I thought that this was the worst waste of 200 million, second only to possibly Pearl Harbor. The special effects were amazing, but thats granted considering as how Peter Jackson did the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy (which I also disliked). Plus, he focuses way too much on the special effects of the dinosaurs, humongous insects, big bats, etc. and doesn't spend nearly enough time on the developing roles between Naomi v Kong and Naomi v Adrien.

I was also very disturbed by Jack Black playing the power hungry director. Now, I've never seen the original, but I would expect they wouldn't have cast the same goofball character who has yet to play a serious role in a movie for KING KONG. I mean, the whole time I expected Jack to start prancing around or make a ridiculously stupid comment.

The storyline was uneven, and the dialogues poorly written. That's why this gets my vote for one of the worst movies of 2005.

I guess I might as well pick a fight over here too. King Kong gets my vote for BEST film of the year, and I'm not on anybody's payroll (you hear that, Spielberg?), and besides that, I'm an old fart who thinks most modern effects-driven movies are utter wastes. The thing is that even though Kong is crammed with effects, it doesn't have anywhere near as many effects scenes as it does well-written, well-acted, character-driven scenes.

Let's see. I'll paraphrase: the movie sucks because it cost a lot of money, Peter Jackson stinks, and Jack Black ain't no serious actor? You didn't happen to notice how Jack Black looked like some other madman director named Orson Welles, did ya?

King Kong is one of my favorites of the year. I didn't think it would top the original for me but it did. This version gave me what I thought lacking in the original. Having been disgusted with the '76 remake, Jackson's film made up for that disappointment in aces.

quote:

Mark f posted:

The thing is that even though Kong is crammed with effects, it doesn't have anywhere near as many effects scenes as it does well-written, well-acted, character-driven scenes.

It's almost as if we saw two different movies. Where Mark f saw many well-written, well-acted, character-driven scenes, I saw a multitude of many, many, long, long, long special effect scenes from nasty looking natives, King Kong and the dinosaurs, to Adrien Brody and a critters, to Adrien Brody and King Kong, to beast vs. distant, faceless military combatants. What was left? I really couldn't see but 15 minutes of quality acting and script writing. We need specifics.

quote:

Mark f posted:

Jack Black ain't no serious actor? You didn't happen to notice how Jack Black looked like some other madman director named Orson Welles, did ya?

What I was hoping to see from Jack Black was a distinct personality, different from his usual performances that would allow the audience to disassociate himself from his past baggage of comedic performances. One of the brilliant performances of like kind was Leonardo DiCaprio's superb performance in The Aviator 2004 that distinguished himself from his earlier younger, carefree performances in Titanic (1997), The Beach (2000), even Catch Me If You Can (2002). Instead, I can't get over the stereotypical, almost seemingly cloying close-up of Mr. Black's face and his eyes as if we are supposed to see deeply into some mysterious soul. I didn't find Mr. Black's performance in anyway deep, serious, having any depth. One of the few highlights in the movie, however, was towards the end when the perfect scene with the silent, visual exchange between Mr. Black's character and his assistant while King Kong was on display. That was such a perfectly crafted, directed shot, one of the best of its kind. Unfortuately, I didn't see Mr. Black's character as complex and the convoluted transformation as you suggest as most of the movie was taken up with action and thrills to the underdevelopment of the characters. It is with Titanic that the balance between character and action was well made, neither made at the expense of the other and in many cases each added the strength to the action or character.

just like most movies, there are very different views and opinions of it... Personally, I think it was a bit too long and it spent too long on some aspects while not enough on others. But on a whole, I think the movie had a lot of heart and was well-acted, even by Jack Black, who I think was well casted as Denham. Kong gets my vote as one of the best movies of the year. Not the best, but it's up there.

quote:

LordSmoogsbottomIII posted:

But on a whole, I think the movie had a lot of heart and was well-acted, even by Jack Black, who I think was well casted as Denham.

I finally got around to seeing North Country (2005) late last night and there is a scene at the bar where Woody Harrelson's charcter is urged on to introduce himself to Charlize Theron's character. Just the few seconds of Mr. Harrelson's ambivalence, struggle without words (instead of the Jack Black eye photography) offers up why King Kong has razzle-dazzle but little substance underneath the action and thrills. Peter Jackson in many instances focused so much on action and thrills that he spent significantly less time of performances and the finer nuances that make a movie like North Country so powerful and intimately more satisfying. I admit that Jackson has created some mesmerizing personal, intimate scenes but much too much inconsistently to make this movie a great movie. If we set the standard so low, we will fail how much better this movie could have been and what future movies could strive for.

I thought it was too long. I fell asleep. Also they nicked the music from The Lion King, which i also fell asleep while watching.....

I went to see this movie with a friend of mine. I liked it and my mate hated it. I suppose it depends on what you were expecting or wanted out of the movie. My Friend suggested wiping out most/if not all of the first third of the movie, keep the skull island part and shorten the New York section. He also detested the ice skating. My thoughts are if thats ther kind of movie you like, go watch Jurassic Park. Granted the scenes prior to arriving on skull island could have been edited a little more. Peter Jackson is, however, the master of big budget blockbusters. Just compare it to the latest Star Wars dribble (Lucas). Minority report, War of the Worlds and the second half of AI (Speilberg), plus the other garbage that has been released in the last few years inckuding: Hulk, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, etc...etc...

quote:

Originally posted by MickC:
Peter Jackson is, however, the master of big budget blockbusters. Just compare it to the latest Star Wars dribble (Lucas). Minority report, War of the Worlds and the second half of AI (Speilberg), plus the other garbage that has been released in the last few years inckuding: Hulk, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, etc...etc...

I couldn't agree more that Lucas and Spielberg are now the masters of shitty, overexpensive movies that can't end a movie without pissing off half the audience.

HOWEVER, to say that Jackson is the master of blockbusters would be going too far. One, so far he has used storylines that have already been written and laid out for him. As far as his LoTR directorial debut goes, I thought he could've done a much better job with character depth. I think the same goes with King Kong. Two, I agree that King Kong is meant to be fantastic and grandeur in nature, but Jackson only employed that. He didn't bother with trying to show how their relationships develop at all. There was no flow, no cohesion in the story. Three, you have to admit that the third part of the story took forever to end.

The best way to enjoy that movie is if you're stoned, if you're into that sort of thing. The special effects blow your mind. All the bad acting doesn't seem to matter because Kong breaking that dinosaur's jaw was just so cool.

Well, I've watched it twice, and I wasn't stoned either time. Whose BAD acting are you referring to? You see, I miss lots because I'm not stoned when I watch it. I'll remedy that situation when it comes on DVD, but until then, please enlighten me.

quote:

mark f posted:

Well, I've watched it twice, and I wasn't stoned either time. Whose BAD acting are you referring to? You see, I miss lots because I'm not stoned when I watch it. I'll remedy that situation when it comes on DVD, but until then, please enlighten me.

You make me smile You have such a great sense of humor. "I miss lots because I'm not stoned when I watch it." Such a nice way to begin a new year.

The acting wasn't so much bad as mediocre, I guess. The Jack Black and Adrien Brody characters seemed a little silly to me but I guess they were meant to be like that, the movie was supposed to feel like a 30s movie. I still really enjoyed the movie, one of my favorits of the year.

"King Kong" will be ranked as one of the all-time entertainments---the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" of the 21st century. To me, it was absolutely perfect. Black was well cast, although he didn't take great strides to differentiate Carl Denham from the usual JB-role. Naomi was beeaaauuuutttiiifffuulll. And, unbelievable. As Anne. But, the show-stopper is Andy Serkis as Kong. Tops even the fantastic Gollum. "King King" is my #1 of the year.

Have I ever told you that I loved you, Eccentro?

quote:

EccentricSam posted:

"King Kong" will be ranked as one of the all-time entertainments---the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" of the 21st century. To me, it was absolutely perfect. Black was well cast, although he didn't take great strides to differentiate Carl Denham from the usual JB-role. Naomi was beeaaauuuutttiiifffuulll. And, unbelievable. As Anne. But, the show-stopper is Andy Serkis as Kong. Tops even the fantastic Gollum. "King King" is my #1 of the year.

Only time will tell. I predict that King Kong (2005) will be forgotten by next time this year, as indistinguishable from the many movies that have come out. There will always be more action, more special effects, more of the same stuff that I saw in this movie. The notion of humanity of the big beast is as old as beauty and the beast. I saw very little new nor novel except just a LOT MORE of it as well as the many, many inconsistent plot weaknesses and what I consider to be cinematic weaknesses. Already the general public has been drawn back again to its primary alternative Naria that had a week's head start and the Golden Globes for the most part passed it up for the major awards, except for director. Naria likely will be back for more while King Kong, well it had its final curtain call.

People keep saying that there was no depth in Jack Black's Carl Denhman. Uh. Isn't that part of the point, folks? Carl Denham is a sneaky, charismatic, conniving con-man. He kept his eyes on the camera the whole time. He put people in danger for his greed the whole time. What depth are you expecting to see?

I saw the movie last night and found it to be fantastic and heart-wrenching. I have no desire to see it again because I was so sad for Kong. I think they captured the concept of that sadness between a beast that just wants his girl and society that strips him of any dignity. He doesn't mind, as long as he can look into Ann's eyes. So sad.

quote:

emptyset posted:

People keep saying that there was no depth in Jack Black's Carl Denhman. Uh. Isn't that part of the point, folks? Carl Denham is a sneaky, charismatic, conniving con-man. He kept his eyes on the camera the whole time. He put people in danger for his greed the whole time. What depth are you expecting to see?

Your good and possibly valid comment won't change my mind on how terrible I thought this movie was, even though I too felt saddened for the beast. I really, really appreciate this comment because it's one of the few that really makes sense, though I don't know if I completely accept it. However, the idea that Jack Black's character is essentially shallow could be quite consistently incorporated into the movie and I can't rule out the possibility of your interpretation. Very, very good observation.

quote:

...considering as how Peter Jackson did the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy (which I also disliked).

In my opinion, if anyone doesn't like LOTR, then they wouldnt pretty like any other good movie. LOTR was outta this world.

True that KING KONG focused more on the graphics than the storyline itself, but it was definitely the best movie of 2005 by far.