests. Even if they enjoyed the hell out of the movie [and really, how could you not?]. This site is filled with movie geeks and Kong is a movie geek's wet dream. Any and all who are bitching and complaining about it here are fucking liars. Any movie geek worth a shit doesn't let a plot hole here or there get in the way of enjoying am exciting, visual Feast like Kong. Either a bunch of liars, or sad lonely posers with nothing to do but moan and groan. Kong and WoW were the 2 best movie geek films this year... Easily.
-
you know he'd WANT to fuck her. But he'll never get a chance in a billion years, and that eats his sorry little spiteful soul up and makes him spew asinine venom at a pretty actress who was well-cast for a role. It's amusing how often these mom's-basement-dwelling trolls decide to act like they're the studmeisters and insult women.
-
Dec 15, 2005 9:27:48 PM CST
Uh, I think Kong has more going for it than just the Empire Stat
by batutta
Pretty much everything on the island, with the exception of the cartoony Bronto chase, was incredible and worth the price of admission...I just don't get some people. The movie's not perfect but it's got so much good stuff in it that for me they easily outweigh some of the glaring imperfections. Come on. If you're looking for perfection all the time you're going to be sorely disappointed in life. I mean, imagine you had a chick that looked like Jessica Simpson, but she had really fucked up, hillbilly teeth, would that stop you from fucking her? Of course it wouldn't! You'd flip her over, bury those ugly ass teeth in the pillow and bounce that shit six ways to Sunday. That's how I feel about Kong. I'm willing to overlook the imperfections and hop on board for a sweet ass ride.
-
The cut between Kong getting caught and NY I agree was too sharp. I'd add that the ESB sequence was too long and Anne acted like an idiot in NY, dancing and laughing, ignoring the fact that the Man was on their way. There were also way too many creatures, especially all the insects and the reverse-Sarlaac worms. I rented the game and got through some of it but seeing how many goofy creatures I'll have to fight, I think I'll return it.
-
Dec 15, 2005 9:40:33 PM CST
Yeah really, I wanted to know how this film compared to cunnilin
by citizen arcane
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
-
She should've jumped onto Kong and held onto him as they both plummet toward the street. She loved him and this would've been her full expression of that love. They killed her Kong so she was obligated to take the big dive with him. And Driscoll should've arrived at the very top in time to shout Ann! She turns, blows him a kiss and dives onto Kong's shoulder and down they go. Leaving Driscoll to write a play about it.
-
I'd wouldn't fuck her with y'all 3 inch (fully erect) action figures. Btw, as far as my sex life is concerned all will be revealed on the next Maury Povich DNA show when y'all mommas reveal to y'all clueless daddys' who yo' real daddy is, my wayward (jackin' off to Kirsten Dundst ugly azz) sons
-
make it a combination of "son of kong" and "mighty joe young" and let Carl Denham redeem himself, since he's such a bastard in this one. I'd personally love it, even if Jackson wouldn't.
-
.........I take it that Harry liked this movie? I'm shocked!!! I truly am. But seriously, anyone who thinks this is going to approach 'Titanic'-type numbers at the B.O., should never be allowed to handle money unsupervised; even their own. This is not a ringing endorsement of Titanic by any stretch of imagination. Merely an acknowledgement of the basic fact that teenage girls (who were the fuel behind Titanic's record numbers) are not going to be mastubarting to the thought of being swooned by a 30 foot Gorilla atop some skyscraper. To get those kinds of numbers you need repeat business of the scale that Kong simply isn't capable of despite Jackson's considerable skill in making the movie and his pedigree from LOTR. Ultimately the movie will be a "flop" based on the bloated expectations generated by its over-caffeinated pre-release hype, and the ridiculous over-exagerrated ass-kissing by the media types. A victim of its own brown-nose brigade ala the Harry-types.
-
i want to be as wise as you...
-
Dec 15, 2005 10:06:27 PM CST
someone should tell Harry that Robert Armstrong is horrible in K
by chickychow
don't care what year the movie was made, what excuse you choose to churn up, you watch that performance and you see a horrible one. He's just lucky Bruce Cabot was there to out-suck him.
-
Dec 15, 2005 10:09:17 PM CST
Wrecks- RE: "Kong and WoW were the 2 best movie geek films this
by kai_mah'gra
.......and you were doing so well until then. Nice visual effect, though...: for a very brief moment there it actually looked like you knew what you were talking about.........and then it all came crashing down, ever so spectacularly.
-
Serenity. Nuff said.
-
9 mil for a Wed. on December 14th isn't the fucking final word. you imbeciles ever think that maybe not EVERYONE rushed out to see this thing on its opening day?? wait until sunday, when the weekend numbers come out. if its less than 50 mil, THEN you can declare it a disappointment... you asswads pay too much attention to numbers.
-
Dec 15, 2005 10:16:19 PM CST
and people who argue about bat-creatures are seriously lame..
by chickychow
No, really man, SERIOUSLY lame. examine your life, for god's sake...
-
Dec 15, 2005 10:25:23 PM CST
".......9 mil for a Wed. on December 14th isn't the fucking
by kai_mah'gra
.....Godzilla made $8 million in its Wednesday opening. So Kong's in real good company;..........hey, they're both big, and Godzilla also bought the farm in the Big Apple too, that has to count for something, right?
-
..yes thats a better idea then reading any of ring bearers, late nigh, have no frienda, im a homo zit faced geek of a whore with no life posts...
-
If Kong does not make at least $75 million stateside by the end of the week, it defiantly won't crack $300 mil.
-
Dec 15, 2005 10:30:31 PM CST
The excuses being made about the poor B.O sounds awfully familia
by justice41
Methinks I smell another Serenity type Bomb. By the way did Serenity ever make back it's production and advertising costs? For some reason Harry's This review reminds me of his review for either Batman Begins or Fantastic Four. Except in reverse. With either BB or FF he couldn't bring himself to say he liked it that it was only ok, after an entire year of bashing those flicks( or just FF). Yet here Harry does a reverse and Lauds this monkey(I know it's an ape) flick then gives a sorta,"I liked it", review.
See Harry you could avoid these embarrasing admissions by just keeping your hyperbole down and your powder dry until the actual movie hits. This way you don't have to do half assed face saving reviews.
Anyhoo I won't be seeing this until DVD. The flicks too long for my Narrow ass and I have a newborn baby which I don't wnt to foist on a crowd just out to have an enjoyable time. -
Dec 15, 2005 10:42:05 PM CST
Kai_Mah'gra, comparing Kong and Godzilla is like comparing a
by chickychow
if memory serves Godzilla still went on to make about 40 mil on its wknd, and that movie completely sucked.. this movie will have good word of mouth. so lets all just calm the fuck down. and for y'all obsessed with figures, Shrek 2 opened with 11 mil on its first wed., and that went on to be one of the biggest films of all time. (note: i'm not even a HUGE fan of the movie, i liked it just fine, but i gotta laugh at ppl who predict doom based on one fuckin weekday. if Kong makes less than 80 mil in its first five days i'll eat a bag of Harry shit)
-
I think you're a bit inaccuarate in your assessment of Mr. Knowles' review. First, it was obvious to me that he wasn't comletely happy with the Jackson's "Kong" film as a whole, but just parts of it, and of course, Jackson's version of the big ape himself. As Knowles says, "I love THIS King Kong." I don't think he was hiding or masking anything. Second, AICN visitors, much less talkbackers, are usually not regular casual moviegoers. They are movie lovers like Knowles himself. I'm quite sure anyone here who lived anywhere near Austin would've been at that BNAT "Kong" screening, as well. That other audience Knowles was referring to consisted of a mixed crowd, perhaps our girlfriends(or boyfriends), other friends, siblings, parents, or otherwise who just don't get as fired up about these sort of movies as we, the true movie geeks, do. Third, I wouldn't doubt Peter Jackson's love for King Kong. What I would doubt is his talent. Though I think he succeeded in making a truly believable living breathing sympathetic Kong(which isn't really all that difficult since all he did was replicate a 25 foot endangered silverback mountain gorilla on the screen, personally I think Kong should've been a giant bobo), it's the rest of the film(at least most of it) that wasn't so great. We must remember that his LOTK films were taken from some fairly decent books(I haven't read them, but some friends told me they're awright). It seems when left to his own devices(as in trying to re-create a Kong film), Mr. Jackson reveals himself to be a bit of a hack. Fourth, I agree with many of your criticisms of Jackson's "King Kong", such as the grade-school treatment of the human characters or the suddenly Kong-hating vampire demon bats. Points like these totally killed any suspension of dis-belief I was trying to hold onto. And I especially agree with your point on the Kong-Ann relationship. As I myself stated in a previous talkback, Mr. Jackson simply does not allow enough time or allow anything truly substantive to happen between Kong and Ann for there to warrant any kind of a deep relationship. It makes the ice pond play moment at the end where we get to see Knowles' "happy" Kong before he dies seem a bit forced, in a kind of cut-and-paste way(to me anyway, but then I get accused a lot of thinking too much during movies, as if I'm supposed to deposit my brain at the ticket counter, then pick it up on the way out). Anyway, those are my thoughts. Appreciations to you, Ringbearer9, and others, who aren't afraid to call it out like it is, otherwise, the movies we all love might turn into so much MTV-inspired brainless drivel. Over.
-
It's strange that Ringdoofus's description of bat creatures should come so close to his own pathetic existence, no? Boy, he sure does take the soapbox when he has an audience at night doesn't he?
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:06:10 PM CST
chickychow, when you have enough time to pull your head away fro
by kai_mah'gra
....take a moment to observe the fact that I wasn't comparing the 2 movies; either in content nor in quality. Merely pointing out the fact that Godzilla, a movie that was much lambasted by critics before its release, severely hated by fans, both before and after the release, still went on to make only $1 million less than this, a movie which is pretty much being heralded as the new "Titanic", by those same critis and rabid fans. Even the movie's own studio has ackowledged the fact that the $9 million was far below their expectations. And btw Shrek 2 didn't have nearly the same amount of gushing, hype and knob-polishing that this movie had been receiving over the last fortnight, and yet still outdid it. So, if you're seriously expecting repeat business to push this movie to $80 million by Sunday (i.e. about double per day ($18mill) what it got on it's much heradled debut) then I can only strongly suggest that you go heavy on the paprika when dining on Shit-ala-Harry.
-
Sorry to disagree Chicky chow,but Robert Armstrong's performance in King Kong was just fine.In fact,whenever those of us who grew up with the original '33 version think of dialogue from that movie,it is the lines spoken by Denham that spring to mind.Sure,he played the part a little broadly,but that suited the character.As for Denham being a total bastard,the creators of Kong seemed to use the sequel(Son of Kong) to redeem his character.Lastly,has anybody here seen Dead Men Walk?Armstrong played a fast talking reporter who was a '40's version of Carl Kolchak(1970's era).
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:30:40 PM CST
"teenage girls (who were the fuel behind Titanic's record nu
by performingmonkey
Just a faint brush of the clit and they're away. Leo or no Leo. I swear a girl three rows behind me came in her pants at the screening I went to. Although that was probably just her boyfriend feeling her up. I'm sure there's at least ONE person here who can relate to an incident of this nature. I'm talking about making a girl cum in her pants, not creaming yourself like a 12-year-old playing in his sister's underwear drawer. I suppose the crucial scene missing from Kong is the moment where Ann moans like a cheap, desperate whore as Kong inserts his pinkie into the pink. OK OK...I'll admit, Naomi Watts DID give me a boner during this movie on a couple of occasions. I had to tell her to kindly remove her hand from my inner thigh before I embarrassed myself. Naturally, I got her own juices flowing. It was dripping down her leg, let me tell you... Er...go see Kong. If you've seen it once, see it again and enjoy it better. All the gripes and doubts will disappear on second viewing. Harry is just in denial. Jack Black was great as Denham, and kudos to Peter for having the balls to cast him (and for having the nerve to cast Adrien Brody as a 'romantic lead'...) END of transmission, fucks.
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:33:08 PM CST
I think it would've also been neat-o to see Kong re-made as
by chishu_ryu
Okay, now I'm being silly.
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:43:05 PM CST
Batutta, if I "had a chick that looked like Jessica Simspon, but
by chishu_ryu
...yes, that might deter me. Teeth are really important. I might change my mind if she went and got dentures. Or maybe if she had a really really great personality with a compatible zodiac sign, and maybe a good singing voice(like Ashlee Simpson). Other than that, yeah, the bad teeth would be a real buzz killer...
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:43:55 PM CST
why kong will make a shitload of cash and force the haters back
by ectocriminal
because although there are waste-of-time action sequences filling out some of the time on skull island, most obviously the bug pit one, while watching the movie i forgot that kong was an effect. he's hyper-real, and by that i mean jackson can get exactly what he wants when he needs it from the big ape and sometimes he can't do that with his live actors. when they chained kong down, chased him around, and shot him up, it felt like i was watching all this happen to a real animal. it feels very real and tragic, and the bad parts are never bad enough to take you out of the movie. also, the way the end of the movie is presented should make audiences feel very dirty if they just showed up for the fx spectacle. i think that's why when the 8th wonder of the world is chained up, jackson directed the scene so its mostly from the point of view of the audience in the theater, which for a few minutes becomes the audiences in the cineplex. very powerful stuff. as blaring, loud, and sometimes unnecessarily long as king kong is, it is at the same time thoughtful and complex, covering thematic material that will provide food for thought for any type of audience, thusly making tons of cash when people take their friends to see the flick to see if they got out of it what the viewer did. warning though: for anyone who has seen a wild animal die in captivity, parts of this flick are really, really gonna get to you. the person i saw kong with (very active in nature conservancy), cried for a half-hour after this movie. and this person doesn't cry over much. just a word to the sensitive: kong breathes, bring tissues.
-
it improved tenfold (and I already liked it). For some reason, knowing Jimmy was coming dilluted my annoyance with his character, but knowing the SLUGS were gonna EAT SERKIS'S HEAD soon made the scene that much better!
-
Dec 16, 2005 12:04:17 AM CST
".........thusly making tons of cash when people take their frie
by kai_mah'gra
......or at least that was the original plan. After Wednesday's opening numbers, Studio execs were last seen rewriting the original plan. But seriously, you Kong knob-polishers are beginning to sound an aweful lot like Serentiy-fans pre-release; and we all know how that whole sordid affair ended (...legs? wtf? Oh wait, there's always those magical DVD sales). Wouldn't it be ironic, or even somewhat hilarious if Kong ends up making less than Godzilla did? I mean, going by Harry's record thus far ( blasted FF4, it ended up making enough for a sequel; wax lyrical about Domino, and we all know what a clusterfuck that was), it's not looking good for Kong. At this rate, of Harry's hit-miss ratio at reviewing flicks this year, Superman Returns will be straight-to-PSP before you can say "repeat business".
-
What Harry didn't tell you is that the death comes when Gyllenhall blows a superhuman load on Ledger's face, and it blows his brains out.
-
kong didn't open strong, but see the flick before you hate on it. if you've seen it and you don't think it will have staying power, list the reasons why, like everyone else here (well, most). your opinion is hollow and won't resound unless you back it up with some sort of concrete logical opinion on why kong will fail. also, comparing kong to serenity or godzilla is like comparing da vinci to dan brown.
-
I forget who it was now, but there's a great old story about a sci fifat at a convention, who argued with an author about the meaning of his own writings, and the author basically said "I think I know better than you, I WROTE the goddamn thing." I believe that you are that fan, RB9. You are disturbing, obsessive, snotty, and possibly have bad hygene. Back when your great great grandfather mined coal as a child in Wales, or whatever industrial age brutally hard job he had, he was dreaming every day about what a great legacy it would be to pull himself up from the slime, grime, and torture of his lowly beginnings, create wealth for himself, build a family, a home, and a better life for himself and those he loved, and achieve the final triumph, the exalted pinnacle of his efforts: A person who writes reviews of reviews, of popular entertainment, poorly. Congrats, dear sir. Several generations of your family are surly proud. Doofus. (This act of kindness was brought to you by Hexus, the letter "A", and the number "2")
-
how can people point the finger at jackson's kong for being a racist film? he spoofs the original kong's portrayal of the natives in denham's 'kong show' in new york. the appearance of heart of darkness, about the euro/american need to own everything (imperialism/colonialism/expansionism, whatever ism you want to label it) points not to kong being an 'african slave' symbol but rather a symbol of the innocent sufferer of man's need to expoit the natural world as a way to gain cash, power, influence, or land. if you look at kong and see a black man, then you're projecting something of yourself onto the meaning of the film. even if you paid attention to what critics point out in the original kong as being racist, it's all spoofed in the film. and also, off topic, did anyone else notice that jackson made a joke about how realistic the bronto stampede was going to look...denham asks his lead movie star to move into the picture with the brontos of people will think it's fake-looking, and the guy looks right at the camera and says, 'who is ever going to say this doesn't look real?'...
-
the link from drudge showed that kong made almost $3000 per screen on wed. harry potter, on almost the same number of screens made less than $1000. this movie is going to do very very well, word of mouth, which is why they go for the wed opening is going to push this movie over the top.
-
I thought this review would have done it. Still a great review. Yet I don't think Harry will ever top the blade 2 review.
-
WHEN THE HELL, DID THIS BECOME PENTHOUSE FORUM? But I will agree with him Watts was amazingly hot. I said this in Moriarty's talkback, but it deserves repeating. On the way out someone said: "If I was Kong....I'd hit that!"
-
A splendid evisceration sir. Splendid!
-
Dec 16, 2005 1:50:05 AM CST
Frankly, it sucks that I have to wait until Sunday night to see
by jdanielp
Even if you are one of the likely few who dislike this movie, you've got to, ...gOt tO, ...GOT TO appreciate the passion behind the making of this movie. It seems to be more rare in this day and age, ...that level of passion in filmmaking. I, for one, will show my appreciation by purchasing a ticket and placing my butt in a theatre seat AS SOON AS I CAN. I hate this, ...having to wait. But I'll see it this weekend. I'LL SEE IT THIS WEEKEND!!!! ....Damn it!
-
There, I wrote it. Got home from watching it hours ago and fantastic images are still flowing through my head. More than a monster movie, for sure. Other than having to ask the inconsiderate dolt sitting in front of me to turn off his bright-screened cell-phone so it wouldn't distract me from the screen, I enjoyed every minute of the film. People who didn't like this movie should be required to list their top-three favorite films so we can all mentally decimate their opinions. Thanks for your time.
-
Dec 16, 2005 3:09:48 AM CST
Harry, your review fucking sucked. It was the worst one ever.
by thirteen 13
I stopped reading your reviews when you wrote your dumbass "Alexander" review, but I was actually looking forward to reading your review on Kong seeing how big of a Kong fan you are.
When you got assholes like ringbearer9 and other assholes who normally trash your reviews and with this one are praising your review, somehting is once again amiss. You then are the only critic on the planet that figured out a way to somehow include that dumbass movie "Brokeback Mountain"in your Kong review..Im mean what the fuck?!?!?!
I stopped reading your reviews before for a good reason. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with your Kong review and oh did you blow it. But then again you loved "Domino" and so many other complete shit movies so go figure.
Moriarty by far gave this the best review. He critizized it where it was needed it and praised it when it was. His was the only honest review. And you figured out a way to include "Brokback Mountain" in your Kong review.
Man you suck. The one time where I cave in and read one of your reviews and you give us this shit.
At least Hypeendshere here stuck on topic and actually talked about Kong. God I wish Mori would start his own movie site. He would have a tidal wave of fanboys jumping ship to swim over to his. -
I can tell by the lack of effort Harry put into this Kong review that he was pretty disappointed in the film. I mean... that was one lame ass review.
-
that this movie shouldn't do as well as it should...i absolutely loved it, and i brought some friends and we saw it late at nite and the longness put some of them off...and also i heard some random ppl saying they wouldn't see it figuring it'd be about as good as the last big monster remake which was godzilla...i hope word of mouth helps this out past the first monster box office weekend
-
Dec 16, 2005 5:21:32 AM CST
Jesus CHRIST, Ringhole9, are you STILL going on about those fuck
by ol' painless
I just wish the guy sitting next to you in the theatre HAD punched you in the head when you started snorting loudly at the screen and scribbling notes. I banish, thee, you strategically-shaved chimpanzee! Go fling your poo at your own kind!
-
Especially when they are christian bale dressed up as one. Or George Clooney
-
Dec 16, 2005 6:59:11 AM CST
Can we just admit that KONG had nothing new to offer and was a b
by vynson
The problem with King Kong is that this is an 80 minute story that we've all seen before and, frankly, wasn't that great the first time around. It didn't get better just because it got bigger. 3 hours of CGI. No acting performances. Sure Naomi Watts is cute, if disappointingly "overdressed" throughout, but there is not one role in this film with an ounce of meat on it. It was just an overlong popcorner that I predict will die at the box office before making its money back on DVD.
-
I know this was kind of the point of the movie, but the whole Ann-King relationship was ridiculous. There were many laughable scenes like when she juggled and did cartwheels - always a good idea when dealing with ferocuous, oversized beasts! And when Ann suddenly remembered that Kong was appearing on stage with someone using her name, so she can go and appear to him on the street as a golden goddess, cos he's like the man of her dreams, right? The whole ice skating scene was ludicrous. And who would be crazy enough to climb up to the top of the Empire State Building just so she could be with him. Seriously, if she loved him (and the implication was she cared for him as more than a sympathetic animal), she must be one heinously weird chick.
The last third of the movie in New York was the worst part. I thought the Kong-less setup hour was pretty decent, and the whole Skull Island section was awesome, but Jackson has no clue about pacing (as previously evidenced in LOTR), and when it comes to the end section, he has to pad an already long flick flick with loving looks between Kong and Ann. An almost great flick - for the most part, it was hugely entertaining, but Jackson isn't quite in the same class as Lucas or Spielberg. The screening I went to was only half-full on opening night, compared to full on War of the Worlds opening night, and full on the first morning screening of ROTS. -
Dec 16, 2005 8:21:29 AM CST
Harry, liked the review but I disagree on the characterizations.
by minderbinder
I like what they did with Denham in the new one, I don't think the old version would fly in 2005. As for box office, I wouldn't compare this to Titanic. But look at Shrek 2, it opened on a Wednesday to about the same numbers. Don't forget, this is a three hour movie opening on a Wednesday before schools let out for Xmas break. I assume many people would have a tough time getting out to theatres midweek even if they wanted to see it. Looks like Universal's mistake may just have been releasing it a week earlier than the LOTR movies (and releasing it on Wed instead of just the usual Friday release). I'm sure Universal is disappointed by that first day, but I think it's foolish to count it out before the weekend.
-
Dec 16, 2005 8:28:29 AM CST
Even if Kong does not make another dollar at the box office duri
by fluffyunbound
Even if the theatres sit empty for weeks - there is absolutely no chance that anyone else will be offerred the opportunity to direct THE HOBBIT [if it's ever made] before Jackson. If that's what all of this has been about, Cockring - if you really hope that there is some level of failure Jackson can achieve that will get Chris Columbus [or whatever Rainbow Brite director it is that you want to see] given THE HOBBIT. None. The only way anyone else will direct THE HOBBIT is if Jackson himself turns it down for some personal reason. I certainly won't discourage you from taking a sporting interest in bashing Jackson's career, but it would disturb me to see you taking false hope, particularly false hope at that level of absurdity.
-
My problem with the Kong story is this....So you discover an unchartered island with prehistoric monsters and mutated bugs galore, and one pretty big ape. Hmmmm....which one would I capture to display on Broadway? Think I'd snag one of the dinos before the ape. To me that would be where the big bucks are; go for the extinct species and forget about the oversized monkey.
-
Nice review Harry. You summed up a lot of the same things I felt about the film. My dad and I went to see Peter Jackson's Kong on opening day. We both love the original since early childhood, he being 70 and me being 42.
I absolutely love this new version, except.. it really was a bit long. I personally didn't really care to see some of the secondary characters developed so much. I really didn't care to see the whole "I'm a struggling actress and I have to steal apples to survive." plotline. It's not that these things are bad, just not needed in my opinion. I think you could easily trim 25-35 minutes off of this film and make it an even better picture!
Just my humble opinion of course...
-
..."admit" implies guilt. I think you're looking for acknowledgement instead. Either way, I, for one, neither admit or acknowledge any such thing. If for the SFX alone, this remake has plenty to offer. While nothing can ever replace the original, I don't ever plan on watching it again and Jackson's version is the only one I'll ever see again. Well, unless it's just for the nostalgia and novelty of the original. I plan to go see Jackson's Kong at least three more times in the coming weeks.
-
I laughed my ass of when he was sliding around on his ass.
-
Dec 16, 2005 9:25:10 AM CST
"Think I'd snag one of the dinos before the ape." They had
by minderbinder
How exactly do you think they'd snag a live dino, much less transport it?
-
...but *dude*. The problem isn't that your arguments aren't well thought out or put across. It's the fact that you *clearly* formed them before seeing the film. Filling up these TBs with negativity about this film for months has completly hamstrung any validity of what you're trying to say. You hating this film was just as invetitable Harry liking it. Difference is; he's obsessing over something he loves and you're obsessing over something you hate. That's beyond pathetic, it's a complete fucking tragedy...
-
Snag one of the small ones.
They had a boatload of chloroform; shouldn't be a problem. -
Sitting here pondering the movie a day later, I'm still amazed by the effects. I can see the arguments about the first hour being flat, mainly because Jackson introduces this relationship between the Black shipmate and the White kid he found on one of his voyages that goes utterly nowhere. I argued with my roommate about this: he thinks there's probably some scenes chopped out between them that Jackson should have included or else excised their story entirely. We should either really care about those side characters, like we do with Porkins in Star Wars, for instance, or not care at all about them. Pick a direction, says my roommie. But I think the reason you care about side characters in Star Wars is because you've already been wowed by the special effects throughout the movie so it's easier to get into the characters. In Kong, there's normalcy and then suddenly there's a 180 degree turn in the lives and destinies of these people, not unlike the turn that happens in From Dusk Til Dawn, that renders all backstory moot. Plus the special effects are so jaw-dropping that I don't think it's a flaw of the script; I think you can't know that those characters are going to fall flat until you see it in the editing room and by then it's too late. jackson wasn't trying to give us fully fleshed-out characters to care about that he'd then have to give intimate death scenes to. If he did that, Kong would be the bad guy. I think Jackson knows you've got to get from New York to Skull Island, make it interesting and not rushed, and so you have to introduce these characters to the audience who are pivotal in their collective role, but not as individuals, make them interesting but not so interesting that you hate Kong for killing them off--it's a delicate balance and a coin toss as to whether it'll work. Thankfully even for my roommate it works just well enough that it's not treacherous getting to Skull Island and everything that happens once they get there is brilliant. How could people possibly fall asleep or walk out of this movie? Are they insane?
-
i loved the new one. i wanted to gauge what you felt about it, harry, but then you prattled on about the old one. and i tuned out.
way to right a review, stinky. -
I had the same problem with uninterested audiences. I've seen the movie twice, and I shit you not, at least three groups of people walked out before they even got to Skull Island both times. Some literally before they even got on the Venture. It seems casual movie goers are having difficulty digesting this film. Is anybody else seeing this happen, or is this only happening in Georgia?
-
Dec 16, 2005 11:05:13 AM CST
and anyone that considers Brokebeak Mountain to be Kong's co
by slone13
-
Dec 16, 2005 11:14:01 AM CST
Perhaps the perception of walkouts is based on the extremely hig
by fluffyunbound
I went to pee. I almost went to pee twice. [I'm a big coffee drinker, and then I got the medium soda.] If you see two people who both have been told "Get up to pee right after Denham tells the captain to turn the boat southwest" [which is probably the best time to pee] it might look like people leaving.
-
Ignoring the usual idiocy and irrelevance of crystal ball box office predictions, I wanted to reach back to an actual substantive issue. To the Count, wanted to say that it's nice to see someone actually educated here. I totally agree with your comments on the postcolonial subtext of Kong, and that a modern version would have to address these issues somehow. Reminds me of Guillermo Gomez-Pena and Coco Fusco's controversial classic "Couple in a Cage" performance that toured museums, where they acted like they were a lost tribe and many naive people actually believed them. Just like a new Indiana Jones would have to address these issues (during the 80's the spirit of Empire and colonialism was still breathing its last gasp. "It belongs in a museum!" No, it belongs to the culture that created it.) Still loved those movies, but it's possible to love something while still acknowledging its ideological naivete. And I also agree with the other poster that the racial element is much more complicated than Kong=black man (perhaps Denham's desire to exploit the exotic 'Other' coupled with Ann's desire to save it, both typical Western attitudes towards the 'native', and both certainly untenable positions.) Granted, most audiences will not think along these lines, but when a cultural icon is reworked and re-presented on such a grand scale, cultural critique is (and will be) necessary.
-
Ok, what the crap? Harry in no way spoiled ANYTHING about Brokeback Mountain that we didn't already know. We KNEW from the other reviews on this site that the whole idea of the movie is about a love between two people that is not accepted by everyone else... so whats the big freakin deal?
Oh, and I saw Kong last night and its probably the best and most awe inspiring time I've spend at the theater in YEARS!
Way to go Pete! -
When he cries himself to sleep at night thinking that he is the reason his parents split up because they couldn't take the shame of raising a fucktard. Bats! The bats are unrealistic! In a movie about a gigantic fucking ape! Bats! Bwaaaaaahhhhh!!!!
-
Dec 16, 2005 11:42:32 AM CST
Fluffy- that's exactly when the kids needed to pee, glad to
by big bad clone
I'm still going to se it again, if and when they put it on IMAX
-
that Kong himself is without a doubt, the SINGLE GREATEST EFFECT ever seen on the screen to date. I saw this opning night last night, and truly, CGI has come of age. Line those Oscars up, boys...The Big Ape should reign supreme.
-
Even with all the nitpicking baggage I brought in with me from you joyless yahoos. And in regards to the bat, um, the thing couldn't carry their weight, that's why it started flapping wildly and leaned to the left, not to mention started descending fast into the valley. The 3 hours flew by for me, I think people who thought it was too long at the beginning only probably only went to go see the monsters. Going to go see it again next week. *William Shatner voice* : KOOOOONG!
-
Dec 16, 2005 12:40:00 PM CST
Seems as though Kong isn't doing nearly as well as people th
by doc_strange
It only made around 9.8 million opening day. Could this thing be a flop? Doesn't matter, I'm gonna scope it out anyway.
-
...and it'll make $300 million "easily"?!
Lol. -
It will need to do 60-70 million over the three day weekend to have any shot at all of $200 million domestic. I don't know how likely a weekend of that size is at this point. I expect that the overseas BO for a film of this kind should be strong, but anything less than $200 million domestic is a significant disappointment.
-
Dec 16, 2005 1:22:03 PM CST
Could be the fact that the whole flick has been done 3 times in
by doc_strange
Plus everyone and their grandmother (literally) knows the plot to the movie. Maybe they should have taken that into consideration before spending 200 million making the film and another hundred million promoting it. Now Jackson directing Godzilla vs. King Kong would be boffo box office but then again, hollywood execs, especially those at Universal, aren't the brightest people in the world.
-
this movie will make over 500 mil worldwide, easy.
-
Dec 16, 2005 1:37:06 PM CST
ectocriminal: here are you hard facts (or in your words " concr
by kai_mah'gra
.....opening day take: $9.8 million; next day : - $6.2 million. You do the math. You can extrapolate right? Yes, I know that chances are that it might make slightly more over the weekend, but even then, and given that it dropped it's B.O. take on its second day, it would now have to make $21million per day between today and Sunday, to hit the $80million mark that a lot of you Kong apologists have been predicting. Somehow I don't think that'll happen, given that Star Wars ROTS couldn't consistently pull of that kind of run neither, but that's just me. As for the movie itself, as has been pointed out numerous times before, Peter Jackson has done nothing new in this movie that has not already been done better in Jurassic Park, and other monster-disaster movies of recent times. And coming so soon after his success with LOTR, that has to come as a disappointment, of sorts. And it is certainly not the masterpiece that it is being hyped to be, and that fact will show at the Box Office when it's unable to scare up repeat business. OVer -marketing your product like they are doing with Kong and like they did with Serenity tends to imply to prospective audiences that it is somehow defective and needs the extra boost. Concrete enough for you, bud? (.......and btw, why the hell would anyone compare Da Vinci with Dan Brown? Da Vinci was an architect, artist and inventor; Dan Brown is a pop author and novelist. What's the basis of comparison, outside the fact that Brown incorporated Da Vinci's work into his most popular novel? Next time you want to throw in a similie, try and make sure that it actually makes sense first; kind of like the fact that Kong and Godzilla, are BOTH movies, and BOTH about big monsters/creatures and BOTH partly and largely set in New York, in which they BOTH die. See how it works?)
-
ROTFLMAO!!!!........so now it's gone from "$300 million in the US, easily" and another "$300million worldwide easily" to "over 500 mil worldwide, easy." Those high expectations are coming down so fast, we should all probably take cover.
-
But (the Japanese not the horrid Emmerich/Devlin) Godzilla has fire breath and disintegrates people and whatever else gets in his way and is pretty much invincible like a motherfucker. Kong on the other hand, beats his chest and falls off a building, the end. I do have to agree about Jackson's follow up to his success. It seems all the press has gotten to his head and he reportedly has quite a few self-indulgences in this movie. I wrote an argument about his screenwriting ability when it comes to original material. While Kong isn't exactly original material, the script itself is more of an outline of the 33 film. It seems Jackson has a lot of laughable writing and exposition in this film as he did with certain scenes in LOTR like the Arwen and Frodo scene in FOTR. But I'm going to reserve final judgment until I see the flick. I'm sure I'll cry like a little bitch at the end but we'll see........
-
Dec 16, 2005 1:49:33 PM CST
You guys honestly can't put together why the B.O. was not hu
by lezbo milk
If the film had been released next week on the 21st or 22nd, the B.O. would have been a hell of a lot bigger. Kids are still in school...if you went to a 6pm show, the little shits would miss their bedtimes. It's a busy fucking week for most people running up to the Holidays. Next week there will be more people with more time to see a long movie. I think Friday and Saturday will be good...Sunday not quite as good as people have to go back to work on Monday and won't be staying out late. Word of mouth will be huge. Christmas weekend will be HUGE, and Kong will have staying power due to the fact that there isn't shit coming out after Christmas until May. So there you go. Just because the B.O. wasn't fucking gigantic on a Wednesday and Thursday in the midst of a busy week doesn't mean shit. This movie will make 325 million domestic easy.
-
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with what you said about the representation of Karl there Harry. In the film I can understand how people could see Black's Denham as a totally unpleasant, irredeemable character but I would have to argue against that. To me this new Denham is a tragic character, and one of the films crowning achievements. All the way through Denham is an impassioned character, that is indeed self cantered, but he doesn't realise it, he is doing what he does out of raw passion. Early on he talks about mystery, how his film will give anyone who wants it a piece of one of the last pieces of mystery the world has to offer. He is like the embodiment of a child grown up, saddened by the feeling that there is little magic left in the world. No Santa. No Easter Bunny. No Dinosaurs. But in Skull Island he has a chance to bring to people something new. Something fantastic. And when he sees Kong, he sees something so INCREDIBLE that he is in awe. And although in his heart he knows what he is doing is wrong, he just wants the world to see this THING. This life-changing creature, that is finally something new, something fantastic left on the earth. Remember this is the depression, times aren't good, but he has a chance to give people something inspiring. Sure he
-
I think that Lezbo hit the nail on the head. Next week will be HUGE and Kong has a great chance to stay in the top 5 or 10 at the B.O. for a long long time. One thing though Lezbo Milk...V for Vendetta is coming out before May, I think you might have overlooked that one. I think this flick will turn in around 330-345 million domestic, and somewhere around 900 million worldwide...and that's a good take no matter how you slice it. So all you haters, why don't you lay low for a while, you're risking making yourselves look even more stupid when Kong does well at the ticket counter.
-
Serenity overmarketed? Where did you get that idea? Yea they did some advanced screening and the like, and a few commercials, but of all the people I know (and that's a considerable number of people) none had ever heard of Serenity, or Firefly for that matter, and were clueless about the film right up to it's opening. Much like the rest of the general public. So given the fact that 98 out of 100 people stopped on the street the week before Serenity opened would've had no stinking idea what the hell it was, how could you possibly consider it "overmarketed"? Now Kong was marketed. It's kinda like Episode One in a way, Jackson got more free advertising from the press talking about it, and TV shows like ET and the like, than just about any other recent movie I can think of. So you've got a case for overmarketing (if there is such a thing in American society). Word of mouth will be Kongs strong suit. The fact is, there are parts of this film that are truely amazing to watch and people will be flapping their gums about those parts, even if they thought some of it was too long in the tooth or sappy. People will see this movie and it will make somewhere around 1 billion worldwide. No doubt. Like Carl said, the Lezbo Milk chick probably has it right.
-
Dec 16, 2005 2:23:39 PM CST
I'm looking forward to monday too - to watch AssRingBearer00
by tony mike hall
Just like the Energizer bunny.
-
Dec 16, 2005 2:25:41 PM CST
I love it when posters talk about the box office numbers...
by wackynephews
...it's so cute the way they pretend they're producers and studio execs. It's also really cute how they associate BO with quality.
-
down compared to a Wednesday opening and a Friday.
Now, if #'s today are at Wednesdays levels or down from that, then..... :(
Still, I say again: it's too soon to say. Titanic never made over 30 million a weekend, but it get making that consistently for months.
Kong may follow suit....man in suit. -
Dec 16, 2005 2:42:47 PM CST
"if the bat had BIT Driscoll, it wouldn't have had to flap r
by iamlegolas
Good thing it didn't then, eh? as the movie would have been over.
-
You're just jealous cause KONG has bigger balls than you. Sucker. Hahahahaha. No, seriously. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
-
I appreciate the discourse, dude. If I ever stated that "Kong=black man", then I was being facetious, because I agree that it's more complicated than that, but there is a definite subtext of the oppressed, colonized "native" to be drawn out there...
Back to Denham: I think MrMatt had some interesting things to say about him, and I'm now looking forward to seeing how Black and the writers approach him. I also agree with Shaner that he's a product of his time, but I don't think it's constructive to label him either a hero or a villain. I don't think it's quite that zero-sum an equation. He reflects the ideas and anxieties of his time period (the stultifying Depression, as MrMatt observed and Jackson seems quite aware of), ideas that can be well-meant and "innocent" but can still do damage...
What's most interesting about Denham is that he isn't just an adventurer, he's a filmmaker. There's something very post-modern about the original film in its own way, one of the first films that was about making films. There's an interesting subtext to "Kong" about the representation of the "native" on film as a further symbolic act of colonizing. There are several levels to what's going on, and I suppose what's vital is to consider how much irony is being employed at each level of representation...
Anyway, enough smarty-pants shit. I'll let everyone get back to hurling feces around... -
Try not to respond to "him", dude. You'll only encourage it. Lathespell I name him. Ill news is an ill guest.
-
easily
-
LOL! Yes, please don't interfere with this mudslinging.
Interesting comments about Denham also filming within the film. Shakespeare did a play within a play several times too. They even show Ann Durrow footage in the '33 if I remember correctly.
Great, great film on many levels. -
Or not. Seriously, though... WHO CARES?!! It's not like KONG's gonna get a sequel if it makes a ton of money, and it's not like Jackson needs this one to hit it big. He'll still get work, nobody's careers are on the line here. There's NO reason for people to be *hoping* it does/doesn't do astronomical.
-
i hope Kong makes 600 Billion. it still sucked. when it under performs, the people who quoted Titanic BO will fall in line with "B.O. doesn't mean a good film" also, why did Jimmy shoot bugs off of rody with a TOMMY GUN? a Tommy gun is so wildly inaccurate that the army stopped using it. it's for shooting distances without accuracy. that's why mobsters used them. Jesus!
-
no, it was another argument between two other tb'ers about the Kong=Black man idea. And yeah, the original did have its pomo moment, though I'd qualify it as more 'meta.' Of course, the def. of pomo has evolved, too. I'll have more to contribute to that discussion (especially re: Denham) once I see it. See, unlike many other of these people bitching about box office (ahem, the usual suspects. See how I'm not engaging with a certain talkbacker even when he mentioned the 'S' word?), I actually have a life and couldn't see Kong in the first Wednesday and Thursday of its release. Frankly, once I see it, I'll be much more interested in talking about the film itself than engaging in pointless discussions of box office. Unless you work in the industry and your livelihood depends on box office numbers, who freakin' cares?
-
I saw this last night with my little niece. We went nuts! It was great! I explained the Depression to her so she could understand why everybody was out of a job and she thought that was pretty sad. She liked the boat scenes and since she had just seen the original Kong on dvd ( slight spoiler ) she recognized the scene Denham was filming with Ann and the Pretty Boy Actor on the deck of the Venture. Great homage ( one of many ) to the original. ( end spoiler ) Skull Island was fantastic, both beautiful and dangerous. I liked the way there was ancient architecture everywhere on the island, not just at the native village. One talkbacker mentioned that the film is not just about the death of Kong, but about the death of a whole way of looking at adventure. No more "here there be dragons" spots on the map. How very true. This movie is about loss on so many levels. One of the most noticable to me was the ancient civilization that used to be on Skull Island, now degenerated into the savage natives. Who built those walls? And did the natives degenerate into their present condition from lofty heights, or were they simply people who came in outrigger canoes from other islands? Everything on the island dwarfed the crew of the venture. There were no spots on which a man could stand and feel like the king of that island. The island puts you in your place. For me, the highlight of the movie was the Kong vs. T-Rex fight. When it's over and Jackson does that circular tracking shot around Kong as he beats his chest, well, it makes you want to go "Fuckin' A!" Damn, I'm babbling again. What can I say? Go see the damn thing! It will make you feel like a kid again. Seriously, I can't understand why some people complain about small things like bats carrying humans off not being realistic. I mean, this movie has giant apes and extinct dinosaurs and insects the size of greyhounds and we're nit-picking about bat behaviour? *sigh*
-
Dec 16, 2005 3:41:14 PM CST
Perhaps...just perhaps...in this case a cigar is a cigar and a g
by negative man
Why is every damn thing politicized and dissected for hidden meaning all the frickin' time nowadays? In the end it says a lot more about the people who see these hidden messages and make connections that the creators of the movie most likely never thought about while making the film. How can people who do this EVER enjoy anything in life?
-
I haven't seen it yet; I've been cobbling stuff together from reviews, but I'll see it tomorrow. Unless Universal pulls it from theatres altogether because the box office is so thoroughly and embarrassingly abysmal and filmgoers are so deeply offended by its unrealistic depiction of giants bats and brontosaur stampedes. Could happen...
-
You spend more time talking about what you're dissppointed in than what you "loved." I know where all supposed to love this movie b/c it's PJ, but we all can agree that it's not perfect. Think about it, maybe you were dissapointed overall. Maybe you only liked it, but not loved it. Search your feelings...use the force...and admit that you were let down more than you expected to be.
-
Though I wonder why I'm even bothering to respond to such a second-hand, regurgitated dismissal of intellectual criticism, I'll have a go...
First of all, people who think about what they're watching often enjoy what they're watching even more than those who don't. When a film works for me on an intellectual level as well as on a visceral level, then I really love it, and love it more deeply than someone who wanders into the theatre on cheap Tuesday to catch some fun flick. Frankly, I think that if you can only enjoy a film by completely refusing to engage with it on any sort of mental level, then perhaps it isn't worth enjoying; that's just my preference. I expect to enjoy "Kong" immensely even while I wonder about its colonialist subtext and how Jackson deals with that...
And if "Kong" does have certain "meanings" that can be observed(and I'm willing to debate that point), then they're hardly "hidden". I choose to see them, I choose to think about them; if you choose not to, fine, but don't tell me they aren't there just because you refuse to look at them. You want it to be a giant monkey movie, I want it to be a narrative of colonialism. Don't tell me that I'm wrong and I won't tell you that you are...
I'd respond to your God/sex analogy, but it doesn't really make a lick of sense. Did you get your Freud out of Reader's Digest? -
Well, literature and art have a long history of being analyzed and in the last 50 years, popular culture has become an object of analysis and cultural critique. These objects say something about our culture and time period, whether on the surface or subtextually, whether the authors intend them or not. You might not agree with certain evaluations or you might have a problem with the whole process altogether. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a movie without analyzing it. But many people also enjoy exchanging ideas on these topics. Analysis doesn't automatically equal complaint or offense. Just because someone reads a certain kind of subtext in a product or an experience, doesn't mean that person can't enjoy it for what it is. Like the above example, I'm fully aware that the Indiana Jones films (not only in their time period, but the action movie serial genre they invoke) portray a strongly aggressive patriarchal culture in which other cultures are either exoticized or demonized, but I still love them and enjoy the hell out of them.
-
Though I think, the shouting of 'Oh, God' during sex is subliminally an acknowledgment of the divine spark present in the sexual act, and the orgasm as the encounter with death/divinity. Don't know if that's Freudian, but could be Reichian.
-
...but I didn't even really read that far. It doesn't really have much to do with the rest of his argument anyway...
I do think a lot of people get turned off to critical readings because they ascribe total control and intentionality to the artists behind the work, and we assume that there are underlying social and cultural anxieties that slip through the cracks. Barthes? "Death of the Author"?
Ultimately, I saw "potato", NegMan says "potaato"... -
Reminds me of the Bill Hicks joke - What does an atheist scream when they come? OOOhhh chemical chance, chemical chance!!! OOOhhh fate and destiny, fate and destiny!!! OOOhhh Big Bang!!!!!
-
emerges when you dance on the intent/effect line. It's always easy to go too far, which many people respond negatively to. That's the trick of good analyis, isn't it? I guess if enough people read something the same way, or someone makes his/her case provocatively enough to get people to rethink their reception of a film/book/play etc. I'm not totally down with the 'death of the author' - I think authorial intent can't be entirely ignored, it's just not the absolute authority on the work. It's more part of the whole mix, especially when you're dealing with audience (reader/viewer) response. Oh well, back to the poop flinging.
-
also reminds me of a hilarious scene in My Life with the Spirits, the autobiography of ceremonial magician Lon Milo DuQuette. When he's a teenager singing for his church choir and decides he's going to proclaim his atheism by refusing to stand for communion and trips on his robe and falls backwards off the balcony, screaming 'Oh God' at the top of his lungs. Sorry, really done now. Poop on!
-
What the hell do people seem to have about the stampede?! I watched that carefully because of all the criticism of the effects in that scene, and I really have no idea what the big deal is. I thought the effects in that sequence where very impressive and while they weren't quite as good as those on Kong himself, they weren't really any less brilliant than those in the rest of the movie. Also, I felt the slow opening stuff in new york and on the boat was one of the things that set this film apart from the blockbuster fare, and really gave the movie something it could easily have lacked. I would agree with Harry that they could have been longer!
-
Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist. The movie is good, but I have two complaints. 1) the WETA effects, except for Kong himself,are subpar. period. The running in front of a blue screen thing is getting tired. The scene where the two guys are running between the legs of the "Brontasori" just came off silly and had no tension whatsoever. and... B) I don;t know. I haven't seen the original all that many times. And except for a couple of details, I just don't see the need for the existance of this movie except if people either can't take B&W movies, or dated SFX. It's worth seeing, a solid three stars.
-
Although I have many problems with critical theory, let me focus on one: the simple fact that I do not see how it could possibly be applied to materials created after the inception of critical theory as a discipline. In other words, since the existence of critical theory is known, there is no longer any such thing as truly unconscious or truly unintentional subtext. There is no longer any such thing as an unselfconscious act of creation. Think of the difference between a photograph of someone who knows they are being photographed, and someone who does not know. They are not the same, and really cannot be the same. The person who is conscious of being under examination cannot look like the person who is unconscious of it, and if they try to deliberately look that way it merely compounds the inauthenticity. And in literary terms there is no longer such a thing as a person who is not conscious that they will be critically observed.
-
I TOTALLY agree with you on that one. I swear to God, when Denham said those lines I wanted to kill him.
-
This movie proves him to be more of a peer of Stephen Sommers and Roland Emmerich than Spielberg or Cameron.
-
Dec 16, 2005 6:26:21 PM CST
Wow..I can't believe we're comparing Peter Jackson to St
by vinceklortho
-
Dec 16, 2005 6:30:31 PM CST
I'm not exactly a browncoat, but it would be extremely funny
by shermdawg
-
Wishing a movie to fail? Why would you do that? A shitload of people a lot more talented than you worked their ass off to make this film and you get off on seeing it not do well? And anyone comparing Jackson to Sommers doesn't just not know anything about movies but also has notaste or eye.
-
I don't know if PJ would have tightened up the movie if he had more time or not, but these ridiculously tight post-production schedules that don't allow the director an opportunity to get a feeling for how the movie plays with an audience (and I'm not talking about marketing test screenings) are damaging the moviemaking process. I liked the movie, but it could have been a brilliant if it were a half-hour shorter. There's all sorts of unnecessary coverage. King Kong wasn't edited, it was assembled ... and just in the nick of time to meet an immovable release date. Too bad.
-
The more I think about the movie the worse it gets. I had such high hopes for it. But I can't fathom how he and the other writers could write crap like the dino stampede, tommy gunning bugs off someone, escaping Kong by riding a friggin bat. This may work in a video game...but its absurd in a movie. And all that time and money that went into generating those scenes....just sad. He had way too much money for this film and elected to spend just to spend.
-
You raise an interesting point - kinda like a Heisenberg principle of theory. I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure what we're doing is 'critical theory' as such. What you explained is EXACTLY the reason why 19th century 'objective' forms of anthropology, for instance, are no longer valid. Your photography example is an excellent one, and it's indicative of the meta- self-aware times we live in (just ask Mark Burnett). It's impossible not to influence what you study, just as much as it's impossible not to be influenced by what you study (like when Harry reviews King Kong). The key is to acknowledge and work with that negotiation to create an accurate and valid study that takes into account the bigger picture. Which is why I have no problems with reviewers giving their history around a film so that we know what position they're reviewing it from. As long as it's relevant. As much as it might seem like the scholar is psychoanalyzing the subject (which assumes the subject acts unconsciously), this shouldn't happen in good theory.
-
thanks
-
NEVER GO TO THE MOVIES AGAIN!!!
-
why both times I have seen this movie (Wed at noon and today at 3), was it only half full. Why did people not applaud at the end? How jaded have we become? KONG is the greatest movie ever made. Period. It's the greatest story ever told; thats why everyone knows it. This story should have been in the Bible . It would have sold more copies. My only disappointment was the fact that the swamp scene was not included which was a let dwn after watching the Production diaries and seeing a clip of a serpent coming towards them in the first preview. So my only complaint was that there wasn't more! When people talk of loose ends and bad dialogue why don't you provide some examples? Anything that you didn't feel worked on its own is completely disreguarding the overall process of filmmaking. Its called pacing people. You have to do certain things to effectively transition from one sequence to the next. Take the Heart of Darkness speech. It is set up well in previous scenes with the two actors so it makes sense that they would be talking of it at all. Then the speech continues in voice over and relates to not only Denham but the human condition as they walk deeper and deeper into the jungle. It IS in the subtext! This is an excellent cinematic decision and if Jackson and team proved anything with LOTR it was that they know how to incorporate aspects that relate to the overall theme of a movie. Their decisions were correct in LOTR and all of the decisions in this film are the right ones. As for Harry saying the original is better, that is not a surprise. Its just an example of putting classics first even though they do not stand the test of time. Thats why on those ridiculous 100 best movies ever it is ALWAYS classic films at the top of the list because it suddenly brings validity to that list. Critics will rarely say a re-make is better than the original because they unfairly get labeled as a hack because they dont really get Casablanca. When the credits rolled for this film it all hit me at once. The crescendo of the score along with the recollection of all that happened in the previous 3 hrs. overwhelmed me. It hit an emotional core. Something I thought had been buried. Something that had been hiding in the shadows. I was grief stricken and had to fight the urge to completely break down right there in the theatre. If you didnt enjoy this movie, if you werent touched by it, then maybe YOU need to spend some time in front of a mirror. Maybe you need to live more. Go back and visit the film in 5 yrs. after a close friend passes or your heart has been broken. Any real faults you see in the film have nothing to do with the film itself. There's a lack or a disconnect within you that is not allowing you to see the film for what it is. A fucking MASTERPIECE.
-
You say that if it was 2 1/2 hours you would go see it. Dude, if you don't have an extra half hour than you either have an oversized ego or you are waaay too busy. You think they should cut out part of the movie so you can go see it. Why don't you cut out some of the unnecessary elements in your life so that you have more time to enjoy yourself. i guarantee you there are some things that you are doing or putting up with that you do not have to. That goes for all of ya! By the way, I respect all of you
-
Kong hit you hard. And that's good. Me, I didn't like it so much (5/10). Broken Flowers knocked me on my ass earlier in the year and the audience i was with was not enjoying it at all. I've moved on. learn to fight for the things you like but recognize that just because you like it does not make it warrant the term 'masterpiece'.
-
You're right, Kong didn't seem to have any masculine parts down there. And trust me, I was looking. I LOVE MONKEY BALLS!
$300 hunge mill domest EASY! -
Uh... most people are at work on Wednesdays at noon and Fridays at 3... my theatre was packed last night at 9.
-
and I already have to move on! That would be a little shallow of me wouldnt it. Also, you just compared Cabin Boy to KING KONG! Are you really Chris Elliot? Furthermore, I liked 40 Year old virgin but I'm not calling it a masterpiece! I'm calling Kong a masterpiece because it is an instant classic. Normally, i'd agree to disagree and just say that everyone's opinion is just that but NOT in this case. The love for KONG should not be relative but universal. The reality is that Peter Jackson's KING KONG touches greatness. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a plain and simple FACT. Thanks for the response.
-
Dec 16, 2005 8:14:56 PM CST
shit. i took the bait. i'm such a fucking fool sometimes.
by hypeendshere
i should've known you were a fake because no one could've misinterpreted what I said that badly.
-
I thought it fit for Denham to say the last line but only because I knew what the line meant. Seeing this with people who hadn't seen it before, they went away scratching their had and not associating the line with the Arabic proverb and certainly not undertanding what it meant. When Denham says it, I believe he is saying it about himself (perhaps not conciously). The 'beauty' of Kong being the beauty of nature and the undiscovered wild being what made Denham cause this great tragedy. Denham, and all he stands for, is the beast in this interpretation. Its not clean and its not a 1-1 parallel but I feel that when Denham says this line, he is as dead inside as Kong is. He is a broken man and he is broken because of his love for the wild and unexplored.
-
then I fear for Superman next year. Good luck to both films.
-
you say that as if I don't realize that in America people work in 9-5 shifts five days a week. You say that as if the streets should be deserted until dusk everyday. For a movie of this caliber, the theatre should be packed all the time. Like when it was packed all the time day or night when Jurassic Park came out. Like it was when ID4 came out. Like it was when the original BATMAN came out. Like it was when the prequels came out. Was there a massive holiday on all of those days that I was unaware of? NO. Thats why the theatre was telling people to show up at least 40 min before showtime. They anticipated crowds on a frenzied level and it hasnt been happening. This makes no sense to me as it has occured with plenty of films in the past that didn't have this level of quality and hype attached. Glad to hear it was packed when you saw it at night. How did the audience react? Thanks for the response.
-
please continue...
-
Since Dungeon Siege seems to be borrowing heavily from the LotR (the airial shots etc), can we expect his magnificent monkey masterpeice soon?
-
I compared Cabin Boy to Will Ferrell's recent films. Kind of like an SAT question. Dog::Puppy as Cat::_______. and you say, of course 40 year old virgin isn't a masterpiece just because you like it, but Kong is because 'it's an instant classic'....according to you. if you've read ANY reviews, even the glowing ones, you will notice a pattern. all of the criticisms are the same and they are damning. but hey, maybe the rest of the world is wrong....
-
Dec 16, 2005 8:37:48 PM CST
You guys can call this film a failure when the Friday numbers co
by citizen arcane
I still don't know why you guys have such a hard on about it failing though. If it has to do with the hype or the shit you read here, then you're a choad. None of that has anything to do with the movie itself. Unless you want the studios to get turned off to big budget genre films and churn out 20 Vince Vaugn/Owen Wilson comedies instead.
-
why do the action sequences have to be a distraction to the emotional pull of the film? They add to it, actually. The overall spectacle along with the tragic elements combine to create a truly breathtaking film. The original KONG didnt intend for people to care about Kong but it is a testament to O'Brien that they did. To have a film as balls out as PJs KONG was and have you care about Kong much more deeply than the original is a testament to Jackson and WETA. Thanks for the response. By the way, I respect all of you.
-
Dec 16, 2005 8:43:34 PM CST
Some of you people have lost the will to be entertained... its a
by chickychow
All you imbeciles who worry about bat-creatures and the believability of a T.Rex/Giant Ape Fight are set aside - you folks are just losers. But the rest of you, lighten the fuck up. Yeah, its a bit of a long slog though that 1st act, agreed. But once it gets going?? How can u not like the introduction of the Natives? (the best horror-movie sequence I've seen in a while) How can you not get giddy during the T. Rex/Kong vine-dangling scene? The giant insect and larvae scene? What more could you want from Kong ontop of the Empire State Building? this movie has its problems, but give it credit when it gets more than a few things right. And what it gets right is fantastic. (especially compared to such "fun" summer depressants like Batman and Episode 3)
-
that wasnt misinterpreting that was just being funny. What are all the elements that make a great film? Great story, great acting, engaging, lasting significance, etc... When you say something is an instant classic it suggests that a film has these elements. What elements do you think make a classic and which ones were lacking in KONG? Um... Oh! The answer is kitten...Its KITTEN!!!
-
Dec 16, 2005 8:48:45 PM CST
Sorry chickychow but Batman was good end Episode 3 kicked ass.
by i dunno
Kong was in the middle.
-
Dec 16, 2005 8:58:35 PM CST
Oh, no the ORLAND WEEKLY, the gold standard said it was funny...
by drewatx
What the fuck is the Orland Weekly? Where is Orland? Have any of you been to Orland? There is the Orlando Weekly. Ive been there but never had the pleasure of reading its daily periodical. Also, if I was a Vaudeville performer in the thirties who had been transported to a distant island to then be sacrficed to the King of all beasts I would definitely be pulling out all the stops. By the way, i respect all of you...except the critic for the Orland Weekly. I'll get you you bastard!
-
I just hope Munich gets the Orland seal of approval...
-
The grandfather of grouches and skeptics; he should be an Icon to you Kong-Haters!
-
you genuinely wanted to respond to someone and did so but then realized you did and suddenly felt you had been tricked into feeling something?
Thats the problem with internet conversations-no one wants to have a real one because their afraid they're talking to a fake person or worse that they'll end up on Dateline. Do you both think I'm an intern for Universal or something? Is that what you mean by fake? Sad. -
Dec 16, 2005 9:08:38 PM CST
I've spoken to family members who have seen KING KONG.
by orbots commander
And the word is, they didn't care for it. A younger brother took his girlfriend to catch a showing of Kong. He thought it was just OK, but silly in many spots. She didn't care for it at all and wanted to leave an hour in to the movie. From what I'm hearing, buzz for Kong, despite critical praise, is not too good.
(Great--sitting here posting about an apparently goofy big monkey monster movie on a Friday night instead of being out, with a full on flu a week before Christmas. Now, where was that Nyquil....?) -
Come on, he grabs onto the fucking bat and flies away! If Frodo would have thought of that with those fucking eagles, LOTR would have been 7 hours shorter! Seriously, I liked the bat thing. Am I the only one that said, "Thank Christ, they're flying back. No 1/2 hour travel log back to the village"? You people are the type who would watch Raiders and say, "Fuck that shit, you can't climb under a truck, this movie's going to bomb".
-
Dec 16, 2005 9:13:22 PM CST
Goatzinger, was that meant to be funny? Knowingly stupid? A wail
by chickychow
.. Because it was only two of those things.
-
The movie industry is pretty much where it was when Easy Rider came out. These movies no longer pull in audiences, and I don't care what spectacular effects you put up there, there's a general feeling that it's just more of the same. And audiences have been fooled enough times now that's they're seriously thinking twice before plunking down the money to see movies like King Kong, Harry Potter, Narnia, and, next year, Superman. 35-40 years ago... shit, has it been that long?, it was putting Julie Andrews in everything and/or making a musical... which nobody wanted to see. At least not young audiences. Now, there's a growing disconnect between the audience and what's up on the screen. Honestly, there's even a general feeling on this site with each of these movies... it's like... there's still that excitement with story after story about the making and development of something like Superman, but, when we all go see it, we KNOW we're gonna be somewhat disappointed. Like I said, no matter what is done, even if it's the greatest FX heavy movie ever made, we've already seen everything in this vein ad nauseum, so nothing can live up to what we're chasing. And what we're chasing, like Peter Jackson, is that high of seeing something like Star Wars or King Kong for the first time. And studios are chasing and preying upon the dollar that we're willing to pay to get that feeling again. People like PJ have gone as far as remaking the thing that made him want to do all of this in the first place, and yet I suspect he feels vaguely empty, as most of us will upon seeing it. It's like... all that for? At some point, we'll all realize or at least most of us will, that this stuff is no longer satisfying, at least for the time being, and there'll be more movies with some kind of depth or a reflection of our own lives. It works both ways... by the time Star Wars came around, people were sick of all the anti-heroes, the navel-gazing, the movies about 'regular' people. The pendulum has just swung back the other way. There really is a vacuum right now, even distribution-wise, for a smart, small-time distributor, to rise, Corman-like, from the current mess and finance a lot of movies made on these HD cameras, with a little nudity, some blood, horror... and the occasional seeringly good drama thrown in for good measure. Just SOMETHING smaller and different. And by smaller and different, I'm NOT referring to the current Indy-film scene. I'd venture to say that King Kong has more in common even with great movies like The Godfather and Dog Day Afternoon than do the pieces of shit that currently flood Sundance, Toronto, Cannes, etc. They all smack of pretentiousness, and that's cause the people on the selection committees are usually failed writers from local colleges and universities, and/or the wives, boyfriends, sisters, relatives... whatever... of indy production company heads. (TRUST ME ON THAT ONE) So they never pick anything really cinematic or 'real' in the sense that something like The French Connection is real... they always lean toward literary pretension, or something made by someone impressed with their own cleverness and or limited intellect. Anyway... that's my two cents for now... lot of rambling, but wanted to contribute.
-
Is the fact that the two-dimensional medium of film has run its course as a technology; it had a hundred years in the limelight, but now that's over. Full immersion VR and 3D environments is next. The era of passive experience is at its end. So even though Kong is perhaps the greatest CGI ever--that's fairly undisputed, even by haters and downer critics--it DOESN'T matter anymore. We're coming to the day that Ray Bradbury envisioned back in the 1950's in "Fahrenheit 451": the age of insertion into the medium. The days of 'butts in seats' is just about over.
-
Dec 16, 2005 9:41:31 PM CST
I sort of agree with you SK909, and I sort of don't.
by orbots commander
I do think many current movies have a 'sameness' which the general audience seems to be tiring of. People will flock to good compelling stories well told in an interesting manner, FX or no FX. For proof look at the blockbusters of last few years, from Mr. Jackson's own LOTR movies, to The Passion Of Christ, to The 40 Year Old Virgin. I'm a big proponent of story. Story is king, not Kong. At the end of the day, an audience will seek out good stories, well told with sympathetic and identifiable characters. Just look at the TV show LOST.
-
i recently saw the 1933 king kong 2 weeks ago and really enjoyed it. i thought the technological achievement was truly jaw dropping. i felt the pacing was excellent. not being too familiar with "oldies" i was expecting this movie to drag. my only real contention with the original was that i did not feel very sad for kong at the end of the movie. i felt somewhat sad for him that he was alone and misunderstood by everyone. i felt that because ann was always afraid, it reinforced the notion that kong was nothing more than a monster.
the reason why i love PJ's version is because we see kong through ann's eyes. first he is a terrifying monster, then by her reaching out to him and making him laugh we see that he is more like us than we thought possible. the connection ann makes with kong is what makes his eventual capture and death so moving. she is the movie's conscience. the original was made in an even more ignorant time than our own and that was reflected in the fact that not one single person felt anything for the wild beast. if PJ's ann were alive today, she'd probably be a card carrying member of PETA after having gone through her ordeal.
all in all, i was more emotionally satisfied with this kong than cooper's.
still love ya though harry. keep up the great work. -
Oh, the technology is coming for fully immersive VR (although actual VR has progressed surprisingly slow in the last 10 years) but there will always be room for non-interactive media. Because first and foremost, movies tell a story. You can't tell the exact story you want to tell if your viewer is actually in the story fucking it up. Of course there will be a market for it but I think we'll still have regular 2D movies even when we get holodecks.
-
What zinc is saying about the modern day movie business, people have been saying about book publishing and the novel for the last hundred years. At every technological communications breakthrough, social pontificators have been predicting the novel's demise, yet ever more large chain bookshops seem to be opening, publishing is still a multi billion dollar business, and each new Harry Potter sells stacks of hardcovers to rival most would-be film blockbusters. The same would hold true for the 'movie' as we know it.
-
when i meant a hard concrete opinion on why the movie would fail, i didn't want you to quote numbers from box office mojo, i wanted to hear your opinion on the film and why you seem so eager for it to fail? all you do is toss numbers out there that we've all read already today. oh and dan brown to da vinci=shitty artist to genius, godzilla or serenity to kong=shitty attempt at art to genius, that's the relationship. and it's not a similie. you came back on here with a long ass post and still no original opinion on the film other than 'it will fail based on its first two WEEKDAYS of release'. you wanna talk box office, look how astonshingly close titanic's performance was to kong's. think about the run time and turnover of crowds in the theater. kai, i wanted to give you a chance, but you have proven yourself a brainless frustrated faux indie-film supporting asshole up and down this talkback already. go see kong and form an opinion and then come on back, or if your really motivated, hop on into a film or lit class sometime soon. maybe someone in there will force you to grow the dick and balls it takes to leave yourself vulnerable and express your actual opinions.
-
Dec 16, 2005 10:13:57 PM CST
I think internet has ruined movies for people like ringbearer an
by citizen arcane
Do you really think these people would have this level of cynicism towards harmless blockbuster type films if they didn't bring with them 1,000s of hours of message board baggage with them? Do you think people would actually sit with a notebook and write down all their little nitpicks over a film if they didn't have a TB readership to share it with? It's a shame really. Sites like this are places to bullshit about movies to some, giant joy vacuums to others.
-
great name for a band
-
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/954/queenwatts2sg.jpg
-
I wanted more than anything for this movie to succeed beyond my wildest dreams. For me, it didn't live up to the hype and I was disappointed. There was a lot of good stuff about it, but I wasn't satisfied. I think the reason why I, and perhaps some others, are concerned about the box office success is because we are the market for these products that studios are churning out. I'm beginning to realize how screwed up the system really is right now. So many critics are lauding praise on Kong, while my opinion, and the word of mouth of many others, is that wasn't as good as it could be. I hate the fact that they spent over $200M dollars and didn't make a movie I liked. I hate the fact that the effects weren't up to par for all parts of the movie. Yeah, I realize people worked hard, but if you're going to have an amazing ape, shouldn't the dinosaurs on stampede be pretty amazing too? To whomever asked why we are concerned with the box office because we're not producers, etc-- we may very well be someday. Look at Harry (or just take him for example), he was a fanboy much like the rest of us posting here in talkback and now he's producing movies. That's why we care about that stuff, because some of us will be involved with it someday.
-
Kong... simply awesome. Wonderfully told. This far surpasses all other Kong films. Jackson brings this beast to life in an incredible way. One to see over and over again.
-
Imagine that descent into the earthquake pit from Black Scorpion.
The slugs , the centipede, the spider arachnid things, man, add scorpions and you got something crazy good. Jackson automatically makes a movie where everybody says, wow, way better than the original. -
...was a little stronger than Titanic's opening day. It might go up or down spectacularly, and I'm not invested in it either way, but come on, folks. It hasn't had a weekend yet. The critical reception has been EXTREMELY good, and every kid in America is about to start Christmas vacation. Furthermore, it's a three-hour movie. That means that when you look at the box office, you have to consider that this movie can play half as many times in an evening as a one-and-a-half hour movie. That means it's not going to break single-day or single-weekend records, but it could do spectacularly well nonetheless by getting great word-of-mouth and having some staying power. Plenty of movies break records on their opening weekends and then completely disappear in three weeks because people don't like them and say so to their friends; I don't think that's going to be what we'll see here.
-
Y'all are some of the MOST jaded, ill adjusted people on the face of the earth. I saw Kong tonight, thought it was excellent. It was flawed (as all films are) But I was able to leave my cynicism at the door and actually suspend my disbelief for the entire running time. Incidentally, I like the fact that they actually took time to set up the characters and such. All I can say is get a grip, get a life and quit being SO damned bitter (I'm sure there's even some of you who actually liked the movie but get off on picking things apart and being asinine on a FORUM.)
-
Dec 17, 2005 12:19:08 AM CST
Titanic made a steady $20 mill per week for like 4 years.
by citizen arcane
But it had zero competition, except for Tomorrow Never Dies which opened the same day but wasn't a slouch either. You can't say that about Kong, in fact, you'll probably never be able to say that a winter movie had no competition again. Truely a case of everything coming together for a truely mediocre movie.
-
Just like ROTK, and Two Towers, this movie will not be one you can sit through from beginning to end for repeated viewings. It's just too bloated. But it's worth seeing once.
-
Dec 17, 2005 12:40:15 AM CST
I can picture the pinhead studio executives at the post-mortem m
by citizen arcane
"The film skewed a little 'tragic' with test audiences. Could we have maybe made the ape somehow escape? Maybe solve a crime? And the conditions in 1930's New York were too...depressing. People needed to be happier. And we definitly needed a zany sidekick. Where's the zany sidekick? This is why artists should never be allowed to make films without running it by the experts, the studio executives."
-
"Titanic" had "Tomorrow Never Dies"(125 mil domestic) open with it 12/19/97. It had "Good Will Hunting"(138 mil domestic) expand nationally from platform release on 12/26/97. "As Good as it Gets"(148 mil domestic) opened that same day, as well. The Cameron epic quadrupled these three blockbusters during their explosive runs. Kong only has Narnia. Btw, this Kong is only marginally better than Godzilla '98. PJ has to learn 'less is more'. Not everything warrants a three-hour running time. His last four movies are depressing, dark, tedious, and waaaay overrated. At least when Cameron goes bananas, it's on an historical epic. Not a thrice-recycled monster movie. This Kong is not the definitive version. It is merely A version. Mediocre, at best.
-
Dec 17, 2005 1:06:51 AM CST
Who cares about the Casual Movie goer Bitching about Screen Time
by rcamacho2278
People like that Fund crap like Fantastic four and Aliens vs predator. Dumbasses. King kong Freakin RULED. it did not feel long, they need to understand the difference between a film...and a flick
-
Godzilla '98 grossed an adjusted 470 million dollars worldwide.
Understandable considering the giant lizard flick had atrocious reviews, a negative-hype backlash, and was a miserable motion picture. A textbook example of a big budget, big studio misfire.
Guess Hollywood learned it's lesson. No one would be stupid enough to go to that well again. Certainly not a director of the "stature" of a Peter Jackson. After all, the man is a moviemaking genius.....
Okay, I am wrong. The man believes a monkey movie is a serious art film. Except, his art film gets to have an ILM-quality effects house with near unlimited resources. After all, he IS Peter Jackson, director of the LOTR Trilogy.
The "uber" director has certain other advantages over team Godzilla. He has been the beneficiary of an unlimited budget, unprecidented buildup, and saturation marketing campaign infiltrating everything. Basically we've had Kong shoved down our throats. Heck, most esteemed film critics even hail his latest effort "another masterpiece". Of couse. After all, it IS Peter Jackson, director of the LOTR Trilogy.
Add to that a dash of LOTR mojo. Must mean Titanic's records are history. Right?! Nope. Means PJ magnum opus will pathetically fall short of Godzilla's modest sums.
At least Roland Emmerich was humble enough to keep his budget down. He knew he wasn't making high art. PJ's arrogance led him to believe he could water on water. The financers of King Kong right now must feel like putting a contract out on the "Lord of the King".
-
His budget was NOT "unlimited" (wasn't even the most expensive movie by several million), the "unprecedented build up" was not unprecedented, Star Wars movies among others being just as highly built up. Please show a quote where Jackson says he was making, "high art." I've only heard him describe Kong as "fantasy" and "escapism." Please show me anyone who's ever worked with Jackson or knows him and thinks he's "arrogant." It's fine to not like the movie, but baselessly insulting someone's character (especially someone you've never, and will never, meet) just isn't nice.
-
I wish I was fortunate enough to be professionally involved with Peter Jackson (notice I didn't say "personally involved" because I don't know the man personally). But I would ask the same questions no matter who was the subject. If you insult anyone's character with zero objective, corroborative evidence to support the insult, with no personal knowledge of the person you're insulting, that's a bad thing to do (and that's a nice way of putting it). If all you had done was make movies that some people didn't care for (but many millions did), and one of those people attacked your character, I'd stand up for you, too, and tell the person insulting you that it's wrong to do so and reflects badly on their character. It's probably instinctive for me, having spent many years teaching troubled kids the demonstrable benefits self-reflection, as opposed to blindly lashing out at strangers.
-
I wish I was fortunate enough to be professionally involved with Peter Jackson (notice I didn't say "personally involved" because I don't know the man personally). But I would ask the same questions no matter who was the subject. If you insult anyone's character with zero objective, corroborative evidence to support the insult, with no personal knowledge of the person you're insulting, that's a bad thing to do (and that's a nice way of putting it). If all you had done was make movies that some people didn't care for (but many millions did), and one of those people attacked your character, I'd stand up for you, too, and tell the person insulting you that it's wrong to do so and reflects badly on their character. It's probably instinctive for me, having spent many years teaching troubled kids the demonstrable benefits self-reflection, as opposed to blindly lashing out at strangers.
-
.....what? numbers are too much for you to handle? That's okay, I have a friend who also has problems with 'rithmetic, and is petrified of them numbers. I think you 2 would get along just dandy. (Wait a minute! What's this? I see you also have a problem with lots of words and "long ass" posts - we'll try and keep this brief to the best of our ability, but if not, then bear with us - reason and logic generally don't like being rushed). As for the movie, I'm not rooting for it to fail or succeed - like I already pointed out before, all you Peter Jackson fan-club types really need pull back from the knob-polishing long enough to... - read and understand, in this particular case. For example, your intepretation of my "hate" for this movie is nothing more than a simple observation, on my part, that due to the fact that this movie has received an inordinate amount of marketing hype, glowing reviews, and the usual ass-kissing from the Harry-types, it's only logical that expectations were going to be unrealistically high; especially for today's uncharitable Box Office climate. Consequently failure to meet those expectations was an inevitability. An eventuality that seems to be bearing itself out as we speak, based on Kong's most recent, um, not too stellar B.O. numbers and the less than glowing word-of-mouth, by the non Peter-Jackson-fanclub types who've so far seen it and are giving it the "meh" review. So basically all I was trying to convey to you was the fact that this movie, while it may not "fail", in the technical sense of the word ( it will probably make a lot of money regardless), it will inevitably fail to MEET EXPECTATIONS - overblown epxectations, but expectations nonetheless. Studio Expectations; who expected it to be either the biggest movie - moneywise - of 2005 or a close second to ROTS. Fanboy expectations; who are heralding it as the new "Titanic". You really have to learn to engender an appreciation for the difference between what I'm actually saying and what you think (or maybe want to believe) I'm saying. I have seen the movie and as I said before, on critical points, Jackson has essentially done almost nothing new in this movie - a remake of a remake, to be sure, and he drives that point home with the lackof originality - and what he has actually done, such as the dinosaur scenes and whatnot, have already been done to a far higher quality ( like Jurassic Park which, shockingly was made almost a decade ago and still outshines this effort). And for a 3 hour movie, there's a lot of disjointed wasted time in between major scenes or plot points that leaves the impression that the movie didn't have to be that long - typically indicative of a director who has scant grasp of pacing in making his film; a fact that's made even more glaring when taking into account that wasted and totally pointless first hour before Kong shows up. These types of misteps, generally tend not to endear the movie to the prospect of repeat business and hence eventual B.O. success ( or Oscar voters if you want to go the quality route.)Is it any clearer for you now, or was this post also just too "long ass" for you to handle as well? When one wants to know someone's opinion, they don't turn around and start bitching about the length of the response But that's just me.....
-
.....it's still a faulty and invalid analogy; your explanation notwithstanding. Trying to categorize Dan Brown as a "shitty" artist, so as to draw upon the artist connection to Da Vinci, is basically taking the easy way out. If you wanted to compare Dan brown as an 'artist' to some other 'artist' of the same category, and with the intent of drawing a sharp contrast between the 2, an approriate choice might have been Shakespeare, or maybe Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Dickens, or even Joseph Conrad. Do you see the thread of commonailty between those choices and Dan Brown that isn't there with Da Vince? ( which hence allows the analogy to be valid?) As in the fact that they are all 'artists' of the genre: WRITER!! Using "Artist" as the thread of comomonality, which is far too general, when you consider that even some doctors consider what they do to be works of art, is akin to presenting an analogy comparing (or contrasting) Micheal Jordan to Adolf Hitler on the basis of the fact that both are human beings. Far too general. (incidentally, in case you missed it this analogy-within-an-analogy that I'm currently making:- comparing your faulty analogy to the faulty analogy of Jordan->Hitler, bears the thread of commonality of logic inadequaacy - meaning they are both not well-thought out). As opposed to a comparison between Hitler and Churchill ( both political leaders but at opposite ends of the moral compass and benevolence scale) So it's sad that I have to point out AGAIN why the analogy of Kong to Godzilla ( BOTH movies, BOTH monster movies, BOTH movies based in NY, BOTH movies in which the lead character Monster/Creature, dies in NY) is still a far more valid ananlogy than what you were proferring.
-
Sure does have a lot of (unexpected) criticism for a movie he says he loves. www.unseenfilms.com
-
That was a good movie. I cried like a bitch during the entire third act. JB provided a swift kick to the cunt of Denham, meaning he did a great fucking job. Did anyone else cry like a bitch? Let's talk about that instead of Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding spoilers and whatever the hell was discussed in those 3-page replies to other repliers.
-
tell me something...I know we don't see eye to eye at all on this kong thing...but do you really not have anything better to do? why are you obsessed with this and I am asking you nicely I am not abusing you I just want to know. Is this finally the attention you have been craving for sinced your p[arents starved you of it when you were young?because you are fucking obsessed with this stuff. we all get it you really don't like peter jackson. but If the story title has kong in it you are there in a flash. why?
oh and i agree witht he poster a few posts back you really are some cynical jaded sons of bitches. nitpicking motherfuckers. not all of you. no film is going to be loved by everyone but some of you..dear god.....you should just give movies a break for a while...not watch one for a few years and you might scrape back some of you love of it because i think you all sound very tired and nothing could please you. as for kongs slow start at the box office...if fantastic four can make money this can.
oh and i love how haters say "everyone in the cinema i was in hated it too and my little sisters firiends baby sitter hated it as well" ...and that lovers say " everyone loved it in the cineam i was in and my cousins friends sisters roomate loved it" personally i have no idea how much the entire 500 people in the cinema enjoyed the film and i couldn't give a fuck. but for the record 4 of my friends have seen it too...2 loved it...2 didn't...50/50...aw well you can't please everyone. -
While the religion preaching Narnia box office went up from Thursday to Friday. What the hell is going on??????????
-
... but it'll make a profit...
-
I felt it was about 30 minutes too long. The stampede scene was , in places, incredibly poorly done. It looked like the three stooges, running in front of a obvious back screen. The v rex battle was completely, the opposite. Kick ass and well executed. Kong himself was amazing and it and serkis deserve an oscar. Naomi was sweet to look at,but to me, black and brody were cast wrong.
A great adventure, popcorn flick, but in no ways a masterpiece. I hope the dvd is fixed up, maybe re-edited down to a better pace (especially everything before skull island)....and for petes sake, dont make a directors cut with an hour of extra scenes. 3 hours was too much. Just my opinion folks. If ya don't like it, bite muh sack. -
The lady who cuts my hair is black. She asked me if I was going to go see Kong. I told her, no I thought the movie was offensive. She didn't have to ask me what I meant. Believe me my white geek friends, black people know when they are being insulted. It happens so much that they don't have the emotional energy to fight every fight, but they recognize the racism in Kong even if you don't. AICN is probably receiving payola to push the movie. That's fine with me because they got to make a living, but you geeks who write in to support Kong, why?
-
Even if you took the angle that Kong represents Black man in America, it is completely sympathetic to it. It would be akin to saying Gungha Din was racist. Kong is an animal. He represents the wild and untamed. If it was a racial metaphor, don't you think the filmmakers might have made some effort to enhance that imagery rather than countering it at every turn by the inclusion of black characters that do not in any way parallel the Kong story? There are plenty of intentionally racist stories out there if that's what you want to see. Claiming that Kong is racist just makes you look paranoid ...and perhaps makes you a hatemonger.
-
Everyone acts concerned about the Hollywood trend downward. And it's true that they have to compete with more and more sources of entertainment. But the bottom line is that people do want to go see movies, and they do when Hollywood hands them a product they want. I'm not saying that all great movies find an audience or that no bad movie makes money. Clearly, the public is comprised mostly of people with double digit IQs. However, a lot of people are willing to lower their standards when a pet project rolls out and you end up with a board like this with people praying that a bland remake like Kong will make money. But where's the audience for this? Word of mouth is going to bury this mediocre effort and while it may do well in Asia, I doubt the Europeans will go for this in a big way. The comparisons to Titanic are pointless and baseless. Kong will attract a fanboy audience and a few general moviegoers, but there is nothing there for drama lovers. No great acting performances. No great roles. No interesting character dynamics or story. No profound thematics. Nothing to satisfy a mature moviegoer. And in the showing I saw on opening night, everyone was groaning when Naomi Watts climbed to the top of the ESU like a moron. Her pet monkey was in danger. Oh well. Old Yeller was a far more moving "dead pet" movie. The bottom line is that if you are doing a remake of a movie, you need to be able to add something besides better FX. EVERYONE, whether they saw the original Kong or not, knows the story and how it ends and this new movie has nothing significant to add to that. I'm not a "hater" and don't give a damn whether the film makes a buck or a billion. Everyone is entitled to go or not go and form whatever opinion they wish. Mine is that this "new" Kong is a mediocrity offering nothing but inconsistent FX and a stale rehash with one dimensional characters, boring performances, and a bladder-stretching, muscle-cramping, mind-numbing run time that should have been halved just out of mercy for one's fellow man.
-
Savage violent irrational black natives. Check. Intrepid white colonialists exploiting the resources of the savage land. Check. Fascination with a white woman as the ultimate image of beauty and desirability in the entire freaking world. Check. I haven't seen the movie so I'm probably leaving out some stuff. I got this just from seeing the previews which frankly embarrassed me. The representation of the savages of Skull Island embodies every racist image of the thirties about Africans. Whether or not you see Kong as a symbol of the black man's experience in America, you have to admit that the presentation of the natives of Skull Island is racist.
-
I assume Naomi Watts wasn't the first woman sacrificed to Kong. I get the sense that sacrifices of native girls had been going on regularly for a long period of time. How come none of those dark skinned girls could bring out the humanity in Kong? How come only a white woman was good enough to touch his heart? What happened to all of those black chicks? Did Kong just kill them all? Doesn't that bother anyone? What does that say about Kong? And yet he is redeemed because he falls in love with the white chick? None of the balck chicks were good enough for Kong? This is outrageous racist bullshit!!!!
-
Would you have felt better if all the natives had laptops? Or perhaps there should have been some white and Chinese natives to balance it out? Or are you just one of those people who screams "racist" every ten minutes just for shits and giggles?
-
as someone has stated, its only racist if you make the connections that may or may not be in there already. Lando sold out Han Solo, so I guess that means George Lucas is a racist who doesnt trust coloured people? I have just watched Kong, and its one of the finest cinematic spectacles I have ever scene - just fucking brilliant! I also was going to boycot it though, a monkey one threw shit at me in a zoo so from that day forward I have hated those damn dirty apes.
-
Again, I don't think so. Certainly it is pro-civilized and puts a spin on barbaric cannabalistic cultures that is negative but that's not a racial issue. The black civilized crewmember is one of the most noble and cultured of all the crew. Yes, the thing that makes Ann different to Kong at first is her hair and skin colour but again, that isn't racist. Its not saying that this somehow makes her better. It just makes her different. But there is something that sets Ann apart form all the other blondes that Kong later discards and that is perhaps her courage. To sum up, just because the cannibals (a legitimate and non-racist antagonist) were dark skinned does not try to say anything about blacks in general. All the flics about White men coming to the New World gets bogged down in political correctness and fear of racist labelling. If the film is about the terror and strangeness that the Europeans encountered then it is pretty essential that natives be portrayed as frightening savages. That's not to say that the natives were barbaric savages but that is how they were seen and to portray them otherwise radically changes the narrative story and that story can be pretty good adventure. In fact, I believe that had they made the Skull Island Native white-skinned, it would have been an ommission that spoke more of racism.
-
it took two posts for you to figure out the difference between a similie and a metaphor (although mine was admittedly shitty and rushed). once you figured out it was an analogy, it took you another novella length post to show the world that you did. impressive. anyhow, you are sounding more legit in your opinions on why you dislike kong, or at least don't think it wil be a big box office legend. my point wasn't to troll on you, just to get you to open up a bit and give some specific feedback on the movie other than 'it's a remake, it sucked, nothing new, it'll fail domestically'. which you did to an extent. but this version gives nothing new??? stop-motion kong vs. weta kong? the entire relationship between kong and ann being quite different than in the first film? denham being played quite differently than in the first film? i thought the flick was 30-40 min too long, but there's literally hours of difference between this version and the '33.
-
Why did the natives have to be black? They could have been a lost colony of Atlantis. Why weren't any of the leading roles given to black actors? Samuel L Jacson would have been great in the Jack Black role. Halle Berry or any other of number of black or mixed race actresses would have been great in the Naomi Watts role. This movie didn't have to be racist. Peter Jackson is just insensitive to race issues, probably because he is from New Zealand.
-
You sound bitter. If you were Kong would you have been interested in any of those natives? All the brothas today go after white women once they have some power. fo shizzle my nizzle. And whats with the huge gates in these Kong movies??? Is something huge passing through them occassionaly? Do the natives have Kong over for tea on Tuesdays? Why not one long solid wall with a small door natives can go out of and frolic in the forest if they want.
-
Boy, you are delusional... I've not heard such a wafer thin argument since we invaded Iraq! One of the leads in the film is filled by a black man, and it was set in 1933, how many black movie producers do you think there were back then? The natives are not black anyway - they seem to be more maori mutants than anything else. I would continue to argue with you, but when you said Halle Berry could act I realised that they do now have internet access in mental hospitals - keep taking the tablets my friend.
-
Dec 17, 2005 9:00:45 AM CST
Some reason why the original '33 King Kong is a better film
by chishu_ryu
Besides the reasons cited in Mr. Knowles' review, you have to look at...1) Fay Wray's performance. She brought emotional physicality to Ann Darrow's role. The way she pulls off the "Scream for your life, Ann" scene, her body language and the terror she brings forth in her eyes, one of the best scenes in movie history. Or the way she writhes and wriggles in Kong's hand. Or the true fatigue she shows as she runs through the jungle. Fay Wray was an actress who truly understood her body, and knew how to work it for maximum impact. Naomi Watts seems to understand the googly-eyed gaze real well, but she comes nowhere near Fay Wray. (2) The way the original Kong films respects its human characters. Take Charlie, the Chinese cook. In the original, he's given a voice, he's given a brain. He hates peeling potatoes, wants to go back home to China someday. He's the one who discovers that Ann's been taken. In this '05 version, Charlie may as well have just been a stupid gook. And of course, he gets killed along with the one other minority person in the film. Or Robert Armstrong's Carl Denham, who, in the original, is allowed to be a truly charismatic movie producer, the kind of guy you'd follow to the ends of the earth to make a movie. He cares, he thinks he can truly make a masterpiece that will thrill the world. Jack Black's Carl Denham has about as much charisma as an earthworm. Who would want to make a movie with this human piece of filth? Maybe if he'd busted into a Tenacious D number, I'd have appreciated him more. And even the Skull Island natives are treated with respect. The crew treats them as human equals, and realize it's only their superior firepower that keep them from getting a real bad ass-kicking. It's telling that Merian C. Cooper actually did travel the world, experienced other cultures, and perhaps developed more respect for them. (3) King Kong vs pterodactyls compared to King Kong vs giant vampire demon bats. Enough said about that. (4) The imagery of the original King Kong, with its many long master shots, allows the mood of the action to sink in. Kong as he trods through the dark jungle, birda flying past. Kong as he stands atop the Empire State building, we truly feel it's just him up there alone against the bi-planes. Peter Jackson's film inserts too many cuts, close-ups, moving shots as if they're supposed to intensify the action. They only serve to break it up. Look at what Spielberg did in Jurassic Park, he uses master shots, like the T-Rex attacking the herd of Gallamimuses(sp?) to sell the action. When dealing with an oversized gorilla next time, Peter, just show us the action, that is enough. Respect to Jackson and his team for the CGI effects, though. New York looked pretty good, and Kong lived and breathed. But what do you expect after 70-plus years and Jurassic Park? Sorry, but if Jackson's "King Kong" does poorly at the box office, it deserves it. Long live the original "King Kong"!
-
this is getting plain re-goddamn-diculous. even the original '33 film, while portraying the natives in a stereotypical way, was not a racist film (and they actually spoof it in the updated version, while kong is chained up on stage). it's a film questioning the euro-american impulse to interfere with and destroy other cultures for our personal gain and offer nothing to these people/cultures in return. this is alluded to in jackson's new film by way of literary references is more or less blatantly obvious in the way black portrays denham. the film is critical of american expansionism and our control over globalization, which is not a race-based theme. it is not critical of blacks or tribal cultures at all. it shows the natives in the same sad light as the many of the other denizens of skull island (amputated, old, frightened and turned mean, violent, altering their appearance to seem more intimidating and scary). honestly, if you think this is a racist film and you haven't seen it, give it a chance. it's not. and if you do see it and you see a gorilla in chains and the first thing you think of is 'that's a black slave!', then i think maybe this is projection, which is valid, but definitely not the intent of the director.
-
Dec 17, 2005 9:18:20 AM CST
I know you've all been just DYING to seewhat I thought of th
by bendersshinyass
Wow! I just got back from this new Godzilla remake flic everyone been raving about. Now I can finally chime in with some hard core 'know what for'. I'm pretty sure I saw an anamtic version of this film, when they first proposed in way back in the early 1900's. but the technology just wasn't there. So they shelved it for a 100 years. Oh yeah, they tried again in the 70's..... but that shit was just some tests to see if they had the technology yet. No they didn't. And we all know what those films lacked. Zombies!! Put a Zombie film geek in charge of this project. He'll give this film what it needs. Zombies! Oh man I loved the Zombies. They were the best Zombies since DOTD remake. I noticed there were in fact quite a lot of delete-a-ble scenes. but fuck it, lets just leave it all in, it wont hurt the story at all. I mean, Michael Bay was allowed to leave in the Cuba Gooding Jr. sub story in Pearl Harbour' so why not Mr. Jackson leave in his blatant rip off sub story also. I do wonder what he was trying to ram down my throat with the 'Heart of Darkness' book. Close up, 'Heart of Darkness' book. Ok, now mention said book. another close up of the book. and another please. There we go, now we understand "Heart of Darkness". Doesn't that fill your soul with a certain Dred. To bad Star Trek Insurrection already used up the 'Heart of Darkness' references for me. Not to mention Francis Ford Coppela. I wonder why Spielberg wasn't keen enough on his film to have his character reading "Green Eggs and ham" through out 'the war of the worlds'. I mean think about it. Green eggs? Yuck. and ham. green eggs kinda make the ham sound half arsed also. Blye-ah! But we're talking about Mammals. And any Reptilian who doesn't already know it. Mammals KICK ARSE! So don't even try and fuck with Mammals. Because we know the meaning of the word Beautiful. All you know is "I'm scary and hungry". You'll never win our planet. Never. How was that S-k-u-l-l I-s-l-a-n-d typerwriter. Why couldn't we get all his power words in the same fashion. Is it possible next time for HACKSON to maybe slow the film down in camera, as oppose to dropping down the frames and adding a blurr stream to make it look like he didn't actually slow down the film speed in post. And eyes. this film is all about eyes. Lets look at everyones eyes - for a full 10 seconds each. each 3 times. Just to drive the point to the audiance that Jackson owns us. And we wil lforever be indebted to him for the gifts of his talents, offering us something to do with our boring lives. I did however duck out for a piss when Kong stopped rampaging New york. You know the part - when Anne decides she'll just appear and stare at him. When I returned she'd walked the full distance and was now in his hand. Did i miss anything important? Just respond in kind, I'll be reading. Now I LOVED this film. It was a ruttin tuttin good time. But whats with that ending? I mean, i know Kong has to die, and fucking 'A' those bi planes good fun. But my issues lie with the final words spoken by the evil Jack Black. This guy just never lets up. I bet he went home and jacked off to his head shots of Anne forgetting all the chaos he'd caused. It wasn't beauty that killed the beast. what the fuck? It was you, you cunt. YOU! This whole fucking ordeal took place because YOU couldn't stop selling your soul to the lowest bidder. Oh well. The special effects were magnificent. I don't care how fake they got. they were well done. However, I did have issues with sunlight and shadows. Ringbear you insightful bastard. bravo. I did find two really GAY bits. Fay is doing something for RKO. Fair enough, but when Kong was rampaging all I could think was "Were's Fay? Does she know the film she's making is actually taking place. This film was a beast, and it twas a bad line at the end which killed the beast. I wont jump on the 3 hour train and say it could lose half it's carriges..... but It most certainly could have been trimmed AT LEAST 20 minutes. And it had a 'my little pal Jimmy' sub plot. How ridiculous. But damnit, this film was so fucking well made. Hats off. And all Hail Naomi Watts. she's the new action hero. I rechon John McCain, or even Douglass Quaid wouldn't have even been about to stand up after spending a day in kongs grip. That is one tough mother fucking bitch. And I can tell you now, If Kong's going to rip a skinny blond chick from a device which she is ties to, I'm sorry but those arms are coming off. there is no way around it! Thank you beautiful people. haha. Beautiful. Love it. Except for that last line. Man that was shit. And how pathetic was Brody. she doesn't like you man. Deal with it!
-
Johnny, what makes you think that there ever was an Atlantis? What makes you think that Atlanteans were white? What makes you think that dragging Atlantis into a Kong movie is anything other than whacked out? Why weren't the leading roles given to blacks? Because in the era where the movie takes place, racism was as common as hydrogen. Are we supposed to pretend that NYC was teeming with black directors? How racist would that revisionist bullshit be? And if Ann had been played by a black woman, you'd be whining about how racist it is that they got a black girl to have a romance with a monkey. Johnny Angel, I think this is a case of racism being in the eye of the beholder... which means that you don't need to go to New Zealand to find a racist. Try your mirror.
-
Dec 17, 2005 9:31:48 AM CST
johnnyangel, if you didn't see the film then shut the fuck u
by citizen arcane
The natives in Jackson's film aren't even black. They're more like zombie type creatures. Not that it would be offensive if they were, that's the area where they're from. In Jackson's film, Kong didn't choose Anne because she was white, she stabbed him and he let her go, and then ignored her at first. At least view the source material before you go on a PC rant to impress your harirdresser.
-
There were black directors in the 30's. There were black impressarios, black theatres, black businessmen, a whole black sub-culture that existed of and by and for black people. I'm surprised you don't know that. But I'm not here to educate geeks who ought to know better since you all have above average intelligence and education. I shouldn't have to do that. Peace.
-
Dec 17, 2005 9:38:35 AM CST
Oh and every single movie doesn't have to have a black lead,
by citizen arcane
That's imposing a quota system and that in itself is racist. The movie is set in the '30s. There's no feasible place for a black character in the principle leads. You sound like a white guy who just took a black studies course. Our goal as a society should be to remove racial prejudice, on both sides. People like you are doing more harm than good in that regard.
-
Finally saw it last night and it was packed on the big screen at the AMC Empire 25 in Times Sqaure. All five screens were sold out so hopefully this film will do better this weekend. A few comments:
1. Could have done without the slow-mo shots. Really took me out of the film and the one thing that I genuinely disliked.
2. I thought that Driscoll's love for Anne should have been unrequited. The fact that Anne is constantly going back and fourth between Kong and Driscoll (which I never bought) ruined the tension for me as we all know how the film ends and gave the film a viable love story at the end instead of a true tragedy. Still, at least it was not overdone.
3. That being said, Peter Jackson is the man. This film was fantastic and an all-around treat. I was nearly in tears just watching the FIRST 5 minutes of the film and seeing his re-creation of 1930's NY and Anne's vaudeville show. He really loves the material and it shows for the better. Immediately went out and bought the Production Diaries after the show. Yeah - I know its discrediting and shows I'm a jackass but damn I loved this film. -
That's some of this shit that made me really not like a lot of LotR. Not just the slow mo's. I mean, Pippin (I think it was pippin) holding the Eye of Sauron (or was it Sauramon) and the close up, pain, slow motion, film school bullshit was there too. But I can't fault him to much on King Kong. But this is AICN talkback, and faults are what we do best. So let her rip for the next 5 years. wah hoo
-
You'd have to be a really overly sentimental type to be brought to tears over this. Although as a kid I felt the tears welling in the 70's version. But only because the last 2 minutes of that film were so much better. "Twas beauty which killed the beast" what a pile.
-
Did anyone notice, be it off camera, that the white actually wiped out ALL the natives. I thought that was a little hard core. But it also opened up a bit of psychology on me. It's either one of the other. those natives weren't going to let up. It's like that episode of the Simpsons. "Don't be fooled Timmy, If a Cow had the chance he'd kill you and everyone you know." How come they didn't do that in the play. I can't help but feel a little ripped off that we didn't see some sort of hauling back of the cargo. I mean, he might as well have had the stampede cut half way through and then next scene have our heros wiping away the swet saying "Geez, that was exciting, no one will ever believe how we got out of that alive." I didn't find the stampede to be anywhere near as bad as people were making out here.
-
Dec 17, 2005 10:25:33 AM CST
Yeah I did not think I would be moved to tears in this one...
by lilogre
especially because I knew the ending. But what moved me were the unexpected moments - like early NYC and even the less unexpected capture of Kong, or Kong's moments with Darrow. Know I'm a sentimental jackass sometimes but oh well. Now I'm going to McDonalds to buy my Narnia Happy Meal.
-
Dec 17, 2005 10:26:01 AM CST
If KING KONG doesn't do that well boxoffice-wise, Mr. Jackso
by orbots commander
Here in New York, the King Kong label has been slapped on everything and anything, even a state lottery game. Commercials for the movie are on the radio and TV every couple of minutes. You can't glance at a city bus without the giant monkey face looking back at you from a big ad. I think people were just fed up with the hype and didn't want to go see the movie. There is an argument to be made in movie marketing for 'less is more'. Also, when a flick is pushed this hard, the public usually suspects that the movie isn't any good.
-
If someones tied up and a big hairy beast rips you away from your moorings - think about it. I'm surprised no one in production brought this issue up. Oh well. That stampede around the cliff as it's all crimbling and the bronto's are all falling and then piling up. Yeah it was fake. but it was also pretty cool. I have more issues with just how close everyone comes to being Crushed or biten. This was a big groovey film. the near misses just didn't do it for me. especially when the editing was so choppy. I HATED that after the bat scene our hero's are in a rapids dilema.... then next scene they're running through the forest approaching the wall. Clearly a scene which will make it into the EE. Maybe. I did have to feela little for the big guy as he sat on the ESB watching the sun rise. The beast just had no chance. He was a long way from home and he wasn't getting outta this new world alive. Twas beauty which killed the best? How come the bi planes, the 100 story fall and Jacl black get off scot free. Is that him practicing his line for when Anne confronts him and starts hammering the shit out of him for not just leaving the fucker on the island. over to you
-
Yeah - I gotta agree with you on that one. The marketing campaign seemed totally haphazard with a teaser poser seemingly coming out in October and using the close up (?) the ape's face as the primary image and giving no sense of scale. Then it seemed there were a million different standees in theatres all with different images - that would have been fine if they had decided not to use the ape's face.
-
Dec 17, 2005 11:08:16 AM CST
Am I the only one who does not like the KING KONG font also?
by lilogre
It makes sense AFTER you see the film and yeah I know its a nitpick FOR SURE, and I know it is supposed to evoke art deco of the period, but when you DON'T know that 6 months ahead of time I thought it looked lame in the poster for this huge event film.
-
...The dinosaurs were more original. not just the same frames Spielberg used in JP. And I was in Kmart yesterday looking at all the Kong shit. All the little rubber toys you can get look totally different to what he looks like on film. there was one that was really rounded and just looked like this big hairy beast - like an evil big foot or ..... something. The point, I think rather than a giant gorilla and modern belief of dino's, we should have got a giant furry BEAST and a whole range of wonder dino's fully created from scratch. oh well. i did have 2 laughs. When Jack black is offering chocolate to the little Zombie and she starts fighting him and brody say "C'mon, it's obvious she doesn't want any" Man that made me laugh for some reason. and when they're looking at the footprint and Andy Serkis says "there's only one thing that could make a foot print this big. The abonimable snow man" I don't know if it was meant to be serious, or if it was just the character making light, but again, i laughed out loud.
-
there was so much in this film that no one here has even touched on. any conspiracy theorists here? Did you notice all the numerology. I guess 200 gajillion bucks has got to come from some where higher up. I gotta join the occult or something to get my films made I guess
-
estimates are in. Kong made an estimated 14.2 million yesterday.
-
I know people will take me down for this but i thought it was god awfull.
The cgi was muck the scene with the brontosaurs was cringe worthy in its badness. Brodys nose was bigger then kong *stop having close ups of that thing* the scene were he kissed ann really should have been shot from the other side as watts face is lost behind the nose it looks like brody is sticking his face in some straw. Jack black was woefully miscast. Lumpy the chef looked like a cartoon character that belonged in another movie.
None of the actors Kyle Chandler as Bruce Baxter aside are belivable jamie bell wants to run after miss darow to save her when they never seem to of met before her capture.
In a film that seemed to last a week and a half there were two scenes that stood out one was Bruce baxters scene were he finds a poster of his defaced with a moustace he puts a comb to his lip to see what it would look like.
The other is the scene with Kong and Ann in the frozen lake which was the only scene were you felt anything for anyone in this picture.
Obviously because its Peter Jackson most people will defend this tripe but if it was any other director its many many flaws would not be so easy to gloss over.
-
That would be Skull Island. While not quite the disaster that Michael Bay's film was domestically, Kong is certainly underwhelming expectations at this point. Although why those expectations were so high is beyond me.
-
(shouldn't need to say "spoiler" but) Speaking of different audience reactions, by the end at the showing I went to in the Metreon, there wasn't a dry eye left in the theatre. Peter Jackson really nails the feeling of the original in this one. Loved the "spider pit" scene remake too. . . .
-
I agree about expectations. Universal was thinking 110 million opening weekend and easily surpassing PJ's FOTR weekend numbers. But why?
Now, if Saturdays #'s are in the 20's , I think it will be fine. Not great, but fine.
The true tale will be weekend #2, IMHO. If it stays right there we might have another Titanic. If it falls off....oyy.
-
You're a stupidstupidfoolfool. Johnny's argument was that, since PJ is from New Zealand, he doesn't understand American racist archtypes, and, consequently, he can't be sensitive to African American concerns about the innate racism in the original Kong.
-
Saying that there is no way that Kong could be returned to New York as some sort of justification as to how it is a bad movie shows that you simply don't get it.
There is no way it could be done. That's why it wasn't shown. Its a Fantasy adventure flic. There's also no way that a 50 foot gorilla could live on such an island, or that all those large dinosaurs could. Its simple fun. Its a Tall Tale. We do it in a great many of the entertainment media. The ground rules are well established that this isn't going to be reality and a great many of us love it for that. Its like Indy riding the submarine. Sit back and tell yourself that you are completely unable to understand this film BUT that a great many others are and stop your crusade against it. Maybe next take up the argument that 'The Flying Dutchman' is a bad Opera and devote hours of your time to arguing that nobody should ever watch it. -
Box Office Mojo claims that King Kong is $30,306,000 for Thursday and Friday. I predict that the weekend will finish up slightly under $50,000,000. My expectations are the film will do okay over the holidays. But it won't come near the haul of Harry Potter.
-
I don't think "finals" have anything to do with the numbers. Just because one school was done with them by a certain date doesn't mean they all are. With all three of the LOTR movies, I was in the midst of finals. My brother in law even had to get up the next morning for a 8:30AM final after the midnight screening. I just don't think the "finals" reasoning is very good as to why this movie is performing the way it is.
-
So they cut Kong up so he could fit into all those bunks and then reassembled him? As for finals and Christmas and all the excuses why Kong is underperforming... bullshit. This isn't exactly the first Christmas that Hollywood has released a movie. They know all this crap and frankly, this is an ideal time to release a movie. Christmas and Summer are the primetimes of cinema. But there is nothing new here and word of mouth will reflect that. Kong cost 200 million and it doesn't look like it will make its money back in domestic BO. Which makes it a bomb. Of course, with international money and DVD, there's almost no such thing as a real bomb anymore. Anything will make its money back eventually if you leave it on the rental shelves long enough. But the point is that if you invested money in this movie, you'd be wishing you had left it in a mutual fund right about now.
-
Racism exists all over the world. no shit. Racism against blacks in the United States is a unique and very specific phenomenon that has influenced and shaped the history of the country since its inception. But you don't get it because you're not an American. So piss off. I can't teach U.S. History to you in a fucking talkback.
-
Dec 17, 2005 3:20:16 PM CST
Cut Out Approx. 60-80 Minutes And You Have Yourself A Classic
by zombiesolutions
1. Cut the entire boat trip scene. it was pointless and boring. 2. cut the dino-marathon. not only because it looked superfake, but because it went on FOREVER. 3. Cut the 6 or 7 giant bug fight scenes. they weren't cool, they were super lame and totally boring. cut out all of that stuff and you'd have a really good 2 hour movie. i felt everything with Ms. Watts and Kong (yes, even the corny park scene), but the rest of it was pretty, well, boring. hopefully next time Jackson will hire an editor? or has he already turned into Lucas and/or the Wachowski's?
-
so basically at the same length as the original?
-
Don't you mean "pwned"? What are you, a 12 year old? Never argue history or race with a 12 year old nerd, I guess is the lesson here.
-
Approximately, yes. Maybe you'd have to go a little bit longer just in order to develop Ann and her relationship with Kong, but that could've been done quite easily with the cuts i mentioned above. Cut the boat, the "running with the dinos", and the various bug fights and it would be about 2 hours long. it would also be a better film.
-
SKATING ON ICE? SIGN LANGUAGE? Pater Jackson had officially crawled up his own ass.
-
4 Awesomes, 1 Worth a Look, 2 Pretty Crappy. Ringbearer9, this might be a good time to bone up on your debating skills. You just sent me to a site that argues *against* your thesis.
-
that's about right. okay, 74% is about right for me, but I'm not usually the type of guy that likes this kind of flick.
-
I want to see a good remake of CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON. If it tanks, the suits are gonna stick with the Stephen Sommers 'Mummy' formula for the classic monster remakes-then were all fucked.
-
Sure these may seem like negative reviews but when we read between the lines, they are really saying this is an excellent film! Its as plain as day. Afterall, he calls it a 'thing of beauty', 'spectacular entertainment', 'a marvel of cinematic thrills and suspense'. Clearly the reviewer thinks this the greatest film of all time.
-
Dec 17, 2005 6:26:59 PM CST
Hey ThirdPoliceman, that's because METREON audiences are som
by lenny nero
If, that is, you are talking about SF. Whenever I'm back in my hometown, I always make time to BART over to the METREON and catch a movie or three.
-
Has anyone here ever seen the Turner colorized version of 1933 King Kong? It's done as if it was handpainted with watercolors. The Skull Island sequences are hypnotic. I've never heard it mentioned anywhere. I saw in on cable back in 1991.
-
A film can most certainly lose money. But it won't be this one. Apparently it's not blowing up the skirts many insiders thought it would though. For all those rejoicing over this, enjoy it. Because for every genre film that doesn't do well, the studio suits revise their little money making formula a little more until soon all movies will be Titanic type movies; something for everyone from 8 to 80 and nothing for us geeks.
-
It did make me slightly uncomfortable that the first native you see is a blacked-up Dakota Fanning.
-
Dec 17, 2005 7:38:47 PM CST
I thought the racism argument was over after I called out johnny
by citizen arcane
But yes, they were wearing dark paint. Since they didn't have black features, if I had to associate it with a race instead of just some fucked up looking zombie people then I'd say they were trying to look like east Indians. ...so is Kong supposed to be a parable about man's struggle against having their IT jobs outsourced?
-
Feel free to go fuck yourself geek. I've been posting on this site for years - albeit I haven't been reading this site for months at a time - possibly because jackasses like yourself make it a less than interesting place to frequent. Does a glowing review mean someone's called a plant? It's a first for me. Do I need to spell out a long winded list of why I liked it? I felt it was simply incredible. Well done - it far surpassed the original. Harry, I respect your opinion, but saying the original is better than this one... well - there seems to be way too much childhood nostalgia laced with that opinion. The additional personality given Kong with the new effects dusts the original all by itself. Oops - I got off track. Ringbearer9 - Go suck Frodo's dick ya rings nerd.
-
Nice to hear that someone else had to deal with a cell phone jackass during the movie. How many times must everyone watch a cingular (or other wireless company) ad right before the show to think "maybe I'll shut off my FUCKING PHONE". I forgot what part it hit, but some dick's phone just started ringing, and ringing, and ringing, during a tense part of the film. Fucking assholes - unbelievable!
-
King Kong rocked the hizee. I like big gorillas and I cannot lie.
-
WTF is up with many of the talkbackers on this board? Why are people branded Star Wars apologists or Kong apologists, or - you get the picture. Why the hell can't someone like a film and hope it'll do well? This film will have legs - I don't think Universal will have a tough time making its money back at all, but some of the freaks on here are weirdly obsessed with its failure. Just a really strange bunch of creepy fucks. WTF is up with analyzing day to day performance to see if the movie will fail? Who gives a shit? I could only see this kind of insane obsession if one were working for a rival studio or filmmaker. Otherwise, you fucks need to get some sort of hobby.
-
I didn't realize that Ringbearer9 was trying to piss everyone off. I didn't mean to give the geek even more attention. Oh well, if he needs it that badly...
-
BTW - I hadn't posted on this site since the overall remake - good job Harry and Co. - finally I can follow the talkbacks. The top talkbacks feature is a nice touch as well. Then again - it's also about time - I was told what those banners were going for per movie - WOW. If only my sites generated that kind of ad revenue.
-
THE FAG RINGBEARER9 SAYS "But I would ask the same questions no matter who was the subject. If you insult anyone's character with zero objective, corroborative evidence to support the insult, with no personal knowledge of the person you're insulting, that's a bad thing to do (and that's a nice way of putting it)." THEN SAYS "Hey There, WoodyStiffer! ... you fucking plant." /// Ok - enough about that geek. But would I have been called a plant had I done an extremely long, creepy post analyzing every facet of Harry's review? That's just plain weird.
-
Quote: "If anything, my biggest disappointment with KING KONG is in the fact that it ever had to end."
R U high on crack?
This movie is mediocity. 10% of the time, it assails the senses. We get clumsy, very obvious green-screen brontosaurus stampedes. Even the three T-Rex battle was very awkwardly done. The other 90% of the time is basically like watching paint dry. PJ's "obsession" is cruel and unusual, plain and simple. -
I haven't seen Jackson's KONG yet.. but from the sounds of it he rips off the original MIGHTY JOE YOUNG as well.. with his take on Denham's character -- and KONG and Ann Darrow's relationship..
-
Comment on an old subject regarding Ringbearers analysis of Harrys review. I haven
-
Indy just held on for a REALLY LONG TIME. Let's never mention this again. Indy is sacred.
-
Good point about Denham. It's been a loooooooooooong time since I saw the original Kong - so I don't remember a damn thing about Denham. But in this one - the ending line doesn't play because as soon as he said it, I was thinking "it was greed that killed kong, not beauty." Harry saying that line should have gone to Adrian - well... Denham was such a sleaze, he was really the one that did Kong in. It wouldn't have mattered who uttered the last line. Everyone else but Denham just wanted to get the hell off of Skull Island - Denham only wanted to stay out of jail./// I didn't find the movie overdone - but the ending was very hard hitting - showing Kong's humorous side really made you feel for him. That was an amazing touch that I really wasn't expecting.
-
Topher Grace is Venom. Thomas Hayden Church is Sandman. There's even a picture of him wearing that green striped shirt!
-
What's wrong with you, anyway?
-
I was never bored at all. The movie was a good legnth. I really enjoyed every minute. Not in love with the original, so I felt this one was perfect! Most realistic GCI character EVER! Talkback Too Long Already. ****
-
King Kong is an unfortunate movie that succeeds where you would think it should fail, only to (utterly) fail where it should EASILY succeed. The Kong/Darrow relationship is magnificent. Ann is wonderfully and amazingly acted
-
Regardless of whether you love or hate this film (I haven't seen it yet) your right about the growing apathy of film goers. Films full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Don't blame Kong, it's just the latest in a long line .
-
I wanted to echo ectocriminal's post from one way up there (and kudos for calling Kai on his rambling bullshit. I knew I'm not the only one). The issue isn't about racism as such but colonialism, globalization and the racism inherent to that. People who are claiming because the islanders aren't specifically African, therefore it can't be racist, are missing the point. It's not about what race you are, it's about views of 'primitive' culture vs civilized culture. In the 30s, the idea of the West as an evolved society as opposed to 'primitive' superstitious cultures was still unproblematized. But that's changed (just look at the differences in anthropology) and it sounds like the movie questions those old assumptions. I think Johnnyangel's argument sounds kneejerk and uninformed, but the issue of race (in terms of its place in colonialism) can't just be brushed off.
-
Dec 18, 2005 2:30:19 AM CST
good evening everyone. So whats the subject today, then?
by bendersshinyass
Here's a list of all the stuff that tore me OUT of the film. It's a shame it has such tremendously bad moments, because for the most part, Kong was pretty good! Brody's nose. Hey, I have no issues with anyones appearance. Nor they're nose. But this is a magestic film, lets work on the kissing scene. The way it sits now, Brody's nose just totally engulfs the whole frame, blocking out Anne's face totally. I'm not bagging on Brody, I'm ripping on Jackson and the fact that he wasn't watching the monitor during this take. The bloopy clunky music during the 'light hearted' moments. James Newton Howard, I'm surprised at you. The Compass goes crazy as we enter the fog. What is that? supposed to be supernatural? It's a fucking island hidden from the charts. The crusty sea men (hehe) know all about it. In fact, they're the keepers of the secret. So WHY does it have to be a mysterical force of energy where all logistics of reality become void? It bothered me. Kong's incredible rough housing with Anne and her ability to still walk at the end of it all. I got the same feelings when I saw Brad Pitt body slam and karate kick Angelina. He'd break the poor bitch in half. Don't give me just a fantasy film bullshit. this film tried hard to feel as real as possible. That's Jacksons whole approach to the material. By the time Anne was set down by Kong, she's have no arms (Ripped from the ropes she was tied to) and her bones would have been absolutely shattered by all that thumping against the ground, catching and throwing around. Seriously, go buy a mouse and handle it the same way Kong handled Anne. See how good that mouse comes out. I really got the sense the natives were ALL wiped out by the sailors. That bothered me also. All that crap with the big black dude and his little side kick 'jimmy'. Oh man, We're watching a King Kong movie right?? The creepy crawly scene. Hands up anyone who bleieves the can successfully rescue someone covered in bugs by firing a tommy gun at them. Seriously BULLSHIT. And whats with the onslaught of bugs, and then the hero captain of the ship arrives on the cliff top looking in. End of scene. Return to scene and everyone is safely up on top of the cliff with the Captain. QUESTION: WHAT EXACTLY DID THE ARRIVAL OF THE CAPTAIN MEAN FOR THE MEN BEING ATTACKED??? i mean, what the fuck did he do? Those bugs were in the hundreds. And they were still coming. The capture of Kong. They smashed a bottle of chloroform on his face. Do you have any idea what broken glass does to a face? To eyes? Everyone has issues with the Boat and it's ability to bring back kong. Don't go soft cock and pass it off as 'just a film' As I already stated, Jackson was going for real. He could have had a massive boat with a crane. Just a slight change to the script - explained away as carting Rhino's and elephants. I suggest that for the premiere of Jack blacks show, they could have had black and white photo's up of the effort to get Kong on the ship. I just fixed what a 200 million dollar hollywood film couldn't! there's quite a bit more, the usual, slow motion bullshit and all that, but I have to chime in again on that final piece of dialogue by Jack black. sure it may have been iconic, but that was for a totally different film. Totally different charaters. And I think artist liscence could permit an all new iconic final piece of dialogue. It truely is the cap off that provokes hatred for this film. Because the film isn't bad. It just has these glaring problems - easily fixed in post production!! How bout this as a closer, Denham is sadened. "He was a dangerous monster". "No. There was only one dangerous monster in all of this. And he's still alive and free." Hey bite me, ok. It's not my job to fix this film. Just keep the talkback going
I couldn't give a rats arse about the natives. They were evil scary fuckers. -
It's not like you just cut a big chunk out. you trim, nip and tuck and drop. I'm telling all of you right now, this film didn't need to be 3 hours. But I'd accept, indeed prefer 2 hours 40. It WAS a big movie after all. But yeah, some times i felt as if Jackson was pushing to reach the 3 hour mark on purpose. bad move. Costly move if you know my circles.
-
I thought the movie was fantastic. Just felt skull island was way too long and really just some excuse to blow WETA's load. Most of the time I felt like I wasn't watching King Kong but some Jurassic Park movie. And even all the tribulations the film/boat crew went through seemed too much for me. One moment they are in danger, then they are AGAIN imediately in more danger, then again... omg then again, then again, then again.. to the point I was like OH MY FUCKING GOD I GET THE POINT SKULL ISLAND IS DANGEROUS AND THEY NEED TO GET THE FUCK OFF THAT ISLAND. I don't need to see more people getting killed and not to mention what made me start to hate the film was those earthworms with the mouth teeth that ate Andy Serkis... I litterally never had a film made me crawl up into my seat and almost standing up on it like as if I saw a mouse on the ground. Fucking gross and what did it honestly had to do with King Kong... hell what did the entire Skull Island stuff that I was overly subjected to have anything to do with King Kong... none. It was just to establish that the island was dangerous thats all and again as I said before an excuse for WETA to blow it's load. Wished honestly for more of Kong in New York than to see Skull Island. Overall I really liked it, but the earthworm thingies that slowly devoured arms and heads killed me from loving it.
-
Peter Jackson has done it again - this is the best movie of 2005 - bloody amazing! I freakin' love those voodoo-crazed skull island natives, they look f**kin' gnarly! And Lumpy the cook's death was typical Peter Jackson film-making. Bring us BAD TASTE II next Peter!
-
Dec 18, 2005 5:50:43 AM CST
I can't decide if this movie is a classic, or if it was just
by rcamacho2278
I don't really know. I mean I loved the film. It didn't blow me away like the first time I saw the matrix or star wars. But I found myself thinking back at the most memorable scenes which were plenty. I kept trying to think what was bad with the movie, sure it was long, but it never felt like it dragged. I don't see what people are bitching about with cgi effects, considering years ago, a movie like kong could never be made to look that good. We are living in incredible times and are lucky to see movies like this.
-
The films fault is it's length. It was too long. A sharp edit of the film could have made it much better, and with no loss of character developement. You don't need to have a three hour movie to have well fleshed out characters, length does not equall developement. Each of this films three acts could have been reduced by at least twenty minutes, the first act maybe even more. The Skull island stuff was great but also too drawn out. The T-Rex fight was great, but in my eyes even this was too long. A much quicker, more brutal short battle would have been more powerful to watch...it drones on so long that much of the impact of it is lost. The stampeed was also much much to long. All the punch of these huge in scope sceens is lost when the length of it goes on too long. You can't sustain the tension. Still, this was an entertaining movie, and worth seeing. Kong was a well realized character, I really felt for him. An ape, old, alone and just wanting something beautiful in his life. Desperately lonely. It was sad. In the end, this still should have been a two hour film.
-
........actually, you ARE the only one, jackass. Read the end of my exchange with ectocriminial, you doddering idiot, before jumping in midstream and making a gigantic ass of yourself (.....not that it's much of a stretch for you; I know you can't help it, but seriously, man, you have to try). I appreciate your inherent cry for another bitch-slapping session - notice how deftly I ignored all your previous pathetic baits, such as the lame attempt at referring to me without actually calling my name; right before you eventually succumbed to your otherwise moronic true self, and once again came crying for attention - and I see you've once agin run out of toys to pway with in your wee widdle sandbox and that wee widdle bwain. Stop hunting for allies, because very few people in this world have the capacity to function at such low cranial wattage as you constantly do. Now, here's a ball, off you go, back to your wee widdle sandbox - it should keep you busy until the next time you decide to expose that wee widdle bwain, m'kay sport?
-
A: Two fingers. Kong didn't fight T Rex this time, sorry kids.
-
Dec 18, 2005 8:54:41 AM CST
No, it was called a V-Rex, presumably because the T-Rex kept evo
by citizen arcane
They had to do some little thing to curtail the fanboys from claiming that it was just a Jurrassic Park T-Rex, as if Spielberg invented the creature himself. I don't know, the more real world nitpicks ringbearer and everyone else make, the sillier they look, at least to me. I realize there are different levels of suspension of disbelief and this film violated all of them but once you realize that and then accept it for what it is, there's no need to itemize all the little foibles individually. At no point did this film even attempt to be realistic on any level so what's the point in being a busybody about it? It's like grading a retarded person's calculus homework and writing notes on every line.
-
I saw the movie last night and there is no question that this movie has all the effects oscars in the bag. I think they errd in the casting though. with the execption of the beautiful, luminous and radiant Noami Watts black and brody were both wrong. Jack black is a comedic actor and Adrien Brody is a fine serious actor. Yet in King Kong they were horrendously miscast. there was one effects shot which looked dodgy. But I overall enjoyed it thoroughly and I thought this movie kicked jurassic park the lost world in the Gonads. I loved the film and the way Jackson recreated NY in the 1930 was spectacular especially at night. There were moments of true beuty in this film. This film is a work of visual splendour. The demise of Lumpy the cook was as grotesque as they said it would be. Can anyone please explain Jamie bells role in this movie as I cant quite figure it out. Well done peter jackosn. To those of who sneer at PJ's arrogance. if you have more than 20 million in the bank you can afford to be a little cocky.
-
We all know the story.....girl takes long boat ride to an uncharted island....girl gets offered up to the god of the natives on said Isle.....girl screams alot while being carried around by the giant ape....ape fights dinosaurs....ape gets captured by greedy men.....ape takes long boat ride to New York.....ape breaks out , trashes New York, and finds girl again.....he climbs the Empire State Building with girl in hand....he combats fighter Biplanes.....girl screams alot more....Kong falls off building after being riddled with bullets....movie ends.
Ok, obviously i was being silly...but that's the meat and potatoes of the "original" King Kong. In the late 70's there was a remake that basicaly kept the same formula, but went with the Twin Towers...and a little more heart from the lady of Kong's affections...in other words, she didnt scream as much, and kinda liked the big guy. Enter 2005, and Peter Jackson.....
......Now, i'll be the first to say that the original is a classic. I even have a place in my heart for the late 70's remake. But this movie i saw earlier tonight is without a doubt THE DEFINITIVE take on this story. This, my friends...is THE King Kong.
I wont go on and on much longer...but i have to say, even at 3 hours....this was the most perfect marriage of heart...soul...and technology i've ever seen. If there ever was a 25 ft. ape running around New York..or anywhere...THIS is what it'd look like...move like...act like. There are times you can almost get lost in the sense of reality of this unreal story.....Kong in particular. The Dinosaurs are great....the battle between Kong and three T. Rexes, all the while trying to keep the girl out of harms way, is unbelievable. There's so many cool scenes...cool creatures....and the acting is good, too. Everyone turns in good performances...and Naomi Watts is always a treat for the eyes.The real star performance goes to Kong, though. Yeah....it's not real, we all know that....but Andy's body language mixed with flawless computer FX technology makes for some truly special moments. Three hours may not be everyone's cup of tea...but i'll take good character developement AND killer action any day....if it takes three hours to tell that kind of story, so be it. I guess it had to be that long...that big. It's a story that has a message that goes beyond the "it was beauty killed the beast" ending line.....it's about the greed of man, and what evil may come of it. It's also about having heart....something alot of films fail to have these days. Go see it on the big screen...that's where it's meant to be seen. I guess i went on longer than i intended to...kinda hard not to.....the movie's that good. Peace.
-
Dec 18, 2005 10:09:26 AM CST
Why is it arrogant to invent creatures for your movie?
by citizen arcane
And why am I still replying to all this? You guys are just getting silly now. You've made your point already.
-
The movie is still far too long and over sentimental no matter what you call the creatures. I give it 6.5/10
-
I guess you also found it arrogant that the LOTR production design team started using the word "bigature". How dare they come up with words for the things they're making! [If you were ever involved in any undertaking more complex than moving your hand back and forth across your dick, you'd understand that "gay names for shit" is an unavoidable consequence of any large undertaking, because someone cracks off the name one day and gets a laugh, and everyone else then starts using it. I don't like "inside institutional" gayness like that, either, but we're stuck with it until the social nature of Man changes, and Jackson certainly didn't create the problem.]
-
Dec 18, 2005 11:21:56 AM CST
WEEKEND BO IN - $66 million 5 Day and a $50 million 3 day take
by lilogre
The film took in $20 million Saturday and is poised to do $15 million today as well as $14 million on Friday - on par or better than the 3 day take of FOTR's numbers. I for one believe that if it holds up at this rate for a few weeks it will not be the "bomb" that some on this site have been predicting and hoping (sic.) for.
-
Dec 18, 2005 11:25:23 AM CST
Not a bomb, but definitely a disappointment. And that's Uni
by fluffyunbound
Why were they out there talking about a $100 million five day? They had to know that was not going to happen. This is days before the open that they were out there with that number. And they have access to pre-sale info, tracking info, focus group info, etc., that no one else has. A 40% miss makes the film look like a bomb - but if Universal had said "We expect a $60 million 5 day" then the film is "on target". I understand hyping your film, but I don't understand pulling numbers out of your ass that you have to know aren't true.
-
Quite acceptable. Not bad, pretty good, even cool and amusing sometimes. In fact, I didn't notice the 3 hours pass - which proves, that it's quite a bit of entertainment
-
I do have one complaint though. The finale of the film takes place in winter. But i didn't notice any sign of frost, or low temperatures at all in the movie. No vapour when Kong or Ann Darrow are breathing. And she shows no signs of freezing. It spoiled the impression a bit
-
Dec 18, 2005 11:43:50 AM CST
This just in, KONG's flopping. Seriously, what's with
by r.c. the "wise"
WTF! There in real trouble too for the cineplex's competition will impact all the demographics needed to sustain Kong in the long run.
Sadly, films like Cheaper by the Dozen 2 will make an impact on the young crowd. While films like the Producers, Munich, and that Kevin Costner film that all of my lady friends can't wait to see...WTF, will take a serious chunk out of the adult audience. Here's hoping the mighty Kong can prevail. -
Dec 18, 2005 11:51:20 AM CST
nothing is wrong with audiences. the movie's not that good.
by hypeendshere
if anything is wrong with anyone, it's studios owned by electronics manufacturers and bring that mentality of 'minimal risk' on their investments to films. there are great writers out there. great actors. wonderful directors. they cant get jobs because to bring in an unknown factor is to engage in risk.
-
Now I am no movie snob by any stretch of the imagination. Love action films, but to get Suspension of disbelieve to the absurd ends and excuse it as
-
- Not that I am attacking you, but I do find your analogy very apt when you compare our demand for quality storytelling from Jackson -especially in achieving the task of suspending audience disbelief in this movie and
-
Moviemack is wack, homy don't play that, and stop smocking the crack. I saw it opening day and enjoyed it. Greatest film ever? No, but it was fun. The bats didn't even bother me. Black did, and so did that weird ass shit with Jimmy. I love jackson, love the lord of the rings, and even I'll say. What the hell was that shit? Anyways, I think this movie deserves to make 300m in the box office, I just don't think it won't. It's crazy that it has to make that much for everyone to be really happy. Or at least all the non haters.
-
You are right
Jimmy was a useless nuisance, and a distraction. Black's character is such an asshole in this film, that it seems unbelievable that none of the other characters didn't kick his ass after all he's done. -
Dec 18, 2005 12:17:48 PM CST
I seriously don't get it with people who are praying for KON
by ol' painless
What's your motivation? I know with Ringy its about having a bunch of TB'er (including me) going after him for being such a hate-filled jackass he will probably spit at his own monther tonight when she asks him to clean his room. But seriously, if it does fail, how does this created a sensation of glee in your souls? It would mean less sci-fi/fantasy movies will be made, it will give movie makes like Jackson less leeway and power in Hollywood, a place which would happily make nicey-nicey Jennifer Aniston movies for the rest of eternity if it was financially viable, it only costs 30-50 mill. Who needs risks like KONG? KONG will succeed or flop on its own merits: but praying for a flop by some of you guys just so you can show how much you hate Jackson/Lucas/Cameron/ really does make you look like fools and potentially a little touched in the head.
-
PJ straight up fucked up Kong by packing it to the gills with bullshit. period. theres a really excellent two hour film hidden within the copious folds of fat PJ saw fit to excrete all over it. too bad, cause i really wanted to love it. perhaps PJ will hire an editor next time? perhaps the DVD will be edited down? theres all sorts of possibilities.
-
Fluffy, you have always been my favorite poster on these boards (seriously). But what
-
I can answer your question (for those of us who are not
-
Dec 18, 2005 12:50:19 PM CST
Great Movie After They Hit the Fog. Can't believe this film
by the founder
L loved Kong, it was great and easily the best out of all the ones ever made. PJ and Universsal did it right and near flawless. The big and only down side(which will probably cost the studio money) is the d@mn running time. Now me personally I wasn't bored by the first act, i thought it movie along at a decent pace, but at the same time a 20-30 minutes could have and should have been trimmed from the begining. I thin it's going to cost Universal.
-
I've been meaning to see this myself but my friends and I just havn't had the time. This week was finals (isolating half the audience right there) and there's just too much going on to go see a movie. I think it will pick up next week.
-
Dec 18, 2005 12:54:42 PM CST
i think it feels good when a sub-par product does about as well
by hypeendshere
not that i wish any one person failure in particular. it's that maybe, just maybe, we have been hit with a marketing blitzkrieg for 10 movies each year (usually during the summer) that tell us how great and thrilling and revolutionary and heartwarming they all are and almost every time, it is a lie. where is the altenative voice? god, it's so tiring to be pitched to all the fucking time. while this movie was okay, it's somewhat enjoyable to give the Universal execs a swift kick in the pills. it's a way of saying, "stop with the fucking quotes on your posters! WE will tell YOU what we like." now, if we could make Cheaper by the Dozen 2 open with 8 mil., that would feel about right too.
-
Dec 18, 2005 12:57:53 PM CST
Can't believe I just read that some of the action was to lon
by the founder
Now i've heard about action sequences being to short and choppy, but i can't believe what I'm hearing from some. The action is to long? Go figure.
-
For every incredible step this movie took, each and every scene between Anne and Kong, it took fifteen steps back with it's fucking terrible action scenes outside the Kong/Anne circle. The bronto-stampede was one of the lamest moments in recent memory, exceeded only by the scene with Mathew Broderick trot/running away from the baby Godzillas in Madison Square Gardens. Why the fuck would Jackson insert something akin to outrunning an explosion? That whole sequence should be stricken from the record as it takes so much away from the film. The Bug sequence is near brilliant, save for the fact that some halfwit shoots the bugs off Driscoll with a fucking TOMMY GUN, a gun that is know to be incredibly inaccurate, which again adds slapstick and ruins the moment. And people bitch about Jar Jar and his cornball antics during the battle of Naboo?. Half of this film is incredible, and half is dreck. This further cements the fact that as a director, Jackson is no genius, nor does he have any self control when it comes to his films. If he would ask WHY he is putting things into a movie instead of simply throwing them in with manic glee (a glee many mistake for "caring deeply about his films") we would have tighter movies, and I could cheer Kong, instead of lamenting everything else in the film.
-
And you have pointed out the problem with my argument also, damn you! I don't want to see poop made or rewarded either, and Michael Bay-esque editing and bombast rubs me up the wrong way too. But the level of vitriol some have directed towards Jackson is depressing to say the least, considering most of them make up his target audience. Again, I reckon arguments about the goodness/badness are fine, but too often it tips over into a TB'er cutting off their noses, running around with blood pouring out of the wounds screaming "YOU SEE?? I JUST SHOWED MY OWN FACE A THING OR TWO!!" And with that pleasant image playing in everyone's mind, I leave you with this final thought: HALO is shaping up to be that quality action/sci-fi film we all want. Guess who's company needs the money from KONG to finance and polish it to a level we all crave? WETA. And if WETA can't make it, guess who will? Thats right, folks. Michael Bay. Or Paul Anderson. Uwe Boll. Or even, the ultimate horror, McG.
-
That's right - HATE. Why the downright hate for this film? Even though some do not like the film or parts of the film - I would be hard pressed for anyone to call it a worthless piece of garbage - even though I am sure some jackass now will. I mean WTF would this board have looked like the day after TITANIC opened to only a $28 million opening weekend?!? I'm sure everyone would be pontificating about how the first hour needed trimming, the action was crap, and that Fox should be blamed for a poor marketing campaign. And for the record - I was not a huge fan of TITANIC, but using the box-office as a conscious or sub-conscious basis for criticism is lazy and a just plain dumb move.
-
Sin City cost $40 mil, Kong $200 mil. Both movies got lambasted for their careless editing--Rodriguez for doing everything in one take, Jackson for taking too long--but Sin City will be the one that is remembered as "the new direction". What you'll see from King Kong is the rise of the motion-caputer actor as a subcategory in awards ceremonies. Tell me you don't expect that Tars Tarkas or the Predator or the Creature from the Black Lagoon to be motion-capture acting (MPA, my own neologistic acronym) after Kong.
-
Oh boy... when a Talkbacker uses a quote from a review (the "it was bloat" one) you just know the sad shit has officially hit the fan. I've already told everybody I love this movie so I won't go on about it but a lot of TB's desire for this bomb is ridiculous. I for one hope this thing makes a ton of movie so Jackson can do whatever it is he wants to do on Halo and everything else he's got lined up. If this movie bombs, it'll hurt every big budget fantasy/epic property in the works. Think about it: John Carter of Mars, At the Mountains of Madness... do you really NOT want to see this? Audiences are not sick and tired of "bad movies" as you call them. They flock to Lindsay Lohan, Herbie Goes Buttfuckin' crap and rewarded Fantastic Dung with a healthy box office. I don't wanna sound like some pretentious asshole but since everybody else here is already doin' that I'll just write it anyway: face it, general audiences are fucking dumb.
-
Dec 18, 2005 1:27:55 PM CST
You have to factor in Prints and Advertising into the budget, an
by psalmolive
For North America alone, the film's production cost was $207 million. Then you add in the $100 million dollars for advertising in North America. What about the P+A in other countries? How much is that for the rest of the world? Let's just say that the P+A for the rest of the world is another $100 million. You have a film that costs $407 million dollars that needs to gross $814 million dollars worldwide in order to make back its entire cost, production and all the P+A. Now for just North America, the film has to gross $614 million dollars in order to make back its money. Anything after that is profit. IN MY OPINION: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
-
---LMAO Ol
-
In the end, no matter how you direct it, its a story about a pretty girl getting with a monkey that falls off a building. it's pretty blah. effects were awesome- but thats expected. dino avalcache was pretty cool and wasn't expecting that. bugs were really cool too. but in the end, after you get back to New York, everyone is waiting around for him to die so the movie can end. I guess it would be better if we've never heard the story before. Jack Black cant act. at all. and giving him important lines made it feel silly. "twas beauty that killed the beast"? really? sure, you can be faithful to the original, but "twas" coming out of Black just made me laugh in the point of the movie that you shouldnt be laughing. Jackson can make great movies, no doubt. But if he doesnt get off this "epic" kick, he's going to spiral out of control like M.Night did. Jackson needs to do smaller pictures! go back to your horror roots with a good budget and a great, ORIGINAL script and show us you're not just a re-hasher. Dead Alive (thanks for the easter egg on the boat! AWESOME!) and Bad Taste are awesome. do more of that, and less of hairy monkey idol worshiping.
-
Dec 18, 2005 1:42:22 PM CST
Just typing "mcG' have caused by hands to cramp up. OW! ITS
by ol' painless
Whatever his faults, Jackson is OUR kind of movie maker. He pours his heart and soul (and money) into every movie he makes. Same as James Cameron. KONG's ultimate BO will probably finally show he isn't bulletproof, or the guaranteed cash-cow the studios desperately want him to be. But we need him working, and I reckon young directors can still look at him and think it is possible to make movies on their own terms and be budgeted to do so. That they will know the movies they want to make are the movies people want to see, and not the movies being rammed down our throats by THE MAN (who will take your ticket money and head straight dwon to the stripper bar where he/she can sniff a line of cocaine of whatever surface presents itself).
-
Yeah James Cameron -now that
-
I always loved reading stories of how he worked himself and his crew almost to death to turn out movies EXACTLY the way he wanted them. And kicked the money men off the set of Titanic when they showed up asking what was happening to all their money. Nobody fucks with Big Jim. Sure, he's an unpleasant power and control freak. But he has the juice to back it up. My dream is that he would direct HALO, but he would probably re-write the script immediately, and pick a fight with anyone who argued. Its a 'vision' thing. A 'creative' thing. An 'asshole' thing, god bless him.
-
Yeah on Cameron, being a control freak is a touch and go subject- some don
-
That's right , I said "Truncated", monkeyboys! Get yourselves a vocabulary outside of movie terms, beeeeyotches!
-
Dec 18, 2005 3:45:31 PM CST
I'm prepared to say that I'd been wrong. King Kong was
by orbots commander
I went along with my two brothers to catch an early show of Kong at the local megaplex theatre with stadium seating. A side note to nervous Univeral Executives: worry not, there were lines for Kong forming for the first showing on a sunny Sunday morning, an NFL football day to boot.
Anyway, the verdict is that King Kong was a very entertaining, and dare I say it, touching movie. There was even a smattering of audience at the end credits. The thing of it is, I expected it to be just another rehash of the same story told before. Although, it does hit upon the major events of the original film, Jackson's 2005 Kong is a wholy different animal (snicker). Peter Jackson has taken the King Kong premise and crafted not a monster movie, but a tragic love story/love triangle. And it works. And two of the major reasons it does work are Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis' motion capture Kong performance. I think that Academy Award nominations for the both of them would not be beyond repproach. Peter Jackson should also take a bow, because at this moment he is one of the premier directors of Hollywood spectacle who can also make it GOOD. Michael Bay, take note: the bronto stampede and the triple T-Rex fight is how you shoot an action sequence.
Is it a perfect movie? No. Mr. Jackson would have done himself well with some judicious trimming of the film. And although I understand why he chose to show us the ship's crewmembers substories (to build sympathy for their eventual deaths in order to increase the emotional stakes of the story), much of it could have been scotched, including the Jimmy story. I'm sure others along with myself would really like to see a Special Edition DVD of King Kong, not with extra footage, but with LESS.
On another and final note, I got back home in time to witness the Jets' pitiful end to the Miami Dolphins.... a 3-11 season. Sigh. -
Dec 18, 2005 3:48:10 PM CST
I think I need an editor, along with Peter Jackson. Jeez.
by orbots commander
At the start that should read, "a smattering of audience applause". The heading also has an extra "of".
-
Dec 18, 2005 3:51:43 PM CST
Finally saw Kong and was fucking blown away! Best fucking movie
by alucardvsdracula
Even though some of it didn't work as well as other parts (that silly Bronto chase and Jack Black - for the most part awful), none-the-less I still savoured every minute of the film. I also thought it was too short at 3+ hours - can't wait for the extended edition DVD. The film natuarly belonged to Andy Serkis and Naomi Watts though, both were superb as Beast and Beauty. Well done Mr Jackson, another classic to add to your growing collection.
-
Completely wrong on the boxoffice take. Most movies don't make their money back on boxoffice. It's the Free TV, Pay TV, On Demand, Merchandising & DVD/VHS windows where the profit hits. Kong will have no trouble making back its money. Not to mention the fact that theaters don't always get 50% of the take. For blockbusters like Kong, separate rates are often negotiated.
-
Dec 18, 2005 4:18:35 PM CST
An idea for a Son of Kong sequel, just throwing it out there:
by orbots commander
Like the original Son of Kong, it could be the story of Carl Denham's redemption, as a character and as a person. He discovers that others have found Skull Island, are plundering it and have also discovered a smaller, younger 'Kong'. Feeling guilt over his exploitation and death of the original Kong, Denham embarks on a journey to save this new animal and to re-discover his humanity.
Haven't figured out how to shoehorn Naomi Watts into this premise, but the problem is, Son of Kong isn't her story, it's Denham's. -
Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) channels Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver). Goes to Skull Islands, saves Baby Kong, kicks everyone else's ass, including Carl Denham's (he has to prove he's changed). Probably have to put skinny little Naomi into the gym for six months, though.
-
And I agree that ideally even a fantasy film should follow the rules of its own universe. In this regard, even the Star Wars films are more coherant than Kong. I just think that the particular universe Jackson created doesn't even play by the same rules as SW. Maybe if Jackson directed a SW film, Han Solo would open a window in the Falcon and jump onto a Star Destroyer in deep space. Jackson just doesn't seem to give a fuck. I sort of knew that going in based on LOTR and his other work and I guess I just rolled with it more than you guys.
-
A guy wakes up one morning to find a gorilla on his roof. Try as he may, he couldn't make the ape budge. He finally decided to look up the golden pages and sure enough, there was an ad by a "Gorilla Removal Expert." He rings the number and the Gorilla Remover says he'll be there in half an hour. He arrives in his van on time. He steps out and opens the back to retrieve a ladder, a baseball bat, a shotgun and a mean looking pit bull terrier. "What's all that stuff for?" the home owner asks. "Well sir," the gorilla remover replies, "It's like this. I'm gonna put this ladder against your roof. I'm then gonna climb up there and face down that gorilla with this baseball bat and try to knock him off. When the gorilla hits the ground, that mean looking pit bull terrier is trained to grab the gorilla by the nuts and not let go until the ape is subdued enough for me to get him in the cage in my van." "I see." said the home owner. The gorilla remover then hands him the shotgun. "What the hell do I need this for?" asks the home owner suprisingly, to which the gorilla remover replies "If the gorilla knocks ME off the roof, shoot the dog."
-
On PJ problem is, he
-
I suck at writing. so bare with me. Especially when i'm excited. I like this movie and you'll like it even more if you saw and like the 33 version. I'll explain later. I'd shave about 50 minutes from this movie. Do we really need to know one of the crew was found aboard the venture and raised by the black guy? No, who cares! It doesn't add anything to the movie. What we have is a great movie thats buried inside this 3hr 7 minute over the top, super epic movie. It's like we get all the deleted scenes that we don't need to see. Take out the good movie and dump the extra load and you have a classic remake. Because as it is, PJ goes too far. When he doesn't have to, but I still like this movie. I had no idea who Naomi Watts was before this movie, now i know who she is and i like her. Kong and Ann Darrow own this film. first hour is boring. once they get to the island and what a freaky island it is. the natives are disturbing. the movie flies!
Back to the start though. The opening of this movie is was a surprise. First it uses the credit style from the 33 version and then we enter the 30s and it's just like, American Pop! huh? Yes, the animated movie by Ralph Bakshi. If you've seen that movie you'll know what I mean. PJ is a fan of Ralph Bakshi and remember he copied some scenes directly from Bakshi's animated LOTR for FOTR. He does it here again, but with American Pop. You hear an Al Jolson song and we get a montage of the 30s life. It looks so authentic. It was unexpected and you really feel like you're in the 30s. WETA should get an Oscar just from recreating NY 1930s. From then on i was hooked and bought into the movie.
Now the tributes to 33 Kong. When Carl is in the taxcab, he tells his assitant. Oh I can't get fay wray, cooper has her for some big movie he's working on and you briefly hear the 33 kong theme. I thought, oh thats cool. a lil tip to the hat to the original, but wait it gets better. Kong fights three T-rexs, it's jaw dropping, he beats two of them first and it involves vines. ok but then he fights the final big T-rex. They copied the stop-motion kong puppet, motion for motion on CGI! Every move from 33 kong vs t-rex fight is redone. it made me wanna cry. kong breaks the jaw in the exact same manner. it's shot exactly the sameway. frame for frame. then he plays with the mouth of the t-rex, exactly the same and pounds his chest and roars! amazing moment in movies! we had a good crowd to who was cheering.
ok another scene, the log scene was similar enough, but they added the spider pit sequence which was a little overdone with giant insects, slugs, scorpions, spiders, wasp. you name it. when jack finally gets ann away from kong they go down the vine and just like the 33 version. kong starts pulling the vine up, but PJ changes it. instead of them falling from that ridiculous height. a giant bat, which kong is fighting many of them above them.A bat tries to grab jack and ann and they hitch a ride on it. sounds silly, but it works.
ok this next part freaked me out. as jack and ann are running through the jungle. PJ copied the exact way jack and ann look running toward us in the 33 version. its freaky. you then hear the original 33 kong music! i got chills. ok well i haven't mentioned them all, but here's the most amazing tribute to kong 33 in this movie. when carl denham presents kong on stage. it's like a production, a play where they recreate what happened on the island. now here's the kickers. whats recreated is kong 1933! the movie is in the movie. meaning the sets and natives wearing those kong outfits and the girl is tied up. copied exactly. then you hear the kong 33 music as the tribe dances. i couldn't believe it! it was such a cool idea! i was like, YES!
There's one thing i didn't like after all those tributes to the 33 version. he kinda blows it at the end. when kong dies instead of copying the 33 version where we see kong hold on one last time and slowly let go and kong is seen falling from a distance. we get a copy of the 76 version. where the girl has kong in front of her then kong just falls back and we see kong falling in slow motion from top view. bah then they even copy the reporters walking on kongs body taking pictures, just like the 76 version. carl says his famous line and we pull back and the movie ends. that worked for me.
Its a must see movie. -
Universal's pissed.
-
Dec 18, 2005 6:58:47 PM CST
I hate movie studio executives as much as the next guy
by citizen arcane
I'm just sayin'. Jackson's next film is going to be a litle smaller.
-
Dec 18, 2005 7:02:15 PM CST
I think the peace middle ground is that we can all agree that Ca
by psalmolive
For once, peace reigns in the talkback.
-
It's now official. KONG owns you.
-
And again!
-
At CNN.com: Grosses for "King Kong" jumped 40 percent from Friday to Saturday, a huge increase for a non-family film and a sign that good word-of-mouth was pulling in audiences, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. KONG IS KING, BITCHES!
-
....I am weeping.......from laughing so hard. THIS is the movie that was supposed to be the new Titanic? This is the movie that was going to gross $100million and trash Spiderman 2's record? It could barely crack half that amount. What a joke. It's stuff like this that makes fanboys like you look ridiculous. Everybody agrees that Kong completely underwhelmed and seriously underperformed in relation to what it was supposed to have earned.(....and obviously the Studio's trying to put a different spin on it; What studio wouldn't?) Just for Comparison, "Lost World", a dinosaur movie done right, opened on a Friday and grossed $90.2million, in 3 days. Kong barely cracked $50 million in the same time frame.
-
Saw Kong on Thursday night and I must say I was not pleased. To me, Kong has always been more than just a giant ape, he is KONG, the mystical god-beast feared and worshipped by the native inhabitants of Skull Island! He is more than gorilla, but not quite man, but posessing qualities and characteristics of both combined with a certain je ne sais quoi. He is a monster, but one with whom you come to empathize and pity. Jackson's Kong had precious little of all of the above. I never really bought CGI Kong. He was too small for one thing. He was too much the gorilla and not enough "monster". WAY too much time was spent on Skull Island. Not enough time was spent on developing Jack and Anne's relationship. Too many peripheral characters spoiled the stew. And by the way, where were all the New Yorkers? The streets were largely empty! Lazy CGI techs? Bah! For what it's worth, I liked not only the '33 original MUCH better, but the '76 remake as well. At least in that one, Kong was indeed King and you knew it! Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange were better, Charles Grodin was better. Heck, the MAN-IN-SUIT was better! Sorry, this one just didn't cut it, time to go to Netflix and rent King Kong '76 and wash the taste of this one out of my mouth. Blech!
-
Harry - please get some damn news up. We have one guy who is ready to worship Kong s the greatest cinematic achievement since the Lumiere Brothers and another who is actually wanting to watch the '76 man in suit version because he hated this version to such an extent. Desperation has officially set in....
-
Dec 18, 2005 9:36:46 PM CST
Too much talking, crying babies, cell phones or Why I HATE Going
by doc_strange
Face it, no one likes to deal with people talking during the film, little to no parking, crappy sound, which my theater has besides the fact that they advertise DTS and Dolby, also the screen is digital but the picture also manages to be almost colorless and dull, go figure. Packed movie house or not, I'd rather stay home and not waste 10 dollars on a singular movie. Maybe on a double feature. Needless to say, I haven't seen Kong yet.
-
My ass.
-
Dec 18, 2005 9:50:31 PM CST
I'm with ya Doc. As previously mentioned, I went to see Kon
by orbots commander
Cellphones constantly chirped throughout the movie. Babies were crying. One little kid kept running up and down one aisle, and another kept kick, kick, kicking the back of my chair until his parent belatedly told him to stop. It reminded why, other than a Friday night date with a female, I rarely go to movies anyomore, but prefer DVD's.
-
Dec 18, 2005 9:55:18 PM CST
Wow..."The Lost World" looks positively genius after seeing Kong
by indiephantom
I was pretty sure when I read Harry and Mori's less than enthusiastic reviews that my expectations needed to be lowered. Apart from some cool sequences, this movie is a serious mess. You guys are right about the bat sequence. wtf??? Spielberg isn't one of my favorite directors, but he has intelligence and knows when less is more. He can also generate suspense so much better than Jackson. I enjoyed LOTR for what it was...but KONG is just laughable. However, the fanboys just give Jackson a free pass because they can't believe they were wrong. You're deluding yourelves boys. Why can't you admit your disappointment. It comes through in your posts, it really truly does. You're making up some of the most hilarious excuses for its box office upset. Kids are still in school? Bad weather? I'm totally serious. Check back in the posts. It's hilarious. But Your love affair with Kong is really just like Ann's was in the film. It's not love at all really; it's pity.
-
Well, I just saw the 2nd best fantasy movie ever made. Yup, it
-
Dec 18, 2005 9:55:45 PM CST
You have to go to the theater at the right time and place.
by citizen arcane
Firstly, never go to a mall. Go to a fairly upscale adult are, preferably late at night. It's a lot better then. As for Kong's take, it's not looking great. With the exception of Sith, my formerly sage-like BO predicting abilities have gone right out the window this year. They just need to knock it off with the $200 mill movies. There's really no reason for movie budgets to ahve risen so exponentially over the last 10 years.
-
Dec 18, 2005 10:01:17 PM CST
I got lucky today. we had a big crowd and they cheered a lot.
by orionsangels
I have a few other complaints. In the original the party of men just barge their way in and go after Kong. This kind of cocky manner. Here in the new kong it's planned out and there's lil time for a sense of wonder. only carl denham seems to be in awe of what he sees. Not enough people get killed on skull island either. It supposed to be jack, ann and carl who return. here a rescue party comes after them and they all make a break for it on lifeboats. I liked in the original how so many men left and few returned. It showed how against the odds they were to rescuing ann and how brave jack was.
-
Dec 18, 2005 10:02:52 PM CST
kai, you couldn't have an intelligent conversation about any
by oisin5199
Oh, the depth of your musings on money, something you're obviously passionate about (enough to delude yourself into thinking you're some kind of expert). I can only dream of such intellect here in my sandbox. But please keep trying to show how intelligent you are. Ectocriminal, obviously a truly intelligent and discerning talkbacker (who's able to talk about things other than box office and actually make sense), in his last post still made fun of you. As have other people in other threads, so it's NOT just me. Get over yourself, you bloated fuckwit.
-
Dec 18, 2005 10:07:49 PM CST
It really helps to be a fan of the 33 to appreciate the PJ's
by orionsangels
If you haven't seen the 33 version, the movie must have a different feeling for you? I love 33 Kong. For the most part the way PJ crafted the film was in loving spirit of the original film. It's like he made the film for us, the fans of the original. Although i'm still confused as to why he used a kong 76 style ending. Kong's fallen off the Empire State building now, (Twin Towers 76, but still a great height)3 different ways now. In 33 we see him fall like a rag dummy from far away. In 76 we get a point of groend view where Kong is falling at us, worst effects ever by the way. Now in Kong 05 we get to see him fall from a downward point of view in slow motion. There's no other way left for kong to fall, lol
-
Hey guys chill out on the studio execs- they are the same a everyone else-some suck, some are good- they just have more control over one of our favorite industries. I like it when they are happy
-
Dec 18, 2005 10:15:54 PM CST
Didn't the central park scene remind you of "Serendipity"?
by indiephantom
For fanboys that can't read, I said "Serendipity" not "Serenity". Ice skating must really put New Yorkers in the mood.
-
They're all brainless, souless creatures who are where they are because of who they know and not because of any talent or artistic merit. They've distilled the movie industry to a perfect money-making machine at the cost of real art and originality. They are responsible for the continued mediocrity of the industry and preservation of the status quo. When the revolution comes, they'll be the first against the wall if I have anything to say about it. Oh and Cameron doesn't rule. Titanic sucked, I don't care how much money it made. When he does something good again then I'll forgive him for that drivel.
-
EASYILY. Current B.O. total for KONG is already at $150 mill in just 5 days. ($65 domestic + $85 international). Continue weeping, suckas!!!!!!!
-
Dec 18, 2005 10:36:01 PM CST
* * * You lost me at the mention of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN * * *
by jeditemple
And thus, I read no further.
-
Who is the next Filmmaker you people will turn against? You people scare me.
-
As I mentioned earlier Titanic may not be *your* type of movie- it wasn
-
Dec 18, 2005 10:46:26 PM CST
Kong acted so much like a real gorilla. I was waiting for him to
by orionsangels
The new Kong tries to be very realistic and takes the notion of a movie like kong33 as just that. a hokey movie. because within the new kong are traces of the original kong, but treated as just that, a hokey style version of what they experienced. there's a seen on the venture where carl is filming ann and their leading actor. the lines are straight from kong 33, again playing up on the notion that kong 33 is hokey style movie and the adventure we're going on is realistic. wtf was up with those natives? they were pole vaulting over the ocean, where there were rocks! wtf? yeah and that lil native girl didn't look negro. she looked like a little white girl painted brown. the log scene arguebly one of the most famous scenes from 33 kong. seemed like a foot note here. Don't me wrong though. I liked this film. It's just not a perfect film by a longshot, but i appreciate where its comin from.
-
I've been trying to see it since Wednesday - but real life wouldn't let me. I just saw it. I loved this movie. From the deepest place in my heart. I've loved monster movies since I was a kid. Harry's favorite was KingKong - mine was The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. In either case, they were the classics. They were, and still are, great flims. I haven't seen a new one in a long time. Not for monsters. I saw one tonight though. Everything I ever wanted to see. This was it for me. There is no other movie I really even care about seeing anymore. I saw the best. Thank God.
-
It was cliche'd, trite, and the overrought evil fianse/poor bad boy schtick was done better in Caddyshack 2. And I realize that movies have always been about making money and I'm not some art house goon. But the suits have distilled this process practically into a mathematical formula. The lastest example of this is the almost refusal to greenlight anything that isn't a "proven concept" with an existing audience, hence all the remakes. The executives who run the studios are the problem and if they weren't the crass beancounters and brainless marketing drones that they are then people wouldn't bitch about the quality of films as much and the BO wouldn't be in the shitter it's in. As for Cameron not having a miss, what about Lucas? It might be cool to hate on the prequels but they made a few billion dollars. BO isn't everything you say? Then I point back at Titanic. I know chicks who love any movie with the word "Wedding" in it (except "Crashers") who thought it was shaltzy and lame.
-
He almost attacked a reporter explaining how awful it was. Then burt reynolds came by and i said. i never saw the longest yard and he smacked me. i saw smokey and the bandit and he smacked me. the lil girl next to me said, mommy why is that wax dummy hitting that guy? haha, stole that joke.
-
Dec 18, 2005 11:27:21 PM CST
"....... so it's NOT just me. Get over yourself, you bloated
by kai_mah'gra
........comeback of the year!!!!!!Please, give the man an Oscar, a gold star......er.....a cookie..... um, something. Seriously, though, if that's the best you can come up with then you seriously really need to get back to that sandbox. This Bitch-slapping business only works with you on the receiving end, as your pathetic attempt at dishing it above, clearly shows. For someone who claims that "..(I) couldn't have an intelligent conversation about anything other than box office if (I) tried", you seem to forget that YOU wouldn't know an intelligent conversation if it crawled up that toxic dump you call your ass, all the way up your skull and raped those two excuses of brain cells that you claim to use for intelligent thought. Oh yeah, and please, keep trying to hunt for allies; I understand that it's a lonely lonely world in the land of cerebral ineptitude and doddering nincompoops. It's nice to see how ectocriminal came running to your defence. Oh wait..... he didn't! I wonder why? Perhaps, because it IS just YOU, my incompetently moronic friend. YOU are the only person getting bitch-slapped in this Talkback, as you always inevitably do. Just YOU!!!!By now I'm sure you're well apprised with the drill; thanks for airing the wee widddle bwain once again, so off you go now, and make sure you don't soil the carpet on your way back.........oh, and don't forget your wee widdle toys.
-
When I saw Kong and Ann doing a couples'skating routine in the park my jaw dropped! I was embarrassed and looked around sheepishly to see if anyone else was grimacing. Unbelievable! It's now officially known as the
"Bambi" scene in our house. -
because I continue to engage you, Kai (even though I wasn't talking to you in the first place, but the universe must revolve around you, I see). But it's always entertaining to see you sputter around. What is your obsession with this bitch slapping notion that you go on and on about, anyway? As Inigo Montoya once said, 'I donta think it means what you think it means.' I'm also above this game that you think you're winning. I call you a fuckwit because you are one, not because I think it's a comeback or I'm trying to score points. What is your fucking problem anyway? Anyone can do a search for my name on any threads, especially this one and see that I'm engaging with rational people about intelligent topics (um, like racism, ideology, colonialism, etc.), while any dumbass 12 year old can argue about how much money they think a movie's going to make and then use insults one usually hears on the playground. You really are a 12 year old, aren't you? Some fat nerd who giggles at his own cleverness while dying inside from loneliness. Wait, I take that back about the 12 year old comment. My 12 year old son's capable of more intelligent conversation than you. Don't worry about me trying to get allies. I don't need any. I'm supremely confident most people see you for the little juvenile you are. Buh-bye.
-
Dec 19, 2005 1:15:39 AM CST
yes you are,.........(so dumb - well, actually very very crimin
by kai_mah'gra
........why don't you do that search you're going on about, on THIS talkback, and you tell me who called out the other, first? I fully intended on staying the hell away from your posts even when you were trying to be a smartass by referring to me without calling my name. That is, until you actually, yet needlessly, called out my name. Like I have told you inumerable times before, dipshit, YOU have a major nuerotic problem with the name Kai_Mah'gra. Even when there's no cause to engage me you just can't help yourself by saying some dumbass thing and embroiling yourself in another mud-slinging contest; which you always inevitably and invariably lose, and then go try and bitch about how you're more "intellectual" or more "intelligent" than I am. At least you're now mining for allies (even, though we're yet to see any; ectocriminal where art thou?), it shows progress, from just being a punishment junkie. And if you are, as you claim, "above this game", then why, pray tell, are you still posting and making a uttter fool of yourself in the process? It's also good to see you've now reduced yourself to trying to guess what I am; it's an improvement over trying to guess what my name means. Progress is good; miniscule in your casee , but good nonetheless. And as for your twelve year old son, what's to be said about the person who brings their children as crutch into an argument they're losing? I mean, it's sad enough that they let you breed in the first place, but that's just pathetic - I mean, now I know you're really getting desperate. So why don't you shuffle yourself along with that 12 year old unfortunate mishap, back to your sandbox, and if there's any justice in this world, he'll be spared the misfortune that is inheriting that wee widdle bwain. M'kay sport?
-
Dec 19, 2005 2:13:11 AM CST
Seriously, this movie needs to make at least 400 million to be c
by doc_strange
Will it happen?
-
Yeah, he spoiled Brokeback Mountain... that's kind of like giving spoilers regarding the end of Titanic.
Two gay cowboys fall in love... Then the other cowboys of the '60's era give them a hard time and make their lives miserable. Big fucking shock. And I thought the external conflict would involve a bear and a pack of coyotes... I never thought the conflict would come from homophobic cowboys. Damn it Harry! Why did you spoil it?! WHY?! Boo fucking hooo!!!!! -
Hey Ringbearer, what's up you little fag.
You think your smart on here? You haven't said one thing about "King Kong" that I didn't already know from seeing it myself.
"Ann's arms didn't rip off when Kong grabbed her from the alter"
"The stampede looked fake"
And everything else. You fucking fag, a ten year old would have noticed that shit you piece of crap, and guess what? You forgot the ridiculously convenient vine placement when Brody and Ann try and make their escape from Kong's mountain you piece of shit. All your effort and you missed that, you small brained little cock sucker.
What you have failed to notice is what King Kong gets right, you were probably to busy masturbating over yourself, but guess what, here's a news flash Ringbearer, you aren't shit. "King Kong">You. Peter Jackson>You. That's why he makes millions and you spend your time on a message board.
Know what else? The bat escape was pretty cool. It's you that's the piece of shit, but deep down I think you already know that don't you? Your a cancer on this forum Ringbearer.
You predicted 150 mil? How about if your wrong you never post on this site again? Willing to wager that? And if your right than the same for me. Up to that bet? Probably not cause being a coward seems just like you.
What else... The main characters survived the stampede in many cases by running under the bronto's belly's, meaning between their legs; think about it. It seems like alot of people missed that and thought the characters survival should have been entirely impossible.
Also, anyone who thinks the natives were racist is an idiot. Plain and simple. Use some logic and you will see that PJ made the right choice. They were the color of most peoples that spend all their time in the sun, likewise you would be a little edgy and scary looking too if you lived on that fucking island.
Lastly, about Kong representing black people. What the fuck? No seriouly, WHAT THE FUCK? HE'S A FUCKING GORRILLA, THAT'S HOW THEY LOOK DIP SHITS, IT WASN'T A CONCIOUS DECISION ON PJ'S PART, FUCKING IDIOTS. Hey fucktards, if someone offered you a new black Lambergini would you drive it? Probably not because it's black right, and you hate that color, right? Jesus Christ, I was being sarcastic people, of course you'd drive it, even the fucking KKK would, it has nothing to do with color: think about it.
Lastly, RINGBEARER, IF YOU DON'T RESPOND TO MY BET YOU ARE WEAK AND A COWARD, BUT I IMAGINE THAT WOULDN'T BE BLOWING ANYONE'S MIND. -
Dec 19, 2005 2:57:20 AM CST
You just know PJ's wife came up with the ice skating scene.
by orionsangels
wouldn't it be cute if they had a romantic scene in central park?
-
Dec 19, 2005 3:12:11 AM CST
First, the movie is perfect. Second, PJ put up $25-$30 mil of h
by starwarrior
to all the morons who see the downfall of a movie from its wed to thu fall off, know this: EVERY SINGLE MOVIE that opened on a wed had an average 50% drop the next day. Kong dropped less than that. It also had a 40% increase on saturday, which has never been seen for this type of movie. Translation: moviegoers like King Kong.
-
Looks like I'm not going to get much sleep tonight, ...all because I feel a need to preach the gospel about this movie. We need to support GREAT movies like this, ...such movies that are made with such passion. There is a very short list of directors who can make and ACHIEVE a big screen movie-event like this, ...and ONLY when they have the desire, which Peter Jackson did (and hopefully will continue to have, after the whirl-wind of making this picture). I was amazed and transported through time. I enjoyed EVERY BIT of this movie, including the first hour in getting to know the characters, ...which really does make you care about them as human beings and what happens to them, ...making that 207 million bucks worth every penny of your hard-earned cash. (And to think it doesn't cost any more to see than any other film at the multiplexes!) If you visit this site, ...if you're actually reading this, ...you owe it to yourself to see Jackson's beautiful, artistic vision of "KING KONG", a movie which re-imagines the original, ...a movie which inspired Jackson and his imagination. Do yourself a favor and share the experience with your kids, ...but only if they're mature enough to handle something this intense. This movie was incredible and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise. This is passionate, artistic movie making, ...from a director whom has an eye of a master painter. Is it flawless? So close, almost, but no, ...only if you're looking for absolute perfection. And I'm talking NEAR PERFECTION here, folks. Maybe if an actor knew he was going to be so close to the edge of a huge drop when he was on a green-screen set, ...so that he might skid a little and lean back. Maybe Jackson, in 5 years, will have the opportunity to have animators touch up the RARE spots where the "real" didn't blend COMPLETELY with the computer animated. Maybe we should've seen Kong's breath in New York, even if just a bit. After all, Kong didn't break the ice he was sliding around on. But these are nit-picks on an incredible movie EXPERIENCE which deserves to be seen on the big screen. If geeks like us don't support such films, who will? -- I've been dreaming of making movies for a long time, ...and as a trained artist, I can tell you this is a beautiful movie to LOOK AT and EXPERIENCE on the big screen. You've just got to. The "camera work", which can be as much a part of the process in making these digital dreams come to cinematic life, was as incredible as the animation itself(!). I still dream of directing movies and involving the camera within action scenes much more than what we've seen in the past. But movies like "THE MATRIX" and the Spiderman movies and now, "KING KONG", ...are involving the camera-eye like never before. And I'm loving every second of it. And I give credit to director's who know when and how to "take more time" with the camera, ...in letting characters reveal themselves in their full dimension, ...even when it's a giant ape. The anger, ...and perhaps even the frustration, ...realized through the character of Kong, was a beautiful thing to see unfold in what was perhaps my single favorite moment of the film, ...with so many moments to choose from. The eyes of Kong, ...the sadness captured with his primitive face, ...the rage, ...the time in letting those traits show, ...gave a feeling you might've thought not possible in the digital realm. What an exciting time we are in and to have such gifted and passionate people working on such films. If this movie doesn't succeed like it should, ...then that's just terrible, ...when people can't lay down their video game controllers long enough to sit back and be less of a participant in a fantasy and simply enjoy such an experience. As is, I give Peter Jackson's "KING KONG" an "A". I will forever remember the experience that Jackson shared with me. Here's to hoping he shares it with you.
-
Dec 19, 2005 3:39:44 AM CST
I've been reading back aon the talk back and saw johnnyangel
by ol' painless
johnnyangel is clearly an a-grade fucking tool. As is his pet monkey cerebral assassin. I would love to rip on the pair of these fuck-knuckles, but I am glad to say happyhappyjoyjoy did it far more eloquently that I ever could. Cerebralassassin: I'm sorry, he really did own you. I noted you beat a hasty retreat with your bottom spanked so hard it glowed right through your nappies. Just for the record, New Zealanders know a fuck of a lot more about US History than you think: we've had your books, TV shows, movies, documentaries and food here for decades. In fact, I would hazard a guess that I know more about US history than YOU do. I will willingly test this assertion if you wish, anytime, anywhere. Whereas you and johnny "Einstein" angel know FUCK ALL about New Zealand history. So think fast if you ever choose to stake out such an idiotic position in future. Because if you do, I have a gigantic verbal beat-down a-waitin' to tar your hide with.
-
...And now I can say the same thing. It was great, but someone needed to rip the final film from Jackson's hands, sent him on a holiday round the world, or something, and then a month later let him sit and watch it with fresh eyes. Some times i got the feeling Jackson was about to stcik his head in front of the camera and smile. Just because. I didn't like how it was a 'real' take on Kong, with some really goofy 'unrealistic' moments. Note to the talkbacker who raved about the V-rex fight and refered to it as 'Unbelievable'. Dude, bad choice of words. I remember when Dean Devlin was talking about the FX for independence day and kept saying in the interview they are "Unbelievable'. Stop doing this people. Puleeez!! Can someone tell me WHAT THE HELL a V-Rex is? You know, the T in T-Rex actually means something.
-
and it was a Champion film. i'm not joking. some one just mentioned the vine dangling from Kong's nest being 'too convienient" I don't believe it was convienient AT ALL. In fact, where the bloody hell did these two clowns think they were going? Have you ever stood at the ledge of a cliff and decided to start climbing down a vine snaking down it? YOU WOULDN'T DO IT! I had no isses with Brody catching the Bat. It was well done. He didn't grab it's legs at all, he grabed it's wing and the thing went straight down as a result. what I didn't like was how it was obviously going to happen. The King Kong back in new york section of the film was SO AWKWARD! I'm shocked Anne didn't care enough to come see Kong on display. Seriously. But Kong picking up blondes and then tossing them away was funny. And I didn't mind when Kong started laughing at Anne doing her crazy act. I've seen Apes laugh like that! I think you talkbackers calling for an oscar nomination for Andy Serkis and his motion capture are a little over the top. Really, just a little. It's the cock suckers making such claims that creat such talkback bitch slaps. Speaking of bitchslaps. People are talking of anne and her abilities to remain photogenic after her hammering from Kong. Not a hair out of place. she can even throw herself down on the rocks just to show off her super human ability. I would have prefered she get more battered as the film progressed. Think Bruce Willis - die hard. She could have used some scratches and bumps. Oh well, it's just a film. A good film. A LONG film.
-
Dec 19, 2005 8:15:15 AM CST
Looking at the weekend numbers, I think people are premature wit
by minderbinder
Sure, it wasn't a huge, record breaking weekend. But we're going into two weeks of holidays, not only should the next two weekends be big, weekdays should be solid as well. There's very little competition coming out over the next couple weeks (hell, over the next month even, January and February are typically a wasteland). Saturday was a huge jump over Friday, which is a very good sign. It will be interesting to see the numbers over the next week or two (and if weasels like Drudge can convince people the movie is A BOMB! and keep them away). Anyone else find it funny that so much attention has been paid to the budget of Kong, while everyone happily ignores the fact that Narnia cost 170 MILLION? (And looks like they cut corners to keep it down to 110M)
-
Dec 19, 2005 8:23:07 AM CST
I'm Getting The Sense That People Who "Loved" It, Were Going
by zombiesolutions
i'm not a hater by any stretch of the imagination, and i enjoyed parts of Kong, but overall it was a hubris-fueled, bloated mess. basically, theres a really good movie hidden underneath PJs copious folds of fat that he saw fit to excrete all over it. the man needed an editor to say, "okay now, stop it PJ. lets get back to the story about the girl and the ape,okay, we don't really need another 30 minute long bug hunt marathon." point blank the man went too far -- and in the wrong directions -- to bring us a "love" story that doesn't quite make us believe theres a love there at all. i'm not going to say the film was a disaster, but it certainly didn't come anywhere near the hype/buildup that surrounded it -- very much like TPM, AOTC and the 2 Matrix sequels. hopfully tehre will be a massive re-edit for the DVD, or a truncated cut, or PJ will dust himself off, hire an editor and make a good movie next time. i think after doing the brilliant LOTR films so expertly and brilliantly that the man has lost his mind and become sloppy. hey, everybody makes mistakes.
-
... It took 20 years for George Lucas to devolve from Star Wars to The Phantom Menace. It only took three years for the Wachowski Brothers to go through the same process. Now, the de-evolution process has only taken a year and a half to undo Peter Jackson! When filmmakers accrue so much power and success that no one is able to say "NO!" to their excesses, films suffer. Hollywood sucks, man!
-
Dec 19, 2005 9:40:12 AM CST
"PJs copious folds of fat" I guess you didn't get the memo:
by minderbinder
I think many people agree that the movie has flaws and could be shorter, the difference is some people think the flaws are few and relatively minor, others think the flaws are huge and ruin the film. Same with the running time, some have said it should be an hour or more shorter, I'm in the camp that says it only could use maybe 10-15 minutes of trimming. And some think the length is fine and don't think it's flawed at all. I guess that's just personal opinion.
-
Not because of anything on screen, but because the black people behind me would not SHUT THE FUCK UP.
-
Could've been a contender, but the director and editor wouldn't let it fly. There really is a lean, mean action picture in there (like PotC), but it was not to be. minderbinder, no one is talking about Narnia because it costed less, and made more. Anyways, the hyperbole used in this talkback, jizzing like it is Jurassic Park, angers me not because of the film itself, but because many of you need to watch Jurassic Park again. It is the best B-movie ever created, and Kong never had a chance to be its equal.
-
Driscoll typing SKULL ISLAND in slo-mo? Most unintentionally hilarious scene ever.
-
I'd agree with that, but for the opposite reason. It doesn't stand the test of time, since the only thing it had going for it was cutting edge FX, and even those are pretty sparse, you're left with a movie that makes you say "I thought I remembered this having dinosaurs in in it?" Seriously, aside from the 20 minutes or so that actually show dinos, what are you left with? Squabbling about messing with nature and shitty cornball scenes with children.
-
Dec 19, 2005 10:25:24 AM CST
The Copious Folds Of Fat WAS A Reference To The Film, Not PJ
by zombiesolutions
i honestly think that psychologically PJ transferred his own bulk into Kong as a purging process. perhaps his next film will reflect his new lanky form. may i suggest a remake of The Thing? theres only been one so far...
-
Dec 19, 2005 10:28:08 AM CST
no, Spike. the typing of SKULL island was perfect. you forgot
by hypeendshere
-
Dec 19, 2005 10:34:39 AM CST
It's a copout answer, but I'd have to say the dinos were
by fluffyunbound
They were more real because greater realism was achieved for the dinos as objects [better movement, wider range of movement, better integration into the scenes other than in parts of the dino stampede] and as living creatures [better eyes, better skin]. But they were less real because Spielberg presented more scientifically accurate dinos [it's a movie ultimately about science and its potential for hubris, after all] and Jackson's dinos are "campier". I think that is one reason Jackson specifies that his dinos aren't the same species we are accustomed to, or that we have fossils for; I think he LIKES the scientific inaccuracies in the original Kong, and wanted clumsier-looking Apatosaurs, for example. And then there's the fact that Jackson [as in LOTR] uses color correction to create an otherworldly mood - Skull Island, I think, is supposed to seem bizarre and almost dream-like, but the JP island is supposed to seem like a real-world and almost prosaic Costa Rican resort. Jackson's dino colors are almost painterly, while Spielberg's are very "Discovery Channel". If I ever meet a real dinosaur, I expect it to look more like Spielberg's, but the overall use of CGI was certainly extremely impressive in Jackson's case as well.
-
But then JP wasn't as abitious as Kong in terms of interaction and sheer volume of FX. But then JP was 13 YEARS AGO. That's like comparing the Taun Taun in The Empire Strikes Back to the JP dinos. The very fact that we're even comparing the FX of JP and Kong shows how mind blowing JP was. The biggest problem with the realism of CGI is that you can literally do whatever you want. So it's a chore to actually have your CGI creatures conform to real world physics. It takes real work to give a CGI creature weight and gravity and it also takes discipline on the writer/director's part not to have your 2 ton ape flitting and hopping around like he's on the moon. That's where the FX fall flat in Kong.
-
Kong was weightless. despite the thumping bass they used to compensate.
-
His movements were simply movements a gorilla would make. I've seen enough National Geographic channel-type film to say that Serkis nailed the gorilla body language. The scene where he stomps around when Watts stops "entertaining" him [finally turning his back on her and pretending he doesn't know she's there] made me laugh out loud with delight. Kong's not 1000 feet tall, he's 25 feet tall. Would he lumber like Godzilla, or would be move like a large gorilla? We can argue about the cardiovascular requirements of a 25 foot ape relative to a 5 foot one, and whether or not you could have a linear increase in muscle mass and still have his muscles stay on his bones - but those debates can't be resolved, because a similar debate is still going on about the possible speeds attained by T-Rexes, and will probably still be going on when we grow old and die. Jackson chose to make Kong move like a scaled-up version of a real gorilla, and real gorillas can jump. If a man suddenly grew to 25 feet in height [and that's only a little more than 3 times the height of guys in the NBA] would he move like Godzilla, or would he move like a very tall man? We don't have any way to know for sure, but if you depicted the 25 foot tall dude's movements as human-like, you certainly wouldn't be committing some kind of horrible plausibility crime.
-
Dec 19, 2005 11:20:13 AM CST
Don't forget, Jurassic Park used animatronics for some of th
by minderbinder
Many people don't realize that, and are unwittingly pointing to practical FX as an example of "great CGI". It's a tradeoff, an animatronic will absolutely look real, but there are big limits to what you can do with them.
-
Dec 19, 2005 11:24:10 AM CST
Saw it last afternoon. Terrific film. Could have been incredib
by r.c. the "wise"
it's been disappointing. I have a friend who's a manager at the Arclight. I managed to see it on a big screen with a nearly sold out showing. Unfortunately, like most films released in 3500+ theatres, it's playing in a bunch of medium-sized screens to showings of 75% or less of capacity. With a purported $550 million dollar budget(including cost of making the film, advertising and prints; not including the expected $175 million planned budget to release/advertise the two DVD versions of the film next year), Universal needs this film's worldwide BO to exceed $850-$900 million to be in the red....taking into account Peter Jackson's percentage of the film's gross. As of right now, rest assured that Universal is sweating BIG-TIME. Hell, Kong's biggest competition will be their own future projects {The Producers, Munich, and their sister company Focus's release Brokeback Mountain}. The studio will know my next weekends B.O. if KONG truly is KING.
-
Dec 19, 2005 11:25:57 AM CST
In regards to the last post...I meant "to be out of the red." T
by r.c. the "wise"
-
that this is a three+ hour movie I don't see how the returns are disappointing. This is also a time when most people are concentrating on finishing Christmas shopping- not going to see a 3+ hour movie that everyone expects the theatres to be jam-packed for- I expect business to snowball post Christmas... And I saw it- very good film.
-
I can't believe what I'm seeing. It's monday, KONG is being called a dissapointment because it only had a 65 million dollar pener. Only 65 million. In 5 days. Does that sound nuts to you?
What is up with this site? What is up with you, HARRY? KING KONG is one of the best films to come out ever. It is marvelous filmmaking, exciting and touching all at once. This film should have been your favorite film of the year! I don't get it! You're telling me you preferred V for Vendetta to Kong? I'm watching you, Harry. V better be one fucking great film, man, because if it ain't, you fucked Jackson big time. How can you prefer the Ann/Kong relationship from the original? Is it because you're a heavy guy and understand what it's like to love somebody who thinks you're hideous? Look, as another heavy brother, I get it. That's why I love Hunchback of Notre Dame. I get it. But this film is so fucking beautiful, from beginning to end. You don't like where they took Denham's character, and you officially label that a mistake? You don't get that Jackson is making Denham an accidental monster like Kong himself? Denham isn't trying to be evil, just as Kong isn't intending to bring pain and suffering to all those blnodes he tosses around New York. They're just two big forces of nature, and in their zeal they wind up causing some real mayhem. At least in this movie Ann gets it. This movie works in the way that, let's face it, the 30s version didn't: Ann feels for Kong. And not in that weird, creepy way from the two previous films. This is just two lost souls who find shelter with each other. Fucking beautiful. KING KONG, Peter Jackson's Kong, that is, is a film for the ages. It's not perfect. But it's not perfect in the way LOTR wasn't perfect: With so much movie, and with 95% of it being fucking masterful, who cares if PJ dropped a few balls? We don't get movies like this anymore, movies of pure spectacle and emotion, except from ol' Jackson. If this site doesn't get it, if you talkbackers don't get it, if this whole fucking wolrd doesn't get it, then I give up. Go have your gay cowboy movies and leave me on Skull Island. -
Although in JP the animatronic work was kind of sub-par. Spielberg hit such a home run with his early CGI that the animatronics stand out and are very awkward-looking. The Brachiosaur that sneezes on the little girl? Looks like something out of a DisneyWorld parade. The sick triceratops lying down in the field? Seriously, I expected it to start talking in a "Crypt Keeper" voice. Actually, the striking contrast between the effectiveness of the CGI and the effectiveness of the traditional effects in JP is kind of surprising. You would have thought it would be the other way around.
-
Dec 19, 2005 11:48:10 AM CST
DarthBen, which is more likely: you happen to love the greatest
by hypeendshere
hey. I love Cabin Boy. the love i have for it clouds my judgement. how could everyone else be so wrong and NOT SEE the wonderful film on the screen? then, i got the tape (and now DVD) and happily sit at home knowing i'm in the minority on this one.
-
I liked KONG, it was exciting and pretty to look at. PJ's a master visual filmmaker, he just needs real writers and an editor who's not afraid to rein him in.
-
You got it everywhere. EVERYWHERE. I'm not cleaning up SHIT. This is your mess, you horny little monkey. But back to the JP talk... The dinosaurs honestly weren't too limited. They ran, chased, ate, opened freaking doors... In Kong they did most of that, but had the intelligence of a gnat to boot.
-
Dec 19, 2005 12:25:35 PM CST
GRACE IS VENOM! IT WAS MENTIONED HERE BEFORE! WHERE THE HELL IS
by shermdawg
-
Dec 19, 2005 12:34:24 PM CST
Yeah, that was my point, I realize that apes can jump
by citizen arcane
The landings were the sticky part. You didn't feel the impact on his body when he landed and you certainly didn't see the impact on his environment the way you'd expect. The difficulty in CGI is the opposite of conventional FX. Your subject can do anything you want it to do but the work lies in making it seem like a real object.
-
LIKED:
Watts' eyes and mouth (beautiful), Night shot of ship sailing out of NY bay (sweet), the one-eyed cook (funny), couple scenes with the 'hero' actor (kinda funny), skinny filthy natives about to bash Black's head in (wow - actually felt like they were really going to do it for a second), skinny filthy native polevaulting to the ship (poor CGI - but still creepy) the Captain (cool dude), Watts' being lowered over the chasm, Kong getting pissed off when Watts says 'No!', a few (emphasis on FEW) moments in the Kong/Rex fights - especially when he punches them (do apes punch? who gives a crap - it was neat), Kong acting cool after saving Watts from the Rexs, blonde chick on stage screaming when she realizes this big ape is about to bust out, the vertigo inducing stuff on top of the Empire State Building (it really felt like you were way up there with Kong), Kong smashing planes. DIDN'T LIKE: Looking at Jack Black's fat face the whole movie (dude - quit eating so frick'n much - your jowl fat is disgusting to look at), Brody's skeltor face (dude - grab some of Black's pasta or something - you're hard to look at too), Kong's entrance (pretty lame if you ask me - bad editing - wasn't scary - he just sort of walks through the trees - no big deal), all of the dinos (they all sucked big time - the Rexs should have looked terrifying but instead just looked kind of... dim witted), the animal fight scenes (slow things down for pete's sake - big animals may move fast but they don't move THAT fast - slower has more impact - fast just looks rushed like you're trying to hide bad CGI), the bats (lame-o-lame-ass), quite a bit of Kong jumping around (close ups and slow stuff was stunning - but the fast stuff and distance stuff mostly sucked), Kong's teeth and especially gumline (just looked fake), Watts getting tossed around (would have broken 50 bones in her body - totally lame), the spider pit (wow - what a total letdown), rescue from the spider pit (like - I'm soooo sure), most of the dialoge uttered by Jack Black (a likeable guy - but his delivery wasn't convincing), editing (I don't complain if a good movie was long - that is awesome! - but if a movie has parts that DRAG then trim them out - and this movie had a few). BOTTOM LINE? Too much sub-par CGI and weak green screen work caused what might have been an A+ movie to be a B- movie. -
Dec 19, 2005 12:56:14 PM CST
Are the folks on here really geek/genre/b-movie fans??
by headlesscorpse
I've always been a little confused on this point whenever I've seen really brutal reviews of these kinds of movies on this site. You'd think this would be a site for people who really love geek/sci-fi/fantasy/genre/b-movies. I don't know what kind of standards a lot of the people posting here are holding these movies to, but if the Star Wars prequels suck, King Kong sucks, Serenity sucks, Sky Captain sucks, on, and on the list could go... ...what are you doing hanging out on this site? This is a site dedicated to fans of these kinds of movies, and these movies are what they are. You're not going to get movies that combine the dark, eerie coolness of Blue Velvet, plus the special effects innovation of Jurassic Park, plus the acting chops of Glengarry Glen Ross, with scores that outdo Star Wars, Psycho, and Jaws all at once. Get back in touch with some kind of reasonable baseline of expectation and tell yourself: "I'm about to go see a remake of a 1930's monster movie!" This isn't Orson Wells' frozen sperm offspring come to life to remake Citizen Kane. Keep in mind, "monster movie," and keep yourself grounded. If what you've really preferred is Syriana, or Brokeback Mountain, or Walk the Line this season, fine, great, all good movies, and more power to you, but maybe you aren't a genre/b-movie fan and you might spend your time more productively on a site that highlights great work in independent film or something.
-
But only if the universe has suddenly folded in on itself and intelligent actually means stupid. I remember watching JP and muttering to myself when that first bronto appeared,
-
I think at this point it's getting a little nuts that we're all having the same argument over and over and over again. The earliest I can remember a similar discussion was during Kill Bill. Kill Bill, Star Wars I-III, Sky Captain...whenever the majority of tb'ers are MEH (or worse) about a movie, it's pretty much gauranteed it will NOT be a classic. Yes, we are genre film fans, but fan doesn't necc. mean that we like crap. Infact, just the opposite: because non-genre film fans willfoten NOT like a really good genre film. So it's not about liking something that isn't that great. Also, what it comes down to is that if you like a movie and most people don't, that doesn't make you a bad person, a person of bad taste, it's no reflection on you whatsoever! You are not your taste in movies! Movies do not represent you as a person! Get over it! There are REALLY crappy movies that I love (Xanadu etc.) and they make me happy! That doesn't mean that everyone who hates it is wrong...or right! Art is subjective, and, for better or worse, then when 60% of people think a movie is MEH, then IT IS MEH!!!! That's it! Case closed! Weta effects, in my opinion, are still years behind ILM in sophistication. That's my opinion as a semi-pro film guy. And when laymen left and right are saying it, when radio show hosts are saying it, when EVERYONE is sayin it, then it's true. That's the way subjective opinion works! You may not agree! You don't have to! It's doesn't make you wrong...or right!
-
for a guy who hates this movie, you sure do a lot of research on it (i.e Box Office returns, deleted scenes, the public's state of mind...). Why do you do this to yourself??? Please explain in a way that actually makes sense, if you don't mind.
-
MOST of the people who post here are NOT geek/genre/b-movie fans. In fact, most are the complete opposite. They're idiots. The kind that use made up words like "meh" to try and describe their heavily feigned faux dislike of pretty much everything. These are the "emo" kids. These are the generation of disenfranchised youth that feel as if enjoying something that "the masses" like can't possibly be cool. These are the people that have a hard time coming up with a word besides "sucks" when they don't like something and have an even harder time articlulating why said thing "sucks". As one talkbacker mentioned earlier, most of these "haters" are the kind of schlubs who would have major issues with the big boulder behind Indy in the opening of Raiders were it released today. We should pity them, really. It's just so much easier and more enjoyable to make fun of them.
-
But 60% of the audience isn't "Meh" over the film. Even with Cockring and Hypey posting like mad, not even 60% of this talkback is "Meh" over the film. Talkbacks are a questionable sample anyway - I'd say that 60% of the talkbackers I've heard comment about Titanic either openly despise it or "Meh" it, but that's not the reception of the film among audiences as a whole. By the way: "That's my opinion as a semi-pro film guy. And when laymen left and right are saying it, when radio show hosts are saying it, when EVERYONE is sayin it, then it's true. [DIVIDING CLIP SOUND] That's the way subjective opinion works! You may not agree! You don't have to! It's doesn't make you wrong...or right!" Why aren't you intelligent enough to realize that the two halves of your statement above completely contradict each other? Oh, here too: "Art is subjective [DIVIDING CLIP SOUND], and, for better or worse, then when 60% of people think a movie is MEH, then IT IS MEH!!!!" I don't think you really understand what the word "subjective" means.
-
Dec 19, 2005 2:30:42 PM CST
"KING KONG" would have been much less of an experience if it emp
by jdanielp
I understand why people are comparing "KING KONG" to "JURASSIC PARK", ...and I think I'm the one who started it here, ...but from a certain perspective, it's ridiculous in comparing the two movies. It would not be possible, ...nor realistic even under a 207 million dollar budget, to achieve such camera movements while utilizing animatronics ...and yet make it as visually realistic as Jackson and crew have achieved. Animatronics are great for those still shots and some limited movement, ...but that's it, folks. The key is when to employ the usage of animatronic and make it blend seamlessly with the CGI. Spielberg is really smart about making such choices. And he really HAD to be when he made "JURASSIC PARK". And from what I remember, he was about ready to jump ship when working on "JURASSIC PARK" because the CGI wasn't quite there yet, at the time. The effects were pushed to the point that it broke new ground, ...and that was through smart decission making by Spielberg himself and the CGI people who found a way. And credit has to be given to Stan Winston's animatronic crew, as well. It all came together at the right time and place. But with "KING KONG", Jackson was able to take us where his camera eye wanted to go, ...where his own artistic eye desired to go, ...all because he employed so much CGI. And I, for one, really appreciate that.
-
Well, I love love love the King Kong story and the original. NOBODY can tell me that the shots of Kong staring down the T res, Kong thumping his chest, Kong 'Flying' through the air does not look like a friggin painting-a CGI one at that. It wrecked the movie for me, and I mean wrecked it. I was so looking forward to this movie and was so depressed after I saw it. There were way more completely convincing CGI of Kong in the movie-the close up touch by Anne, the shots on the Empire State, the stuff in the theater-THAT was convincing. However, the bright sunlight jungle long-shots look so fake to me. Now, J. Park Brachiosaurus close up at the start looks CGI, but NEVER did the raptors, the T Rex attack, nada. It was 100% believeable. I want to love this new Kong, but this is not my Kong. Unfortunately, the 76 Kong is more of the true Kong than this one. He was to be feared-this is just a large gorilla acting like a large gorilla. Maybeye over time it will grow on me and I will be able to overlook what really bare minor issues to most but to be completely took me out of the film. It just hurt to see that. The American movie poster image of Kong looks CGI-there are so many more convincing shots in this movie. Who are the dolts that approved THOSE images????? Terrible marketing, and the shots they use in the commercial of the close ups are the very bad CGI shots I am tal;king about. They would only work if the ENTIRE movie was CGI-including the actors. J.Park still remains the champ.
-
The funniest(?) thing about that was calling my "love" for you pious. No, not pious Ringo. But I'm sure there are several antonyms that would serve as a better description. Nice deflection though.
-
I saw the movie on Thursday. My brother and I took my dad out to see it. We all loved the movie!! I didn't feel it was too long at all. "Oh gee they had a bat in there that i didn't like." Boo Hoo! Did something that trivial really ruin your whole experience? I feel bad for you nitpickers, i can't see how you can enjoy anything in life. Oh well, your loss. I for one will be going to see this again.
-
Dec 19, 2005 4:04:33 PM CST
uberman, I hate to tell you this, but they used animatronics for
by minderbinder
There's probably a lot less CGI than you think. I don't know what the split was on the first one, but even on JP3, it was only half CGI, they used animatronics for half the dinos in that one.
-
but not flawless. I'm positive it would have been better had it been trimmed down to 120 minutes (that's probably been said ad nauseam here anyway). But still, Watts is amazing and I never once thought that kong wasn't real.
-
Why would you want more "Skull Island beasties" if they were all "PEDESTRIAN"? What more could have possibly offered on a prehistoric island? Hippo puppets with machine guns?
-
Dec 19, 2005 4:33:12 PM CST
Yes there were animatronics in JP but it's pretty obvious wh
by citizen arcane
I don't think anyone's talking about the animatronics, they're talking about the CGI. As for the animals on Skull Isle, they were really supposed to be pretty much dinosaurs and larger versions of regular animals. It wasn't another planet they were visiting, it was more of a land that time forgot, plus big apes. The other animals were supposed to be there to fight Kong, not to completly upstage him with their wierdness. I thought the giant worms things were pushing it, actually. What I want to know regarding the animals on the island is how the big apes were all extict but the slow, dimwitted brontosaurs (or whatever) were thriving. It seems like they'd be the first to be wiped out. Might as well have cows on the island.
-
Nah...but maybe Peter North as Jack Driscoll. That might work.
-
Dec 19, 2005 5:05:03 PM CST
What exactly was your beef with "Batman Begins" again, Moviemack
by mr nice gaius
-
I thought I
-
If it was obvious, why do people keep bringing up the raptor and T rex, both of which were a combo of CGI and practical FX?
-
Nope, I haven't seen it yet. Which is why I haven't yet said I'm convinced it will be any good. You still don't get it, do you? This whole endless feud has NOTHING to do with whether Kong actually is good or not. It's about the relentless insanity of your haterism and how you reach the most incredible conclusions about a film, its creators, the people who watch it and even the people who fucking write about it -- BEFORE you even see it yourself.
-
Dec 19, 2005 6:01:10 PM CST
Yes, but Batman Begins was embraced by the critics, made a lot o
by fluffyunbound
...probably has redefined the character in the minds of many people in the modern audience. It's not that good a character, anyway, so naturally upgrading it in the popular consciousness wasn't that hard. I do know that if I was a fan of the comic, it might annoy me that to most people now, Batman is either Adam West or Christian Bale. Oh well, Moviemack, maybe 20 years after the last of BB's sequels, they will hit the reset button again and take another shot at the character. Maybe then you'll get the version you want. Or maybe not.
-
...when I finally do see it, and if I dislike it, I can promise you two things: 1) that I will post my dislikes in an appropriate talkback, and 2) that there is not one conceivable "flaw" you've pointed out that I will agree with in any manner whatsoever. Even if Kong stinks to high heaven, it won't be because of a single item on that already legendary, anal, trainspotting list of yours.
-
How did Batman BEgins eclipse Burton's? Adjusted for inflation, Burton's BATMAN made $400 million. Even when not adjusted for inflation, Burton's made more than BEGINS. And for the record BATMAN BEGINS was great until Bruce burnt down Ras Al Ghul's temple. From then on it was shit. I mean come on, what was up with that stupid WATER DESTROYER MACHINE? How in the world did Batman Begins (and Kong) garner so much critical acclaim. And the biggest shocker is people called batman Begins GRITTY AND INTELLIGENT. Maybe I didnt see the same movie.
-
Dec 19, 2005 6:12:42 PM CST
Narnia is what hurt Kongs opening, without Narnia, Kong would ha
by orionsangels
The opening should be 81million, but that cheap ass narnia had to come along
-
If any of your arguments had changed or adjusted to the fact that you indeed did see the film, then that statement might have made sense. As it is, you lost all credibility before seeing it and became even more of a parody of yourself after that howler of a "review". You're an anal, mean-spirited and glum windbag with zero clout in terms of cinema discussion. Get with THAT program.
-
I'm talking about a Kong talkback, like this one. What's so hard to understand about that? Did I say this was an inappropriate forum?
-
Dec 19, 2005 6:22:53 PM CST
"Oh, and nice how you, BEFORE SEEING THE MOVIE claim that you wo
by docpazuzu
You're right. I can know it, however, because not even the worst fantasy movie in the world could possibly be ruined for me by the truly moronic and niggling things you pointed out in that now immortal piece of written comedy.
-
Wow. This is actually scary. Talkbacks are for registering your thoughts or flaming someone and then moving on, not for cultivating a budding love-hate relationship. Break it up, you two - it's getting a little weird.
-
Dec 19, 2005 6:33:22 PM CST
Come on, Doc. You know you're going to totally agree about
by minderbinder
'Cause any fool knows that fire in a movie shouldn't be orange.
-
Good God...
-
Dec 19, 2005 6:43:11 PM CST
Wow, that's hilarious. The guy with the longest list of pre
by minderbinder
And after that hypocracy, calling *him* a hypocrite is the icing on the cake. Bravo, my friend. That's some all-time classic trolling.
-
Dec 19, 2005 6:46:31 PM CST
DocPazuzu, arguing with Ringy is like playing one of those old g
by ol' painless
Name escapes me, it involves whacking beavers on the head with a mallet every time they pop up. No matter how often you hit Ringy over the head with the truth, he ignores the point and pops up again blithering more nonsense. Mind you, Ringy himself won't be whacking beaver any time soon (unless you count bath-time with Mother. He would.). Nosiree, the only thing getting whacked on the head tonight at La Maison A La Ringy will be Mr Winky.
-
Dec 19, 2005 9:07:20 PM CST
ringbearer i have asked you the same question as mr nice
by slappy jones
and you never answer...I haven;t been here for awhile and you are still going??what the fuck??
you hate the LOTR films yet have watched all three..plus you memorise directors commentaries from them....you have ragged on kong for months and then you see it opening day (?!?!?) and surprise surprise you hate it...now you are still obsessed with it...i am not attacking you....i just would like to know why you care so much about something you obviously hate...oh and as for the naysayers....sure 66 million in 5 days is underperforming but this film has received great reviews..yahoo have a quote from cinemascore..the polling guys and they have exit polls giving it a strong A-...more people are liking this film then hating it.it is early days
I agree with the guy and his breakdown of the invention of the word "meh" ... it is so uncool to like something. -
Dec 19, 2005 9:34:23 PM CST
"With a purported $550 million dollar budget (including cost of
by triumph poops!
WHAT THE FUCK? Look, if you liked the film, great. If you didn't, that's fine too. And if you want to play this age old "box office numbers game" to validate which side of the pro/con side you're on, that's fine, too -- BUT BACK UP YOUR FACTS. Seriously, where are some of you people pulling these absolutely insane and utterly ridiculous numbers from? Look, even if KONG cost about $200 million to make (which is what it did basically come to) that represents the figure to actually MAKE the movie and get a master print in the can. When you try to account for marketing -- which would be striking the prints, shipping them, and doing yoru various forms of advertising -- that all could maybe...MAYBE...double the production figure. At worst. Which means AT WORST we'd be talking about $400 million altogether being sunk into KONG. But it's utterly ridiculous Internet rumor mongoring and outright bullshit to think that KONG had a FILMING BUDGET of $550 million -- and if you want to stick with that story, fine, pony up ANY reliable news source that is legitimately quoting such a figure for all to see. And one more thing: given that I live and work out here in Hollywood and have friends at Universal, I can assure you that it's utterly ridiculous and equally laughable if you think the studio has set aside $175 million -- nearly $200 million more -- JUST for marketing the DVD release. Come on, if you want to argue numbers, fine. But let's get serious about REAL figures, not Internet baloney.
-
Harry did not spoil BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. He didn't say/write anything that wasn't in the friggin' trailer. JMFC, people!
-
I wish I lived and worked in Hollywood . . . whats the weather like over there?
-
Dec 19, 2005 10:25:10 PM CST
who cares if the effects aren't the best. I wasn't even
by orionsangels
Some of you worry too much.
-
Did you just call Titanic Clich
-
onward, geeks, onward! if this doesn't get up to 1,000 by XMas, you're all getting coal from Santa. i want blood! XMAS BLOOD! THE BEST KIND! WHOOOOO!!!! FUCKING XMASSSSS!!!!
-
Dec 19, 2005 11:18:35 PM CST
Anchorite: Except, JDanielP, Jackson's vision wasn't as
by 900lbgorilla
Hey Anchorite, we actually agree! (Someone write this down).
-
Dec 20, 2005 12:57:21 AM CST
it finally hit me (and maybe somebody has already pointed this o
by bigdickmcgee
Is from Yor:The Hunter From the Future! Boy, when Jackson steals, he steals from the best.
-
Dec 20, 2005 1:12:19 AM CST
They had to do the bat escape, no way could they fall from that
by orionsangels
PJ also steals from American Pop for the opening. That movie if you haven't seen it, does several decade montages, including a 30s one. PJ copies it and PJ also stole some scenes fom Baksi's, lord of the rings for FOTR. PJ's a thief! lol
-
I hope we get references to Starcrash and Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Syn. I think Master Chief should have a David Hasselhoff perm.
-
Because our breed is a dying one. What a pity.
-
Dec 20, 2005 1:23:57 AM CST
Uberman: "They would only work if the ENTIRE movie was CGI-inclu
by jdanielp
The way I see it, rendering the actors by copying (or tracing) their performance from captured video is a REAL possibility, in the very near future. It's already happening in video games. And really, it's a smart choice. And I'm all for it. The blending of actors and such fantasy CGI can't get any smoother than that, just as soon as technology (and methods) get us close enough. And it should, at some point in the future, make EVEN YOU GUYS happy.
-
planning on seeing KONG at least a few more times! Thats what the Alamo Drafthouse is for! As for those of you outside TX I hope you never see a film at Alamo outside of the best state in the country. I'm selfish that way. Oh yeah, and I did buy the Production Diaries even though when I first heard they were releasing them I thought it was a marketing ploy. I loved the film that much. I watched all of them on KiK.net but now i can see them in all of their glory on my 15in Mag TV from the Pawn shop! By the way I respect all of you.
-
The last shot of the movie should have been Jimmy enrolling in a primatology course at Howard University. Then it all would have been worth it! Jim-MAY! Long live Jim-MAY! May he be the subject of Kong drinking games for years to come!
-
Dec 20, 2005 2:19:23 AM CST
I think that maybe some people were looking for a little less ex
by jdanielp
Sure, "JURASSIC PARK" had more historical fact going for it, ...sure, it was a more life-like interpretation and experience. That's what the Jurassic Park screenplay had going for it. And Spielberg gave it the weight of reality in the way he shot it. "KING KONG" is more of a painter's dream, ...a realization of Jackson's favorite monster movie from childhood, ...all the while trying to hold onto his youthful exaggeration. "KING KONG" captured those artistic touches. There were so many beautiful fantasy shots in "KING KONG", ...almost like watching a fantasy-themed calendar coming to life, but in the artist's style it was presented. And I love seeing such artistry come to life on the big screen. What a beautiful film, "KING KONG" is. Next time, I'm taking my wife.
-
It'sokay but it aint gonna cure cancer.Its far better than that fucking AWFUl Narnia though.Don't believe what you hear,the kids can't act.Shit.Naomi Watts is the star of Kong,without her it'd be poor.
-
The kids are fine. People who don't act (especially those who never have) often confuse not liking a performance with an inability to perform. The kids in Narnia have plenty of ability.
-
Dude, waste no more time. It's a very easy on the eyes film. Nice and smooth and it feels really big. I actually felt like I was in the 30's, as opposed to just feeling like I was watching something set in the 30's. Now imagine that same feeling as you traverse the ocean and then arrive at Skull Island........ and then continued as if those creatures are amazingly real. And scary. Having said that, don't be afraid of two things that happen rather frequently. 1) Bad moments of atrocious direction. 2) Really bad unbelievable shit. Who was the talkbacker who said they were suprised that Jackson could make such a messy film after his LotR films. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks man. I needed that.
-
His true name is Muhammed Saheed-al-Sahaf, formerly known as the Iraqi minister of information.
-
Dec 20, 2005 5:16:25 AM CST
Fluffyunbound, You wanna know how a man 3 times taller than an N
by gingertwit
He'd move like those big lanky creatures in Dark Crystal. There's a film that would make a good remake!
-
Sometimes i agree with you, whats the point of everyone being here, So many hated Kong, serenity, star wars, lotr. It's like every movie we should be loving just isn't doing it for us in our older age. Well, it's like this I think. Studio's shoot themselves in the feet. All the time. It's not that the studios have ever made a good film. Good films come from the hard working film makers who get their films made against all odds. The films that DID capture our hearts just so happened to be the big monster and space movies of the 70's and 80's. To a lesser degree, the 90's. The issues are that the studios think they can pass off any old bullshit to us, so long as they use the same elements from shows like star wars, star trek, Batman, superman, Terminator, Jurrasic Park. but thats just not the case. These films were made by film makers who wanted NOTHING more but to give us a vision of pure reality for the stuff our dreams were made of. Peter Jackson is something else entirely. So is Joss whedon. These Men have the right stuff to make a film, the likes of which we all crave. But here are their failings - Neither men have an original bone in their bodies. George Lucas - his failings were that he had all the money in the world to remake his prequels, when what he should have done, was scaled back. and kept scaling back till he had something really memerable. Then with that memerable 'thing' he should have given it his all. Personally, I think he did just that with Revenge of the Sith. There was NOTHING wrong with that film. Nothing! The only thing wrong was that it should have been Episode 2! And Episode 1 should have been a big mixed bag of Episode 1 & 2. Episode 3 should then have been an adventure directly before Episode 4. Oh well. But back onto Jackson and his failings. Same shit, The man became 'Genius' with his LotR's films. The man did an admirable Job bringing those films to the screen. But he HAD NO IDEA how to cut his footage together. I honestly believe he recieved all those academy awards because for the first time, he had done what no body had done. He made a 12 hour movie! and he split it up over 6 releases. That was made him an elite business man. It all went to his head. And thats what ALL the haters were talking about before the release of Kong. Here was a man so sure of his superiority, getting a pat on the back from every body he met, probably getting blown on every set break, out back, by Fran and Phillipa, definately getting lots of happy studio exects taking his calls and saying "You need more money? no problem, how much? 50 mil? 60?" The point is, the man showed signs of being consumed by his own power. We could all smell it. First he releases $100 for his production diaries. A package with all the look of LotR, but pretty sure it badly lacked something inside. Anyone here seen it? And now we have his film for all to scrutinize. And the man SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED! I loved the film. but it had the exact same problems that LotR had. Big sloppy mess! He has some idea of cinematic psychology - mainly the power of visuals. But he has no idea how the rythem and timing of a movie also counts. There doesn't need be much cut out at all. Just all the slow shit on the boat, all the exposition. all the mind bogglingly clueless Heart of darkness referances. The relationship between big black "You stay in school and do whats right" deck hand and little "Gee Wiz Mr." Jimmy stow away. Drop all the unrealistic over the top shit during the action scenes. That part where Anne goes over the vines, swings past the camera and comes right up to a dangling T-rex we didn't know was there, that was MAGIC! What was so good about it was that the sound was such a focus, Kong below us and bashing the shit out of another T-rex while this happened. It was a jewel of a moment. Heart stopping. Smile inducing. "Woah!" forceing. Anyways, you wouldn't loose any of that stuff by cutting the absudity moments. Anyway, hope this has been enlightening in amounst this massive talkback. It was a long time coming and it's a thing of beauty to behold. heh, Talkbacks are the real summer blockbusters. PS those big worms. The girls sitting in front of me all huddled together and started giggling. I found that funny. Dirty lil bitches.
-
Dec 20, 2005 6:34:04 AM CST
wow, this talkback makes the movie look like a 15 second advert.
by colonel_blimp
And ringbearer, you are worthless.
-
....To say that Batman is not a very good character is the first sign that your impression of Batman rests mostly with the more recent of the films - batman and robin. Batman begins. Even Batman Forever and batman Returns. But there is something magical about Batman. The 1989 movie that is. It's the same thing that held the magic with Batman 1960's. Those characters are interesting. 1960's batman took the absurd idea of the comic strip characters and gave it a wild interpretation. When time came to bring Batman back, they brought it back with the ORIGINAL concept. A dark ominous figure in the form of a Bat. He was a mystery to his victims, and to we the unsuspecting audiance. No one would suspect billionare Bruce Wayne of being this mysterious vigilante cleaning up the streets of Gotham. And Joker was just a crazy old meglomaniac, right hand man of the biggest crime boss and then surviving an attempt on his life because he was sleeping with his chick. The attempt left him scared and deformed - with a little help from the batman himself. And the reason Batman was following Jack Napier was because he'd killed his parents 20 years earlier. It was FUCKING LEGENDARY! Batman Begins, on the other hand, tried to tell the same story. Blatantly ripped off Burtons design for the suite. Didn't even bother to give anything to the psychology of Bruce Wayne. Christian Bale was just some silver spoon fed brat. And for him to become batman just made him look like some fucking blond kid trying to be a rap sensation. (Vanilla Ice, not eminem) (Again, opposite ends of the spectrum) (Like how Batman and Robin and Batman Begins are to each other) Someone said that one time. I fully agree.
-
But there were problems. I felt the Brontosaurus stampede was too long. The bit where they were running over each other on the rock shelf was just silly. The CGI was horrible. (And is it just me, but I don't think brontosaurus's were built to stampede. They moved really slow.) Okay, so that was being picky. A mere technical flicker. But then there was the pointless relationship between the black first liutenant and the ship's mate. Some of the dialog and discussion of "Heart of Darkness" was just plain idiotic. I too am finding myself more and more annoyed by that amaturish slow motion, jerkey effect that PJ seems to be using more and more of. I found it really annoying in RETURN OF THE KING when Pippen had the Palantir, but there was like 5 to 10 minutes of the effect in KONG. The effect reminds me of one of those really cheesey video effects people do with their home videos when they are trying to spice them up for family viewing. Or maybe your school might do it on the video yearbook with a soundtrack by Bon Jovi. I think it's a shame that Jackson feels he needs to really on something so lame. The guy's a good film maker. He doesn't need the effect to cover any problems with his direction. That one piece when the guy's typing "SKULL" Island is just really painful to watch. I also thought he made the natives too evil. In the original the natives help with the wall and the gate when Kong attacks it. Here, the natives just disappear. I guess they went back through the "Hell Gate". There was nothing about them that was human whatsoever. I think it was too much. I also thought the way they got Ann off the boat was stupid. The canoes coming up in the dark and fog would have been just as effective. If not more so. Oh, and I thought the way everyone got out of the bug pit was really lame. They were too far down, and they were too overwhelmed with all the bugs. Jackson could have come up with a better way of getting out. How about another pack of flairs (or torch fire)? Lumpies demise though was cool as beans. You know though? All this said, 15 to 20 minutes of good editing work and this movie would have been 100 percent perfect. 15 minutes out of over 3 hours is awesome. That's almost 3 of pure quality filmmaking. I'll take that. Still not as good as BATMAN BEGINS, but it's right up there with SIN CITY.
-
Brilliant! I knew I had heard/seen Ringy before but just couldn't put my finger on where or when. Bagdad Bob lives! "Mori, Harry and Vern are committing suicide on the gates of the Alamo Drafthouse!" ........ "Jackson and his lackeys are having their stomachs roasted in Hell!" ...... "There are no moviegoers currently attending Kong screenings. It is all zionist lies!"
-
It took me a hell of a long while to figure it out, but finally it dawned on me last night. It is that same kind of ignorant persistence that eventually made it clear.
-
Dec 20, 2005 9:23:17 AM CST
There's a nice tightly edited King Kong film inside this 3hr
by orionsangels
It just has to be edited and removed. Anyone else notice scenes missing? That were in the trailer. They build a rafter, just like the original and a sea monster stalks them down. I wish he had kept that in. Would have been even more like the original, of course will get all these scenes in an even bigger bloated edition. KING KONG Ultimate 4hr edition! Because we need to know more about that kid that was raised on the Venture and raised by the Black dude. That's important to the movie, ugh.
-
Dec 20, 2005 9:26:40 AM CST
There's a nice tightly edited King Kong film inside this 3hr
by orionsangels
It just has to be edited and removed. Moving on, anyone else notice scenes missing? That were in the trailer. In the trailer we see they obviously build a raft, just like the original and a sea monster stalks them. I wish he had kept that in. Would have been even more like the original, of course will get all these scenes in an even bigger bloated edition. KING KONG Ultimate 4hr edition! Because we need to know more about that kid that was found aboard the Venture and raised by the Negro. That's important to the movie, ugh.
-
Bravo, Doc Paz. Nice job taking ol' Ring to task in this TB. As I've tried to tell him many times myself - he clearly just doesn't get it.
-
Now Ringles thinks that the use of the color of FIRE for FIRE was OK? Aw fuck...does that mean there is some sort of hope out there?
-
I totally agree with your analysis of PJ and KONG. Thanks, it was a good read. BATMAN BEGINS was awesome, though.
-
Dec 20, 2005 10:48:00 AM CST
What kinda loser is checking out to see if the CGI fire is done
by orionsangels
That's the differences between today's moviegoers and moviegoers from the past. No one questioned that shit! Really, who gives a fuck. It's a monster movie. If the CGI fire has you worried. You have too much time on your hands. why the fuck can't people just enjoy a movie the way it is? All this fucking nitpicking of the effects. In 33 i'm sure people weren't calling each other saying - hey charlie, did ya see that swell king kong picture? I sure did! Yeah but did ya get a load of those monsters? I could see fingerprints all over kong. That was a doll moved with hand for sure. yeah, i couldn't enjoy da picture on account a all those lousy effects. Ah scram will ya! - Point is we shouldn't care, and if you do. You need to get a life. Just let go and enjoy the ride. Stop with this fuckin complaining already, because you wanna fuck over a director.
-
...but you may have missed some sarcasm.
-
the CGI fire was an issue that was brought up when the Kong trailer appeared. If you can find that particular TB, you may just laugh yourself insane.
-
Although it's not like you folks needed my help in pounding the Ringmeister.
-
I gotta disagree with you (and apparently Moviemack) on "Batman Begins". BB definitely gave much and improved upon the psychology of Wayne. We got to see why he becomes who he is. It's a more nuanced portrayal. And it drove home the theme that a man conquering his fear and then becoming fear personified was going to try to make a difference. Frankly, I don't know what more you could do in designing the Batsuit but at least the one in BB was given a reason and some credibility. So, how it could be a "piss poor representation" I don't know. Maybe it's a matter of certain asthetics for some? -- Ultimately, I find the Burton films to be utter camp. (The Schumacher ones aren't even worth mentioning. Seriously, those versions are one step away from having penguin flippers on submarines like the TV show movie.) The focus was always too centered on the villains and not on the hero. Ol' Jack's portrayal of the Joker was more goofball than psychotic. And the other villains followed his blueprint. It kills the darkness that's associated with Batman and the criminals fall flat because they aren't genuinely threatening. BB corrected this by concentrating on it's central villain, Ducard, and not the Scarecrow. My point being that BB is a surprisingly good and smart movie that took itself seriously. In doing so, it gave us a realistic depiction of the man who would be the Dark Knight. Drek? Ha, far from it. More like a movie (granted about a silly concept) that doesn't insult my intelligence.
-
'tis sad for Peter Jackson that the movie didn't catch on like a "Spider-Man" or "Harry Potter" but them's the breaks. It still does not diminish my enjoyment of it one iota. The damn film sweeps you away. This is one dvd I plan to snap up on day one.
-
Seems like RB9 has resorted to trying to rip-off my poetic device I used to school him back in another TalkBack. I believe it was called, "Ode to Ringbearer9 Vol.1 Issue 1". -- http://tinyurl.com/dv962
-
Dec 20, 2005 1:10:34 PM CST
Exactly, can't we just get a Robert Rodriguez take on Dark K
by shermdawg
Oh, I forgot, Warner Bros. probably doesn't like the fact that the audience would hate Superman after seeing that, but if that was the case, how do you explain them approving Brandon Routh?
-
I agree on some terms; the movie was not perfect. But it had some brilliant moments (stuff with Freeman and Oldman for example) that made it more than just a "superhero movie". I agree that the fight scenes were too dark and close-up...and Katie Holmes was justed a waste of film. But I think the Tumbler sequence and key character moments really pushed it forward. It was the only movie I saw this year where the audience applauded afterwards. Besides, I'll take Christian Bale over Johnny Dangerously anyday...
-
I loved it. It was what I expected. But you don;t answer the questions do you? because then you would have to stare into the abyss and realise you are a fucking loser?because only a loser does what you are doing. Unplug your computer and go for a walk or give us a reason as to why you dedicate all your time to this. Is there any possible reason you can give that doesn;t make you sound like a total loser?
-
Dec 20, 2005 1:30:10 PM CST
if this film is boring to you can i please live with you
by slappy jones
as your day to day activities must be fucking outstanding if what you see on the screen during kong is boring.
-
if you lived with Ringu you'd wake up with his hands on your penis
-
.....I think Dave Chappelle said it best when he surmised, "Once you fuck a monkey, that's a firm decision.....there's no in-between. I'm out of the human pussy game for good". It would be interesting to hear Chappelle's views on the King Kong-Anne romance.
-
he won't give one though because the only reason can be that his life is empty and completely devoid of fun.
-
I didn't like all of Begins, but Burton's Batman was all style with zero substance (unlike Begins, there was no exploration of the psychotic drive to fight crime), an atrocious, childish script (the Joker killed his parents! the audience needs symmetry because they're simple and stupid!), and Prince (I like Prince, but his presence in Batman was Hollywood, whorish tie-in bullshit at its very worst). But that's just me.
-
And just in case your wondering, yes, Mr Van Rant, my life has plenty of fun, and I don't give two shits what 'youthinks'. Oh, and for that dude up there that used the word "bleh", for the record, that's as asinine as using "meh". And people who use either word should be shot. Or at least pissed on.
-
How could I? After Ringy's O. Henry effort, what could possibly provoke any type of deep emotion in anyone? Except love. I love you, GoatZinger. Elope with me. It was always you. She don't mean shit, baby.
-
Dec 20, 2005 6:37:40 PM CST
King Kong aside, I agree that Burton's Batman beats out Batm
by chishu_ryu
...as far as being a better film. And that's due a lot to the fact that Tim Burton is more talented than Chris Nolan. Yes, Burton's Batman was brimming with style, but that was the point. More than being about a particular story or plot, it was a film "about" the Batman mythos, hence scenes like the Batmobile charging down a dark highway to D. Elfman's haunting rhythms, the silhouette of the Batwing against a full moon, Michael Keaton announcing, "I'm Batman." How about Anton Furst's genius-level art directionfor Gotham, meant to be an extension of his Batsuit design? Pure genius, I say! As far as Batman Begins' overt psycho-babble about Batty's brain, that was MY problem with Nolan's film. So Bruce dresses like a bat because he fears them? Oh, how ironic! How about for the sequel we have a Joker who tells really bad jokes? Or a Riddler who just doesn't get it? Or maybe a Penguin who hates the cold? And birds? Part of the brilliance of Burton's Batman is that the main character is not explained away like a bad college thesis. We're kept in the dark a bit. "Who is this guy?", Knox asks repeatedly. Exactly. Who IS Bruce Wayne? In some ways, the audience is like Vale and Knox, trying to plumb the depths. But we're never really told everything, are we? Maybe there are no depths, maybe it's all surface. We're, like the film itself, kept in the dark. All we have is Michael Keaton's awkward under-played paranoic performance. His eyes tell us the truth, though. Something's not right with the guy. But what? Like the reporters in Citizen Kane(an influence on the film) who try to find the meaning of Rosebud, but never do. Or like Rembrandt's portraits. Like the Tao. The mystery can't be explained away like a simple math problem. In not saying anything, it says everything. And that's why I like Burton's Batman over Batman Begins. Now back to King Kong. Over.
-
Mosdef- maybe pe0ple called Batman begins
-
Dec 20, 2005 7:38:58 PM CST
Yes, King Kong was not great, not even very good, but Peter Jack
by chishu_ryu
...and here's how. Are you reading this, PJ? Film editing school is in session. It's a simple fix, really. Trim down the Mr. Hayes/Jimmy interactions, if even just a few sentences. If there are any more interactions between Ann Darrow and the crew, throw one or two in. Now, trim out about 30 seconds or so from the Brontosaurus stampede. It's amazing what 30 seconds amounts to in film time. Throw in an extra master shot or two of Skull Island, so as to get a better appreciation of its beauty and majesty. We got enough of the danger. Now, more screen time is needed between Ann Darrow and King Kong. If there are more scenes between the girl and the gorilla, crikey, mate, put them in! If not, Ms. Watts may have to be called in again for more shooting, as well as Mr. Serkis with that whole computer sensor thingy. It's not like they have anything better to do. Trim down the intercutting of the Spider Pit stuff, so the balance tips towards the Ann/Kong relationship. For starters, you can cut out Lumpy crying over Charlie's corpse. What's that all about? The most important thing is more Ann/Kong screen time. This is most crucial. As it is, the film is severely unbalanced. No worries, mate, that can happen in a three hour movie. In a strange way, the film is not long enough. Extra scenes will be welcome, as long as they're of the main characters, including Kong! No more Hayes/Jimmy stuff, though. But anyway, follow these suggestions, and I guarantee, Mr. Jackson, you'll have a 50% better film at the cost of a few days in the editing suite. G'day!
-
I'll admit, penguins with missiles strapped to their backs would have been asonine in a film like "Batman Begins", which strove for "gritty realism." But in a film like "Batman Returns", with the carnival theme, the bits of tongue-in-cheek humor, and the warped quirky nightmare dreamscape that is Tim Burton's vision, missile equipped penguins are not so out of place. It's the sort of thing a demented hate-filled bile-drooling guy born with flippers for hands and who uses wierd umbrellas might come up with. Also, there's something else Mr. Burton was doing there. He was going for a weird symmetrical balance between the characters, not unlike what he did with Batman and Joker. If you notice, animals are crucial in the film. The alley cats revive Selina Kyle as Catwoman, Batman's bats burst forth from the Gotham X-mas tree and also attack the Penguin, so thusly, the Penguin's penguins had to have their spotlight. So what do we get? The Penguin, by using a radar beacon, forces the penguins with missiles attached to their backs, to congregate in the middle of Gotham City in order to destroy it. And at the end, the emperor penguins give a final funeral procession to their "beloved" master. Catwoman's cat comes into play in the final scene when Bruce Wayne picks up the stray cat, then thinks about his "lost love." Again, each character's symbolic animal is crucial to the vision of Time Burton's film. One might think it as silly. Personally, I think it's brilliant.
-
Dec 20, 2005 8:15:07 PM CST
Burton's Batman has gone out of fashion faster than a pair o
by ol' painless
Ghastly 80's movie making at its worst. Conceited "look at me, my movies are DARK! With DARK thing happening!' nonsense plonked throughout, almost at random. The problem I have always had with Burton is that he never seems able to string a coherent movie together. Even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had this problem: a series of pretty images, but no narrative drive, no action sequences worth a damn. Burton needs to stop obsessing about acting like a 8-year old all his life and sit down and watch some movies by . . . you guessed it, Big Jim Cameron. ALIENS is the teplate for the great action movie. He made it 3 years before Burton's Batman, and it still ain't aged a day!
-
Dec 20, 2005 8:36:05 PM CST
Painless, I agree Burton's films lack narrative drive, but h
by chishu_ryu
...they were about the characters. Look at Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman. Mr. Burton gives us these insane quirky characters, then explores them in action. It's a give and take thing. Focus too much on narrative drive, and your characters get lost in the plot. Focus too much on the characters, the plot suffers a bit. Personally, being a people kind of guy, I prefer the focus on characters. Frank Capra also tended to focus on characters more than plot, as well. And painless, you touched on something about Burton acting like an 8-year-old. If you really look at it, everyone of Tim Burton's films is about the lost child in each of us. From Pee Wee's Big Adventure to Batman to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Okay, minus Sleepy Hollow and Planet of the Apes. And I'm spending entirely too much time at this site, right now.
-
I guess you can't apply the "Action Movie Paradigm" wank to poor old Timbo's movies, he does have other motivations. All I know is I saw Batman recently, and it rubbed me up entirely the wrong way . . .maybe it was the toxic presence of Robert Wuhl. I tell, you, that ass-faced dickhead is the ANTICHRIST!! Funny thing is, Burton's Planet Of The Apes struck me as an entirely generic action movies, but missing a vital spark too . . ah well. And yes, you have spent too much time at this site. Know why? Because you have engaged in conversation with some psychotic stranger who is telling you Robert Wuhl is the ANTICHRIST!! I love AICN.
-
Chrishu, I hate to double tap a flick you obviously like and are defending in a reasoned manner based on artistic preference- in fact I am more directing this at the Burton lovers/Begins haters as you seem a decent fellow- but really ANY film not made for 5 year olds wherein the climactic threat involves a city reeling on the brink of destruction due to penguins with missiles strapped to their asses is just shit pure and simple
-
I just read the comments between you and Painless, and I just don
-
First of all, I activily warned people that the movie was TOO DAMNED LONG. We did not need 10 minuets in the spiders nest, we didn't need the brontasurus stampede. There were scenes that were SO obviously CGI blue screen running. The worse part is they build up this romance between Jack and Ann... and then didn't even SHOW it...Had a cute litle "play" to explain it. Sure, the guy only risked his life for her. That and PJ did throw the whole "friendship" with Ann and Kong. Kong was a monster.. not beauty and the Beast************ANyone who prefers Tim Burton's version to Nolans tells me a couple of thing. 1) Prefers Style over substance. 2)Logic need not apply and 3)Has NO understanding of the Batman Mythos.*********Buron looked cool-but his "tisted and hip" version of the characters bore no resemblence to the original material. As any Bat fan knows, Batman himself is a complex character...worthy of of Hamlet character study. Nolan and Goyer made a film that brought Batmans best features forward-A visually stunning character, a realistic based hero and complex characters.****** FOr the person who said "Oh he's afraid of Bats so he dresses up like them." One, Bruce Wayne was facing a fear as a child...Understanding them drove the fear. Using both his Fathers ideal and Ra's training- he used the bat as a symbol..to create fear by being unkonw. Nolan showed in the film that a guy dressed up in commando outfit wasn't gonna cut it. Eveyone Batman Returns LOVED the movie. The DVD sold out RAPIDLY around here.
-
That's hilarious. No, wait, it's sad. No, wait...
-
..why does he devote so much time and effort to things he despises, i.e. LOTR films and King Kong. simple question, asked many times, and yet he dodges and dodges it. very telling. as for nothing good at the theatre, all three of the movies shitbearer mentioned are more than adequate as "event" movies, and remember, this is the guy who listed "War of the Roses" as one of his favorites of all time. was Kong a great film? not compared to "In the Heat of the Night" or "Midnight Cowboy", but then it wasn't trying to be any of those, its a great monster movie, and thats what it was trying to be. its not perfect, no movie is; i think the score is weak in parts, most noticeably during the spider pit sequence and the blend of live actors and cgi during the dino stampede is not up to the standard set in the LOTR films, imo. not a fan of the slow-mo stuff either. compared to all that was top notch though, those are fairly minor quibbles. i can rip a lot more holes in any of the JP movies that people seem to be so enraptured with, thats for sure. Kong was more real and well-realized than any creature in any of the JP movies, without question. not even close. all three JP movies were nothing more than the same scene done over and over; dino chases people, dino eats people, hero/kid barely escapes, repeat as necessary. thats it. and they made the same fucking movie 3 times in a row. i don't think people get the relationship between Kong and Ann either. they insist on taking a 3rd grade approach to it making monkey love jokes, which is fine for those who still eat their boogers, but lame for someone claiming to be at all adult. as if caring about someone means you want to bone them. try looking up the word "platonic", fucking mental midgets. the relationship between Kong and Ann is more like the one Ann had with the old vaudville guy than a sexual one. Jackson puts that old guy in the movie for that reason, imo, and Kong may be posessive of Ann but in more of a paternal way, and Ann obviously has no sexual desire for Kong, thats just fucking retarded. apparantly there are those here who require see-n-say type movies that spell everything out in the simplest, most obvious terms.
-
Great flick-best of Burtons Batmans. Like a Universal Monster movie only with the Caped Crusader. My fav of the Burton. 1st one was a snooze fest.
-
May i wish a Merry Christmas to all you TB folk and all the AICN folk too! Even you, Ringbearer9! Tis the season to be jolly. And even if some people have a less jolly Christmas than others, surely you wouldn't blame Mr Jackson: he sweated blood and tears to turn that movie out for us in time for Christmas: regardless of what you think of it, surely you can thank him for THAT!
-
Dec 21, 2005 2:13:27 AM CST
GO SEE "KING KONG"...... and have yourself a very Merry Christma
by jdanielp
-
Since you're absolutely obsessed about King KOng, you have no doubt noticed that it is now again at 83% over at Rotten Tomatoes, so it is going back up, my dear fellow. No need to get your knickers in a twist, though...
-
Sorry, I don't know what came over me there ... must have been the red mist ...
-
See what irrational blinding rage can do to you? ...
-
Dec 21, 2005 8:04:14 AM CST
So Ringbearer is quoting Rotten Tomatoes to support his argument
by zino
...Well tell me: if Rotten Tomatoes is such a reliable source Ringbearer, then how do you explain the 98% rating for The Two Towers, a film that you have repeatedly bashed on these boards? Oh I get it...RT is only right when it agrees with you.
-
Dec 21, 2005 8:34:38 AM CST
Did the San Diego Film Critics Association just declare Kong the
by fluffyunbound
I'd search for a link but I'm too lazy.
-
Advantage, Moviemack.
-
I don't know what your story is. You're probably some huge Tolkien head that snobbed at the Jackson trilogy because A) You wanted people to know how much you knew about Middle Earth- thought that by snobbing about what was different and cut out would make you look like a sizable intellectual. and B) because you were too stupid to realize that the books as they are are untranslatable to film and C) because you're just a bitter piece of shit who can't stand when others find something that gives them joy. So now because of all that you brought in a predisposition to hate Kong and also because you want your pitiful little fame here on AICN as the current most nauseating troll to slam a well received movie. I was just wondering. Is that you? Being that much of an asshole really is some ring to bear.
-
"Golly" makes you sound like you belong over at the Brokeback Mountain thread.
-
you didn't coin shit.
-
Dec 21, 2005 10:06:38 AM CST
Moviecitynews' Critics Top 10 Lists Scoreboard shows Kong ru
by fluffyunbound
So it's more than just the SDFCA. Oh, and the BFCA just created a special acting award for the character of Kong, due to the fact that a large percentage of their membership were demanding that the CGI creation receive a Best Actor nomination. "Deuce".
-
King Kong sucks! King Kong is the greatest movie ever! come on! keep it going!
-
Until they remove Stephen Whitty from the "cream of the crop" section, they shouldn't have a "cream of the crop" section. The only cream that cocksucker represents is on the end of his own syphillitic dick.
-
Dec 21, 2005 10:14:18 AM CST
In All Seriousness, I Don't Understand Why There Aren't
by zombiesolutions
i liked the movie, but it was seriously flawed. even the glowingly positive reviews say it was way too long, unfocused, and sloppy. i think people are reviewing the hype and the intent more than the actual product, which, lets face it, was a mess. entertaining? oh yeah, definately... parts of it, anyway. but a masterpiece? not even close. hi've said it before and i'll say it again; theres a really good 2 hour movie hiding inside Kong that i really liked. then theres that extra hour of fat that needs trimming. hire an editor next time, PJ, please. not every premise needs an EPIC scope...
-
I haven't bothered to research it but was Jamie Selkirk the editor on this film, too?
-
Dec 21, 2005 10:34:28 AM CST
I think I understand why there aren't more negative reviews.
by fluffyunbound
Let's look at Jackson's limits as a filmmaker for a moment. He doesn't make particularly intellectual films. His [mainstream] films don't challenge convention. They don't feature extraordinarily complex characters, or unusual structures. But what he DOES do is completely overwhelm you with what's on the screen. During the siege of Pelennor, or during the T Rex fight, MOST people just sit there shaking their head, stupefied by what they're seeing. I understand that some of you do not, but you have to try to step outside yourselves for a moment and realize the impact that has on the people who do. Why do you think he hits the audience with helicopter shot after helicopter shot? Because over time the effect is overwhelming. At the same time, he's also capable of composing individual quiet shots that can only be described as beautiful and painterly. The shot of Frodo sitting reading under a tree in the Shire at the beginning of the theatrical version of FOTR is an example. The establishing shots of NYC at the beginning of Kong are another. And yes, these are only individual moments, but they STICK IN THE MIND, and after seeing a Jackson film most viewers walk out with THOSE shots forming their impression of the entire film. So yes, there are script weaknesses, and yes, the script team's dramatic sensibilities are a trifle naive and simplistic - but the critics are people like anyone else, and when they are overwhelmed by ongoing spectacle interspersed with moments of hushed beauty tied up in a great big bow of sentiment, they walk out and write positive reviews. Some of those reviews might be "Yes, but..." reviews, but they are positive reviews nonetheless. Actually, if anything it's a testament to Jackson's strengths as a filmmaker that he's able to overwhelm the critics in this way and get them to overlook his weaknesses, which ordinarily would earn savage reviews. And I guess this is the way a lot of you respond to the prequels. Lucas just didn't get it done for me - there wasn't enough "there" there to make me overlook the things he doesn't do well. But if you're one of the people who Lucas DID get to, the complaints the rest of us make about the prequels must sound insane.
-
I felt Kong was a great movie. Not the best movie- not movie of the year- not even living up to the hype- but a great movie nonetheless. Would HAVE been the movie of the year if I ate some hash brownies before the show. The thing is Ringy- it's only a fucking movie and isn't worth all the sleepless nights you put into overanalyzing it to shape it to try to make it fit into a logical mold of suck. If this movie is as shitty as you claim then you certainly have embraced it possessing your waking thoughts. In that case you are more wasteful than any show of cgi extravangance PJ could muster- at least he spent his time obssessing over something he loves. You're obssessing endlessly over something you hate- and sound all the more like a tired nagging bitch for it. If it's pure fun you seek- I suppose with some of the younger or more excitable posters you'll get some blood boiling- but for the more reasonable posters such as myself- we just calmly realize you for the blooming idiot you are and casually take note of it.
-
I myself have heard that expression eons ago. Even a quick scan on ask.com (the bottom link on page one) showed the word being used over three and a half years ago. Royalty checks eh? And you eat me for breakfast? You REALLY should move over to the Brokeback thread. Your phrases and expressions aren't just worn and tired like your mother's ragged wizened prune cunt- but they're also gayer than edible lavender thongs on Emo Phillips.
-
A penny dropped from the Empire State Building hits the street (or someone's head) at 65 miles an hour. Not even hard enough to break the skin. You dumb fuck.
-
"Golly Ranchers". Give moviemack a little credit. He likes to pony up with the backdoor boys as well- Moviemack and Mario Cantone playing House and Doctor in leather chaps of all things.
-
not that oisin needs me at all, but i'd just like to point out that no one jumped to your defense on any issue beween you and i or he and you, and in fact the only poster who shares views similar to yours is ringbearer9, and we all can read the continual dissent against his opinions. i don't hate you or think you're an asshole or anything, you just have to learn how to debate like a human being and not just scream shit at people you don't agree with (which you did stop doing after a while, but then started doing again with oisin). it's not your level of intellect that holds you down it's your 'ringbearer9-ish' way of presenting your ideas that hurts you. that being said, oisin, on the kong not being a racist film thread, the first thing that tipped me to the whole colonialism thing was the zoo animals being juxtaposed to the hoovervilles in the beginning...jackson beats us over the head with it so much, i'm surprised more people aren't piping up about it (although a lot are). unsurprisingly two of the first to announce it are also mogwai fans if i'm not mistaken. there must be something to that....
-
Dec 21, 2005 11:28:08 AM CST
Anchorite you're nuts! Say what you will about the rest of t
by orionsangels
You've obviously lost your sense of awe and wonderment. Who cares what came before, enjoy the now and stop comparing so much! Let go bitches! Be a kid again, stop letting past experiences influence your Gahdamn opinions!
-
I'd always heard that there were people who didn't like Batman 89'. I didn't understand these people. You just put it all in perfect perspective for me. However, from a pure style of film making and narrative, for me, Batman is at the top of the list. First we have a City which looks like something out of a nightmare. The streets themselves are loaded with crooks. It's all red light district x10. For me, that established an entire world in which to place myself. I was coming off a fan of both 60's batman and Superman the movie. Batman 89' was like nothing I'd ever seen. A dark creepy take on something I thought I knew. But it's so much more than that. The whole timeframe of the film. On one hand, it's like we're in industrial 30's-50's war torn era. But then we have Batman and his gadgets and Vehicles putting us somewhere in the future. And the Music was just phenominal. Not 1 note wrong. Elfman is only a name today purely because of what he did with Batman. Joker putting on the glasses and asking batman if he'd still hit him - that got such a big responce from my aduiance. And from me. Joker was a goof. But he was a scary goof. And I'd never known the Joker to be a scary character. Shit, I'd never known Batman to be a scary character. And considering Jokers ability to fall ass backwards by landing on a ledge and pulling down batman and vale, Dude, I thought that was it for Joker. The music told me it was! And further, as for vale and batman being able to grab the ledge. Well, Not knowing a for a few seconds if batman and vale were ok - Just hearing Jokers crazy laugh. Oh man, i just can't fault this film. but if you're really bothered about such 'abilities' might I point out that Bruce wayne was able to slide down an ice slope and grab someone from going over the edge - just in the nick of time, with no logical reason for him being able to suddenly stop himself from going over the edge either. Admittedly, the bruice on his arm from pulling up to safety was a nice touch, but I want to make this point VERY clear. IMPOSSIBLE. And because it wasn't done cool and stylish I have no time for it. I have no time for anything in Batman Begins. As for everything you said about Batman Returns, hey I full agree. That film let me down. Even though it really shouldn't have because, as pointed out by 'Chishu_Ryu' the film had merit in it's construction. However, I was waiting for a sequel that would be more a continuation of the exact same character from the first. but it wasn't. Even Burton said he wasn't interested in making another Batman. Even Eflman wasn't interested in repeating himself in his musical tunes. The end result was a very dissapointing film all made because it felt like it had to come. I'll tell you my biggest problems with it. Gotham city is just one obvious location in a big sound stage. Daytime is just industrial lighting (Moon landing anyone?) And Batman is who the cops call when they find themselves confronted with some gang wars. Batman should be invited to join the battle. Not take it all for himself. At least, not until he has to get through all the goons protecting the bad guy. the penguine shit, was just that! Shit! The car chase was laughable. And to the keen eye, there was this one car which was ALWAYS in every shot of Gotham City. Driving, parked, you name it -it's there. Surprisingly, I quite enjoy Batman Forever. I'm not even going to mention B&R
-
Dec 21, 2005 11:58:30 AM CST
"I think I understand why there aren't more negative reviews
by zombiesolutions
hey Fluffy, i just wanted to say that was an excellent analysis. i think you must be right, because although Kong is beautiful visually, and those images stick with you (especially any shot with the absolutely gorgeous Naomi Watts), it's also a big bloated narrative muddle. and for me, ROTS was just nigh flawless (imho), but for someone who isn't feeling it, it's a joke with terrible dialouge and pacing. not for me, though . for me ROTS was a masterpiece and Kong was good but ultimately "meh." i imagine for many of the Kong fans, it's the direct opposite.
-
and i loved the LOTR series. i just thought Kong was good but not great.
-
I appreciate your sentiment. I really do. But you have to understand that this "thing" between myself and Oisin, goes a little bit beyond just this talkback; the air between us is sadly more than just a little poisoned at the moment. And if it seemed that I came out a little bit too strong, or a little too, in your words, 'ringbearer9-ish', in that exchange with him, it might have to do with the fact that the guy just can't seem to leave well enough alone. He can't seem to leave my posts alone without making some snide remark, or even needlessly calling out my name, even in situations where he has no business butting in. This has been ongoing for quite a while now to the extent that I recently decided to make a concerted effort to consciously ignore or at least avoid commenting on his posts, pre-emptively or otherwise, in recogniztion of the inevitable firestorm that sadly tends to erupt afterwords. Unfortunately, this resolve isn't shared by him, hence his seemingly uncntrollable impulse to perpetually post knee-jerk baiting and snide side-remarks at almost every talkback I post in, and based on exchanges I maybe having with other talkbackers at the time and completely not involving him in any way shape or form - as happened in this case where he had to needlessly stoke the flames by mentioning me when commenting on a post you had made. I realize that none of this, is of any concern to you nor should it be, but I just wanted to shed some light from my side of things as to why that exchange was the way it was, or came off as bilious as it may have to you, and also to apologize that you had to be dragged into the whole sordid affair, at all. Although, in all fairness ( and not to be snide) I should point out that he's the one who brought you into all this by attempting to use your disagreement with me as a validation for his long standing feud with me. But again, I apologize for my part in that; as far as I was concerned, my exchange with you ended with your previous last reponse to me when you pointed out that you still felt very strongly that this new King King was inded more innovative and P. Jackson brought more to the table, than was done with the previous versions of King Kong. And while I may not have wholeheartedly agreed with you on that, I nonetheless, appreciated the gist of the reasons you brought up that made you feel as strong as you did. Everything that happened after that that involved your name was just plainly unfortunate. Peace.
-
The Culturevulture review is like complaining about a steak dinner because there was too much steak, and once he evoked the sexual/perverted relationship between Kong and Anne as superior to the PJ version he lost all credibility.
Needcoffee started off by complained about the -
Ectocriminal, as I'm not wasting any more bandwidth on kai and his little tantrums, how's this? Mogwai's new album is called Mr. Beast. Coincidence? Hmmm. As far as the Batman debate (gods know how it got on this thread). Burton's Batman was a Batman for the 80s. Pure and simple. Audiences expected a certain amount of silliness, strangeness and camp (and Prince, apparently). But that doesn't work today. While great at the time, those movies just don't hold up and the original Batman is probably one of Burton's weakest films, overall (not Planet of the Apes weak, but close). And the animated series had more depth, character development and better writing than the Schumacher films, and maybe even the Burton films. Batman Returns (the smartest, imo) was certainly 'about' something (the animal themes as someone pointed out). But ultimately it wasn't about Batman. He was just a reacting character in a Grand Guignol show. Which is fine. But it's not what most audiences want today, when they think of Batman. I think the world was clamoring for a serious film about Bruce Wayne's journey into batness and I think they got it. Can't wait to see more. Hopefully, Christmas weekend I can finally get some time and take the kid to see the Kong. And since grandma already took him, maybe I'll get to see the Chronic-what-cles and drop some Hamiltons! And squeeze in Rent for the wife (sigh).
-
Finally got to see it and its your average adventure film. In some parts, the SFX is outstanding. In other parts, the SFX is terrible. The best character (apart from Kong) is the Chef. Adrian Brody didnt even need to be in this film, his efforts are really wasted. Naomi Watts does a near perfect job, credit to her. KONG is the greatest special effect put to film, nothing comes close - nothing! The same cannot be said about the dinosaurs on the Island, some of the worst effects I have witnessed. Kong himself will win the Oscar for SFX and credit to Jackson for this. Jacksons heart was in the right place and as a fan of the original, I applaud his effort. He would get an A+ for Effort but the film overall gets a C. The editing is bad, but I was no fan of the editing during any of the LOTR Trilogy. The SLOW MOTION is pure nonsense and just doesn't merit being in this film. Its not as bad as Ringbearer says though, this is just an adventure ride. A lot of the film will have you sucked in, parts of the film will have you saying "Pure Cheese". The New York scenes are of the highest calibre regarding effects work. Even my dreaded nightmare of Kong sliding on Ice seemed not as bad as people were saying on here. Its a great film for children and adults alike but its not a Classic. Serkis deserves more credit for playing 2 of the greatest characters in the film and would like to see Jackson use him (not as an effect) in another film. Jack Black didn't annoy me, I thought he played it well. It was just the crappy editing and slow motion that spoiled certain parts for me. Its well worth a watch and I do recommend it. Its a Christmas film as with the 33 version which I watched every Christmas. Yes, he has changed Kong from this angry monster to a loveable creature but I thought that made it more accessible for todays audience regarding the story. I dont get all the hate regarding this film, its no different than watching an adventure flick like Jurassic Park. In fact, its better than Jurassic Park. I can't slam Jackson for this retelling of Kong, I admire him. I only slam the editing and slow motion, the running time is a bit too long but not too much. Overall C but could have easily been The Greatest Film of the year. At times I looked at Kong and thought thats Kong, you've nailed it. Well done to Peter Jackson, it was a daunting task to remake such a classic and you nearly pulled it off.
-
Dec 21, 2005 12:56:55 PM CST
I chalk up the lack of "King Kong's" negative national revie
by chishu_ryu
First, wishful thinking. Nobody (except maybe Ringbearer9!) wants to see Kong fail. He's an American icon, for Pete(Jackson)'s sake! To say "King Kong" wasn't great would be like admitting Disney brainwashes our children, that Abraham Lincoln was racist, that the Mark McGwuire/Sammy Sosa homerun race was fueled by steroids. It's all very depressing, really. So in the true American spirit of the season, our national critics have heaped glowing praise upon a film that, frankly, doesn't deserve it. Second, remember many of these very same critics voted Peter Jackson as Best Director in whatever awards ceremony you can think of. Mr. Jackson is currently the Hollywood media darling. They couldn't possibly be wrong, could they? Of course not! Hence, the blind glowing praise. Third, something called groupthink. It was a big reason a less than 100% Challenger space shuttle was allowed to launch back in 1986. Hence, the blind glowing praise. On a positive note, I think critics got a few things right in their glowing reviews, it wasn't all bad. But it wasn't all good, either, as many reviews would have us believe. As for me, I raise a mug of Foster's(Australian for beer) to the hope that P. Jackson gets it right with the DVD release. Here, here! And a Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a g'day!
-
It's the fact that this movie is just a total rehash of the same movie done 2 times already. I'm sure that there are other big name directors out there who would have loved to make a Kong flick but that doesn't mean they should. This movie didn't need to be remade yet again and the fact that it's pretty much a flop at the box office says that remakes don't cut it anymore, if they ever did. When was the last real successful remake anyway? People just aren't interested and it took 200 million to show the film industry what's up. Movies shouldn't cost that much to make anyway. Anyone else think someone's pocketing a couple of million here and there throughout the making? God knows FX are cheaper now then they were 10 years ago, especially with the advent of software plugins.
-
to review; Why do you spend so much of your time and energy on things you obviously dislike? if the LOTR films were so offensive to you why did you keep watching them after FOTR? if you despise Peter Jackson so much why research everything you can about the man? why have you spent so much time and energy on King Kong, including going to see it the first week it opened, when you have said all along you didn't expect to like it? now, you can continue to run like a scared ball-less little momma's boy from these questions, or you can step up and answer them. your choice, we're all waiting. i'm betting you continue to run.
-
Dec 21, 2005 1:40:49 PM CST
"dialogue that would make fans of "Dawson's Creek" cringe"
by mr nice gaius
Oh, and Burton's "I just want to know. Are we gonna try and love each other?" doesn't just make you want to shite?
-
I have the feeling that this new Kong will reinvigorate the studios passion of fucking with directors' carte blanche. and in some cases, that's a good thing.
-
i think the scooby-doo episode with Batman&Robin, the Joker and the Penguin, handled the material with more respect and seriousness. compared to Burton's Batman, Jackson's King Kong is fucking Shakespeare.
-
...so it's not a complete waste for you, right?
-
...which leads me to question your proposed postulate that a Scooby-Doo episode handled Batman, Joker, and Penguin with more respect and seriousness than Tim Burton did.
-
It'll be up in about 24 hrs now at www.viewmag.com/film.php However, here's it in Non paragraphed Talkback form: At one point in King Kong, driven director Carl Denham (Jack Black) derisively scoffs that,
-
Dec 21, 2005 2:13:55 PM CST
I realize you were being relative, Peven, but can we please let
by chishu_ryu
-
Not that that in particular was funny...
-
It's a good movie, but it certainly isn't a great one. First main problem was Jack Black's character. In the original King Kong, Denham is a P.T. Barnum type, and did that ever work for the story. Black's character was more like Charles Grodin's character from the 1976 remake. One of MANY similarities to the 76 remake. I don't know what Peter Jackson's feelings on Kong 76 are, but he has remade the remake as much as the original. I thought all the stuff leading up to the slow-motion typing of "Skull Island" was excellent. And why no mention of how Denham acquired the map? Then there is two of Peter Jackson's tendencies that I absolutely hate: The reduced frame-rate slow-motion, and the quick camera move into close-up of some grotesque person (the Skull Island natives in this case, orcs in the LOTR). They both look like shit. Don't use them Peter, it makes your 200+ million dollar movie look like some teenager's video he just made with the family camcorder and shitty desktop editing software "tricks". I thought the introduction to King Kong himself though was perfection. Just absolutely perfect. The way the fire was used, the way the shots were arranged with care and purpose (unlike the rest of the film for the most part). Then the movie just falls apart at the Bronto stampede. Give me a break. Just took me right out of the film. How is it even remotely possible to be running amongst them? It isn't, and it looked stupid for lack of a better word. And then the way they ran along the cliff? Ridiculous, horrible film making. The V-Rex battle was set-up with some vision, but it just falls apart with bombast. Too much, and too over the top. I am appalled at Moriarty comparing these scenes to anything Spielberg. Moriarty, you make some excellent points in your review, but you don't know anything about staging an action scene. I was shocked when they actually used the cut from the original of Denham saying "King Kong, the eighth wonder of the world!", to the Broadway marquee. It is a great bit of filmmaking, clever and efficient. I don't understand why they put in the Central Park scene, it doesn't really do anything for the narrative. Ann getting into Kong's hand voluntarily (what is up with that? It changes the whole tone of the film from the original) in the first place renders that scene pointless. I liked the Empire State Building sequence, but it was way too long. Jackson should have built the dread within the film, and not on our previously knowing that Kong will make his last stand there. The fight with the bi-planes should have been quick and dirty also. All in all, I think that Peter Jackson needs to take a lesson from the great genre filmmakers: LESS IS MORE. He does a lot of things right, like casting Naomi Watts who is brilliant in this, and mining the emotional depths of a story so well. But he has no idea how to structure a film. Or how to structure a scene even. The story of King Kong is already structured so perfectly with Act 1 being the trip to Skull Island, Act 2 being on Skull Island, and Act 3 being in New York, with the narrative being driven so efficiently by "what is Kong" to "what will happen with Kong". Yet Peter Jackson still couldn't structure it correctly. I noticed the same thing with The Lord of the Rings. There is behind the scenes footage of him in the editing suite just cutting and pasting scenes of The Two Towers almost randomly. He should know exactly how he is going to tell his story before he even lenses it. There is just way too much over the top in films now because there can be with CGI, but it doesn't make a film better, it does the opposite usually. Think about the first punch thrown in Fight Club. It makes you wince because it seems like someone just got punched in the face. Then you have a "fight" like in The Matrix Reloaded where Neo is fighting(dancing) with Seraph and you just lose interest because it doesn't seem like a fight. It seems like a choreographed dance. Well, Moriarty is definitely right, King Kong himself is the most succesful special effect in the history of cinema. It just seems like such a wasted opportunity. There just might be a brilliant 2 hour and 10 minute cut of this film. Oh and Moviemack, you wrote "I coined the word "fucktard" over two years ago." Sorry sport, but my friends and I didn't even coin that phrase, and we have been saying it since the 80's. So no, you didn't.
-
And stop speaking for the critics.
-
A bit off the KONG topic, but I've studied The Bard as well, and as I'm sure you know, ol' Bill had a number of "bombs" over the course of his career. In fact, there's a large group of people that are so convinced that Willy could do no wrong that they try to suggest that his weak stuff wasn't even written by him in the first place. Shakespeare had plenty of shite mixed in with his "masterpieces".
-
When I said 'studied Shakespeare', I didn't mean by watching "Shakespeare in Love" a dozen times. (lol) Not that I've read everything by the guy, but what, in the complete works of William S., is a bomb worthy of shite? Even truly great filmmakers like Jean Renoir, or Akira Kurosawa, or Ozu Yasujiro, or John Cassavetes had lesser films, but even they were better than your standard industry film. I admit, I'm no Shakespeare scholar, I've just read and studied some of the masterpieces(Hamlet, Macbeth), so I wouldn't know, really.
-
Dec 21, 2005 3:14:29 PM CST
A lot of people think Titus Andronicus, Troilus & Cressida, Timo
by fluffyunbound
I tend to think we just don't understand them yet. Hell, before approximately the time of Hegel I bet no one really understood Hamlet - what's that, a 200 year period where the play was only partially understood? Maybe someday Timon will reveal its hidden profundities to us.
-
If the King Kong talkback critics were to scrutinize the highest regarded of the sci-fi/fantasy films to the same degree that they
-
I always put Elizabeth in the wrong century.
-
He was a populist writer. Some of his work is completely littered with specific references to things that his audiences would have been familiar with, but we have no clue about today (and in some cases can't, because the information has been lost). These might include digs on a popular actor at the time, another play that didn't survive to today, or a specific local London event, or a popular phrase at the time. The fact that his work is still timeless in spite of these mysteries says something.
-
my 8 yr old could have produced a better comeback. oh well, pussies will be pussies, and ringy has shown again why he is the queen of pussies here. as for Burton's Batman, i stand by what i said, the scooby-doo episode handled the characters with more respect and seriousness in regard to the source material, though its obvious some people here need to look up the word "analogy", since they thought i was comparing King Kong to Shakespeare. anyway, Burton's Batman was all about Burton, and almost nothing to do with Batman. i like some of Burton's work too, so its not like i have some axe to grind with him, its just that his Batman sucks ass, especially compared to BB.
-
BOO! BOO, Ringcicle! BOO!!! That was...pathetic.
-
Dec 21, 2005 4:28:54 PM CST
I think you need to watch King Kong a few more times anchorite
by orionsangels
It grows on ya and how could you not get choked up when Kong kills that last T-rex? Weren't you thinking at that moment, my God look how far we've come. We've gone full circle. This is pivotal moment in movie history!"
No you didn't feel that, because your cynical mind is programmed to hate the movie as it rolls along. You can't accept the state of movies today, let alone the world. The movies too new. Well some movies age like fine wine, one day you will bow before this movie, if not you, your children and then, then your arse!!!
-
Being that William S. wrote for the masses, methinks that were he but alive today, he would have been quite happy with the film medium. How now wouldst Hamlet have been written for yon silver screen? Would we see bearded Mel Gibson in tights lamenting his own inaction within the confines of a decaying Danish castle, Or would we see Ethan Hawke grunged out in a bustling Blockbuster Video store asking the now immortal question, "To be, or not to be?"
-
Dec 21, 2005 4:33:56 PM CST
It's funny, but just like you can't picture the original
by orionsangels
Now I can't picture this movie without Naomi Watts, just like Fay Wray and the stop motion Kong. Naomi and the CGI Kong were meant for each other. It just fits like a glove. IMO
-
...once it's out there, it's not so easy to take it back(unless you're George Lucas). Filmmakers must use their best judgement, and sometimes even that of others, before unleashing work upon the eager public. Caution! Take care, you makers of movies! Else we get scenes like Jake Lloyd as Anakin yelling "Yipee!", or Naomi Watts walk like an Egyptian in front of the most high King Kong, burned forever into the popular cultural conscious.
-
It's "Gaius" not "Gayus". And...uh...take your Ritalin.
-
Dec 21, 2005 5:21:39 PM CST
JINGLE BELLS, this Talkback SMELLS, and "KING KONG" ROcKs the wO
by jdanielp
You want Christmas? Go to the theatre and see "KING KONG". Awesome flick.
-
give it up, you couldn't write something resembling poetry if your pathetic pre-pubescant life depended on it. goathummer, i can't even say "i wish i didn't offend you by knocking your pal, ringy", because i could care less why you are so eager to run to his defense. there are lots of people in here who have posted their criticisms of King Kong that have received no hassle at all, and if you ask your mommy nicely to read through them for you, she'd point out how i had my own criticisms. your little buddy ringy, though, has devoted hours upon hours upon hours to filling up space on here telling people why he was going to dislike the movie before it even came out, and if he can't handle it when people want him to give some reason why its so important to him to spend so much time on something he purports to despise he should go sign up for the Romper Room discussion board. that, or maybe the two of you can go hook up in a virtual dating room.
-
instead of films. More immediate medium if you will.
-
Dec 21, 2005 6:30:27 PM CST
Wait a second, isn't Joss Whedon the second coming of Shakes
by fluffyunbound
That's what the Browncoats say. On every BSG talkback.
-
Luckily, I didn't pay to see it. But I still wasted 3 hours of my time. I could have seen Narnia again and still had an hour left to go get drunk. Peter Jackson is a hack. Don't see this, or at least don't pay to see it. Oh, and the ape dies.
-
A lot of people have seen it and many of them enjoyed it. And if we were all the "hacks" that Peter Jackson is, we'd be immensely successful and admired by our peers and colleagues.
-
Admired? By who? Wannabe film geeks? Fat guys with hobbit feet? Exactly who "admires" Peter Jackson? Considering his biggest hits have been a remake of a movie from the 30s, and an adaption of a book from the 50s, I'd say he's lacking in originality. Not to mention lacking in personal grooming.
-
I've seen/read interviews with the likes of Spielberg, Raimi, Lucas, who mentioned their appreciation of his work. Then there are the fine actors he's worked with who only have wonderful things to say about him. And the producers and animators and illustators, etc. who have voiced their admiration. Of course, none of these people have taken your opinion into consideration. Why not phone them up and set them straight?
-
Don't forget to call him up and tell him how wrong he is to like Jackson's work.
-
Dec 21, 2005 8:27:22 PM CST
The music when Kong climbs the Empire State building is moving!
by orionsangels
Listen to the soundtrack, get some emotional passion.
-
Wow. Seriously, Goatflinger, you're mom said it's time for bed. And take your meds. Now, that's a good Goatlad.
-
Look at a film like the blue brothers, a critical and box office flop. Yet now we look back at like if its a classic. Samething with scarface. Time can create a classic. I think it will happen, for PJs King Kong. Right now we're too much in the now. Lets see in 50 years. Something new and expensive can seem like it was forced upon you, but this movie is dripping with love and by God it will shine through. Read my post while listening to to track 16 of the KONG OST. You'll cry.
-
Now that's kind of a silly statement. Think about it - lacking in originality? Give me a list of top directors and tell me which one of them only does completely original movies (they produce & write everything they do).
-
I forgot to tell you how incredible the King Kong soundtrack is, the theme is so memorable and grows on you and gets interwoven with the theme for when he climbs the Empire State Building. Then guys into big horns that sounds like its from Kong 33. The more you hear the soundtrack the more it gets you. It's so emotional.
Tracks
12 - Tooth And Claw - This one is from the Kong vd T-Rex fight and it builds till it reaches Kongs theme. It's a very iconic moment.
16 - The Empire State Building - This track is moving. The idea of Kong climbing the ESB is so Americana and this music seems to know that and takes us to the top of the ESB in a magical way.
Are my favs. -
Though I have stayed out of the rest of your commentary I
-
Shyamalan's fairly original. But I agree it's a quality that is sorely lacking in today's directors. Touche. That being said, Peter Jackson's best movie is The Frighteners, hands down. Kong was crap.
Oh and Orionsrage...in 5 years Jackson's King Kong will be held in the same high regard we reserve for Broderick's Godzilla. -
Its a war that doesn't exist: the very large majority of liberals are fine with 'Merry Christmas.' Of course, you'll have your lunatic left fringe who aren't. Just like you have a lunatic right wing dringe who see a godless communist conspiracy behind every 'Happy Holidays' sign they see. Us normal folk in the middle are quite happy to say it, so I'll say it to you: Merry Christmas, good sir! May your talkbacks continue to be intelligent and combatative in the new year!
-
The movie isn
-
if potter, kong and narnia let you down...a very hard customer,.
-
Dec 21, 2005 9:36:24 PM CST
OMG!!! Oh you did it now. How fuckin dare you compare it to that
by orionsangels
Don't like PJ's Kong. Thats fine, but comparing it to that commercial cheeseburger and fries movie is utterly ridiculous. The love poured into Kong compared to Broderick's Godzilla cash cow east buck of a film. Are you on crack? That's why PJ got a Globe nomination for best director. He made another Godzilla 98. I know you don't hold award shows in high regard, but there's a reason why PJ got nominated. Any good movie critic can see its a well directed film. Except guys like you who are on some personal mission to bury a director, just because he's the new kid on the block, honing in on your spielberg, lucas world. Nice try though, but fans like me will make sure King Kong isn't remembered as another Godzilla98, but the Oscar nominations will make sure of that anyway. you'll eat your words bitch!
-
Dec 21, 2005 9:41:34 PM CST
Oh the effects are unrealistic. He wants realism folks. It's
by orionsangels
The original Star Wars, before the modifications has bad effects, but we don't care. Because the movie rocks! You're searching for realism because your spoiled little mind expects too much. Why must everything look so Gahdamn real? I actually appreciated the dodgy special effects. I felt like a kid again watching a Ray Harryhausen movie. I enjoyed the jerky motions of dino and skeltons. It gave the movie its charm. Last thing i was thinking was, damn i wish it looked more real. Guess i'm still a kid at heart and some of you are old bitter farts who want perfection.
-
Dec 21, 2005 9:53:06 PM CST
"one day you will bow before this movie, if not you, your childr
by gingertwit
OrionsAngels, dude, that made me laugh. I don't know why but it just made me belly laugh out loyd for all around me to hear.
-
You know what I meant. It reminds me of this book i read where the guy always thought Jimmy Hendrix was always saying "Scuse me, while I kill this guy"
-
Just to point out -In Begins, Batman stops himself from going over the ledge by wedging the metal blades on his bracer (the metal shield he wore on his wrist) into the ice
-
What kind of a moron would refer to it as that? Do you refer to 'Star Wars' as 'Mark Hammill's Star Wars'? What about 'Henry Thomas' E.T.'? Pull your head out of your ass, Darth Rage.
-
I was reworking Zod's line from Supes II, but you probably already knew that.
-
Dec 21, 2005 11:25:44 PM CST
Hey Ol' Painless we dont have time to bleed on this one
by 900lbgorilla
Hey Painless, I shouldnta gone into politics (sorry to all). But really there has been a war on Christmas
-
****"one day you will bow before this movie, if not you, your children and then, then your arse!!!" ****
- Made me laugh too. I think Orion has it mostly wrong- but anyone who uses a Superman II quote to bitchslap someone on a talkback can't be all bad (though I think Zod said Heirs not arse -
Anchorite, I pretty much agree with you on Kong. Though, I did think it was a decent film, but deep down it felt like a "great" one trapped inside a decent one. It was bloated and overly long to me. I think it suffered from the fact that Peter Jackson had complete and final say...sometimes, that's a good thing. But sometimes, it can be like when a coach is also the General Manager of a sports team. It's too much power. Today, I watched The Godfather on DVD. A movie with a running length similar to Kong's (actually it's a little shorter) but that movie is truly beautiful and a masterful piece of storytelling. The Godfather is three hours long because there really is three hours worth of story that needs to be told, it's an epic. Kong? There is no way that story is three hours in length if done right. And it was done right, in 1933, when the movie was only 1 hour and 40 minutes...about half the length of the remake.
This seemed like Peter Jackson was too in love with his SPFX. By trying to constantly heighten the sense of wonder he actually did the story a disservice. He took the "special" out of special effects. Some of those scenes actually didn't even look that good -- the scene with the running brontosaurs? Spielberg did it better 10 years ago in Jurassic Park. Speaking of Spielberg, the padding of Kong reminded me of the re-release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Spielberg reportedly hated the re-release "special edition" that the studio put out. After Star Wars, Hollywood went FX crazy, and Columbia ordered Spielberg to add a bunch of footage that originally was meant for the cutting room floor to the movie to sucker people in for an extended FX extravaganza. The thing is, the extra footage in Spielberg's eyes ruined the timing of the original and dragged out the ending. It was bloat and not terrific storytelling. I still love Peter Jackson and feel that he's a great filmmaker, but this to me missed the mark. I'd give it a B-. But it could easily have gotten an A in my opinion. Return of the King also suffered from some of the same issues, though it was a much better success to me. When I saw it at the theater it felt like someone was forcing me to watch the extended version DVD. -
Just got back from a second viewing of Jackson's "King Kong." (was forced by gunpoint) Okay, I have to admit, I enjoyed the film a little a little better this second time. Knowing the silly parts were coming, they weren't as much of a shock, I could actually enjoy the decent parts. I also have to admit I missed the first 10 minutes the first time, so I missed the monkey and skid row montage, which was good, as well as Ann Darrow doing her NYC vaudeville show, which toned down the shock of seeing her do it in front of Kong. I was a bit more involved emotionally the second time around, as well. You just can't argue with a giant gorilla. My advice to anyone who didn't like "Kong" the first time but who's not intent on hating "Kong" is to see it again. You might have a happier holidays for it. But, the silly parts still stand out. The Brontosaurus stampede is still overdone. So, to Mr. Jackson, for the DVD, you MUST remove at least one shot of the men running between the bronto legs, and the close-up of Jimmy the kid running along the collapsing cliff, and all will be better. You MUST somehow tone down the Jimmy the kid stuff. Okay, so you want someone for the young males in the audience to relate to...WRONG! Just give us Kong(and Naomi), thank you. You MUST insert more Ann/Kong jungle footage, if even just one scene, perhaps between the point she gets on Kong's back and when they go to his perch to watch the sunset. Ann's sympathy towards Kong still feels forced. Don't you don't have any more shots of her riding on the big guy's back? Coverage, man! You know, like surveying the savage jungle from a different point of view. It'd be cool for the audience, as well. And when we got to the now-infamous vampire demon bat sequence, again I had to ask, did Kong have to deal with those pesky critters every night? If so, why didn't he just find a new perch? But, alas, the die is cast there. Nothing can be done about the bats. Oh, the horror! Someone from my company thought Kong was going to bust out with a Coca-Cola bottle during the ice sliding scene. Ha! The New York sequence, for what it is, was fine in my second opinion. So all is not lost! Mr. Jackson, do but do these things which I, and others, ask, and all will be better in the world. You do want to make the world a better place, right?
-
Dec 21, 2005 11:40:44 PM CST
one day you will bow before this movie, if not you, your childre
by orionsangels
thats right muthafofo. I invented a word. Arse fit better like ass, but yeah i should have used heirs. I was serious though, thats the fucked up part.
-
The bats attack Kong because he disturbs them when he slams his fist down to try and squash Brody, kinda like he poked a hornet's nest.
-
Dec 22, 2005 12:20:04 AM CST
Interesting things I picked up on the way home from "Kong"...
by chishu_ryu
A Tolkein scholar told me that at heart, the Rings trilogy is about the mechanization of civilization. You know, like the peaceful nature loving Hobbits, the Ents, and the woodland Elves versus the mechanized industrial army of Mordor with their tree-chopping ways and gun powder explosives. Is King Kong about the same thing? The savage primitive Kong of the jungle versus the mechanized bi-planes and mortar shells? Is Kong akin to the nature loving Hobbits, the woodland Elves, the mighty Ents? In danger of being wiped out by modern civilization? Do I sense a theme in your work, Mr. Jackson? Kurosawa actually dealt with this same issue in films like "Seven Samurai" and "Hidden Fortress" where the traditional sword-wielding samurai were bested by gun powder. It's an idea George Lucas borrowed for "Star Wars", the Death Star being the evil symbol of superior mechanization. Anyway, that's just an interesting tidbit I picked up on. Not sure how accurate it is. Also, it seems to me that Naomi Watts' version of Ann Darrow is less an incantation of Fay Wray's old role as it is a hybrid of Ms. Wray's, Helen Mack's, and Terry Moore's roles, the latter two who featured in Merian C. Cooper's Kong follow-ups, "Son of Kong" and "Mighty Joe Young." Ms. Mack plays a sort of comedy performer who hooks up with Denham, and Ms. Moore has the friendship thing with Joe. Anyway, another interesting tidbit I picked up on. Okay, must...sleep...now. A Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!
-
Excuse me while I revert back to childhood. I just wanted to feel like I was still part of the group.
-
Dec 22, 2005 12:37:41 AM CST
If The Ringer makes more than this, we are officially in Bizarro
by spumpkin
Sadly, I'm thinking more theater-goers are gonna want to see Johnny Knoxville sustain repeated blows to the junk. Maybe I'm wrong, but hasn't the whole lets-pretend-to-be-retarded-and-win-the-special-olympics premise been done to death by now? Even if it's only been done twice. Once is more than enough. Seriously.
-
Here's the deal - I REALLY wanted to love this movie. Like Harry, the original 1933 Kong is about my favorite film. I have "spooky movie night" every Friday night with my kids, and the first time they get old enough to participate - or have a friend over to spend the night, or whatever - we watch King Kong. My 2 and a half year old little boy loves it as does my 6 year old daughter. It's a great family-friendly bit of wonderful escapism.
That's where Peter Jackson went wrong. What's missing in this new version is INNOCENCE. This is not a family-friendly film. From the language (OK, especially the language) and the liberal spouting of "G..Dammit" to the cruelness of Denham (as Harry pointed out) to the over the top brutality of the natives. What's produced is avibe of just mean-spiritedness that just seems to be out of character with the story.
I thought the stuff on Skull Island and everything with Kong was phenominal - and yes the fight with the Rexes was suh-weeeeeet! But ultimately it wasn't enough to save the experience for me as a whole. I has high hopes for this and was looking forward to watching my little bot go completely ape (pardon the pun) over Kong and the Dinos.
I know Peter wasn't out to make a family film, but he certainly could have. Take out the unneccesary foul language, tone down the natives just a notch, and rewrite the Denham character (while I'm dreaming, dream big) and you have a film that has a MUCH broader appeal.
Don't mean to ramble, but I've wanted to get that off m chest ever since seeing it. Now off to re-watch the wonderful docs on the '33 DVD... -
My Kong is a brute. He despises people. He believes that they serve him, so its humiliating for him to be hauled back in chains. He is to be feared. No one loves him. He knows only power and inspiring fear. His only weakness? He is fascinated by this small blond female human. He does not crush her in his jaws, he does not pull her apart as he has done so many others. He becomes obsessed with this thing. He breaks through his 'pen' to get to her, enraged that a puny human stole her from him. He smashes, stomps, chews, the tiny people running around beneath his feet. The natives run in terror that their Gods vengance is upon them. The invaders take him down and remove him to the new world where he dies without ever having his 'love' for the human female recipricated. She only flees from him at every opportunity. The sequel finds a group of natives from Skull Island have followed the Venture to the new world. Seeing their God destroyed, his stuffed corpse on display at the Smithsonian Institution for crowds of gawkers, see a poster advertising that the female Anne will be at the museum for a special screening of the beast to give a talk. They hide out in the museum and, on the night of the show, kill several policeman in a savage battle fought around and ontop of the KONG display. They get Anne and make for Skull Island, hoping that she has the magic to bring their God back to life. Carl and Denham, being two of the only people to excape Skull Island, go after Anne along with a company of marines to capture the girl. Little do the know that one of their party has a more nefarious plan: To see if there are any more 'Kongs' on the island and to bring them back to NYC-none other than PT Barnum himself!
-
You know it's funny that the Zod line from Superman was brought up here. When I first saw Superman I was 8 years old, my older sister took me. When Zod delivered those lines, I mistakenly thought he said "ass" too instead of "heirs" and I turned to my sister really loud and said, "what's his 'ass' have to do with it!?!?" And if you were living in Aurora, IL at the time you might remember that, because the whole theater cracked up at my dumbass mistake.
-
Ellie Parker looks pretty damn funny.
-
I usually don't respond to flamebait, but Ringbearer, I have to say that your "review" is some of the most inane, retarded shit I've ever read. There are so many inconsistencies that I wonder if you watched the film or just listened to someone tell you about it. By stating your misconcieved perceptions as fact, you make yourself look less intelligent or like someone that is trying to simply flame the film and jackson (obviously). And you do realize that the characters in the film often have different perceptions than the audience, right? And that often this is the intent of the director? Eh, why bother?
-
Dec 22, 2005 5:42:40 AM CST
"Escapism is Stupid! You should only enjoy it if it's obviou
by docpazuzu
As usual, Ringy, your contortionism when it comes to discussing films has rendered you intellectually impotent. The inherent contradictions in virtually every argument you make become so blatant and pathetic because you allow your all-consuming hatred of Jackson and everything he represents to be your only lodestone in the discussion. You have now reached a point where you are attacking Kong by using the exact opposite arguments you've used in abusing LOTR. At the same time you're trying to get us to swallow your half-baked, derogatory and supposedly comprehensive auteur analysis of Jackson's work. I'd laugh if you weren't such a sad, sad creature.
-
...the funniest point being that as I dropped my load at last I heard Kong's triuphant scream as he beat his chest atop Empire state.It was the biggest shit I've done in ages.Truly the eighth wonder of the world.
-
Becuase as a kid I didn't know he said 'heirs'. What the hell is an heir? But I knew the word 'Ass' and was also confused over the statement. Upon watching superman on TV many years later (Still able to remember word for word scene for scene) I finally picked up on what he was talking about. I also picked up on what all that real estate talk was about too. Not to mention all the sexual innuendo with Loise and Clark. But yeah, that's why I laughed at Orion's post. Just for some other noteable laugh out louds on this site. Some one once ended a post with 'exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark one one one" Now THAT was funny! We're almost at 1000 posts. I do believe that makes Kong a true success story.
-
And we've diverted through lord of the rings, Batman and Superman. We forgot Star wars, c'mon guys, you're slipping. I've been thinking about Kong all week. I have no real interest to see it again, because 3 hour films scare me. But I do like how this movie feels. It's a tragedy that it's not a tighter faster film. Peter Jackson could well have been the greatest film maker working today. Amazing how a few bad scenes and a crappy fade to end credits can ruin an other wise good movie. It's like how Terminator 3 is a piece of shit, but that final 5 minutes is just so spectacular it actually makes the film seem worthwhile.
-
Dec 22, 2005 7:17:05 AM CST
So when Indy went under the truck, was that supposed to intentio
by minderbinder
And tell us that escapism is stupid? Or is this another of the many factors that depend on whether your preconcieved notion is to love or to hate the film?
-
Anyone else feel like King Kong had the same tone as The Passion? Its like the whole movie was a funeral dirge leading up to the eventual death in New York. Also, I felt the fights were way too coreographed, almost like watching a ballet, and not huge animals fighting for their lives. Brontosaurus stampede? Kinda dumb too. And the slow motion???? I hated it in the Lord of the Rings movies and I really hated to see it in Kong as well.
-
I just don't see how. Passion is more in the realm of Braveheart. Both same film maker, funny that. But I know what you mean about the feeling of the inevitable coming. I saw it more with Titanic than with Passion. Don't you know your christianity? Chrict didn't die. It was all a cheesy twist that he was some sore of 'super man' Really wish Passion had of been more layered in reality. It would have been perfect. Jackson has this habit of really pushing shit on us. I could have accepted Jimmy shooting off 1 bug. Maybe two. but not a 15 minute rata-tata-tata, Predator-esk gun fireing scene. If Jackson had to have it the way he did, why couldn't he have the sailer he was fireing on be gunned down also? That would have added to the whole confusion and chaos of the moment. Man that scene bugs me! haha. get it.
-
Dec 22, 2005 7:56:25 AM CST
Lets Keep It Going Geeks!!! KING KONG Thread MUST Reach 1,000 B
by zombiesolutions
or else Santa is going to rain a shitstorm of coal on your mother's basement. keep it going! KEEP IT GOING!!! bashers, gushers, it's all good, just keep it going. i mean, what else are you going to do? go outside? BWAA HA! no, but seriously, maybe you should get some exericse? KONG RULES AND SUCKS!!! WHOOO HOOOO!!!
-
Here in America, we have this idea that our children must be protected from the "horrors of the world", you can't see this, you can't do that, or you'll grow up to be wicked and bad and crazy. Thus, our movies get slapped with MPAA ratings, the world gets in an uproar when we see Janet Jackson's left boob, but it's okay to kill and sacrifice thousands of people in the name of freedom. Here in America, if it hasn't been Disney-fied and sanitized, it's evil. Whatever happened to the boogeyman? Hans Christian Andersen wasn't afraid of it, neither the Brothers Grimmm, the Native Americans had a tradition of scaring their children (booger dances) in order to remind them of the bad things in life, so as to be good. Even Disney's earliest films, like "Snow White" and "Pinnochio", weren't afraid to throw a little horror in. Life isn't all sweet cakes and daffodils. And when Jackson throws in scary bad things like evil zombie islanders and giant worm things and equally wormy movie producers, well it's good for the kids! Life can't be all SpongeBob! On that note, I've always been against escapism. We should be reminded of the not-so-nice things in our life, to deal with it, to accept it for what it is. To consistently brush things under the carpet is very bad for the psyche, it builds repression. Our Protestant culture seems to thrive on this idea of repression. Let it out! Accept it! Deal with it! Don't try to hide it! Find the beauty in it! My only problem is that in "Kong", Ann didn't actually at least try the burlesque show at least once! I have to respect a filmmaker who isn't scared to show the dirt, to show the grime! It's good for the soul! It's good for the kids!(my 10-year-old niece didn't care for the bugs in Kong, though) And Ringbearer9, if Jackson does indeed hate wizards and magic so much(haven't listened to the commentaries, not a LOTK fan), that must be why Gandalf and Saurumon get it so bad in the films!
-
well played. hopefully one day we'll meet again, with a topic on hand just as crackling hot.
-
Dec 22, 2005 9:18:20 AM CST
Doc, Cockring's criticisms in his latest posts not only cont
by fluffyunbound
Earlier, he criticized the film for taking the route of excessive realism. At one stage he was bashing the film because [in his view] Jackson "hid the flaws" in his CGI by draping the movie in shadow, instead of [I believe he said] "unapologetically embracing the fantasy and just putting it out there". He also complained that the characters looked hot, sweaty, and tired, and had messed up hair. He claimed that this made it difficult to escape into the film because the experience of going to Skull Island looked too unpleasant. Now he has decided, apparently, that the real problem with Kong is that IT'S TOO FANTASTIC, that the CGI is too prominent, that Naomi Watts' hair should be more messed up, and that having fantastic events on screen punctures his suspension of disbelief. As I have said before, there is a word for a person who simultaneously applies contradictory criticisms that include all possible outcomes - and that word is "douchebag".
-
Dec 22, 2005 9:56:59 AM CST
(singing voice) It's begining to look alot like Christmas, .
by jdanielp
Awesome flick. What an EXPERIENCE ...to witness "KING KONG" on the BIG SCREEN! Give yourself a great Christmas gift and go see it for yourself! And take somebody with you!
-
Dec 22, 2005 10:24:23 AM CST
Have to admit, Ringbearer9, your last post was kind of funny. Is
by chishu_ryu
I'm not a frequent talkbacker, but this whole AICN talkback thing has provided some good escapist entertainment this week while the weather outside's been frightful. Lord knows there's little else at the multiplex. And thank goodness for home video...
-
Dec 22, 2005 10:35:11 AM CST
So when there are ridiculous situations in Raiders or Star Wars,
by minderbinder
Raiders has a fair amount of "cruelty" as well, maybe you're on to something.
-
*sniff sniff* Yep... the unmistakable odor of ripe cop-out.
-
Not that you need me to tell you again but...I have thought about it more though, too. And I think that you are just an idiot. Jackson likes the "bloody death" of the velociraptor during the stampede. Well, gosh Ringrod. I guess that means that Lucas really likes people's limbs getting hacked off, Verhoeven likes watching big bugs tear people to shreds, Spielberg likes watching soldier's heads getting blown off or people getting turned into powder, or that Scott has a fetish for medieval warfare. You're just a silly person sometimes and we all wish you had a serious point.
-
That is probably the most obvious "deduction" ever posted on this site. Does an opaque point come along with it or is it just what it seems -- a non-issue presumably in the vanguard of another barrage of pedantic nonsense?
-
Haven't seen a lot of those films. I'm not so much into the Hollywood hype machine, but I do eat up the big event films, like "King Kong" and "War of the Worlds," the latter which I really liked, except for that silly tacked on happy ending. Even the spirit of Frank Capra must have said, "Come on, Stevie!" I just think nobody plays on our primal childhood fears better than Mr. Spielberg, it's why he rules Hollywood. From Jaws to Close Encounters to Raiders to Jurassic Park to Schindler's List to WOTW. Whether it's the big bad shark, the big bad dinosaurs, the big bad Nazi machine, or the big bad extra-terrestrials, when it comes to humans as little scared scurrying cockroaches in awe of a higher power, nobody does it better. And while WOTW had more of the same trite predictable dialogue,it's really all about the fear and the spectacle. When that first alien tripod comes up from below, I knew I was seeing a master moviemaker at work! Spielberg definitely knows how to play it big! It was like seeing the brachiosaurus for the first time in "Jurassic Park." Forget about his dramas like "Color Purple" or "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan." Spielberg has no clue into the adult human condition. Just give us the fear and the spectacle, and I think he did that with "War of the Worlds."
-
Dec 22, 2005 11:05:41 AM CST
Ringbearer, there's no storm when the Venture reaches Skull
by dinobass
It's called surf, and it's what happens when a big ocean suddenly meets a landmass. Check out the central California coast (on a nice sunny day) to see what I mean.
-
Dec 22, 2005 11:13:31 AM CST
Anchorite, dude.... and everyone else. For the last time. War of
by bendersshinyass
Even though it was updated for todays audiances, and set in the good ol' USofA. The film followed the book perfectly! If you could draw a graph of the emotional responce you'd get from reading the book, And draw up another graph for the film, then lay the two on top of each other, you would find that Spielberg not only kept true to the book, but also out did it in so many ways. Speilberg! Now there is a film geeks hero!
-
I do think War of the worlds could was a rushed film. And a bit choppy in places. But there is no denying my shake up when I left the cinema.
-
that Ringworm opens his maw, a stench of tired rotten cunt wafts through the TB. On and on and on with his vapid tripe. What a run of foolishness to garner a sliver of fame on a fucking fansite. Ringworm- here's to you- the prize you've sought for has now been won. The Flatulent Twat Mouth's Cup. It'll look most ornate on shelf next to your King of Irrelevance Champion Stein. Hats off to you, greasy punchinello...
-
That's a good number for a weekday when some schools are still in session and most adults are still working. Other than ROTK (which opened the day before christmas eve), what other movies have had a bigger "tuesday-before-christmas"?
-
Sorry, but it's the truth. Dumb characterizations, cheap 9-11 references, and scenes of carnage that have been produced dozens of times before. I found the spectacle and emotional involvement quite limited which is surprising coming from Spielberg. Then again, I don't think his past several movies have been running on all cylinders; they seem a little unrealized and rushed. However, I'm hopeful for "Munich".
-
Dec 22, 2005 12:32:42 PM CST
War of the Worlds...isn't that the movie about a guy learnin
by minderbinder
I think it might have a couple aliens in it too. Is it worth checking out on Netflix?
-
There was nothing wrong with the cheap 911 referance. But the thing is, there was no cheap 911 reference. You speak of the opening shot being of the new york skyline. Hey, the film was about terror. I made the connection too. But it was NEVER said. And it was ONLY a shot of the new york skyline. Think it through. Those carnage scenes may have been produced before, but I'm telling you here and now, there was no carnage. It was all glimpses! You never see a city get destroyed - you see images on a tv set. I've never seen a river of dead bodies in any film. I've never seen a landscape dripping in human blood in any film either. The plane crash, with open roof and people still strapped to their seats. That was creepy! Just for the sheer fact that there was no where that was safe. People were just dead or dying everywhere you looked. While the tripods went unnoticed for a good duration, they were always just over the horizon. And there was no escape. That's exactly what the book did! There was no limitation to the spectacle, nor the emotional. The spectacle was the sheer fact that War of the Worlds was FINNALY on the big screen, and it was under the direction of Steven Spielberg. The emotion was all in a man who's kids hated him, and all he wanted to do was dump them on his wife so he could run. and the kids pulled him up on it too! I can't believe I've only seen it once! you're right about his past recent films being a little rushed and unrealized. This is because he wasn't making big sells. He was just making films with his hollywood pals. Making some cash and working up steam for his next 'biggy'. Munich looks like it'll be more of the shindlers list, colour purple spielberg. I'm hopeing that 'hook' speilberg comes back next.
-
Dec 22, 2005 12:47:24 PM CST
RE: "War of the Worlds...isn't that the movie about a guy le
by citizen arcane
No, you're thinking of Jurrassic Park 2. No wait, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. No, that's not it. Hook, that's it. Bad father realizing he's a dick, that's Hook. Or AI. Or Minority Report. They all have bad fathers in them. I wonder if they all have something in common.
-
how War of the Worlds sucked. It was excellent. After reading about it- I was fearful of pure schmaltz- but it was NOTHING like that. So the father sees his kid again in the last minute of the movie. So what. The rest of the movie was a full-blown horror/catastrophe pic and hey even Tom Cruise wasn't bad in it. He's convincing everytime he plays a total tool- Vanilla Sky for example. I'm boggled as to why people hating on Spielberg's depiction of malevolent aliens would even be on this site. If you went to see War of the Worlds and was disappointed- what the hell else were you expecting?
-
The 9-11 references were throughout the film: people covered in ash, mass panic, "Is it the terrorists?!", etc. Glimpses of carnage? I don't know what you mean exactly...whether you see it, catch a glimpse, or stumble upon it, it's still carnage. But, fair enough. I guess I'm just gonna have to disagree with you on WOTW. No worries, when it comes to Spielberg, there is always cinematic hope.
-
Dec 22, 2005 1:00:22 PM CST
Flip63, as a fellow human being, your extreme suicidal hatred wo
by chishu_ryu
I'm neither a "Kong" hater nor lover, but being a nature loving, outdoors, anti-fur, Animal Planet, hands off ANWR kind of guy, I have to support the big gorilla. Indeed, I also nearly worship the character of King Kong as a paganistic idol. Here's my advice. All the things you hated about PJ's "Kong," talk about it here. The Jimmy reading time with "Heart of Dankness" stuff, the Bronto-burger stampede, the cheesy home video effects, the Jimmy machine gun sharp-shooting Spider Pit stuff, the vampire bats, all of it. Talk about it here. Get it ALL out of your system. That's right. Now, think of the good things from the film. Make a list, even! The INCREDIBLE shots of 1930's NYC and Skull Island, the BEAUTIFUL TALENTED Naomi Watts, the LIVING BREATHING King Kong, the ACTION, the EMOTIONAL relationship between Ann and Kong that wasn't in the original, the CLASSIC recreation of Kong atop the Empire State building. All the GOOD things. That's right. Think love, not hate. Life can't be perfect. We all fall short of the glory, Flip63. That's right. Humans aren't perfect. In fact, say to yourself, "Humans are stupid, giant apes rule." Say it again. And again. Now, go down to your nearest multiplex during matinee hours so as to not feel so cheated, purchase a "King Kong" ticket for yourself and whomever you may want to take. Buy some popcorn, extra butter, your favorite soda. Maybe some Reese's Pieces. And as you wait for the lights to dim, say to yourself again, "Humans are stupid, giant apes rule." Then sit back and enjoy the show. It isn't perfect. But what is? That giant CGI gorilla up on the screen is about as real as CGI gets, though, ain't it(cool)?
-
Ah, nothing makes great entertainment like a middle aged guy reluctantly dealing with "cute" kids, and learning that maybe they're not so bad. So does WOTW have a fake death/reincarnation like the electrocuted kid in JP?
-
Dec 22, 2005 1:04:53 PM CST
Ringbear, I do believe you are correct. You too Arcane!
by bendersshinyass
These men do nothing but just rip themselves off. Speilberg does it better than Jackson. Fucking hack. I'm joking, King kong was alright. But Ringbear, you're fucking spot on dude. Here I was only seeing the 3 hour reason. However, I think this is a good reason to accept that studios do indeed have final cut of a film. They didn't want Jackson to have a 3 hour film. they made him pay for all the extra printing costs himself. The man has basically just thrown money down the drain! And turned off the likes of true film critics like Ringbear. Note to those who keep giving RB shit by saying 'he ruins talkbacks" ....... get over yourselves.
-
Not hating on him, Coco. And for whatever reason, I just did not find the film very involving.
-
...especially the complaints about the ending, which was more or less identical to the book. I would have preferred an old school Spielberg action-adventure WOTW set in Britain during the 1890s, but ultimately felt that the transition to modern times, America and the personal POV worked. There was a coldness to the film, though, and I'm still undecided as to how I feel about that. It was certainly better than the awful Minority Report -- but let's not go there. Before you know it, someone will say they love A.I. and FluffyUnbound will have you for breakfast.
-
Dec 22, 2005 1:11:24 PM CST
"And turned off the likes of true film critics like Ringbear."
by docpazuzu
Oh no, you did NOT just say that, Bender...
-
Yesterday's total had Narnia back within striking distance ($5 million to $4 million). This is a major catastrophe for the studio. There is a real chance Kong could be overtaken by Narnia in the daily totals by Monday. Unbelieveable, unless you realize that Kong is crap.
-
Dec 22, 2005 1:22:14 PM CST
DocPaz, the ending of WOTW most people are complaining about...
by chishu_ryu
...I believe is not that the aliens get wiped out by germs, but that Tom Cruise and children are re-united with the mother, stepdad, and grandparents who miraculously have nary a scratch after the near apocalypse we've witnessed throughout the rest of the film. And I think it would have been more powerful had the son not made it, as the loss in the film would have been more apparent. But I guess it was all about winning the War of the Worlds, right? I also think Spielberg wanted to make up for the inconsiderate family-deserting space trotting Richard Dreyfuss father in "Close Encounters" by making Tom Cruise a dad who tries his darndest to keep the family together. In this one, it's the son who takes on the Dreyfuss role, when he deserts his family because he has to see the war on the aliens himself. Either way, I think the ending still would have been more impactful had we not seen the grandparents emerge from their untouched apartment with clean sweaters on, hot chocolate in hand...
-
true film critics spew vaginal fluids when they open their raw clam pussy lips to feverishly gush forth their contradicting opinions. And while me and the kindly Doc are enjoying a momentary flash of civility- let me agree with the cold feel of WOTW- one of the things I liked about it. both WOTW and MR (which I enjoyed- except for the ending and the whole "RUUUUNNNNNNN!" thing) had a cold blue chrome-ish effect which added a sort of malevolent futuristic minimalist grit... But it definitely wasn't the sappy family movie I've heard about... Judging from the harsher critical reaction I also was primed to be covering my ears for Dakota Fanning's constant wailing screams- those too- I feel were embellished by critics.
-
I understand your points and agree with them to a certain extent. It didn't bug me that his son survived but the Sesame Street ending with the entire family was a bit much. With the exception of a terrible Tim Robbins, I thought it was pretty good up to that point if, like I said, a bit chilly.
-
You've had more recent "movement"s that you can draw comparisons to. Everytime your porous ass mouth opened today- to which accordingly great clumpy logs of steaming shit fell forth.
-
I kind of agree with the Doc. Perhaps using the word "Sucks" was a bit harsh in my appraisal. For me, the movie was just not that involving and certainly not a SF masterpiece. But, if I had nothing better to do and it showed up on cable...I'd watch it. No harm done.
-
It's not that I'd probably watch- it's that I can't help noticing what an assmouth you are. And in terms of visceral nauseating imagery which so creeped you out- you had no problem in instantly one-upping my observation of the warm scent of shit that wafts from your mouth with a grotesque scenario of your conjuring. Funny how quick the moron in you leaps forth. All it needs is a little baiting.
-
You gotta give the man credit. He critisized every fucking inch of this film. A true critic. Hey some of it was constructive. But I'm not blind to some of the outragous shit the man says. But thats ok. I really enjoy it.
-
But again, so was the book. and like yourself Pazuzu, i was eagerly awaiting a true adaption of the book. And I was nervous of what was actually being made. But, it was still the same look. cold. Open spaces. hills. rivers. That lightning stuff was an interesting change. I'm not sure if I liked that.
-
I beg to differ. In my mind a "true critic" is someone who at least has som valid and relevant points. Anyone can deconstruct a movie on the molecular level like Ringy did, but does that make him more perceptive and his observations perhaps more profound? No, it makes him a meticulous, nitpicking wanker who applies a truly horrifying amount of energy to pre-hate, hate, and post-hate anything dealing with Jackson and his work. I truly think Ringy believes himself to be a misunderstood genius and in fact revels in the abuse heaped upon him and knows that he will one day be revered as a truly thoughtful and groundbreaking cineaste.
-
He's progressed to "your mother" jokes. Next...solid foods.
-
...to watch the greatest Christmas movie ever, Scrooge with Alastair Sim. I don't think you'd like it, Ringy -- it is in B&W after all and those flames in the fireplace suffer because of it.
-
He's watching us now and feeling pretty bloody special. For that, the man deserves credit. And it's good that you're his polar opposite. I'd hate to see a talkback that just blatantly destroyed Kong. If that was the case then I'd be in your position to defend film and shatter talkbacker. But thankfully I'm not for this film. i'm so bloody neutral, leaning towards the 'like' for the film. But you, I believe, haven't seen the film yet. (I might be wrong. oh well) and I see what Ringbear says and sometimes he's dead set 100% bees dick spot on. You guys bait him and it gets a little over the top on both sides of the fence. And I love to watch for some stupid reason. Lordy knows I've got better shit to do. But for some reason I. just. can't. leave. Just call me neutral on the whole thing. Except for star wars and batman. I'll hunt you down and kill you!
-
And I could have been in bed all that time. Hello Ringbear. I was just talking about you. Now be honest, there were a couple moments of cool in Kong. If anything, the whole idea to remake it into what it looks like. But I see your issues. Peter Jackson. there's just something about the guy that screams "Got lucky".
-
it appears when the Venture gets caught up in the cliffs of Skull Island. Check it out.
-
I saw the film and although I do think it could be half an hour shorter, I really enjoyed it. The stampede scene looked bad, but everything else was good. Kong is definately the most convincing CG character I've seen. Bottom line, PJ needs work in the editing department. Aside from that, I think he's made another great film.
-
You seriously think Spielberg included the shots of American soldiers shooting Germans who were trying to surrender because he relished them? Because he thought that was just peachy and great? I think it has now become obvious that you are projecting.
-
Dec 22, 2005 3:10:04 PM CST
Wow, looks like I actually agree with Ringwanker on something.
by minderbinder
You're right, Saving Private Ryan IS a pretty shallow film.
-
hey man, you started it in the Moriarty Kong review talkback. If I remember correctly, it was a "your mother" joke there as well. Just dishin' it back. No hard feelings. Merry bastard day to you too.
-
Well, I saw the movie last Sunday. And if I had to write a review about it, it would probably be exactly like Tall_Boy's earlier in this TB. And if I had to choose a "side", I would say that I fall on the side that liked it more than not. There is a really great film immersed in those 3 hours. And there are certainly some sights to behold and some rather poignant moments in this movie. But, like the slab of stone that bore the statue of David, it still needed to be chisled and sculpted. That being said, after leaving the theater, I kept getting the feeling that Jackson and Co. had just run out of time for the films delivery. I don't think the movie was finished. It's just my feeling though, nothing more. -- Now, I've said in other TBs that I never really thought "King Kong" was dying to be remade. It just never seemed like a real hot proposition to me. (Especially now after all the ire raised about BO receipts and the 3hr. running time.) So, I was a little disappointed to hear that it was going to be Jackson's next project after LOTR. Yet, I completely understood WHY he was doing it and felt that if anyone could make the ol' Big Monkey Movie interesting again, it would be him. Ultimately, the movie strains under its ambition and various attempted marvels. But it is worth checking out on the silver screen.
-
Dec 22, 2005 3:12:47 PM CST
You know, all throughout this talkback, there is never any menti
by doc_strange
Of King Dong. Do we get the monkey on human action or what? I thought that would have been the biggest draw of this movie, to finally see an MPAA approved beatiality scene.
-
You said Jackson will "probably NEVER try to deal with anything substantive". Check out Heavenly Creatures. He also just optioned the The Lovely Bones.
-
Dec 22, 2005 3:17:18 PM CST
As usual you leave out all the scenes that don't support you
by fluffyunbound
Like the "Look, I washed for supper" scene where Germans attempt to surrender and are shot by anonymous soldiers, while Tom Hanks looks on in disgust. Or the scene where the soldiers loot the bodies of the German dead at the end of the initial beach assault. By the standards of the genre, SPR's depiction of the behavior of American soldiery in World War II is remarkably forthright and relatively unsparing. Go watch THE LONGEST DAY and any other ten random John Wayne movies and then come back and tell me that SPR is a one-dimensional revenge fantasy again.
-
A link to that quote would be interesting, Ringy, as he never said any such thing. That having been said, the fact that Saving Private Ryan was made in honor of his dad and the other American troops in WWII is hardly debatable or even controversial. You comparing Spielberg to Hitler and trying to slam an American POV war film for having an American POV are just more examples of how unbelievably stupid, shallow and wildly irrelevant your assertions about movies are.
-
You experienced the scenes I mentioned as revenge scenes, and as a result you have convinced yourself that they were intended to be revenge scenes. But they obviously aren't, and anyone with even the tiniest bit of objectivity could tell that they aren't. They were deliberately included to show American soldiers acting in ways that the target audience might not associate with America's WWII army. As a matter of fact, I'm starting to understand your entire "Jackson is a sadist" fixation a bit better. You obviously must be dealing with powerful impulses to sadism and fetishism on your own part, and you become upset when something in a film threatens to make it harder for you to keep a lid on them. Have you ever considered finding someone you could talk to about these feelings? Having the courage to start unpacking them on an anonymous message board is a start, but you might benefit much more from assistance from a professional in a face-to-face interaction.
-
The quote was from The Guardian: "Saving Private Ryan began, Spielberg says, 'simply as a badass Second World War movie'. But talking to veterans during research 'sobered me up', and he decided to push the film towards the grimmest realities: fear, boredom, killing." ....... Not quite the quote or intent you would have us believe, Ringy. Also, his dad was a radio operator on a B-25, so I'm sure he saw at least some action. The article in The Guardaian also mentions that Spielberg's father's role in the war is what made Steven a WWII buff -- not his dad. I think Fluffy pegged you pretty well in his last post. You have enormous issues dealing with repression of certain urges. Perhaps it's the subconscious kinship you feel with the projectionist in a theater which appeals to your own need to project your demons?
-
I'm perfectly satisfied with the Guardian article. Go take your pills.
-
...how the fuck could the "hand-washing" line in SPR have hit you wrong? Did you relish the moment? If so, then you're not only a sick individual, but also one incapable of understanding or responding to the basic cues of simple western-style cinematic narrative. And Pvt Mellish wasn't crying over the dead German. It was a delayed stress reaction. Don't be such a fucking doof.
-
...the dagger triggered the stress response, obviously, but he certainly wasn't crying over the dead German. You might as well say he was crying because he'd rather have found a Luger than the dagger or that sitting down in a ditch is what made Capt Miller's hand shake. You're such a one-track dumbass. And I'll be seeing Kong on Boxing Day. Until then I have too many professional and domestic holiday obligations, you see. When you're old enough to get a job and start dating you'll know what I mean.
-
...I'll have plenty of time to nip in and post here. It's not like setting aside, say, three hours or so to see a movie. Whatever you do, don't burst into tears during Christmas dinner. Your family is liable to think it's because you hated the turkey rather than your delayed stress reaction from being cinematically reamed on AICN.
-
Altough I quite liked Batman Begins I still believe that Burton's vision of the Dark Knight was btter. I found his two more entertaining than Begins and I find tem far easier to return to for another viewing. A large portion of what I loved about Burton's Bat flicks was the music by Danny Elfmann, fantastic and it suited the film to a tee and was far more memorable than Begin's music. Who doesn't ike Elfmanns classy Bat theme and who can't remember it? That said though I do like Begins, just not as much. What a weird place to be talking about Batman, on the Kong Board. Anyway, a big salute to Chishu_Ryu for defending burton far better than I ever could, i'm in complete agreement with you.
-
Dec 22, 2005 5:59:01 PM CST
GoatZinger, what are you taking, and can I have some? irishfella
by chishu_ryu
-
I reeeeeaaaalllllly liked it. But the score left me flat. Too bad howard shore didnt take part in this.
-
Narnia beat Kong yesterday, on more screens, but still.
-
I predicted this would happen NEXT MONDAY. I was wrong, I gave the BOMB that was King Kong too much credit. Narnia beat its daily take as of YESTERDAY, Wednesday. Amazing. Simply amazing. What an unmitigated catastrophe this movie is turning into. Beware of studio heads diving to their deaths in Hollywood. I couldn't be happier, since the movie is total crap.
-
when BOM puts up the Kong/Hulk/Godzilla comparison chart.
-
It's strange, it's the sort of blockbuster that's usually critic-proof, and then it had great reviews anyway. It has huge awareness. But the public seems to be tuning it out. I just wish the public had finally tuned out earlier in the year, in time for the Fantastic Four release. Oh well. It could be a lot worse - it could be MY money.
-
Watched Kong '76 again last night and I enjoyed it much more than Jackson's dull, bloated mess I paid over $8.00 to see. Lange, Bridges, Grodin, all great. IMO, Kong simply works best in a campier atmosphere than a dead serious one. KK '76 had everything going for it; plenty of humor, cheesy camp, adventure, camp-tastic MAN-IN-SUIT Kong, great on-screen chemistry between the romantic leads, and a cool, tragic, bloody, sad ending. Playing KK so dead serious and portraying him as nothing more than a zoological oddity (admittedly a huge one) was, for me, just 'meh!' if not just plain bad. Here's hoping for a remake De Laurentis style!! LONG LIVE THE KING!!
-
2 Things
-
Dec 22, 2005 10:59:47 PM CST
I'm glad you enjoyed all the camp, Thot, but what about thos
by fluffyunbound
What are we supposed to watch?
-
Kong is also failing even with very little/e true competition. Narnia is good, but is really for kids. Potter has been out a while, and the horizon is weak. I think Kong stunk (overall), but still thought it might bounce back due to weak ass competition and the blinding hype by critics- looks like the general public agrees with me on this one- Tom and Jerry action on 200 million dollar CG steroids is still just Tom and Jerry action (I didn
-
You're the one with the User ID that screams 'GAY' and you ask me such a question??! Tsk, tsk, ad hominem attacks are for the weak-minded who have no skill at intelligent debate and lack the ability to see the value in other peoples arguments and opinions. You need to chill pal.
-
Man two major Bombs in a row.
Narnia andMunich will own this weekend with Dickless jane following up nd Long Kong trailing behind. It's Christmas, Families aint going to go sit for 3 hrs to watch a big monkey especially after holiday meals.
Kong Is Dead. -
Interesting that you didn't write "Israelis killing Palestinians" or "Jews killing Muslims". It speaks volumes about what your true politics are, Ringy. Vern was right.
-
...but King Kong needed it BAD. I don't know if it was the Tyranasurus Rex's on the trapeez or the swarm of bugs like a scene from Starship Troopers... but somewhere in there I just didn't feel like watching this movie any more. It was too goddamned long. It's not a matter of too much content - it's a matter of having 60 more minutes of film than content. The fight scenes get repetitive and predictable, and drag out the film while no real plot progression is happening. PJ needs a better editor - or at least someone capable of talking some sense into him. There's a good film in there somewhere. What I just saw was not it.
-
Kong is doing well, Narnia is just doing better midweek. Narnia is based on hugely popular books, it had a huge budget and huge hype like kong did, is anyone surprised it's doing very well? And just for the record, Kong is beating both Godzilla and Hulk at this point in it's run, neither will ever catch up. Let's see how this weekend goes.
-
Dec 23, 2005 7:47:08 AM CST
Not to mention that many kids were off Wednesday, but few adults
by minderbinder
-
Dec 23, 2005 8:34:44 AM CST
"Ad hominem attacks are for the weak-minded who have no skill at
by fluffyunbound
Sorry about that, I have a compulsion whenever anyone mentions liking "camp" to point out that only queens like camp. Queens are to camp as Whedonites are to snark. At this point, I have completely re-educated myself to accept and appreciate homosexuals in a spirit of good will and community solidarity - but I can't get past the camp problem. I support gay marriage, gay adoption, intervention to stop anti-gay bullying in schools. So I'm willing to work with you on this. In return, can't you just stop with the fucking camp already? Please. Have mercy.
-
People talk about the subtle homo-eroticism in Top Gun. Quentin Tarantino even gave a monologue about it. To many, Top Gun is about Tom Cruise's flirtation with the gay lifestyle, hinted at ever so slightly in various ways. But in War of the Worlds Cruise is SUCKED INTO A GIANT ANUS! And is then ripped from it by the rest of society and he angrily throws a grenade at the offending orafice and rejoins society and his daughter. So that movie shows conclusively that Tom Cruise is not gay. NOT GAY!!!!one11!
-
I'll never see the Cruise WotW the same way again. Fucking brilliant, man. Oh, an on another topic, does King Kong die by falling off a building, or is he pronounced dead after "going into the tank" at the box office? At this point, it's basically 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
-
Dec 23, 2005 10:16:15 AM CST
You predicted it would be a bad film? In your opinion. That'
by orionsangels
""""A shoddy effort at another re-make doesn't take away the simplistic brilliance of the original. And that, my friends, truly is something to celebrate.""""
Yeah because that was PJ's intention, to take away the simplistic brilliance of the original. What the fuck are you talking about? PJ made the film he wanted to make his whole life, like it or not. It was made from the heart. It could make a dollar and I and many others will always like it and understand where PJ is coming from. No the movie isn't perfect, but what movie is? -
What the fuck are you babbling about?
-
Dec 23, 2005 11:19:25 AM CST
Good Job Geeks, You Made It To 1,000! Now You Must Make 2,000 B
by zombiesolutions
keep it going! all you haters who hated Kong so much you've already only seen it like 10 times, and all you gushers who would've loved it even if they spent another 18 hours fighting bugs and talking about Heart of Darkness with Jimmy n' Morpheous, it is your solemn duty to shake the foundations of the Eternal Mother's Basement! DO WHAT MUST BE DONE!!! POST WITHOUT MERCY!!! DO IT!!! DO IT NOW!!!!!
-
Maybe we wil get an Alexander type re-edit on DVD.
-
Dec 23, 2005 2:21:16 PM CST
Yeah i could pick out specific reviews that support my arguement
by orionsangels
You just went through the small bad pile in the corner. why didn't you go through the big pile of good reviews? exactly, NEXT!
-
Dec 23, 2005 2:25:45 PM CST
The average for kong is average to just plain great - http://ww
by orionsangels
-
Or maybe he's on crack. Maybe I'd take him a *little* more seriously if he didn't go into off-topic political rants, he usually seems more interested in spewing rhetoric than actually reviewing films. Those reviews are a nasty blemish on an otherwise solid site. Speaking of box office, how 'bout that turd of an opening from Dick and Jane? It's just a comedy, no FX or anything else that usually runs up the budget...and they still managed to piss away over 100 million on it. One thing Kong has in it's favor is that virtually all the movies released in it's wake are either stinkers or artsy oscar bait that won't get a wide release until nominations are announced. And why do I suspect nobody will rise to ringwankers "challenge"? Oh, I know why...because any positive review will be disqualified for being "not intelligent", a "quote whore", any mention of the production of the film, or having even the tiniest negative mentions. As his bleating continues to demonstrate, you can "prove" any point by finding excuses to ignore anything that disagrees with you.
-
Funny. Have to say though, you see what you want to into things, my friend. Okay, so what if your sub-textual Freudian metaphors of giant alien bungholes and Tom Cruise's sexual preference hold water? But how can we be sure of the sexual gender of said giant alien bunghole? Everbody's got one. For the Lord God said, "Let all creatures great and small have a bunghole, and He saw that it was good." How do we know WOTW isn't simply making a statement against sodomy? Or bestiality? Or maybe the filmmakers simply want to sub-textually say to the evil alien invaders, "Up yours!" No, I would definitely have to say that Tom Cruise's sexual preference is still up for debate. Because any guy that would divorce Nicole Kidman...
-
...perhaps Kong climbing the Empire State building represents the Church, and Man's, attempt to get closer to God. But the Church also remembers the story of the Tower of Babel, for when Man became too close to God, he was thusly scattered upon the face of the Earth. And this is represented by Kong falling from grace atop the Empire State Building, a fate firmly understood by the Catholic Church. Yeah, I got your back, Ringbearer9!
-
Dec 23, 2005 4:28:53 PM CST
Or King Kong might also be the poet Virgil in Dante's " Divi
by chishu_ryu
...Skull Island is Hell. But Anne, as Beatrice, leads him to the Purgatory of Carl Denham's freak show. But again, Anne as Beatrice leads Kong/Virgil to Paradise atop the Empire State Building. But in the end, we all know giant gorillas can't get into heaven, so he falls from atop the Empire State. Which probably means that Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll is actually our poet Virgil, and maybe, after all, it was Kong as the holy Catholic Church which led both Anne and Jack to Paradise. What do you think, Ringbearer9?
-
Why would anyone give a shit what Rotten Tomatoes says about ANYTHING, good or bad? It's like starting a sentence with "So I was reading People magazine and..." Or "The talkbackers on Aint It Cool News said..."
-
Kong dies at the top of the ESB. THEN he falls. There's really no 6 of one or half dozen of anything.
-
I have to agree, Scott Halloran's reviews do seem to be pretty shoddy. It's as if he was completely unqualified for the job and seems to know very little about film or movie history. It is definitely a blemish on Box-Office mojo. That said, this time, I agreed with much of what he said. Overall I did think it was a decent effort, Jackson just shoved too much unnecessary stuff into the picture therefore messing up what should've been a good thing.
And I do think a lot of other mainstream critics were blinded too much by the success of Jackson's LoTR's epic. How else can you explain some of those over-the-top reviews? -
As in symbolizing the secular world's attack on the Church's(Kong) stance on same sex marriage? Speaking of apples, if the vampire demon bats represent the pawns of the Evil One, perhaps Anne is actually Eve, as she is tempted by worldly desires(fame, physical love[Jack], a good meal)? Which would make Skull Island the original Garden of Eden? So then who are the zombie islanders? Could they be lost souls cast out of the Garden? I think Jackson's "King Kong", like the Holy Book itself, appears to be open to many interpretations, which leads to the problem we have with Christianity today. But thank goodness we have the Catholic Church/Kong and Pope Peter IX to show us the way...
-
Took some kids and another adult watched it-I have never taken kids to a movie and had them sit for the whole 3 hours and not make one peep, not get up 1x, and that is amazing. I also noticed a large number of people wiping away tears at the end. As I watched the movie, I now believe that it is the best movie of the year (I still have to see Munich and Syrianna and Good Night and Good Luck). IT is simply an epic and destined to become a classic in the same vein as Wizard of Oz. Incredible film, great FX save for the kid running on the cliff. The reason it is getting attacked on the talkback is simple. Its the same 3 people posing again and again because they are bitter for one reason: The STAR WARS prequels sucked ass and they want to hurt those who hurt them, namely those who critized their god. Go ahead and see the film for yourself. This is truly epic, classic and I have never bought one single DVD. i WILL be buying this. I can watch it in 10 years and it will still hold up. Fucking impressive. The NY stuff...simply amazing. I also suspect some cuts, namely I noticed KONG grab a person inside the trolly but they do not show what happend, same with one of the blondes and a sailor in the cave-I suspect it was more gruesome than a PG would allow. Send your kids, your family, your freinds. This is truly a wonderful film.
-
Dec 23, 2005 9:23:59 PM CST
Anchorite, I'll never turn to your way of viewing movies. Yo
by orionsangels
-
"One thing I guess I can say about Jackson is ... he'll probably NEVER try to deal with anything substantive ... his cruelty will remain childish and, hopefully, inconsequential and harmless." ---Ok, so you didn't see Heavenly Creatures? And you don't know that his next project is THE LOVELY BONES, about the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl? Yeah, so childish. Just shut up and save yourself the emabarrassment already, or don't so we ca nall continue to have some entertainment. I don't know what I enjoy more- Dino's posts with his clever Itailianisms, or the repugnant shit that spews forth from your head.
-
IT is simply an epic and destined to become a classic in the same vein as Wizard of Oz!!!!!
-
For Christ sake, stop saying that stupid fucked up line. Ta.
-
Dec 23, 2005 11:06:28 PM CST
I have just played kong to my students in China,their thoughts..
by the true priapic
...were staggering.On a filmic level they loved the action but were grossed out by the bug pit and complained to me that it was too slow and boring generally.One chapmade light of the romantic angle by saying "Ah,She is his one true love!" to much laughter.Generally they thought a giant orangutan scaling the Empire state was ridiculous.(Yeah I know,Orangutan???????)But they concluded that it was an okay fiulm but far too long and the 'stupid businessman'(Jack Black) was a 'clown',Naomi Watts has teeth 'like a rabbit' and 'where do Kong get bananas big enough to feed him?' and 'who is the man with big nose?What is his function?'.I have never laughed so hard as when the bug pit scene came on and they literally started spitting out the dumplings I'd bought them.I am presently still crying my eyes out with laughter.Oh,yes...they liked the iceskating scene and thought the Americans who shot Kong down may have thought Kong was 'from japan'.Oh,Yes...they laughed like they'd shit themselves when JIM-MAY's black Uncle got aced.Don't quite know what that could mean though...hmm....I'm still laughing my ass off.I thank you.
-
Dec 24, 2005 12:08:47 AM CST
NO! I love that line - It wasn't perfect, but what movie is?
by orionsangels
It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? Eat Kongs poo!
-
has now decided to hate a film that hasn't even begun shooting. What a clown.
-
Dec 24, 2005 12:11:24 AM CST
That's the problem with kids today, no passion for anything.
by orionsangels
Couple that with a short attention span and spoiled minds. People are losing their sense of awe and wonderment, sad
-
I shit on rottentomatoes. I don't use that crappy site to gage what movies are good or not. rottentomatoes? Hahaha! overrated website
-
Dec 24, 2005 12:39:10 AM CST
Actually, I'll tell you exactly what Kong being gunned down
by bendersshinyass
Kong is King. America is a democracy. New yorkers don't like any body walking all over their town. Simple as that. Fight the power.
-
Orions, you keep coming out with them, man. That's two laughs in as many days. Kudos
-
I think Hayes got lobbed against a wall by Kong just before the bug pit scene.The scene that got the biggest reaction was the one where Lumpy gets eaten by the slugs,I have never heard such gutteral groans and moans from humans.One guy got up and spat all his dumpling out in my bin.I am STILL laughing,I swear.Merry Christmas.
-
Dec 24, 2005 12:51:28 AM CST
In a talkback of over 1000, no one has made any mention of what
by bendersshinyass
That little girl who poped up in ALL the lotr films. You know the one I mean. She also poped up in Kong. The first close up we see! Boya!!
-
What did I just say? And there you go again. I'm turning your rhetoric into a real question. And you're going to take it bitch. What movie is, indeed? Well lets see here. hmmmm. This is harder than I thought. I mean, i was going to say 'the Empire strikes back' but thats almost as cliched as saying "It wasn't perfect, but what movie is?" I could say Batman 89, but we've had that conversation somewhere around the 800 talkbacker mark. What movie is indeed? Well look at it this way. Anyone who has to say that after watching a film, well, it's like saying "Looks aren't everything'. Or "Money doesn't buy happyness" Usually the people that say such things are poor ugly people. So the movie wasn't perfect (oh no!) but what movie is? (Sigh of relief) You're luck y i have to leave right now, because I was going to make this the biggest post I'd ever done. It wasn't perfect, but what movie is? argh! not again ok. You've been warned.
-
I can't wait to read the fanboy excuses after Kong's weekend numbers come in. Let me guess: it's Christmas so Kong fans were too busy stuffing their faces with turkey to go see it, right? And it will rebound nicely in its third weekend and go on to beat Titanic's record. The problem with the movie is that King Kong's been changed into a furry hero, instead of a horrible monster. If Peter Jackson had a clue, he'd have made Kong the out and out VILLAIN.
-
Anne Driscoll, blonde and pure and innocent, is, like Eve, tempted by evil. The lustfulness of the burlesque shows, the APPLE of knowledge of good and evil, and fame and money from the devil himself, Carl Denham. Jack Driscoll, like Adam, is also tricked by the devil Denham with a series of bad checks. Thus begins the journey where our Adam and Eve will be drug through the Hell of Skull Island by the devil Mr. Denham before they finally reach Paradise. Upon reaching that undiscovered patch of real estate known as Skull Island, the godless zombie islanders recognize Denham for who He is, resist His temptations of Nestle's chocolate, and attempt in vain to fend off Denham and his minions in the name of the Most High King Kong. And as we know, Jack and Anne and their children and their children will find salvation through the ultimate sacrifice of God's lonely gorilla, King Kong, atop that modern day Tower of Babel, the Empire State Building. May the grace of King Kong be with all men, and women. Amen!
-
..at this point I wouldn't be surprised to see Narnia right there neck and neck with Kong over the weekend. The weekday trends did indicate a midweek Narnia surge.
Be interesting to see. -
December 2005:
It's only doing poorly because kids are at school... No wait, it's only doing poorly because its Christmas holidays, everyone is at home with their families... No wait, it's only doing poorly because everyone is at xmas parties this week...
Just you wait, in January this will make a hundred billion dollars worldwide. It'll sink Titanic!
...
February 2006:
It's only doing poorly because everyone is at school/work... You just wait until Easter... It'll sink Titanic!!!
December 2010:
It's only doing poorly because audiences don't appreciate classic CG effects... Just you wait for the special extended editions, it'll sink Titanic! -
I can sum it up for ya Bender:
-
Have a good one!
-
Yes, at first I was dissapointed in some CG shots, but seeing it again I realized they were not near as bad as I originally thought. In fact, I think it was that I had come in looking for a few specific things to see if they were in the film. I was already 'set' in what it should be and not judging it simply on the merits of what it was, plus I was a tad depressed that all the anticipation was over. The 2nd time I saw it I simply watched it with no expectations, just watched it and found that it was beautiful and that the 'monster' shots were pretty friggin cool. I loved that way KONG trashed the cars and chased that guy in NY. I noticed there were tiny bugs flying around the teeth of the T rex-just little, great detail that adds life. Plus, it played more like a fable, a modern fable-a storybook come to life. I really believe that it will stand the test of time-it has that kind of magic, of wonder, and depth of emotion. Sure, the chick on the Empire should be freezing her ass off,I wanted more violence, but its a great film. Heres the basic problem: Every time I get in on a movie from day 1, follow every detail, read every post, know the story inside and out, I have set myself up. When I was a teenager I did that with Kubricks 'The Shinning.' I left depressed and did not like what Kubrick did. Same with Scotts, 'Alien' I was dissaponted. After seeing them again without all the pre-concieved baggage, I realised they were more than the sum of their parts, they were classics and time has proven this to be true. Now, with ALIENS, i knew zip of the story going in, the director, Stan Winston, etc and I was BLWON AWAY. Same thing happend when I saw Predator. I remember seeing the poster at a theater and went to BEverly Hills Cop II instead. Do I remeber that movie? Only that I hated it with a vengance. Later I saw PRedator of VCR tape and my god, it was amazing-just the full fullfillment of all those violent mens adventure mags with the pulp covers-a bloody mano v mano. Yes, my first impression was not of a movie but a series of shots that I wanted to be in the film. Upon 2nd veiwing, I just saw a different film if that makes any sense. Anyways, I have no idea what to watch for in 2006. I love a good monster flick and I also simply love 'The Relic' which I think was one of the last great monster movies in recent history. I dont know what else to see. Looking forward to Munich next but then? X men doesnt do anything for me, nor does Superman. I guess Malicks 'New World' and Eastwoods WWI jungle warfare flick are the only ones I have heard about that sound good, and those shots from that '300' thing remind me of another great movie surprise I saw long ago, 'Excaliber.' Heres hoping we get some great surprises in 2006. Its harder to get those anymore as all of us fantastic movie fanatics have this internet thing and can fill eachother in on what films we saw, what we liked, what we did not, debate, etc. Keep your enthusiasm up-your opinion is valued by me and lets find the next controversial epic and we will all get to rip eachother a new one pro and con. Have a great weekend-going to watch '4 brothers' and '40 year old virgin' this weekend. Saw a british horror flick called 'CREEP' last night and it is Waaaaay better than 90% of the crap we get these days, different, atmospheric, an original villian and some great makeup fx (I always prefer makeup, models, animitronics etc to CGI if I get a choice.)
-
Dec 24, 2005 8:38:32 PM CST
It made it's money back if over a week, worldwide: $216,427
by iamlegolas
83% at RT.com ... what else you trolls got? Have a joyless holiday!
-
The movie cost $207 million to make, at LEAST 50 million to market and for prints (most likely $75 million). it needs roughly three times that amount to make its money back. Don't forget, theaters make money to. It has opened in all the major markets. It's down about 50% from Last friday. It's having trouble competing with NARNIA. This is what they call a dissapointment in Hollywood.
-
It's a good thing thinking people don't care what they call things in Hollywood. The movie will make a profit, just not quickly enough to satisfy the more shallow elements of society.
-
Merry Christmas you bunch - from 40'C and scattered thunderstorms. Tis the season to be jolly.
-
A simple post can't say how much fun it's been discussing, dissing, praising, and reading about the season's most anticipated movie release(that is, "King Kong")here! So I'll just say, 'May your hearts be merry, your bellies be full, and your DVD shelves well stocked!'
-
Dec 26, 2005 6:20:01 AM CST
Is it that in this version Kong gets impaled by the ass from the
by chien_sale
Just askin`
-
Harry or anyone, please tell me more about the Kong sequels coming in 2006. Is it true or not. I got the Production Diaries for Christmas, and it mentions 2 sequels for "Kong" in 2006. Is it true or just a joke?
-
Fucking LOVED it. Apart from the really pitiful S-K-U-L-L typing, one or two slow-mo close-up shots meant to convey Important Realizations, the "Heart of Darkness For Dummies" lesson, and Brody's whispering, I have literally NOTHING to complain about. People bitching about the "poor" CG in this film really need to be taken out and flogged. And Watts was teriffic, not to mention mind-bendingly hot. Anyone who didn't buy the relationship between Kong and Ann or wasn't moved by the d
-
GentleTalkbackers, has Ringbearer9 now seen "King Kong" twice??? Well, well, well. Not only has he financially contributed to his nemesis, PJ/Kong, his hypocrisy is exposed for all to see. Rally!!! The "Hater Beast" that is Ring may finally be brought down to its knees. Quickly, before he realizes the strategic TB error he has made, SOUND THE CALL!!!
-
That was an April Fool's Day joke that seems to still keep fooling people and never dying. Check the date on that Production Diary Entry.
-
You will never know the heights of hilarity your most recent "review" brought to me, nor the howl of laughter which escaped my lips when I saw that you had seen Kong AGAIN. I realize now that my purchasing of the Production Diaries DVDs couldn't possibly annoy a hater so psychotic he will actually pay to see a film he hates, not once, but twice in a two-week period. I wish I had the time to sit down tonight and dissect your "review" and expose how poorly you respond to narrative cues as well as to visual and aural coding in film. Ringy, you are a complete cinetard and if you actually had a television show or a newspaper column devoted to movies, you would be the most hated, reviled and derided "critic" on Earth, nay, in the Solar System.
-
I guess you trolls will have to wait at least another week for your hater parade. Sorry. Too funny that the #1 Peter Jackson hater here at AICN went and saw it a second time, haha!!! 0w3nd!, as they say.
-
If Ringy keeps seeing it, it'll end up beating Titanic.
-
Forgot to mention that I've only seen the movie once (and, for the record, I liked it a lot.). If PJ haters are watching it more than once, PJ really is a genius.
-
Thankd for your comments. Have a nice christmas, Doc. I known this will be a big, ass-owning film when our mutual friend Ringbearer went to see it twice. If YOU like it, well, OK, but if HE likes it enough to see it twice... It has got to be..., well, AB-SO-FUCKING-LU-TE-LY great.
-
....barely. And it suffered a drop of 50%+.
-
Peter Jackson's King Kong is a remarkable, exciting, horribly flawed and self-indulgent film. It is at least a half an hour too long, featuring a flabby, glacially paced first hour that tested this viewer's patience to its very limit, too many thinly drawn characters sharing needless subplots (sorry, Mr. Hays and Jimmy, but you're completely expendable), and some of the worst, pointless overuse of slow-mo I've ever seen. I can't get enough of Jackson's swooping shots of miniatures, but his use of slo-mo has to stop. All that said, I haven't had a better time in a movie theater all year. Naomi Watts was truly radiant. Jack Black was completely believable as a self-important blowhard. Adrien Brody did the best he could with a rather ironically underwritten role. And Andy Serkis once again breathed exhilarating, fascinating life into a virtual character. His Kong was the best realized, most moving and empathetic character since, well, Gollum. Every time Kong was onscreen, he became the sole focus of attention. The Kong vs. V-Rex fight is, simply put, the best extended action sequence since the opening to Raiders of the Lost Ark. The special effects are flawless, the pacing is perfection, the choreography and beats are surprising and thrilling, with constant escalation of danger and tension, and at every moment I thought to myself, "I can't believe what I'm seeing." It truly transported me to a place of wonder. Those who can't see it, who look to denigrade and belittle this amazing, if flawed, achievement, who can't look past the flaws and appreciate the good, the beauty and the sheer amount of insane batshit crazy hypnotic imagery that was given to us, don't deserve to come to this site. This site is called "Ain't It Cool", not "Ain't I Cooler Than Everyone Here Because I'm Pretending To Not Be Able To Enjoy Something With Pure Unironic Joy." It's not about a difference of opinion. It's about only coming here to denigrate and heap vitriol on other's opinions in a desperate attempt to make them feel bad about their enjoyment of a film, basically telling them they're not just wrong, but in fact stupid if they like it, and in doing so, prop up your own obviously psychotic need to feel superior. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of seeing others sink into the trap of trying to debate it, when it's pointless. And I'm tired of letting it ruin my enjoyment of this site. I can't ignore it, because it's grown, like colorectal cancer, to take up nearly every inch of this place. So all I can do is leave. I'll drop by to read the articles, but I'm done in the talkbacks. I hope you all choke on your own bile. It's all you have.
-
Saw it in a double feature with Narnia and you know what? Narnia was the better movie. Kong dragged like a mother with all the slow mo shots and it took Kong forever to die. I was like fall off the damn building already. The pace was way too languid. It had its good moments like the T-rex fight but I got the feeling that this movie has been done to death and apart from the FX, Jackson didn't really bring anything new to this version, though it is arguably better than the 70's remake, this film shouldn't have been done. I appreciate what Jackson was trying to do but in the end it came off like just another remake and a failed attempt at a new franchise. Also, Narnia had a dual wielding White Witch. I didn't expect that, but it was pretty awesome.
-
Hey, just read Harry's review and gotta say, he sounds a little po-ed about some of the left turns the new Kong took. I've never seen the original, so I have no context in which to base whether it stands up to an original or no, but I must say it was grand to see anyway. I can't shake the Naomi Watts from I Heart Huckabee, who was an ex-model with beauty issues (very funny and revealing) and her Ann Darrow here in Kong. Still, I think it was a great movie but, one thing still irks me about it: the final statement by Denham. That goddamned sentence nearly ruined the three hour and 17 masterpiece of action directing for me; it seemed utterly incongruous with what just happened, not to mention utterly hookey and cheesey. It actually reminds me of that fake play in the opening of Deathtrap and the deplorable dialogue. Otherwise, the movie was brilliant (even the choppy slo-mo, which takes you a minute to overcome and see through to the meaning of it, which is to disorient). Anyway, Im not feeling particularly verbose at the moment and doubt anyone will give a shite from this review, so good day.
-
Dec 27, 2005 2:32:24 AM CST
Phillipa Boyens: "When other directors see this movie, they'
by triumph poops!
Well, having finally seen this thing over the holiday weekend, I don't know if any directors would "give up", but I sure do hope that EDITORS don't -- simply because this movie desperately needed one.
-
Dec 27, 2005 2:51:53 AM CST
That said, all in all here are my 2 cents. Wasn't bad, wasn
by triumph poops!
Overall, loved the photography and production design and effects. There's no question it was a great movie to "look" at. As for the actors, Naomi was fine...Brody wasn't as wimpish or distracting as I feared he would be...but I have to say every time I saw Jack Black on the screen sort of popping his eyes with zeal every time Denham got excited I just kept thinking "Oh, look. It's Jack Black making his trademark funny faces." So I have to say he continually DID pull me out of the movie. To that end, I agree with Harry's review that the original portrayal of Denham IS much stronger and involving. As for the script and direction -- since Jackson did both -- I'll go back to what I said above, and that others have echoed as well. This movie SERIOUSLY needed to be trimmed down. There was easily a half hour to 40 minutes or so that seemingly could have gone. Overall, it felt like Jackson was writing his geek love letter to Kong by remaking it...and deciding that NOW we needed to see every freakin' detail about every frickin' person or event. Just my 2 cents, but far too many scenes just went a beat or even several beats too long. I don't want to use a word like "self indulgent" to harp on it, but I'll just say that perhaps being such a labor of love that Jackson DID lose some perspective on things. Case in point to me: the fight atop the Empire State Building was terrific, a truly great "reimagining" of the original film's climax with updated technology -- but in comparison to the original again, I really, really REALLY didn't need as much "front story" centered on the character (in the beginning New York section of the film) as Jackson kept in. By the time they did get to Skull Island, I was already checking my watch and ALREADY the notion of "Man, this really could have used another pass or 2 in the editing room" had already taken root in my mind. So was it good? Sure, I felt I got my money's worth. I had fun. Was it the insanely great masterpiece others are trying to make it out to be? Well, I won't go THAT far. As someone else posted way back above, the reaction I had (like many others) was "Sure, it was great, BUT..." And I'll be curious how its box office legs are after next weekend (New Years) and the holiday period IS officially over. My basic thought is that this will do "all right" at the box office, and certainly do "all right" on home video, but I really can't see this even coming close to unseating REVENGE OF THE SITH as the number one box office hit of the year. Unlike SITH where Lucas had people -- because so many wanted to see or be a part of the "last Star Wars movie ever" or to see the actual Obi-Wan vs. Anakin fight (to see how Vader actually is born), I just don't see that people have the same emotion to want to see Kong. In fact, at the evening KONG screening I attended (which was sold out), it struck me as interesting that no one was applauding any of the parts..no one was cheering at the end of a particular set piece. Everyone sat there, watched it, and the minute the "Directed by" credit came up, they were headed out the door. So I'll be curious to see where this ends up box office wise, but I don't think it'll be the true blockbuster Universal hoped for.
-
You were unable to convince your BROTHER that Kong is a heap of dung? What chance did you think to stand in this - or any other - talkback? Suddenly, I pity you, and I am loth to see you go... Farewell, Ringy.
-
Don't worry, Ringy isn't going anywhere. He can't resist a captive audience and there sure as hell isn't anyone in real life willing to listen to his shit. Due to the brutal beating he's received here on AICN, he'll just come back under a different name to avoid people ramming his earlier LOTR & Die Hard & Kong opinions down his throat as soon as he opens his gob. Rest assured, we have in no way seen the last of Ringy.
-
WHAT A F#$KING COP-OUT! And I don't believe it for a second. We should heed the words of the good Doc, Ringbearer (he should be ashamed to wear that moniker) may indeed try to leave. But his shadow will most likely return in another form. Let's never forget this my fellow TalkBackers...this is history.
-
Sorry haters, guess this is depressing news for ya. ** Though I hate ditto-heads, all I can say is "Yeah, what mortsleam said." Goo-goo-ga-joob hombre!
-
A: KING KONG (1933)
-
I kinda understand the gripes about the movie. Like they say, no movie is perfect. But no other movie has made me feel that childhood wonder i used to have while watching the original star wars trilogy. Certainly not the new trilogy. Congrats to PJ, a masterpiece in my opinion and dare i say, even better than LOTR.
-
As Ringbearer9 said, here's one last gasp before the "Kong" talkback completely falls off the radar. As usual, Ringbearer poses legitimate questions about the logic of Jackson's "King Kong," and being one who's into puzzles and problems, here's my attempt to answer some of them, for whomever may be reading... 1) When Ann Darrow mistakes the sound recorder guy for Mr. Driscoll even after seeing his photo, she must have had a "blonde moment"... 2) Mr. Hayes is obviously a sharp guy, and must have seen Jimmy put the pen in his pocket as he turned around. The man obviously should have been on the NYPD's payroll instead of 1st Mate on a floating junkheap. 3) The Cooper/Ray film Carl Denham may have been referring to is "The Most Dangerous Game," a 1932 RKO picture directed by Merian C. Cooper and starring Fay Wray. 4) I believe whenever a maritime vessel encounters fog on ANY body of water, the foghorn must be blown. We probably don't hear it again because of the intervals between required blows, editing, and dramatic effect. 5) The sound guy was the one who got skewered by the natives(and mistook for Driscoll by Darrow, he obviously has a generic-could be anybody kind of face), the other was the director's assistant. 6) Physics of the wave. It's winter, so the waves' origins may be from North Atlantic/Pacific winds/storms. As the wind driven swells approached the island over gradually shallower depths, the wave swells increased in size. The waves don't break because they suddenly hit the cliffs, instead the latent energy causes wave reflection, thus making the waters around the cliffs turbulent. 7) Not sure how the edit goes, but Jimmy may have been reading "Heart of Darkness" after the ship was fixed. Either that, or he's the definition of "slacker." 8) The velociraptors/venatosaurs may have been circling around the brontos(like lions) with the plan to drive them into the wedge so as to be able to better attack. 9) We see the shot of the fish on a stick after Denham makes the statement, but they don't see it, so as to hint to the audience that Denham is wrong and there ARE people here NOW. And the natives obviously knew the visitors were present, so thusly prepared for them. 10) The raptor may have been waiting(like a lion) to jump on a passing bronto after they're chased into the wedge by the rest of the pack. The raptor that got stomped on by the bronto was a victim of a stampede, not by any real defensive manuever by the bronto, since, like cattle, they're peaceful. And the raptors are obviously improvisational dinos, as they saw easier pickings on the humans, like a helpless baby. They probably continued to chase the humans, because they're predators by nature, like cats, and respond to movement. 11) Anne was extremely lucky she did not break a neck or leg or dislocate a shoulder. Obviously, Kong is a pro at this sort of thing. 12) About the boulder, Kong is obviously a pretty tough gorilla. 13) The Spider Pit cut may have been real time, so it really only was a few minutes after they fell that the insects emerge. Jimmy was actually very close to Driscoll, and might have gotten away with not hitting Jack if he aimed decently enough. If the insect had actually bit Jack, I'm sure he'd be a goner. Denham picks up a mechete to hack the insects, and is pissed off because he lost the most dear thing in the world to him, the film. 14) The V-rexes, unlike the raptors, probably have a brain the size of a grapefruit, and thus suffer from tunnel vision. It takes them a while to catch on... 15) The cliffs and the Empire State building had grooves and notches and stuff to grasp onto. The native's wall was probably built with Kong in mind, and thus built smooth with nothing to grasp onto, plus Kong was real pissed and not thinking straight. 16) At Kong's perch, Anne was obviously starting to suffer from jungle fever and temporaneous insanity as she actually started to fall for a 25' gorilla. 17) The bat Driscoll grabs onto probably has enough flight power to barely keep the two humans aloft(which is why they land), but not enough leg power to grab them both both off its wing then lift them to its face to bite them, and it couldn't use one wing to fly, and the other to use as a hand to bring them in to bite them as the bat would plummet, so its fate was sealed, it had to get rid of Jack and Ann by landing. As it was, it was probably anatomically impossible for the bat to bite them on it wing(look at the way a real bat or an eagle eats on the wing). 18) As for Carl with the chloroform bottle...redemption and millions were at stake, he was hanging on to that bottle if his life depended on it. And the bottle breaking on Kong's face is no different than a beer bottle busting over a guy's head in a barroom brawl. 19) Jack probably wanted to at least get Kong away from Times Square to a less busy area of the city. 20) As for hurting Anne, Kong is an old pro and knows his body very well, as he's mostly animal, so Ann was probably never in danger. 21) Again, Kong probably used the constructed grooves and floors of the Empire State building to hold onto. 22) Anne may have simply startled the pilots and threw them off, so they had to wait for another pass so they could adjust their aim so as to not hit Anne. Whew! Hope these answers help! It's been fun! Chishu_Ryu signing off until the next big event film that prompts me to post...
-
Finally. In the end, I was actually more moved by Kong. Narnia was a near-perfect adaptation of a great children's story, and my delight was mostly childhood nostalgia, or seeing it through a child's eyes. Despite what others have said, I think Peter was quite good and Lucy was good, but she reacted more than she acted. Loved the Imogen Heap song. Anyway, Kong was amazing (to hell with you anal nitpickers, especially Ringbearer - god, you must be the most annoying date ever - I mean really, one could tear apart any movie like that if you want to be that anal. Sheesh)! I was willing to overlook the machine gunned bugs and the question of transporting Kong, but the only thing that I had a problem with was that last line. It should have been Jack or Anne, or if Denham says it, there should have been a response (a slap by Anne) or a critical look from Colin Hanks' character or something. In the end, Denham was still oblivious to what he had done. The movie seemed to be about the capitalist and colonialist obsession to exploit and never know when to quit. Each person that died strengthened Denham's resolve more, driving him deeper into denial. Stephen Colbert joked that Kong was Bush and Anne is America, but (if I was to make a political comparison) I think Denham's qualities are more Bush-like: continually pressing on, no matter how many die, over an obsession with 'democracy' or 'wmds' or whatever. But really, I do think it's about the inherent human drive to destroy innocence, nature, and beauty. And that's what made me sad while watching the film. In LOTR, that theme is there, but it's countered by those who struggle to fight against that. In Kong, there doesn't seem to be that element, in that everyone who opposes it still helplessly goes along for the ride. And maybe that's what makes Kong disturbing in the end.
-
Dec 27, 2005 8:24:53 PM CST
"I think Denham's qualities are more Bush-like: pressing on,
by triumph poops!
Oh PUH-LEEZE. Yes, because as we all know -- and here comes the ridiculous turning point where a talkbalk once again gets politically skewed, most laughably in a talkback about a giant fucking ape swatting bi-planes -- as we all know, only LIBERALS are interesting in saving "innocence, nature and beauty." Ok, I'm all for reading things into a movie, but again let's get real. This is not a movie of political allegories or intentions or even messages. IT'S A BIG BUDGET, B-MOVIE ABOUT A GIANT FUCKING APE FROM AN ISLAND OF DINOSAURS TRAMPLING NEW YORK AND SWATTING AT BI-PLANES. That's the measure of it's depth.
-
which was based on Stephen Colbert's hilarious routine. I never said it was an intentional message in the movie - that would be ridiculous. As we've said several times in this thread, a movie can have an effect by the way audiences make associations while seeing a film. Anyway, it was just a interesting reading riffing on a joke. And if you had read even the part you quoted a little more carefully, I said the HUMAN drive to destroy innocence, nature and beauty. Not liberal or conservative. Your're the one who's brought political names into the discussion, not me. Forgive me if I have a thought that might reveal some 'depth' after seeing a film. You can go back to playing with your dinosaur toys now.
-
Dec 27, 2005 9:52:30 PM CST
As for KONG being #1, Morgorth, don't count your chickens ti
by triumph poops!
From today's IMDB (quote): "APE WINS, BUT NO CHEST-THUMPING YET. The lion and the ape ran neck and neck at the box office over the weekend, and when it was over it appeared that the ape had won -- as Universal's King Kong posted an estimated $31.4 million in ticket sales over the four-day holiday and $21.3 million for the weekend. Disney's The Chronicles of Narnia appeared to have placed second with $30.1 million for the holiday and $20.4 million for the weekend. However, the estimates were so close that analysts generally noted that the positions of the two films could be reversed when final figures are released later today (Tuesday)." Bottom line: even if Kong wins, it will be a semi-hollow #1 since it will have BARELY beaten Narnia -- and let's face it, that's a pretty damn good showing for Narnia since people thought it might be a hit, but on the flip side everyone clearly expected Kong to be running away with the box office, free and clear and far, far outdistancing any competition. It was supposed to be -- sorry for the bad pun -- the 800 pound gorilla. So the fact that Narnia opened BETTER than Kong and has now continually stayed right on Kong's heels running neck and neck speaks volumes.
-
Still a hellova haul in the end, fo shizzle. Had almost a 60% drop this weekend, however, what the heck is opening on new years weekend? And Kong still hasn't made its money back, it needs to double that based on ads and distribution and so on.
-
That's nice and all, except you forgot that Kong is playing 1 screening less per theater than Narnia since it's 3 hours and all, so cut them some slack for being handicapped, you monster!!!
-
Saw Narnia, it was a beautiful kid's movie, but doesn't approach the classic grandeur of LOTR. Phillipa Boyens , a hack full of bloat; Jackson lets her speak too much for the movie. Most of her "contributions" and "improvements" to LOTR turned out to be unfaithful to the book and cause for most of the scripts' few weaknesses of LOTR. (Boyens screwed up Faramir's character. Tolkien would be insulted, his alter ego was Faramir in the story). The faithful visionary adaptation of LOTR was mostly due to Fran Walsh's work and she keeps entirely behind the scenes. As for KK, I still haven't seen it. I am a Jackson fan, but sorry, a remake of KK, any remake hasn't lured me to watch it yet since I was never a KK fan to begin with.(I liked the old Godzilla more) Narnia costs $150 mil reportedly to make. So overall it's been a slow holiday season for the movies.
-
Very good piece of entertainment. Which I think it was meant to be in the first place.
-
...hey sport, just reiterating a headline. You may, of course, read into it whatever you like...as is your wont. Thanks for your factoids and I notice you omitted that Kong is playing in 277 fewer theatres than Narnia. ** IAmLegolas: Don't know about you, but I'm happy that Narnia is doing very well at the box office. I think it bodes well for future projects of this genre. What? ME suggest 'The Hobbit' be brought to the silver screen?!!
-
They's shadows an' they's shadows...if you take my meaning. Yeah, I can see Thorin Oakenshild given the Boyens treatment and appearing as Bilbo's bumbling androgynous sidekick...burping and farting, in good PJ style, natch. I'm pretty surprised that Kong didn't squeeze one out just as he fell (finally!) off the Empire State building.
-
Dec 29, 2005 11:22:22 AM CST
No Ringy DON'T GOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! those were some nice titie
by bendersshinyass
I can't believe this talkback is still going. hang around I'm going to give some edit notes;
-
I'm not making fart jokes in a major motion picture...just a freakin' talkback. Anyway, though I dearly love PJ's LoTR, I'm not (don't faint here happyhappy) an abject sycophant. Though I generally liked PJ's treatment of Gimli, I think you can agree the poor Kudzul lad was given the worst character assassination treatment of any...even worse than un-Faramir! It didn't bother me a bit when PJ's cameo character (Albert Dreary) in Bree let out a big belch because we had no background on that fictional character and he was passed off as just another oafish Dunlender (when compared to the more refined Hobbits...at least Frodo). Gimli, by contrast, was well established as a very proud, serious (dour, one might say) and noble character, completely unlike the almost buffoonish clod that PJ portrayed. Yeah, it generated a few laughs but for those familiar with the book Gimli, it took some getting used to, yes? Don't get me wrong, I think PJ wildly succeeded in capturing the overall essence of the book but I have a very large bag of criticism's from the perspective of a long time reader of Tolkien's works. ** On another note, does your posting moniker mean anything? Just curious.
-
...you run the risk of becoming enmeshed in the Cult of the Tailenders!
-
Dec 29, 2005 11:52:15 AM CST
HOW AND WHERE TO EDIT THIS FILM DOWN: some edit notes by Benders
by bendersshinyass
Took my nephew to see this in the hopes of scaring the Bejeesus out of him. Boy did it work like a charm. But the little shit hated the first hour. Kept complaining about how cold he was. Didn't hear another peek about it as soon as the Zombies came into play. Anyways. Lets go for Edit structure, thats why your all here right? Right? The opening Montage. Fine. Anne on stage, the whole driscol exposition. Gone! Anne is now a street kid. She's looking to make it big, stalking producers and all that stuff. Jack black, keep him talking down at the guy about boobies, but don't have him insult him. I felt insulted because I was wondering the same question. There is a logic issue of how Jack black and that dude get all the reels to make their escape. Were they not just watching them in the screening room? When jack black and Naomi are in the restaurant talking. Cut that stupid fucking hypnotic thing Naomi does. Man that was stupid. Get us on that boat quick and smart. Drop all that Jimmy stow away crap. Cut all of their stuff together. i'm sorry, but we don't need to see any development between them. Especially that "It's not an adventure!?" "No Jimmy, it's NOT". Then what the fuck is it? huh? Make the cuts necessary to turn it into nothing but an Adventure story! When the ship crashes against a rock and Anne and Driscol are watchng as the collision is inevitable. When they hit that rock they should have both been face planted right into the side wall of said ocean rock. Or at least into the deck. But no, we just get a little 'ugh' and a fall backwards. And there is a nasty cross of the lineby the camera when Driscol and Ann are discussing the new play. One minute Brody is looking to anne, from left screen to right. next cut he's looking from right screen to left. It's called crossing the line. A no-no taught in high school film studies. It's really over the top how long some of the eye shots last. Trim-age. I too noticed that the character who get skewed by the tribesman, turns up alive in later scenes. I also agree with the in jokes. there were to many that made my head spin. And on both viewings I couldn't stop thinking about Fay and how she's making a film about this exact same thing taking place in reality. There were to many self congradulatory moments i found to be a bit of a wank on the part of the film makers. "No body will think these are fake" when looking at the dinosaurs. The bug attack was just over the top. So much could be cut and I can't help but feel that James Newton Howard wrote such a score along side it because he didn't understand the 'action' of the scene. The whole rescue of Anne was just a massive let down. Catching a bat to the river below didn't bother me so much as the fact they start climbing over the edge on a vine. No. You wouldn't! Shut up, you wouldn't!! And the editing after they land in the water is REALLY BAD. 1) they land in water. 2)Kong yells out after them. 3) We see the wall and the team waiting 4) Anne and Driscol in the water 5)Kong runing through the forest 6)And and Driscol running ahead of him in the forest just before the wall. WHAT A FUCK UP for a film of this price tag. If anything, swap elements 3) & 4) around. the little kid with me asked this question "How did they get him back to the city" Yes, how indeed. I did notice pictures on the back wall when Jack black and brody first meet. it looks like a crane winching up Kong onto the boat. Now that shit fucks with my head more than the in jokes of King kong being made at the same time. Real issues with Anne being in her own show the night Kong is unveiled. not to mention the fact that her name is up in lights, even though she NEVER accepted the offer from Jack black to appear - regardless of all the money she wanted. finding Naomi watts would have been hard enough, now he has to find her exact double?????? His poems, both on the unveiling of Kong and on the death of Kong. WHAT. THE. FUCK. Brody gets a clubbing over the back of the head. He even has blood pissing out while he's resting on the ship. But he's top notch after all that. To finish, I liked it more the first time I saw it. The second time it was just long and dull. But I loved all the monster fights. But this film does suffer greatly from trying to be bigger than it is. Oh, and real hero's aren't fat bald spot men. Get over yourself Jackson. Show some retraint next time. And as I geer up for my first ever 'full' screening of all the LotR EE films, I sincerely hope Kong doesn't get an EE treatment. I'll never NEVER sit through it!
-
Dec 30, 2005 3:30:01 AM CST
Even though it's better than Godzilla, it has the same issue
by bendersshinyass
Film makers that were so sure they had a winner they nocked any old shit out.
-
It didn't bother me that the characters were "slightly" altered to fit PJ's vision of LOTR. Plus it needed some levity as well - it was ponderous enough as it was. My moniker (in Dutch) means something like "the wine merchant" as that is what I am.
-
It flowed better than the first time I saw it. The film has some serious flaws, and Peter Jackson has been shown to be merely a damn good director but certainly no visionary. And watching it a second time with a fairly objective point of view made another thing very clear: This film is a really sad tragedy. The end of the second act is tragic with King Kong being trapped while he is reaching out to Ann, and then the end of the third act is Kong being shot to death and falling off of the Empire State Building. The dialogue from the beginning of the film when Harry says (and I'm paraphrasing) "Annie, everytime you reach out to something it gets taken away from you.", makes this film so damn tragic. The original just isn't like that.
-
Even a flawed film can be great fun. And yes, this is a tragedy, really, more than a mindless actioner. Of course it is no Shakespeare, but is Indiana Jones? No, but that is good fun as well. People on this board should not pick nits so much as try to ENJOY themselves. Life is too fucking short to pick nits, guys. En-fucking-joy yourselves! A happy New Year to all of you, take care and we'll see each other again over the next blockbuster ;-)
-
I've already blogged my review of Peter Jackson's review at http://aryngve.blogspot.com/2005/12/king-kong-as-dirty-old-man.html - but just let me say this:
KING KONG marks the beginning of Peter Jackson's decline. This film is where he became self-indulgent. -
The worst thing about these talkbacks is everyone pimping their own reviews. People, if anyone cared about your reviews - you would most likely have your own successful site that people visited for reviews... but you don't. Spare us all your reviews - as well as your ingenious editing notes. Happy New Year.
-
Couldn't agree with you more re. Burton's Batman films. They're just not rewatchable. I could watch Cameron's Aliens any day of the week. His stuff stands the test of time. Burton seems to think a film will seem "dark" if it is literally DARK; that Willy Wonka will seem strange because he speaks like a demented 8 year old. I had high hopes for that one going in - but Gene Wilder was 10 times the Willy Wonka that Johnny Depp was. That Burton adaptation of Wonka was horrific!
-
Finally saw Kong. Good stuff for the most part. Too much time spent on the unlikable Denham character. Jack Black wasn't bad, but the character he played was. Anne's intro should've ben truncated a degree. The old/young sailor relationship was pointless to the overall story. Visually the best-looking effects film of the year. Fantastic action pieces. My focus was on the Lovecraftian elements Jackson and company highlighted. The parallels between King Kong and The Call of Cthulhu are well evident. Skull Island is a scary, unreal place that you could imagine being inhabited by god-beats like Kongy and Cthuly. The degraded nature of the Skull Island natives recalls the cultists of Cthulhu. Paralells behind the fallen civilization of Skull Island and the thriving metropolis of Manhattan Island. The cyclopean architecture witnessed all over the island, showing it used to be inhabited both in front of and behind the great wall. The roaming beasts of times past. Evidence that more of the island is noq below sea level. (The quasi-monuments the Venture gets hung up on in the surf, as if Skull Island was was merely the topmost part of R'lyeh poking up from the waves.) Instead of making a "Son of Kong" sequel, it could be Denham or others going back to Skull Island and finding out who or what else lies dreaming in an undisturbed vault, ready to retake control of the world "when the stars are right." I guess I'm just hoping someday Jackson will do a true Lovecraft story.
-
Not only of movies, but shitty TV shows. I'm glad to King Kong is such a flop. Maybe the studios will try something original. I'm just dreaming. Diff'rent Strokes: The Movie has been greenlighted.
-
I never really liked King Kong or the storyline. It says much then that this movie, more than any movie I've seen in the past 20 years made me feel like a choked up child again. It really suprised me. The Kong animators and Andy Serkis must be given an Oscar.
-
Jan 07, 2006 4:03:41 AM CST
Narnia is kicking Kong's ass at the box office! Now that'
by antoniusbloc
There is a glimmer of hope for this world
-
Jan 07, 2006 8:16:13 AM CST
Hey, I thought this was supposed to be a bomb? It's already
by minderbinder
I'm not surprised Narnia is leading it domestically, with all the churches pimping it. But Kong is right behind it internationally, I expect KK to pass it world wide. Speaking of BO, how cool is it that Goblet of Fire is set to pass Sith for #1 of the year worldwide?
-
You went too far, buddy boy. Or so it seems, at least.
-
Jan 11, 2006 4:13:09 PM CST
*turns around annd, turns around annd, turns around annd*
by deadphishiy2
things chase you on skull island. we get it.
-
why were the 3 "v-rex"'s so hellbent on eating ann? wasnt kong much bigger? unless they were just assholes, then it would make sense.. and once ann's arms werent pulled out of their sockets from those rops, i knew i was in for a ride.
-
Hey,
Has anyone ever noticed that if you click and hold the little scroll bar slider thing and move it up and down this page, the big monkey picture (Mighty Joe young or whatever) moves really slowly??
Cool Hunh? -
Talking during the movie (fairly common). Kids moving laser-light along the movie screen via a laser-pointer. A white-trash woman sitting behind us who, on purpose, spilled her HUGE soda on the floor (thus the soda running beneath our feet) when she was shushed by my wife. A young Spanish-speaking couple having sex behind me and my friend, at the back of the crowded theatre. (Moaning comes in one language.) Cell phone being answered by a drunk. More than once, a glass bottle being dropped and slid across the floor. (Gee, I wonder what was in it?) Babies crying. The projector losing sound during the VERY FIRST SHOWING of "REVENGE OF THE SITH". I'm just going to stop there, ...I'm getting irritated.
-
Is at the end when the cop says "move along folks, nothing to see here."
-
Very sharp, Lenny Nero. Ringbearer seems to have ruffled some feathers here... I am going to miss him, though. It was a hoot while it lasted ;-)
-
And kong is at 205 and counting. Looks like it will hit 207 on saturday.
-
seriously, if i hadnt just paid 6.50 for a ticket, i would have walked out and gone to see jarhead.
-
No sound during Revenge of the Sith? Halfway to a decent moviegoing experience.
-
Someone forgot that King Kong is a monster movie and not an animal rights movie. Watts was great but her character was totally sick...a complete sadness junkie. You could see her twenty years later, married to a louse who beats her, perfectly contented.
-
but that person eats ding dongs, so don't listen to him.
-
It had to be said.
-
generally comes from a guy with "sith" or "fett" in his user id name.
-
like it was for kids. almost exclusivly and i couldnt get into it. not even a little but boy did i want to
-
pompous movies I have ever seen.
It was 5 minutes of good Kong action.
15 minutes of crappy human action...
and 2 1/2 hours of completely boring filler. -
Am I banned?
-
Just rented it last night. I loved it. My wife cried at the end. Great movie. Full of emotions.
-
LAST!!!
-
what a terrible film.
where was the passion you mentioned in the review?
How can Spielberg make dinosaurs real in 93 and 12 years later they look like crap?
rubbish. -
The Bronosaurus chase scene along the cliffs were so fake. This was 2005 not 1905, come on WETA. I'm a huge monster-movie fan from way back and this movie was long. I was so psyched to see it but the first hour could have been edited out. It was pretty good. Nowhere close to what Harry was raving about. This guy has got to be a shill for these studios. Call a spade a spade even when your heart wants to deny the truth. This movie gets a 'B' in my book.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts