I loved the old "king kong", one of the biggest monster movies made, the new "king kong" i think will be absolutely amazing. Peter Jackson has a knack for epics, he(Mr. Jackson) has said he likes transporting people into other worlds, where fantasy is reality sort of thing. and I think(hope) he has done that with "king kong". i hope to see this film A.S.A.P. is anyone else anticipating this film as much as I am?

Well it does look very promising, and I hope it stands up to all the hype it's getting. I'm sure it will though, Peter Jackson is a genius with filmaking and Jack Black is friggen awesome!

Unless I'm mistaken, for me this new King Kong has Godzilla 1998 written all over it that had Matthew Broderik in it, directed by Roland Emmerich. Peter Jackson, though, has a much better track record, but another, bigger King Kong movie, I just am not myself interested in it. Whether or not the general public will be is something to be seen.

From the previews of this movie, I just don't get it...we all know the story, except now they've added a lot more stuff as if that's supposed to make it better. Now we have dinosaurs Jaws (1975) except without the finese. For me, my favorite Ape movie is the more personable and believable Mighty Joe Young (1998). While King Kong (1933) on the big screen might have been something specular, nowadays, a big ape just doesn't seem to have the same impact considering what we have already been through with godzillas and such. Personally, I think its day has past. Give me instead Gorillas in the Mist (1988) any time, a meaningful, emotionally powerful and riveting animal movie.

You better watch out or Kong'll getcha!

quote:

mark f "Forum Moderator" Jedi posed:

You better watch out or Kong'll getcha!

The Force has sent a message that is the best message I've received since I've been on this site.

I know I should be excited, but I am not... anything I should know about it to get me pumped up?

quote:

Originally posted by Elle:
I know I should be excited, but I am not... anything I should know about it to get me pumped up?

King Kong has the ability to shoot lasers from his eyes in this remake.

Just kidding. I'm not really excited about it either. Peter Jackson has a great gift for big budget CGI movies, but I for one would like to see him use it to tell an original story.

Here's my overlong, undernourished comments on the Midnight showing last night I caught with my wife. I've got to get ready for another viewing this afternoon with my daughter since she had to sleep for school.

King Kong, 1933 version, 104 minutes.

King Kong, 2005 version, 180 minutes.

Size does matter I guess.

It kind of reminds me of DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY, the original Frederic March version was like 80 minutes, and the Brad Pitt/Martin Brest remake was like 3 hours.

I hope KK proves to be better than the DTAH remake. Sounds like it is, if the metacritics' scorecard can be believed.

You forgot the '76 version which clocked in at 134 minutes.

I can't wait for the 4 hour version in 2025.

Current estimates project that King Kong will make between $44 and $48 million this week and $60 to $64 million for the first five day opening (since last Wedneday). If the high estimate holds up this movie will rank about 58th in terms of largest box office turnouts. Of historical interest, Godzilla which opened in 1998 (over seven years ago) made even more money in its opening with $55,726,951. Just this year, Batman Begins, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Fantastic Four, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Longest Yard, Madagascar, The War of the Worlds all opened with largest box office receipts.

Under normal circumstances, I'd have nothing to say. People have the right to their opinions. Yeah, I have my sacred cows and my pariahs, but believe it or not, I can't really tell you who they are. Many people can tell me who they are, but often what they tell me is that they're telling me more about them than me.

The MC User comments are ripe with 0-2 ratings from people who have your best interests at heart. This is nothing new, but most people can tell the difference between a silk purse and a sow's ear.

This is another long-winded diatribe saying that people have a right to their opinion about anything, but don't we, as readers, have the right to a considered opinion?

If PJ's King Kong is worth less than a 6, at least as entertainment, from ANYONE, then I have to believe the rater has axes to grind, a hidden agenda, hasn't seen the film, had NO business ever watching the film, hates the original King Kong, has nothing better to do than try to build up themselves anonymously on the Net, or ALL OF THE ABOVE.

I already posted my thoughts. I don't have to be correct, but the mindless, autopilot vindictiveness comes off as the equivalent of racism and sexism. I'm truly sorry if you think you need to inflict hatred on an honest entertainment which only wants to let you pass some "free" time as innocently and child-like as possible.

I wish everyone a great holiday and new year.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

Attempted to see movie yesterday, but wife was just too plain tired after traveling 50 miles for shopping and visiting a huge sportsman store out of the County. Now it's snowing and snowing and snowing. I really don't want to see this movie, but I really need to see what the interest is all about. It's really a curious phenomenon. I didn't think the turnout was going to be that gigantic (no pun intended) which has turned out to be the case, but it looks like the movie's quality may be for real as the movie continues to hold up well over the passed five days.

Well I saw the movie last night and I am very pleased with the movie. I was hearing from people who already saw it saying that CGI wasn't as good as expected and that Jack Black wasn't good for the part. I disagree with both. CGI was some of the best I've ever seen and Jack Black did have some shaky part, though I thought he did great. I have to say though that the first probably 45 minutes of the movie are kinda boring, but it sets up the rest of the exciting movie. Also I noticed to many times the movie went to Ann and Kong just staring at each other, which was kinda weird. The last 30 minutes of the movie is spectacular. Overall great movie, but 30 minutes too long!

I'll give it an 8.5 out of 10

Thank you, Brian! I basically give it the same rating as you do. 85/A/100/50,000+ Movies/

That was a good idea Tabuno for you to wait on Kong if you and/or your wife were tired.

Since the subway workers are still out on strike -- about to come back in -- I was restricted to what was playing at the only multi-plex within walking distance. Despite its 16 screens, the only thing that appealed to me was the giant ape.

I've gotta say, shame on Peter Jackson. With all the capital he has built up with the success of THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and the $3B in ticket sales, this is what he chose to direct? You have got to be kidding.

This film goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Will someone please explain to me why this film has to be 180 minutes? Jackson had his FX toys and like a kid in a candy store went beserk. An hour -- at least -- could be cut out of this film.

And I didn't even think the FX was so hot. Much of it was a rip off of JURASSIC PARK, a much better film by a better director than Jackson.

What was the point of that scene with Brody and Black and all the bugs? That set piece could go. And that scene where the dinosaurs chase them. That could go. And could we please tighten up the first act of the film where the journey to the island. And the ending when the leave the island was lame.

The most outstanding thing in the film was Brody's nose. I couldn't believe how big it was. It was more impressive than the big ape.

Jackson's best movie remains HEAVENLY CREATURES with a pre-TITANIC Kate Winslett.

I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it. I can see where it might be too long for some folks, maybe some scenes could have been shortened and included with the dvd release of the film. Whenever I watch the original version, I complain to myself how I'd like to have seen more of Ann Darrow's story and more action while on Skull Island. I can no longer complain.

Naomi Watts was incredible, as always. The early part of the film that introduced her character was essential, I thought, to making her credible with Kong, later in the film. I'm glad this version was more of a beauty and beast bonding film than merely beast scaring the beauty. What I considered to making this film a success was the chemistry between Kong and Ann Darrow. There was much chemistry between them, much more than in the previous versions.

The special effects were just right and not over the top. I don't consider Jack Black and Adrien Brody miscast in their roles, as I read somewhere. For whatever else was going on in the film, nothing compared to or overshadowed any scenes when Watts & Kong were shown, togather or seperate.

quote:

Originally posted by ChrisFromAstoria:
What was the point of that scene with Brody and Black and all the bugs?

The point of that scene was that there had been a "Lost Giant Spider Scene" cut out of the original, so Peter Jackson felt compelled to recreate it (even though no one has seen the original). This kind of sums up the entire movie...a wet dream by someone who made too much money off another crappy movie/set of movies (Lord of the Rings). Sometimes director's wet dreams can be good (Tarantino + Kill Bill), but this was really just too much. I just don't get Peter Jackson. It seems critics like his movies more because they feel they are supposed to. They say stuff like "The three hours just flew by," while I am stuck looking at my watch every five minutes.

Personally, I knew I wasn't going to like this movie. What surprised me after finally seeing this movie earlier tongith was how much I didn't like it. Even in trying to locate this movie on this site, I didn't know where to look. I tried horror, the science fiction and fantasy first.

I found so much in this movie to complain about. There's the characters themselves, the weak character development and the too brief time spent on the beauty and the beast and too much focus on violence, gore, and grisly death, horror and thrill rides more to the liking of some theme park than a legimiate full-feature, overly long movie. The manipulation in the script just so the action could continue on and on and on into mindless special effects that had no real purpose except to attempt to make us interested in the movie with its bigger and longer the better.

For me this was the most boring, cinematically inconsistent and difficult to sit through movie in many years. If this is what the film-oing public really likes in its King Kong movies, I fear that our taste needs a serious review. I feel that Naria has a lot more to offer both intellectually, artistically, and ethically.