|
Directed by: Peter Jackson Starring: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Andy Serkis, Colin Hanks, Jamie Bell -Some Spoilers Follow- I attended the World Premiere of Kong last night at Times Square in NYC. It was a memorable evening as I was priviledged enough to be in the same screening room (Theater 13 at the Loews E-Walk) as the cast and crew. It was a nice event, with Peter introducing the film up in front of everyone and then introducing the cast and crew as they came up to stand next to him. It was also amazing to see such an abundance of talent in the room like George Lucas, Frank Darabont, Richard Taylor, the Weta Digital guys, Rick Baker and even Stephen King among many others. I'll cut right to the point, the movie is amazing. It amazes, humors, horrifies, and warms the heart. It is a cinematic achievement of incredible proportions and deserves to be viewed multiple times on the largest screen you can find. It really does recapture the sense of joy and bring forth the reasons why we go to the movies still to be entertained and perhaps even humbled. The acting is uniformly great, with the standouts being the radiant Watts and the remarkably touching performance of Kong by Serkis. The digital beast does for CG what the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park did for CG back in 93'. This is a huge leap forward in terms of creating believeable acting through computer generated imagery. Basically Jackson and Co. have used what they learned from LOTR with Gollum and taken it to the next level. There are many shots just of the beasts eyes that evoke so much its hard to imagine that Kong is not real. The other visual effects in the film range from wonderfully spectacular, to slightly underdeveloped. In many shots slight matte lines are present, and while to a general audience that wont be quite as noticeable, to a person like myself who is a filmmaker it was a slight distraction. Also sometimes during the shots of Ann within Kong's hand we have the same sort of problem that was apparent in The Two Towers during the scenes in which Pippin and Merry were being carried around. It seem's that no one has quite nailed how to perfect that sort of movement. That is not to say it looks bad, it looks great, but it is obvious that that technique still has a little way to go before becoming seamless with reality. Another concern I had was with the pacing and emphasis on secondary characters. Even though I fully respected the fact that Jackson wanted to give us time to introduce all the characters aboard the Venture, I felt that unecessary emphasis was placed on certain characters. Specifially the characters of Jimmy and Hayes, who nevertheless were played well by Jamie Bell and Evan Parke. They have sort of a mentor/student/surrogate father/son type thing going on and well it never really seemed relevant to the rest of the plot because Jimmy's character arc never is resolved. I would've liked to have seen more with Adrien Brody during the venture scenes, or at least more scenes focusing on him and Ann, because for some reason at first during the inital craziness and chaos that takes place on Skull Island I felt like I knew him less than Jimmy or Hayes, who in the end aren't completely integral to the story. I also feel like the relationship between Jack and Ann could have been far more realized than it was, even though as it stands it is pretty well realized. It just could've been a little better. Those concerns aside, like I said at first I immensely enjoyed the film. It was very apparent that Peter put his heart and soul into the film, being that it is something he has always dreamed of making, and I sincerely appreciated and could see that from frame one to the end credits. He is a visionary director who has brought back to life this old tale with refreshing taste and bombastic charge. A sequence within Skull Island that stood out for me in particular was the insect/spider pit sequence which is a marvel in all aspects, it is so wonderfully creepy with the ethereal music and the creature effects that I was squirming in my seat. The slug like creature which Lumpy the Cook encounters was truly horrifying. I will say though that the most amazing part of the movie to me was the small interlude between the chaos in NYC during which Kong and Ann have a wonderfully heartwrenching moment in an empty park on a frozen pond before all hell breaks loose once again. It is moments like those that shine over any other sequence in the film due to the sheer emotional response it ellicits from the performances of Watts and Serkis. We see the true nature of the beast, we see the side of him that Ann knows, the side of him that isn't savage. This is followed by the climactic scene atop the Empire State Building which also is so beautifully realized that you just stare on in wonder and appreciate the fact that there are filmmakers like Jackson and his crew working today. This movie is definately a winner, another home run for Jackson and all the folks in NZ. It's a 207 million dollar three hour labor of love that in the end does not dissapoint even remotely. I'll end this with saying, I think without a doubt King Kong will and does set a new standard for the modern blockbuster. - Deech RATING: 4.9 PROS: Great Direction, Acting, Effects, Kong himself is amazing. CONS: Odd emphasis on secondary characters, some composited shots are a bit off ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Deech fucked around with this message at Dec 6, 2005 around 21:16 |
| # ? Dec 6, 2005 21:14 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 02:12 |
|
|
Awsome, but how was the non-review in a review forum?
Somebody fucked around with this message at Dec 11, 2005 around 04:38 |
| # ? Dec 10, 2005 19:45 |
|
|
what? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
| # ? Dec 12, 2005 07:12 |
|
|
I'm still trying to think of a negative to this movie. I guess there just isn't. 5.5/5 Totally worth not studying for my history final.
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2005 08:41 |
|
|
I just got back from a midnight showing so I apologize in advance for the short length / any errors I make. The movie did not disappoint. I went in with really high expectations and they were met. The performances were all stellar. Naomi Watts was so beautiful that it was almost distracting at times. Jack Black's character was greedy and coniving, yet likeable and even sometimes caring. Visually, the movie is stunning. With as much screen time as Kong has it was essential that he always looked as good as possible. All of his mannerisms were perfect. It is hard to tell that he isn't real. I agree with what Deech said as far as the CG is concerned. It was so well done that it may as well set the new standard. The action scenes were fantastic. Kong vs Dinosaurs, the bug scene, the Empire State Building..They were all so well done.. All of the scenes between Naomi Watts' character and Kong were very moving. I'm glad that the interaction didn't feel awkward (Mr. Tumnus of Narnia, I'm looking in your direction) I wish I could think of more to say but it's 3:43am. Go see the movie. 5/5
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2005 08:43 |
|
|
I got back from a midnight screening, too. As far as I'm concerned, it was a good movie with some drawbacks. There are two real problems with the film. The first is the CGI. Jurassic Park is 11 or 12 years old, but even watching it on TV now, it takes a little while to spot the blue screens. That's not the case here, and it's immediately obvious where the characters end and the background begins, which really detracts from the action sequences. Kong himself is great, as are the all CGI shots, but when the humans interact with the dinos, it looks very fake. It's to Jackson's credit as a director that Skull Island is genuinely creepy and a roller coaster *despite* that. Unfortunately, Jackson's one failure in that department is the second problem: the love story is very flawed. Naomi Watts is a great actress, but Brody has few good lines and after the initial setup (which works) they're not believable when they're together. Having said that, it's still an incredible movie. It's got all the typical summer blockbuster qualities, but it's also a tearjerker (my girlfriend was crying over the ending scene) as well as a camp flick and pulls off everything it's supposed to do. It'll be the next Titanic and deservedly gross 87 bazillion dollars. It's just not the Second Coming of Cinema that most reviews are going to say it is, and it will look very dated in a few years. 4/5, 5/5 if you sit in the back row and don't focus on details. Add an extra .5 if you get all the references to previous Peter Jackson movies (the worms, especially, were a nice touch.)
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2005 09:43 |
|
|
This took priority over studying for finals for me as well. I agree with the OP about the emphasis on secondary characters and how there wasn't much plot concerning Jack and Ann before skull island. That's my only complaint, and I wouldn't really call it a complaint. What impressed me the most was the amount of emotion that Kong was able to create in just facial movement. The slightest of movements were present which actually made me second guess the fact that it was CG. And for anyone who may think that it's a little too long (approx. 3 hrs and 10 min IIRC) it doesn't feel it. On another note I was very skeptical about Jack Black as Carl Denham. I felt this way from the moment I heard he was cast. The trailers didn't do much to ease my mind, but about a half hour into the movie the scene where carl is writing the check to jack trying to get him stuck on the ship I knew that he was perfect for the role. PROS: Amazing CG, fantastic acting, all around good entertainment. CONS: Could have adjusted some of the plot to better fit the overall picture. 5/5
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2005 15:13 |
|
|
I dislike CGI and Peter Jackson, but this movie I loved. The CGI did look fake at times, but it was also used very well like the fake Pantages Theatre that Kong shits up. 5/5
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2005 18:16 |
|
|
Oh tricksy Peter Jackson, what a cock tease you are. I went into seeing King Kong with absolutely NO expectations better than 'average'. However, he completely pulled me into the story within 10 minutes and after the first hour I was still enthralled. The shots were breathtaking, the pacing was crisp and efficient, the music was haunting and overwhelming, the lighting was mysterious and romantic, and everything looked like it was going to be an absolutely splendid flick. And mind you, this is all before we even get to see King Kong at all. However, on skull island things became way too ridiculous for me. There was about an hour of almost non-stop visual stimulization that really just made me tired. It seemed like every five seconds tried to top the previous five seconds. It kind of went in this progression: Badass King Kong isn't good enough for you? Dinosaurs! Being trampled to death by dinosaurs? Being trampled to death by giant dinosaurs AND being torn apart by velociraptors! Two T-Rexes? Three T-Rexes getting in a kung fu fight with King Kong both on land and in free fall for 15 minutes! Giant insects? Even bigger giant insects! It becomes so taxing on the mind that I kept closing my eyes and wishing I was driving home from the movie. When the action finally dies down a bit the only thing I can think to myself is, "Jesus they haven't even arrived in New York yet." Still, the movie was beautiful to watch... if not way overly so for me. 3.0/5
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2005 18:56 |
|
|
I've never seen an audience get more into a movie than with King Kong last night. There were so many screams, gasps, cheers, applause, and even "Ooohs" and "Aaahs." The movie itself is fantastic. My only complaint is that I saw it at midnight after having been up since 6 am for finals, and so was VERY tired to sit through the 3 hours of awesome. There's not a single scene I'd cut though, so make sure you see it when you're not tired. The ending has been described as "not as sad as it could be" by others in the theatre with me, but unless they expected Ann to leap to her death (she does not) I don't see how it could've been any more emotional. This is everything a movie should be. 5/5
|
| # ? Dec 14, 2005 22:07 |
|
|
Pros: Amazing attention to detail. Incredible action sequences. Cons: Trite dialogue. Choppy character development and scene layout. 4.0/5
|
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 05:00 |
|
|
Absolutely incredible. This was the most fun and the most impressed I've been in a theater in a very very long time. There were a few lines of dialoge, mostly up front, that I thought were lacking a bit... and only one or two CG scenes seemed a little out of place (when the action turns to NYC) but really, in the scope of this film, these tiny problems don't make one bit of difference. Jack Black, Brody, Watts.. all were great (especially Watts) and the supporting cast was fine as well. And Kong is more expressive and believable than many human actors in Hollywood.  5.5 / 5 I felt that every time some new creature or obstacle came on screen, the audience (or at least me, anyway) would think to themselves 'this would be insanely cool if xxxxxxxx happened right here, but they won't take it that far.' and then Jackson goes ahead and does it, and it's cooler than you could possibly imagine. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T READ THIS NEXT PART UNTIL AFTER YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM. Best examples of this: Andy Serkis' death by brain slugs, and Kong loving biting the tounge out of the mouth of a T-Rex and breaking his jaw and crushing his head in right there on screen. One note to Adar: You should check out Ebert's review of this film. I like the way he points out the difference between the relationship of 'Kong + Woman' from the original 30's version to this new version. In Jackson's film, the 'love interest' is really Kong and not Brody, which was the real reason the chemistry between Watts and Brody isn't there. Gambl0r fucked around with this message at Dec 15, 2005 around 05:07 |
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 05:03 |
|
|
I saw the midnight showing last night and I liked the movie, sort of. First of all, there was a lot of stupid crap that you just had to kind of sit back and swallow if you expected to enjoy this movie. Just the behavior of most everything in the movie was really off. Wait, let me start with some positive notes before I get rolling on the pit falls. I liked/really liked: Jack Black, you don't really get to see this guy do anything that isn't exactly like he is in tenacious d, and so seeing him in a regular role gave me a good feeling that maybe he'd get a good career and the short fat guy with long hair would rule the world...it could happen. Also he didn't talk with the sort of 20's style that people tend to try to do when its in the 20's, and I liked that a lot. Adrian Brody, this guy is pretty cool too, also no 20's accent, that’s about all I have to say here. Kong, they put Andy Serkis back into his motion suit to be Kong, as well as playing a part in the movie, and I thought that Kong was pretty well animated and all that good stuff the fight scene with three t-rex and Kong fu and jaysus what the hell is going on, it was very long, very fun, and funny, and all that good jazz yea So that ends most of what was good, Naomi watts was good of course but blah blah blah, she's hot. To the bad: The dinosaurs looked terrible, and their behavior was downright ludicrous. at one point there’s these velociraptor type dinos chasing some brontosaurs and the crew of the ship is caught in the fray, and the raptors start going after the people, but its like why would you go after people when you've got a big fat slow meal right above you, I can sort of let this one go though, because people are probably easier to kill than giant dinosaurs, but then they shoot one of the brontos a few times and it causes a big (hilarious, point to the good side here) dinosaur pile up/orgy (hilarity ensues). Also when the t-rex has the dino that was chasing Anne through a tree stump and then it decides it still wants to try to eat Anne, she's a tiny little thing that would barely even pose as an appetizer for him, I didn’t think that was realistic when he already had a good meal in his mouth, but maybe t-rex are greedy? I thought that the dialogue was pretty bad at points, I cant really think of specifics, but I remember sitting through some of the parts and wondering, "who gets paid to write this crap?" answer? the same people who wrote all the lotr movies. Also since when does king Kong equal LOTR Why were there urukai in the movie!? ok they weren’t "actually" urukai, but they looked exactly like them, they had complex machinery that could create flows of liquid fire, a pretty sweet bridge system (which did absolutely nothing as is shown by the fact that Kong jumps the gap with little effort and lands at about the top of the wall, they'd be screwed if they relied on the wall for defense against him) when the lava flowed I was like poo poo Frodo, the fires of Mordor are burning again! we know you directed lord of the rings, you don’t have to remind us, you didn’t make any references to frighteners but we still love that one (well I do) just let it go. And Jimmy when Jack is covered in bugs and jimmy picks up a Tommy gun then proceeds to head shot about ten bugs off of him, that’s such crap. Isn’t the whole point of a Tommy gun that it has a lot of bullets because the accuracy is crap? shouldn’t jack have died as soon as jimmy started firing of the first couple of rounds, its like hey thanks for getting the bugs off of me jimmy, also thank you for the frontal lobotomy. I also hated that the big Hollywood movie star guy had redeeming qualities, he swung in during the bug fight and was all hero-y? I didn’t really think that fit his character, once again I’ve only seen it once, maybe I missed something. Ok so we've gone over that, but what about when they go to New York? (I don’t think that can possibly count as a spoiler, since Kong went to NY back in 1933) how do they get the gorilla that is bigger than the boat onto the boat? what happened to all the secondary characters we spent 2.5 hours of the movie learning to love and hate? what is jimmy's back story!? how did you only count 17 dead crew members from the voyage? it looked like about 50 to me (I’ll have to watch it again for an actual number, maybe they really did count) well I guess none of those questions really matter cuz we're in NEW YORK CITY! So Kong is capped, and all the peripheral characters are rid of, King Kong plays his swan song and its cute, he climbs a building and gets killed by machine gun fire...wait machine gun fire? He got bit by the t-rex like five different times on each arm, and a few bullets are going to kill him? I guess its possible, but I don’t really think its probable. All in all there’s a lot of really good parts in this movie, surrounded by a lot of stupid stuff. If anything, go to see it for the fifteen minute fight scene, but this is far from the best movie. Look for Peter Jackson’s coming sequel, Return of the King Kong. And in the end t'was beauty what that killed the beast. 3.5 of 5
|
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 08:30 |
|
|
To a director who can get people to think of a young Orson Welles when looking at Jack Black, getting people to feel for a giant gorilla is child's play. 5.5/5
|
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 10:50 |
|
|
Length is not something that bothers me. I sat through director's cuts of all of the Lord of the Rings, at home and in theaters. I sat through Gettysburg, in theaters where they had to have an intermission because their cameras could only take reels that were so big, when I was in 6th grade without complaint. I did not enjoy Titanic but it's aptly described length was nothing like the torture I endured last night. The fact that the movie is three hours and 19 minutes isn't a problem in and of itself. The problem lies in the fact that King Kong is a 90 or 105 minute movie but drags out over the course of 199 minutes. The actors did a great job - Jack Black does a fantastic job, Adrian Brody did well. Technically the movie is very, very impressive, the big budget shows in all of the scenes. Everything about this movie is great except for the lack of editing. Peter Jackson obviously loves King Kong - he's wanted to make this movie since he was 9 - but his love for the movies is what kills it. There is a chase scene involving dinosaurs. That should be something that's really cool, and it is. However, the novelty wears off after the first 20 or 25 minutes. The same goes for Kong vs. the T-Rex. Again, it's something that should be really cool but is killed deader than a hammer because it is so long and drawn out. Every scene in this movie is far, far too long and this kills any impact, sense of wonder or emotion that the scene might have had. Be forewarned. The best thing that can come out of this movie is maybe we might have a chance of getting a full, uncut "Dead Alive". If it tanks, and I think it might, maybe Peter Jackson will be declared persona non grata in Hollywood and he can get back to directing the sleazy horror movies he was so good at. Then, and only then, will Zombie Jackson walk the earth again. My vote? 2.5 out of 5.5. Hire a loving editor.
|
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 14:17 |
|
|
This movie has a lot of things wrong with it. It really is too long. I think about 1/2 an hour of it was completely unnecessary, and consisted of scenes that ran on too long for their own good and/or stuff that most people would consider mildly amusing filler. Inexplicably, in some scenes the CGI dinosaurs look worse than the ones in the Jurassic Park movies. It is also really obvious and heavy-handed about everything involving all of the characters, like everything in the script was typed in captial letters. AND NOW HERE IS WHERE OUR PLUCKY VAUDVILLE PERFORMER HEROINE, FACED WITH NEAR-CERTAIN MORTAL PERIL... et cetera. Sort of as if they decided that they had to copy the cheesy things from old movies, too. And yes, they use the ETHEREAL FEMALE VOICE ON THE SOUNDTRACK FOR "EMOTIONALLY RESONANT MOMENT IN THE MOVIE" gimmick. poo poo, just go back to playing violins for that poo poo instead. But I really enjoyed it anyway. Why? HOLY poo poo MONSTER ACTION FIGHTING OVERLOAD. Kong beats the living poo poo out of everything you wish you could see Kong beat the poo poo out of in the most awesome way possible. People are threatened, killed and eaten by the most wonderfully awful crazy impossible critters. The action in this movie is pure genius... overdone, crazy, pointless, totally irrational destruction GENIUS. It is alternately thrilling, funny, creepy and scary. It goes over the top, and kicks over-the-top-ness in the balls. THRICE. Then tears its head off and shits down the stump. OK, that was a bit much. But the monster action in this movie is what every kid with an over-active imagination WISHED he could see when he watched those old Godzilla movies on the Creature Double Feature every Sunday on the lovely local UHF channel. And this is King Kong, not King Lear, so that is terribly important. Surprisingly good performances. Brody was kind of "meh," maybe the chicks will dig him as ARTISTIC SENSITIVE GUY WHO, IN A SURPRISE SHIRTLESS REVEAL, MUST DO A LOT OF SIT-UPS though. Jack Black was, surprisingly, not a douchebag. I actually liked his overblown huckster director character. And Naomi Watts was great all around. The dialogue was often clunky, but the delivery was good, and that can make up for a lot. And it just feels like a big, fun adventure. Maybe too big, maybe too crazy, but so what? I give it a 4/5, mostly due to general bloating and scenes that outlived their usefulness.
|
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 15:22 |
|
|
HOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY CRAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP See this movie. A feast for the eyes. 5.5/5 artbell fucked around with this message at Dec 15, 2005 around 21:20 |
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 17:22 |
|
|
Holy poo poo. Holy loving poo poo, this movie is incredible. Peter Jackson is a Goddamn visionary. This movie is virtually unlike any movie i've ever seen this year, in fact, unlike anything ever. Its better than Batman Begins, War of the Worlds and 40 Year Old Virgin. Don't get me wrong, they are great films, but King Kong is MAGICAL. I've never seen a director have so much passion, SO much love for this movie, and in every single frame, every single inch of the movie, his love and care shows. It glimmers with fantastic attention to detail. King Kong amazed the world back in 1933, and i'll be damned if it doesn't amaze us now. I am literally blown away. Where to start? The dialogue is top notch. Despite being set in the 1930's, I had my doubts, and hell, I almost didn't want to see the movie. (personally, I prefer modern, up to date versions of movies. Its just the way I like 'em.) I couldn't have been more wrong. The dialogue never comes off as cheap or cheesy. Its straight to the point, and besides, most of the emotions conveyed throughout the movie is through Kong and Naomi Watts body language---which let me add, Naomi is gorgeous. I am taken back with her ability to act, but she is also very beautiful, and it shows in this movie. Do you think its easy to act as if there was a 20 metric ton gorilla holding you? She is a great actress and I have alot of respect for her. Adrian Brody is top notch as well. He does an exceptional job. Who would've thought a pale, skinny Jew could make such a formidable hero? I'm no rear end in a top hat and i'm not prejudice, but how often do we see Jews as heros? Not often enough, and Adrian Brody proves that it can be done. My already-there respect (after the Jacket and The Pianist) has risen 20 notches. Jack Black. Honestly, I was looking forward to this preformance, simply because I enjoy Jacks enthusiasm to act. He shows great passion, so this is a great breakout role for him. Considering he's already quite popular, his career needed a kick in the rear end anyways. I want to see him in more movies. Anyways, Jack Black isn't the catchphrase spewing clown of past films, here he plays a slimy sleazeball who just wants to make money. And I believe it. His transition to the silver screen is seamless and believable. Another good thing. The CG. I had my skepticism, I really did. In the trailers, it didn't exactly look fake, but hey, I wasn't blown away. I stand corrected. Kong is real. Kong looks real. If Jackson used a giant gorilla, I wouldn't have known the difference. Add to that the great scenes with giant bugs, bats and dinosaurs----loving great. We've come a long way since Godzilla and Jurassic Park. A long way indeed. The action. The movie is 3 hours and 7 minutes. First hour, we don't see Kong. Is that a good thing? You better believe it. I enjoyed the same type of anticipation when watching Batman Begins, because Bruce doesn't become Batman until about 40 minutes in, and its worth it. Its worth the wait in good movies, and you better believe that King Kong is a loving astonishing movie. The minute you see Kong, the movie kicks into full force---nearly two full blown hours of pure action. Kong fights 3 T-Rexes, the crew gets nearly crushed by Brontosauruses, Naomi is being chased by giant lizards, and Adrian is being smothered with huge insects. Its complete action on Skull Island until New York----where theres a short rest, and then the movie kicks back into full force again. Thankfully, this movie doesn't do the common mistake other movies do----poo poo up the screen with CGI. Sometimes movies can have so much poo poo going on the screen, that its hard to make out whats going on. Fortunetly for the audiences, Kongs moves are graceful and lumbering so the action isn't exactly slow, but its easy to make out, and its a very enjoyable experience. You'll walk out of the theater with 20 "holy poo poo" moments and will probably be saying "remember when king kong did this this and that?" I know I did. Impressive. Go see this movie. You'd be doing yourself a favor. I haven't seen Return of the King, but now its my sole duty to do so. I am infatuated with Jacksons version of Kong, that I have nothing but respect for him now. 5.5/5 Ramseyk fucked around with this message at Dec 15, 2005 around 22:48 |
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 17:53 |
|
|
I dunno what this means but its sure not a review
Somebody fucked around with this message at Dec 20, 2005 around 05:14 |
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 18:39 |
|
|
oh come on. if you're going to add a vote and nothing else, you can do that right at the bottom of this thread without posting a reply
Somebody fucked around with this message at Dec 20, 2005 around 05:15 |
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 18:43 |
|
|
This movie was totally spectacular. It's really difficult to think of anything I didn't like about it. The physical humor they threw in - and the not physical humor - was fantastic every single time and always got me to laugh. Nothing ever looked 'fake' to me, and the dinosaur fight scene was loving AWESOME. The scene in the valley with the bugs....jeez, I could go on and on about the awesome things about this movie. There's so much you can just think back about and be like 'god drat that was cool', it's hard to list anything specific. My opinion? If you aren't so impatient that you cry like a four-year old because kong doesn't come out before the opening credits stop rolling, then you will probably LOVE this movie. 5.5/5 Warchicken fucked around with this message at Dec 15, 2005 around 20:29 |
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 20:23 |
|
|
not a review
Somebody fucked around with this message at Dec 20, 2005 around 05:16 |
| # ? Dec 15, 2005 22:47 |
|
|
Rhandhali posted:My vote? 2.5 out of 5.5. Hire a loving editor. PROS: Beautiful, action-packed, the most epic film I've seen since Return of the King came out two years ago. CONS: Overblown. "Hire a loving editor" is strong, but correct. SCORE: 4.7, but I voted 5/5 giving it the benefit of the doubt. I want to see it again, and this time I'm going to go after I've gotten a decent night's sleep.
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 03:04 |
|
|
I don't need action in all my movies, and length doesn't bother me either. I still thought the entire boat part was really cheesy and boring. The rest of the movie more than made up for it though. I was the only one in the theatre who laughed at Bill Braxely checking himself out with a mustache, though.
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 03:26 |
|
|
If ridiculously glitzy effects do it for you, then go see this! If you don't like overdone, long, drawn out scenes with poor plot devices, undeveloped subplots, using the exact same gags over and over, and endlessly hammering home the same points in a movie, then don't bother watching this one. You can only be scared into thinking "uh oh, a main character is in danger" so many times. If Watts nearly dies every 45 seconds, we stop being scared. If she shares a "special moment" every 44 seconds between the scares, we don't care. This thing needed a goddamn editor, as other posters have said. edit: Nearly every single scene in the movie is too long and clumsy. A bad movie with a huge budget is still a bad movie. It just happens to become a pretty one with good sound. 2/5
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 07:38 |
|
|
A insanely visual movie with an amazing "subtext." The themes of Elevation, Insect, Reptilian, Bestial, and Human mind are very well worked into the film. Masculine vs Feminine themes ahoy! Relationships, motivations, fear, love, it is all here. Great character development. A loving blast and quite heady stuff if you're looking for it. It really doesn't get much better for me. I just guess the poster above me knows it all and is bored by it. If you're like me you won't be bored by King Kong. On top of it all the action just doesn't quit. I was thrilled. The sound is fantastic. 5.5/5 Raskolnikov fucked around with this message at Dec 16, 2005 around 08:43 |
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 08:38 |
|
|
5/5. There was just so much to it, that I felt drained afterwards. But in a good way. Like, post-coital good. This is why God gave us movies.
bionix fucked around with this message at Dec 16, 2005 around 08:48 |
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 08:43 |
|
|
I think Trinity might've died faster than Kong. As others have mentioned, this movie is too long by an hour or more; an editor would've done wonders. King Kong was Jackson's life's ambition, yeah...but it also becomes painfully evident that in every scene he's blowing his load on some other ridiculously overblown CGI extravaganza. Jack Black might be trying to break out of his typecast role, but I just can't see that dude from Tenacious D butt-smacking giant bugs. 3/5 Mod edit: why the clownbutt do people put huge spoilers in reviews? Somebody fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2005 around 23:21 |
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 10:45 |
|
|
For a movie that was a great action comedy drama fantasy, I was a bit sad that it had so much impossible slapstick. The movie clearly left the reality of time and space, And I can only assume it was an intentional decision. He could of made a masterpiece, but instead he forced you to give up on any believable reality. That Aside, My biggest complaint was the failure to create realistic digital humans. Sure they got hair and fabric down, so well just show her back, or apply obscene motion blur as we show a glimpse of her face. But even with no face, the movements of digital humans just did not match up when cut in with the live action. I really loved the movie, the end made my eyes water. However, the over the top comedy on skull island hurt to watch. The dinosaurs were slipping on banana peels, and every human was superman until it was decided someone else needed to die. DBlanK fucked around with this message at Dec 16, 2005 around 11:07 |
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 10:46 |
|
|
film dump is for reviews only
Somebody fucked around with this message at Dec 20, 2005 around 05:17 |
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 11:26 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You can only be scared into thinking "uh oh, a main character is in danger" so many times. If Watts nearly dies every 45 seconds, we stop being scared. If she shares a "special moment" every 44 seconds between the scares, we don't care. Wonderful movie. Peter Jackson does it again! 5/5
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 13:40 |
|
|
Saw this yesterday at a matinee. Disappointed to say the least. I suppose my expectations were too high. If I could compare the feel of this movie to any other, it'd be The Mummy. I normally have no problem with films being too long (especially Jackson's offerings), but this was just too drawn-out. The acting felt very stilted and I was looking forward to Jack Black playing a somewhat serious character (which, unfortunately, didn't happen). I must also talk about about the CG. I'm by no means an effects whore, but this movie really let me down. How long ago was Jurassic Park again? The dinosaurs in JP still look incredibly realistic compared to those in KK. The animation in some of the scenes was just plain awful. I cringed almost every time Kong swung around. The airplanes were inexcuseably attrocious. They looked like something from a PS2 game and they didn't even move in a realistic fashion. It was really jarring when juxtaposed with the beauty of a sitting King Kong. Pros: Certain action scenes Cons: Crappy animation with most of the CGI Cheesy, poorly performed dialogue Length
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 16:45 |
|
|
Naomi Watts was spectacularly hot. In my opinion, Kong was the best actor to appear on screen the entire movie. Kong vs. T. Rex is the best fight I can remember seeing in recent movie history. Pure awesome. There are also some nasty little cridders on Skull Island that made me literally squirm in my seat. Uncircumsized penis with teeth anyone? On the other hand, the movie was too long. The opening 1/3 (pre-Kong) just drug along. The middle third was excellent, then, the end dragged on again. The movie suffered from too much mediocre action/fighting, which diluted the effect of the few really awesome action scenes. I give it a 3/5
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 18:49 |
|
|
1 hour of interminable boredom, followed by 2 hours of being punched in the loving face repeatedly with mindnumbingly pointless CGI battles and chases. The only movie in years I actually regret seeing -- an absolute waste of time and money that only a 16-year-old could enjoy. The only thing I enjoyed was the homoerotic Billy Budd relationship between the old black sailor and the virile young dandy. 1/5 admiral_baby fucked around with this message at Dec 16, 2005 around 22:09 |
| # ? Dec 16, 2005 21:56 |
|
|
First of all, let me note that I did enjoy the movie. Now, down to the nitty gritty; There are a few things I hate in films; Jack Black, when Jurassic Park is considered "Reference Material", and when it's so long saught and graphically explosive that I actually miss sitting at home in my bed reading a book. Now, as we all know, King Kong is a remake of an apocalyptic film which revolutionized the face of action in movies. So I think - "Who better for the job than Peter Jackson?". Well, as I found out just a mere 3 hours ago, there are probably a handfull of people who could have made a better example of a sucessful remake than him. His extrodinary wide angle shots and cinematic excellence really just erased my mind upon my first screening of Lord of the Rings, and it still does to this day. But, the difference between King Kong and Lord of the Rings is that King Kong isn't based on a world wide best-selling novel, which has dominated the world of enthusiasts since it's debut many, many years ago. Yes, that's right - King Kong is based of a movie. An old movie, 1933 to be more specific. Back in the days of when our grandparetns were still alive and kickin'. "So what's wrong with that" you ask? It's simple - In the early 1900's the consumer market was different, what people thought was exciting then, would be considered daft, or even just mere poo poo in comparison to the stunning computer animation technology and talented actors we have today. If you have by any chance gotten to see the 1933 flick lately, you may have noticed one thing. It was, like I said, quite a bland performance. So, what Peter Jackson thinks one day is this - "I wonder; Would people would notice if I took a seemingly un-spectacular movie, which has once been remade before and were to add some Lord of the Rings-esque fireworks and top notch actors" There are just so many unnecessary features to this film which end up simply dragging it down at it's final moments. For god's sake, I am utterly baffled by how he managed to steroid-blast a film which everyone found to be "Alright" but cherished in their hearts mainly because it's still considered a classic - and turn it into what some people wouldn't mind calling a "Film of epic proportions" It's too much! I can't take it. Seriously though, dispite my plainly evil and biased views on this movie I must confess, this movie, just like the Lord of the Rings, is stunning. During the course of the presentation I almost forgot about Jack Black's dim-wittedness. So, in conclusion - My overall feeling is this; Yes, you probalby won't find a director more capable of creating movies which will stunn you and carry you into a new realm of insanity. However, in this case, I have to say that he quite plainly went overboard. The graphics, the tears, the trillions of oversized-mammals bouncing around, the massive wall on the island, it's all there - But unfortunatly King Kong isn't the in-depth movie Peter Jackson thought it was before he began filming, the concept of the 1933 feature was so simple that anyone would understand it - There weren't a lot of details, nor were there 3 hours of footage. What he was left with was this watered down sci-fi pizza dough which he stretched so much, and put so much topping on it that when it was finally out of the oven, it could barely be recognizable as the "Pizza" that it once was, and was now a bitter, steroid-blasted, tear jerker. So, what have we learned here. If you're going to make a long, complicated movie - base it on a long complicated movie, or better, a long and complicated book. Then you will save yourself the trouble of having to spend an extra $30m explaining to people why half of the movie is a landscape shot of vast forest and an oversized ape. I give King Kong a 2.5 out of a possible 5.
|
| # ? Dec 17, 2005 04:16 |
|
|
I just got back from seeing it, and long story short, it's a great film. However, I will concede that it WAS too long. But unlike a lot of you, I don't think it was the beginning that took too long. The movie had an excellent pace up until they took Kong to New York, THEN it starts getting a little slow. Don't forget, the original also had a slow buildup, and I think Jackson did a great job introducing the characters and story. The movie only starts dragging in the last 45 minutes or so. If they had shaved that down, it would have been perfect. There was no reason for this film to be longer than, say, 2 and a half hours at the most. The characters are a mixed bag. On one hand, I probably felt more sorry for this Kong than the original, and Carl and Anne are both fleshed out quite nicely. You understand Carl's desperation, and why he MUST MAKE THIS FILM. Anne Darrow is also very likeable (as well as hot). I'm not quite sure why they decided to make Jack Driscoll a playwright rather than a first mate. Maybe to make him more of an underdog or something. I didn't really care, though. On the other hand, the whole business with the movie star guy, as well as with Hayes and the young kid, was all completely useless. Jackson should've cut that stuff and put more development into Captain Englehorn, who was more important to the backstory. Skull Island, however, is chock full of badass. First, there are the natives, who are the scariest goddamn extras you'll ever see in your life. They are vastly superior to the natives in the original 'King Kong', who were played basically as racist African stereotypes. In this film, the design team actually put an effort into making them a unique culture, which is good from both from a politically correct and a creative point of view. Then there's the environments of Skull Island, which are beautiful and alien at the same time. It's not just a generic jungle island; it's got a design and style all its own. The rocks, the jungle, everything looks amazing and richly detailed. Such a lush setting, and it's packed with a wide variety of scary-as-poo poo inhabitants. You'll realize why the natives are so hosed up when you see what they have to deal with. A lot of people are complaining about the action, but to be honest, I didn't really notice anything wrong except for maybe the brontosaurus stampede, and even that wasn't too bad. Kong's fight with the T.rexes was loving awesome, and the audience was squealing during the insect scenes. Everyone in the theatre was horrified when Andy Serkis' character gets his head bitten by the giant maggot . The climax was likewise great, but because earlier parts had taken too long (the stuff with Anne and Kong and the snow, for instance), it kind of suffers. But other than that, I personally felt that the action was very exciting. Some people say it was over-the-top, but I don't think anything was out of place, given the context of the story. It's supposed to be an exciting pulpy adventure, folks. The special effects are completely flawless. I don't know WHAT THE gently caress other guys are bitching about. I guess when it's all tallied up, Peter Jackson's 'King Kong' is a good movie, but not an awesome one. It's just too long, when you get right down to it. If it was about 30 to 45 minutes shorter, it would help dramatically. I guess after making 'TLOTR', Pete felt like this had to be a huge epic, since he was so in love with it. But some stories are better when they're shorter, and sometimes less is more. The original 'King Kong' is a very tight and solid flick; this one is more bloated and ungainly. And when combined with some of the character stuff I mentioned earlier, it drags the movie down a bit. Peter Jackson's movie is probably one of the better films of 2005, but it's not an utterly perfect masterpiece. 4.0 out of 5.5. The Kung-fu Yeti fucked around with this message at Dec 17, 2005 around 07:05 |
| # ? Dec 17, 2005 06:53 |
|
|
This is certainly not a masterpiece or an epic. Peter Jackson's movie, without the benefit of working from an already established, well-written literary framework, faulters. The intimate scenes between Kong and Ann were brilliant. Jackson really nails it with the character of Kong and the movie is great when it's actually focused on him. Unfortunately the scenes with Kong are not nearly the length of the movie. This movie is seriously too long. I can stand a long movie, but the problem here is that the scnes without Kong in them suck. I wouldn't have a problem with the scenes not featuring Kong if the characters weren't so two-dimensional and the situations so cliche. Jackson pads the movie with the friendships amongst both the movie crew and the ship crew. Most of the time spent on showing the ship crew revolves around a vaguely homoerotic subplot between a mentor deckhand named Hayes and a mysterious deckhand named Jimmy that goes nowhere and would have benefited the movie by being cut. Hayes dies and I couldn't bring myself to care and I don't even remember if Jimmy lives or not. I last remember seeing him on one of the boats heading back to the main ship then never again after that. There's another unintentionally funny, vaguely homoerotic scene between the ship crew members when the cook Lumpy and another crewmember from the ship named Choy that made me wonder just what Jackson meant when Brody's Driscoll tells Ann to look at the subtext. There were a couple of times that were just plain retarded where the characters make a huge dramatic statement about what they stand for, only to come back moments later completely contradicting themselves in a heroic act of saving everyone from certain doom. I should have guessed some boneheaded writing was headed my way when everyone aboard the ship repeatedly and knowingly walked strainght to their deaths in order to save Ann, whom they have known for barely a week. While the action setpieces on the island were great, it left me wondering whether it was more important to tell the story of King Kong or try to top Jurassic Park. I got that the island is a brutal place for Kong to have survived after Jackson waved his FX penis at Spielberg with Kong's battle against three T-Rexes. All the other creature battles didn't involve Kong and while cool to look at, were wastes of times that didn't serve the story. It could be argued that the scenes were there to see the film and boat crews struggling, but their stories really didn't matter, they were just padding to the run time. Had those characters mattered we would have seen resolutions to their stories. Even if I saw any resolutions I still would have found it hard to care because the characters were underwritten and boring. They were ultimately just there to give the various wildlife on the island something to eat, and the ones that weren't eaten were just forgotten about as the movie went on. As far as performances go, Naomi Watts was great and elevated the entire movie every time she was on screen. If it wasn't for her this movie would have been worse off. Adrien Brody does solid work here. He does the best he can from what's written for his part. As the film goes on we learn he's in ridiculously great shape for a writer, he has the ability to flawlessly track Ann despite being unarmed going through a jungle with man-eating creatures everywhere you turn, and lastly we learn later on he's also an expert driver. When it was announced that Jack Black would be starring in this, it was a bit of a head scratcher. But I trusted Peter Jackson because he nailed the casting in Lord of the Rings. Jack Black sucks here. It's a one note performance where he goes from loud and crazy maniac to quiet and crazy maniac. The final line of dialogue in the hands of a real actor would have been resonant. Instead his detached, flat, unemotional delivery ironically sums up the entire movie. Short changing the narrative in favor of an excessive amount of CG battles, while those visuals were beautiful, ultimately kill this Kong. 3/5
|
| # ? Dec 17, 2005 07:54 |
|
|
This movie is truly excellent, a solid 5.0 As stated before, the Kong/Watts dynamic is very impressive. This movie will make you laugh, it will make you hold your breath in suspense, it will make you squirm in your seat in revulsion and horror, and depending on how soft you are, you just may cry too. Kong felt like a real character in the movie. He was a real character in the movie. It's the most stunning and believable AI actor I've seen since, well, Gollum. Jackson has done it again in this regard. I would go so far as to call this movie an epic. It's got every kind of scene you could ever want. Chases, awesome fights, dinosaurs and tommy guns, believable romance, a good dose of humor, creepy crawlie monsters, breathtaking cinematography, a good musical score -- this is what moviegoing should be! Hats off to Peter Jackson.
|
| # ? Dec 17, 2005 08:13 |
|
|
Ok you will get your moneys worth watching this film, but my problems with the film are: King Kong has to much Peter Jackson. Well you guessed it King Kong + LOTR. Peter Jackson says "gently caress You Writers, Editors, and Critics this is my film". Bad CGI Jurassic Park was made like 10 years ago, why this move looks like it. The integration of the real world and CGI was poor at best. Also when the boat leaves New York, don’t look at the port because it looks really bad. I swear some objects didn’t have complete textures. Characters Main characters underdeveloped, useless characters are overdeveloped (First Mate and Black Guy I'm looking at you), and even worse some characters broke their roles for example the Actor. Editing Yeah it needed some really bad. The movie was about 45 minutes to long. Most of the time was wasted on the stuff above; the rest was on extreme fast action blurred close-ups of "scariness". Camera shots like that belong in zombie movies. King Kong Doesn’t Go Boom The most memorable scene from the original is King Kong falling of the building and you get to watch him fall all the way to the street, you don’t get to see that because the chick is more important. So Peter, either stick to zombie movies, or listen to your writers and editors next time. 2.5/5 Also, Kong Dies
|
| # ? Dec 17, 2005 21:59 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 02:12 |
|
|
Yeah, it's true this movie has a lot going against it. The subplot with the crewhand and the experienced mariner was pretty awful, some scenes were disjointed, the CGI was easy to spot sometimes, BUT: nitpicking and raving about how bad this movie is just because OH SHOCKING THE RAPTORS DON'T BEHAVE LIKE THEY WOULD HOW COULD ADRIEN BRODY BLAH BLAH just seems ridiculous because this is clearly a tongue-in-cheek Hollywood escapist movie. Jackson went all out in creating a kind of experience that would thrill the audience of 2005 like the original thrilled people in the thirties. I felt like I was twelve and watching Independence Day again. Amazing effects and action sequences, non-stop thrills, good acting... I loved it, despite its flaws. 4.5/5
|
| # ? Dec 17, 2005 23:43 |
|
