|
 |
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Guru |
I also thought King Kong was wonderful. Not my very best of the year, but in the top ten no doubt.
------------------------------------------------------- Awkwardness happening to someone you love! |
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
Very well put, or doesn't see something you do, right? If you add in THAT, then I completely agree. |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
Actually, tabuno sees ALL KINDS of things I don't see. I hope that the average person sees the Real Movie. Then again, many average people are apparently predisposed to not see or like it. Too bad, and that's what I take from this "difference of opinion".
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?" |
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
Yeah, how the hell did that happen anyways? It's really been a failure... and it didn't do anything except be better than your average blockbuster film. I think it is the epic length, and the fact that it doesn't call out to the large audience that LotR did. Also, if you weren't a film-fan like you and myself (and most on this site) you would be thrown off by the advertisements, which did suck. They didn't ring true with the film, but actually seem to agree with tabuno's opinion of the movie: "Big, Loud, Generic, Technical Wizardry, Nothing more!"
I think that is more interesting than arguing why it did/didn't suck. Maybe instead, why there isn't as big of numbers arguing either side as there are in the LotR boards. |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
It is one of the highest-grossing films of the year, but too many people look at films from some box-office BS or some, "It sucks! because it's supposed to be better than I could ever really understand POV". Then again, when I read peoples' "reviews", I often get the feeling they never watched the film because they're just babbling some "company line", although it's difficult to understand who the hell the company is. Are there really people out there who want to tell others that they shouldn't see one of the best films ever made for themselves? Oh sorry. I think...I mean, I know that PJ's King Kong is a great film.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?" |
|||
|
|
Guru |
If a person does something out of love, sometimes a person can become so driven, so passionate, so close to a project that it narrows the vision and allows for such an intensity as to allow for technical omissions to occur which in my opinion seems to have happened (the technical oversights or commissions or omissions). Visually, I think the movie in many places is spectacular except for the sunset scenes I've mentioned before. I can agree with you on the overall look of the movie and neither did I really look away from the screen both times I watched it. However, in my looking I saw many things that unfortunately came to distract me. Some of the animation you refer to consisted of an obviously painted scene of the City that began to create a dark blot on realism of the live-action movie and unfortunately came so early in the movie so that the same kind experience befell me like what happened to Sasha Cohen in her two falls at the beginning of her Silver Medal Olympic performance in figure skating. If one is to contrast or compare King Kong and Jurassic Park I kind of like the idea (one that I hadn't directly thought of before). The problem I had with King Kong is that the extended scenes just went on and on and on much longer than they really needed to and instead of the superlative fascinating use of dinosaurs in their complex interweaving nature in this film than in Jurassic Park Peter Jackson went far out of his way to try to impress the audience with needless special effect action that in a future film will easily be surpassed. I will, however, concede that the movie genre of Jurassic Park that was a bit childish and in fact dumb but popular with family audiences and entertaining allows for some leeway to be given to King Kong but not quite as much (as the target audience was not young). If I was younger say a teenager or young adult, even a child, King Kong and its presentationn would have been much higher of my list and the technical problems easily overlooked. Yet the overall presentation seemed more directed at adults oddly enough, especially considering the lack of children roles, the intensity of the horror scenes, and the focus on adult female love and the beast. |
|||
|
|
Know-It-All |
Warning: Possible Spoilers…
I finally rented this movie the other night and… good grief. My wife and I tried to watch the movie, but by the time Kong was chasing after the third T-Rex, I knew it was time to shut this movie off. I didn’t watch the rest of it and never plan to. The movie consisted of “setting the stage” for God knows how long and when the movie really begins… we’re treated to action sequences that NEVER end. The herd of dinosaurs trampling those poor schmucks in the narrow canyon was not amazing… it was down right silly. Meeting the natives for the first time was pretty cool, but after seeing the 58th close up of yet another crazed tribal person… I thought I was going to puke. Those that liked this movie… liked it before they even saw it. Me, I had no expectations before seeing it and thought the movie was horrible. The acting was fine, and in some cases there were brilliant moments (up until the point where I stopped watching), but I can’t forgive how poorly edited this film was (one of my beefs with the LOTR trilogy, as well). Is this the way Hollywood is going now? …a half-hour of story with 2 hours of special effects? I think Peter Jackson was having a competition with George Lucas as to who could make the longest action sequences and pile on the most special effects to a point where the special effects aren’t really all that… special anymore. PS – Was it just me… or did the close ups of Ann in Kong’s swinging arms look gentle and broad while the full body shots consisted of shaking the poor woman so violently that she surely would have been knocked unconscious and seriously injured? I mean, Kong ran a bit on all fours with her in his hand. Can you say, squished actress? I think the 3D animator in charge of those full body Kong sequences was having a little too much fun at the expense of believability. Which leads me to another thing… I think green screen computer effects are too hard to pull off for actors and directors with any consideration for the final impact of the scene. The shot of Jack going back for Carl (with his tripod in hand) in the stampede resulted in a sequence of the most horrifically intense scene ever (storywise, that is… it looked so fake) with huge brutish sauropods trampling the ground all around them and Adrien’s character (Jack) delivers a line of something like… “Hurry up… come over here…” or something like that with such stern passiveness that you’d have to give the actor more credit and assume Peter Jackson told Adrien Brody that the herd was way off in the distance… unlike the final scene where mayhem surrounded them at arms length and the noise was so immense that screaming at each other would hardly be audible. Okay… I’m nitpicking. Suffice it to say… this movie could have been great, but was too stupidly put together. Jurassic Park… good! King Kong… Bad! |
|||
|
|
Apprentice Guru |
Totally disagree with King Kong being in the catagory of "Worst of 05". Yes, it was 30 minutes too long. Besides that, it was one of my favorite movies last year, without a doubt.
Last Movie Seen: There Will Be Blood 9/10 Now Playing: COD4 |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Having seen the movie four times now, I'm willing to state that while King Kong has some major problems, it doesn't necessarily rank among the worst of 2005 films - but with all the hype and expectations, the standard the movie had to meet was exceedingly high. |
|||
|
|
"Forum Moderator" Super Bad-Ass Jedi |
And who set that standard, my dear friend?
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?" |
|||
|
|
Slacker First Class |
I enjoyed King Kong but think it suffers terribly in comparison to the original. The original King Kong was powerful. My grandmother forced us kids to turn it off when we watched it in 1957 on TV. She thought the "big monkey" was just horrifying. I knew exactly what she was talking about, but hated having to turn it off. I think Peter Jackson saw the same mesmerizing thing in the original Kong. And he captured that same force--but not in his version of King Kong. He captured it in Lord of the Rings. One of my kids was so horrified during the first half hour of LOTR that I had to take her out of the theater. LOTR had the mesmerizing power of the original King Kong. I know numerous people who report that the original King Kong is their favorite movie of all time. It's certainly one of mine. LOTR surpasses the original King Kong for me and I would hazard to guess it may be the favorite movie of all time for numerous people. I can't see anyone making the same claim for the remake of King Kong.
|
|||
|
|
Guru |
In the movie industry, there are the tent pole movies that are expected to make a lot of movie with their blockbuster status and exciting high-budget driven special effects and recognizable actors. Godzilla (1998) was a good example of a tent pole movie that crashed and burned (though personally, I found the movie better than the critics and general public apparently thought). Before King Kong (2005) came out, it had already been given the same tent pole status. |
|||
|
|
Slacker First Class |
What the fuck was Peter Jackson on when he thought to himself what should i do now to cash in on my sucesss from lord of the ring's i know i will take a great film i loved as a kid throw loads of money at it or should i say at my own personaly owned CG company make money from that and then more money from the film release. Why couldnt he just stay to doing what he has done best from the day he picked up a film camara and thats make original F**king films and not hollywood remake tripe that is a load of wank. up untill i saw this fucking film i was a peter jackson fan who hasnt seen badtaste, braindead, meet the feebles, the frightners and the lord of the rings pluss some other great films he has made but no he makes this pice of american cash in crap
|
|||
|
|
Participant |
Hollywood is starting to be the place where every single film that it produces is packed with special effects and a weak plot. King Kong is a perfect example of this.
|
|||
|
|
Jedi |
Here it is January 2007 & people around me are still discussing "King Kong". So, it seems your prediction in this case was completely wrong. For you to bring up a sequel for "Narnia" is actually pointless, since the movie is based off of a series of books that can go on. King Kong died. Sorry, there couldn't be a sequel. There was never an intention to do such a thing. They've done King Kong sequels in the past("Son of Kong", anyone?)& you don't hear anybody saying how FANTASTIC they were. By your logic, Titanic should have a sequel since it was "So Good". "Titanic" was garbage to me. Out of all the people on this giant luxury ship, we focus on a couple that fall in love so fast I laughed when he elected to stay in the freezing water for this woman he'd met not a week ago.(Yeah, real realistic.) The best part was when the ship sank(a huge achievement of visual effects), & if my memory serves me correctly that movie was WAY TOO LONG. I also see alot of people saying there was no need to remake "King Kong", was there an overwhelming need to remake "Titanic"? (I mean other than the new visual effects technology, which a number of you seem to hate in movies, anyway.) I have run into people who have said it was unrealistic. I have no idea what they planned on seeing. IT'S A MOVIE ABOUT A 25 FOOT APE, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY REAL APES THAT BIG! If you're looking for realistic, I suggest "Gorillas in the Mist". As far as the gorilla acting, that was VERY REALISTIC. Kong had the same mannerisms as my own monkey, which is probably why I got into it a little more than most. The only unrealistic action of Kong was how he & Ann kept looking in each others eyes. You can't REALLY do that, it's a sign of dominance & aggresion in the primate world. He'd have crushed her for that! I do understand why it was done, though. Jackson wanted you to feel the connection between the two & nobody(except a few)would understand why Ann kept looking at the ground when she approached Kong. For those who were refering to the way Kong loved Ann so much was unrealistic, take my monkey into account. When I got him I was with a different girl than I am now. When the two of us broke up, he wouldn't except any other woman in my life. A year later we reconciled(temporarily)& he remembered her! You couldn't get him away from her! Now, nearly ten years later, he still won't except my wife for nothing! I can't seem to understand why you seem to think that some movies aren't made to make a profit for their producers. Every movie that comes out is aiming for profit. NOONE makes a movie just to make a movie(except maybe George Lucas, who has said he didn't care if his Star Wars films were profitable or not). Even your precious "Narnia" was made for profit, nothing more. No movie is a story that MUST be told, because they've all been told. How many 'down on their luck sports team' movies do we need, serious or comedic? How many 'good teacher comes in to teach good for nothing kids that learning is essential &/or fun' movies does the world need? What about 'dance' movies? How realistic is it that learning to dance will change everthing in your life? These movies were ALL made for certain audiences for profit. Nothing more. I've never walked out of a theater with a new outlook on life. I'm sure there isn't a single director, producer, or actor who thinks, "If only one person sees my film, it would have been worth it!" I don't understand how people have become so jaded when it comes to special effects movies. When "Jurassic Park" came out all anyone talked about was how real the dinosaurs looked, now we have a VERY real looking 25 foot gorilla & people scoff & bad mouth it. I'm a movie fan of the highest order, when I go to the theater, I drive to the next state for the best experience in the midwest(Kansas' Westglen). I own over 700 DVD's. I dispise bootleg copies & refuse to take part in watching them. So, when you say, "...sometimes it becomes much more apparant to spot problems...", I say you're looking too hard. There aren't many movies that are flawless, if any. I just watch the movie, I don't ask stupid questions like, "How did they get him on the boat?", since they didn't ask that question in the original & noone seemed to have a problem with it. If I had a good time it was good, if I was bored, it wasn't. As far as the Academy Awards recognizing movies, that still doesn't make them great movies in my book. There have been so many instances where I was upset that one movie was nominated & another wasn't or one actor was nominated & the one I felt truly did a better job got nothing. I actually stopped watching the awards because of it. Before I close I would also like to mention "King Kong" was critically acclaimed! There were plenty of critics who recommended this movie. While you guys have done your polls & all, I just go by the general reaction from the people around me, & the reaction was good. There wasn't a single person who left for a bathroom break during any of the screenings I went to. That's usually a sign it was good enough that people could wait.(When I went with my wife to see "Harry Potter" I did take a bathroom break. I couldn't get into that movie at all!) "I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!" |
|||
|
|
Enthusiast |
.............Are you kidding? "King Kong" was one of the best films in years! Jack Black was perfect for the roll, and was able to try drama for once. You discriminating him for past performances is rather crude and irrational. The dialogue was amazing, and had some of the best acting of 2005. I think the length was fine. I mean, how come people complain at KK's length, but not "Lord of the Rings"? It's simply ridiculous. It gets my vote for best movie of 2005. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
I looking over the postings for King Kong on this site in both the "Worst of 2005" (not the most promising thread for a movie) and "Action/Adventure Movies" thread since the December 18, 2005 USA opening: ericg75 on 1/6/06, Smenkharon on 1/18/06 had less than favorable opinions; while Duncan Black on 1/22/06 just saw it as a monster action movie, and one last comment not until 4/21/06 of praise from Awesome Man found on the "Action/Adventure" thread. Four posts. And so for the "Worst of 2005" thread, I feel that I am in part responsible for the amount of continued discussion with my negative commentary about the movie until I stopped posting on 5/26/06 almost a year ago. Since then there have been only two subsequent posts both quite negative about the movie. If somebody surrounds themselves with people who talk about a certain movie it's natural that discussion will continue when it's raised, but if one focuses one's attention to the general public, discussion of King Kong doesn't really seem to come up, if at all. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
Your comments regarding Naria as part of a series, on the other hand, is quite legitimate and I can't argue with you on this point. I would still maintain that personally Naria was a more diversified and lavish production in terms of storyline and fantasy that had more substance and intrigue over the more crude and simplification of King Kong into action, special effects, thrills and bigger is better. As for Titanic, I can't say that I was as thrilled about this movie as a lot of other people. I won't say that it was garbage and I would suspect that Monkey_Boy may need to reveal a little about love at first sight if he is to make a statement that someone would elect to stay in freezing water for a women he recently met. I have problems with the more recent Spiderman 3 and its visual effects but found the movie a very good one. |
|||
|
|
Guru |
I can't argue with anything here from someone named Monkey_Boy. |
|||
|