|
 |
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Know-It-All |
How does that make sense? LOTR being a good movie in your opinion doesn't merit every other good movie to be on the same level as that. Great, you're amazed by all the special effects, but Tolkien didn't have only that in mind when he wrote the books. He wrote about trouble Aragorn had accepting his own right to be king, Denethor's hostility towards Aragorn about his born rights, the entire retribution of the hobbits as they themselves finally learn to cope as their own civilization, etc. etc. Sure, you can't incorporate everything into a movie, but Peter Jackson only put the special effects and great landscapes in. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Such observations that graphics over storyline allow for viewers to prefer such movies always cause me concern. By dumbing down intelligence and obscuring quality for what will continually be an increasingly contemporary pattern of special effects and more and more overstimulation of the senses instead of the mind, I fear where our society is headed. When someone can prefer King Kong to more qualitatively sophisticated and delicate performances than found in such 2005 movies as: North Country Memoirs of a Geisha Crash Munich I sometimes think our world is headed towards the deep end of unmentionable mediocrity. Yeah I get it (King Kong, beast (looks) doesn't necessarily mean bad but beast has emotions and is good and can feel. But compare King Kong to the more intense and human experience of human love and suffering as in Memoirs of a Geish, just makes me feel that there are too many people looking for feel good, escapist entertainment that will make them feel superficially better. |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
I'm still a little confused. Why do you think the original King Kong was made? To make the world a better place? To psychoanalyze apes? Or maybe just to give people a chance to relax, have some thrills and laughs and be entertained? That is, if it's possible for some of them to still be entertained after the first King Kong came out 72 years ago and sent our world hurtling to "unmentionable mediocrity" where everything "good" MUST be deadly dull and serious. If a serious film is good, I applaud it, but the subject matter has never made me think a film was better or worse than I felt it was.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?" |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Well said. Looking at my many, many posts, I'm close to turning into a hypocrite when it comes to subject matter and quality film-making. Yet, I feel there is a fine distinction somewhere between looks, glamour, the "razzle dazzle" from Chicago and the core substance of the script. Comedy romance (You Got Mail, Working Girl), action-adventure (Indiana Jones), drama (Munich, The History of Violence), science fiction (Alien, and who knows where to place Under the Tuscan Sun or Lost in Translation all have various ways we appreciate their presentation. What was presented in 1933 and how it was presented was both frozen in time, in technology, in acting theory at the time along with the human universals (love, misunderstanding, prejudice, sterotypes) that were brought to the screen. Titanic is often used as an example of popular entertainment in a lavish and big picture movie fashion, yet it was critized on a number of cinematic levels. What I'm concerned about in the 2005 King Kong is not simply the focus on graphic or photography but the missed opportunities to tell and present the story much, much better and for us to settle on what I consider to be a six or seven out of ten level instead of demanding more would be to turn my back on improvement and the potential to even more captivating entertainment that can reverberate to our inner core. |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
This has got to be the most utter crap I have ever read for one thing it would be nice if you could spell NARNIA properly, secondly King Kong has been nominated for four technical awards at the Oscars with which I truley believe it has every chance of taking out. I sounds much like I saw a totally different King Kong to you and hey you know what, you are entitled to your opinion. But here are the results of the snap shot of those 536 people out of the 860 votes cast that appear on this site 177 people voted this movie 10/10 63 people voted this movie 9/10 37 people voted this movie 8/10 28 people voted this movie 7/10 26 people voted this movie 6/10 25 people voted this movie 5/10 19 people voted this movie 4/10 21 people voted this movie 3/10 28 people voted this movie 2/10 35 people voted this movie 1/10 77 people voted this movie 0/10 or another words agreed with you But as you can see more people thought this movie was a bit above ok to the best movie of 2005 than actually those that did not like it. So I don't think this movie is going to be forgotten in a hurry and remember this was the second highest grossing movie over the holiday season just slightly behind Chronicles of Narnia which still baffles me as Narnia felt twice as long in terms of to sit through and was no where near as enjoyable. Now the other flaw with what you have stated is King Kong was meet with a lot of critical applause and yes even some of their peers hated it like you as well, but hey even then more critics loved it then hated it. This movie definately does not belong in the worst movie of 2005 and whether you agree or not matters not as one thing is definately assured Peter Jackson's King Kong will go down as the greatest remake ever and that I am certain off. |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
One thing I do not get is for all of you who hated LOTR why did you even bother going and seeing King Kong with which was directed by the same person. As it would only stand to reason that he might just use the same winning formula on King Kong as Mr Jackson used on LOTR.......
You know I really don't get it, going to the movies was meant to be about escaping reality and yet a lot of you criticize this movie for not being real enough or making a lot logical sence.....come on people this is a fantasy movie about a 25 foot ape its not meant to make logical sence or be based on reality. If that is what you were looking for when you went to see King Kong then you should have gone and seen Good Night, Good Luck or Munich etc dont blame PJ or moan to us because stupid little you wasted your precious admission fee as King Kong was never meant for you...... GEEEEZ as for the ammount of special effects used in this movie, once again DUHHH!!!! this is a fantasy movie in order to bring this story to life you would need a truck load of special effects to make the enviroments and the inhabitants in those enviroments seem real WELL wouldn't you!!!! I think the problem with a lot of people to day is that we are never going to be happy unless we have something to criticize, bitch about or straight out put down.....well my challenge to all of you is that if you are all such experts get out from behind that computer screen, peel your fat lazy butt out of your chair and prove to the rest of us that you can do it better. Since the world needs another arm chair critic like it needs a hole in the head |
|||
|
|
Jedi |
Wow!!! Talk about coming out swinging!!! No introductions. No hesitation. Perhaps you missed the portion of registration that deals with personal attacks and low blows. Do you know what the Bible say about personal attacks? It's against them. In the immortal words of Sammy Jackson, "Well allow me to retort." You were very quick to point out the spelling error in a previous post. (Emphasis on ERROR due to the fact that it was only a single spelling error.) Nice!!! You then decided to return fire with a killer rebuttal in which you managed to misspell "definitely" wrong twice and "truly" wrong once. Good Job!!! On top of the world class spelling, your grammar was supercalifrajalisticexpikindergartenish. Congratulations!!! To honor your first post, I took the liberty of polling a few people as well. Here are the results of the snap shot of those 536 people out of the 860 votes cast that appear in my poll. 177 people voted that your post would earn a smiley face in Kindergarten 63 people voted that your post would earn a B- in First Grade 37 people voted that your post would earn a C+ in Third Grade 28 people voted that your post would earn a C- in Fifth Grade 26 people voted that your post would earn a D+ in Seventh Grade 25 people voted that your post would earn a D- in Ninth Grade 19 people voted that your post would earn an F in Eleventh Grade 21 people voted that your post would earn a repeat of Eleventh Grade 28 people voted that your post would earn a third trip through Eleventh Grade 77 people voted that you should avoid glass houses whilst throwing large stones |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
Ok Ok you got me I to have a few spelling mistakes which yeah I will admit is quite ironic given that, that was the first thing I retaliated Tabuno with and I apologise. Yet in terms of personal attack I think not unless you are referring to my opening statement with which in that case I will agree with, otherwise I was just responding in general. "You were very quick to point out the spelling error in a previous post. (Emphasis on ERROR due to the fact that it was only a single spelling error.) Nice!!!" - It was the same word mis-spelt twice. |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
I have spent alot of time passionately stating that I truly love King Kong but never why, and I have read many times throughout this forum that some people just don't get why some of us love this movie so much.
I was one of those people who thought King Kong was a mistake for director Peter Jackson. Fresh from his monumental success and Academy Awards with his work on The Lord of the Rings, I wasn't confident that he would make an equally, much less surpassively, good film. I was proven wrong. Running at a horrendously intimidating 187 minutes, I had my fears that there would be parts where cinematographic drags would consume my interest in the film, especially since there were several such moments in Fellowship of the Ring which Jackson also directed. However, I was pleased to find that dragging moments were limited and the whopping runtime was put to good use... so take care of your bladders prior to watching. I have heard many complaints regarding the first third of the film which takes place in depression-era New York city. It is in this third where the titular beast is nowhere to be seen, but we are introduced to all the other main characters. I have argued many times that a film is not without it's characters and so far in his blockbuster career, Peter Jackson has not disappointed in characterization. It keeps the audience in the hearts and minds of everything that happens onscreen and therefore maintains an engaging atmosphere. All in all, you care about all the fuss and you watch and wait, with interest, for the next scene to unfold. Therefore, in spite of the gargantuan runtime, I was riveted to the screen. Carl Denham (Jack Black... yes, Jack Black) is a struggling filmmaker whose career has been so far almost successful. When he learns his latest film is about to be scrapped, he escapes with his film and crew to continue production. He then learns his lead actress has quit and runs into an out-of-luck vaudeville entertainer, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), who he manages to recruit. He convinces his cast and ship crew that they will be heading for Singapore to film. In reality, he is heading for the mysterious Skull Island whose location he had acquired just as mysteriously. However, his production woes continue as his script is unfinished. He then takes popular theater writer Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to continue the script while the ship sails for Skull Island. Upon reaching the island, they encounter murderous natives who wish to offer Ann to the gigantic beast they worship, Kong. George Lucas once said that special effects are there to aid the telling of a story and should not be the emphasis of a film. Whether or not Lucas himself adheres to this philosophy is debatable, but it is clear that Jackson does. There is not one scene, real or digitally created, in this movie that does not have meaning. There is the scene of a shared sunset between Ann and Kong with volumes of depth. It is this scene, to this reviewer, that escalated the film from ordinary blockbuster to movie greatness. Yes, there have been previous King Kong films. But where they fail is where Peter Jackson's take shines. There is an actual relationship between Kong and Ann, we actually understand why Ann cares so much for him. While Kong would try to impress her with roars and beating his chest, Ann would perform her vaudeville antics (to Kong's.. and ultimately the audience's delight). It is their shared moments of joy that solidify an unusual bond of friendship between Ann and Kong. Ann perhaps realizes that she is Kong's only friend, and hence his entire world. It is the relationship between Ann and Kong that Jackson decided to concentrate his full filmmaking abilities and rightfully so. Yes, there is another sort-of love story between Ann and Jack Driscoll but not one that would outshine the focus of the film. As for the other actors, they were top-notch. I have heard others say Jack Black was frightfully miscast but I think otherwise. His over-the-top acting fits perfectly for Carl, a filmmaker with so much passion for his film that he continually tries to sell it to everyone just so they "get it". King Kong, I would have to say, is one of the best films of the year. Entirely engaging and a delightful and sometimes frightening adventure, it is one with definite heart. From vaudeville opening to heart-wrenching denoument, Jackson has made a film that beats on it's chest and roars. |
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
Speaking of intimidating run-time. No, only joking Melesiah. You beautifully summed it up, and to add to what you said, the movie has a very noble message to boot! An often forgotten message of greed, and power, and the ruthlessness of man. Is Kong really the brutal one in this movie? I think not. So he kills an innocent man, what of it? At least he didn't expose him to savagery and torture him just to become rich for his own good.
|
|||
|
|
Guru |
I'd like to welcome Malasiah to Metacritic.com. So far my prediction of Narnia (spelled with I hope better improvement) appears to be on track and will be back for a sequel in addition to doing significantly better at the box office than King Kong, an entertainment action adventure movie genre whose primary focus is on profitability not dramatic critical acclaim. Unlike Titanic which in addition to having technical and blockbuster status will remain a standard (record) for many years to come, King Kong may receive some technical recognition in March 2006, but I don't believe that the longevity of the movie's other positive impressions will last much beyond the spring. Already, Mission Impossible 3 is on tap in a few months to wash away much of the entertainment crowd and it will be onto bigger and supposedly better things. According to Malasiah's own figures, nearly 40% of those voting only thought this movie was average or worse, a pretty signficant number considering my premise about the limited longevity of this movie's lasting impact on the film audience.
The reason I've brought up the technical issues, cinematographic concerns surrounding this movie really a valid ones regardless of whether a movie is deemed entertainment or drama, poor movie technique does produce lower quality movies and I would have been much more entertained if some of the fundamental cinematic problems had been a addressed. When there are so many movies out and one has seen so many movies, sometimes it becomes much more apparent to spot problems with a movie. Just like the Eskimos have twenty, thirty, or more differents words for snow than Americans because of their experience with it, so too, with movies, the more one watches, the more one appreciates even the smallest blemishes that sometimes can create a gigantic blot on the entire canvass of a movie production. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Nickel-Z posted:
I understand where you are coming from, yet the simple and sometimes forgotten message you've mentioned has been brought to the screen much more effectively in other movies such as Mighty Joe Young (1998) without having to resort to all sorts of technical special effects and action-adventure display that in fact detracts from the importants message you've mentioned or Gorillas in the Mist (1988) whose performance by Signourney Weaver (Alien, 1979) won the Golden Globes for best actress focused much more dramatically and emotionally on the message you feel is important. Even a movie such as Frankenstein (1931) reveals that the message you believe is so important really is just a remake from 74 years ago and was even more effective considering the contrast between a monster and little girl compared to the contemporary scene between big ape and a beautiful lady. |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
I agreed with everyone who said it was the worst movie of the year, until I realised how freaking funny this movie is...
Okay so almost everyone slept through the first hour, and threw up during the second, that it very understandable but did anyone thing to ask themselves, "How the heck did they get a 5 ton ape on an 8 ton ship?" I was very dissapointed that they cut out a whole hour's worth of plot there, just like they did in jurassic park the lost world. So then they get to new york, people think for a second, there is no gorrilla lover relationship shown here, this is flat out romance story (dancing on the ice) Kinda reminds me a little bit of jane goodall. I really think king kong could've used some subtitles for that last scene: "Ann, I don't think this is going to work out between us, I'm a 25 foot ape and well, you, you're a blonde" I laughed during the last part everyone is crying and I'm imagining jack black as a bum on the street running up to people screaming "BEAUTY KILLED THE BEAST!!! BEAUTY KILLED THE BEAST" Ok so I got kicked out of a theater, and I'll get booed off of this blog |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
Go ahead! Have a good time. I'm secure enough in my feelings to let others have a rip!
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?" |
|||
|
|
Jedi |
As many others have noted, the movie is easily one of the best movies of the year. |
|||
|
|
Slacker |
I thought King Kong had a great mix of Action scenes with lots of CGI and amazing graphics AND well written Character driven scenes. Probably the best film I saw in 2005, just amazing in general!!
LOTR the best Film Trilogy ever IMO too. Peter Jackson is a genius. King Kong left me thinking WOAH. We're going to hell anyway let's travel First Class!! |
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
It can be argued that others have done it more effectively, etc. I'm not really here to argue that, because I've seen plenty of love story films that bring a new twist the the genre and in that sense, are highly enjoyable. I feel the same about King Kong, of course the basic message has been done before in other (whoa what a coincidence) monkey films. Look man, the original ape was King Kong, so this remake doesn't have to prove itself against other apes, just the original film its attempting to recreate for a new audience.
You seem to think Mighty Joe Young was better, and thats very debatable. Your argument of course, relies on your opinions, and we could argue those for days. Anyways, of course Peter Jackson's big-budget remake was unecessary, but HIS dedication to the film, the fact that he was cooped up after filming, and ended up losing so much weight! THIS WAS HIS BABY. His dedication and love pours out of the screen, it can be seen. This is no paper-thin blockbuster simply put out to make money (Titanic, Armageddon) this is a labor of love. It's easy to assume that his intentions were to exploit the giant beast of the film to make large amounts of money in front of big audiences. Look through that, thats too much irony! No, he loves the story, he tried to film it when he was a child. Argue whether its effective -fine. NEVER say he did it to make tons of money. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
For an individual so dedicated to making in your opinion an "unnecessary" film raises a problematic question. I would be concerned about a director's love and dedication under such circumstances where an individual in his attempt to make an "unnecessary" homage to a purported classic could be so emotionally tied and moved that his ability to make a technically superb film of such a classic would be in reasonable doubt of which I have made attempts to do so.
If one is interested to attempt to recreate King Kong for a new audience, the best way to do so would be I would suspect would be to gain a large audience following that would be reflected in boxoffice receipts representing a lot of new people. Thus, in my opinion, it would see Narnia has been much more successful in bringing a film with a Christian mythology to a new generation than King Kong has been able to bring back the giant ape whether or not one takes into consider the technical components of a film. |
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
Tabuno, I know I'm guilty of it too, but I can't understand exactly what you were trying to say. I'm sure you were just in a hurry, and I'm really glad someone responds to my posts (ha ha) but you are going to have to clear up a few things.
If you meant that he should've been able to do a good film if he loved the original, I completely agree. Of course, we disagree on whether he succeeded or not. When making a film, you generally have a deadline, and I think that some of the technical issues you have with the film might be because of that. Regardless, I loved it, it is a visual spectacle. I literally felt transported to the island, and my eyes only left the screen a few times to look at two very attractive girls in my row. Their eyes -however- never left the screen. It would seem to me that because of the animation, and a Jurassic Park-like entrance into theaters, you are skeptical in awarding it your acclaim. |
|||
|