PDA

View Full Version : King kong



firstsingle
12-15-2005, 12:56 AM
Hello. Can you say best movie ever, period. Acting,VFX,Compositing,Animation.
How is anyone ever gonna give it to us like this again?
What did you think LW clan?

bluerider
12-15-2005, 03:45 AM
I've not seen the film yet, but how many films have you watched?

In terms of acting, "Giant" is a film were the acting is rather
good, Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, James Dean are a tough act to follow :) ?

However I am rather partial to declaring Bergmanns "The Seventh Seal" rather an epic on a par with Giant in terms of a great film but with a very different approach.

Bergmanns trippy, Surreal film treatment with a sprinkling of Apocalyptic Nilisium, make this a must see for people yearning an alternative to high budget excessive eye candy cinema and hairy big monkeys?

I'm sure the CGI effects are stunning in King Kong though, looking forward to watching it :) ?

Mylenium
12-15-2005, 04:13 AM
Hello. Can you say best movie ever, period. Acting,VFX,Compositing,Animation.
How is anyone ever gonna give it to us like this again?
What did you think LW clan?

Haven't seen it yet (just starts over here in Germany today), but the trailer looked promising. As for acting - well, it's definitely not going to be the best movie in this respect simply because the genre doesn't offer much in terms of the actors playing out their talent. E.g. you certainly can see much more of Adrian Brody in "The Piano Player" and there's a long line of other movies that could easily beat Kong. I think however, that the effects are gorgeous and will be hard to top off for anyone for some time.

Mylenium

StereoMike
12-15-2005, 04:27 AM
I've seen the movie yesterday here in Germany and I really liked it. 3 hours of finest CGI and what is more impressing, seeing Andy Serkis (aka Gollum) as Kong. You know, Serkis is the first star of a new kind, he donates movement and facial expressions and thus character to CG models without being visible himself.
In these terms the movie can certainly reach new heights, Serkis defines a new class of actors and that is groundbreaking.

I can say, I really enjoyed the whole film. 3 hours. Even the first hour without Kong is nice cause they build a pretty 1930's NY. And Naomi Watts isn't mean to the eyes either.

Mike

StereoMike
12-15-2005, 04:30 AM
SPOIL AHEAD:


King Kong will die!!!!!


(mwarharhar! I also spolied the end of Titanic!)

Mylenium
12-15-2005, 04:41 AM
SPOIL AHEAD:

King Kong will die!!!!!

(mwarharhar! I also spolied the end of Titanic!)

Haha, i never would have guessed ;O). Well, I hopefully will make it to see it this weekend.

Mylenium

bluerider
12-15-2005, 04:41 AM
SPOIL AHEAD:


King Kong will die!!!!!


(mwarharhar! I also spolied the end of Titanic!)

You've ruined the end of the film for children who might of read this thread, which is cruel?

Next you'll be declaring Santa doesn't deliver Christmas Presents to every house :devil: ?

StereoMike
12-15-2005, 04:49 AM
Here kiddies, take that:
There's also no easter bunny!


I'm such a bad *****.

bluerider
12-15-2005, 04:54 AM
Spoiler, Hitmen are cheap round my way :2guns:

:hammer: Ouch...I just got hit for nothing.

StereoMike
12-15-2005, 04:57 AM
but I bet they will get a nervous breakdown when I confront them with all the lies of their lifes :twak:

starbase1
12-15-2005, 06:05 AM
You've ruined the end of the film for children who might of read this thread, which is cruel?

Next you'll be declaring Santa doesn't deliver Christmas Presents to every house :devil: ?

No but I did tell the kids they were diabetic - it saves a lot of money on sweets!
:neener:

bluerider
12-15-2005, 06:13 AM
starbase1,
The kids catch me eating their chocolate all the time. Its to late to tell them they are diabetic, they'll know I'd be telling porkies :hey: ?

Good tip though :thumbsup:

Red_Oddity
12-15-2005, 06:30 AM
No but I did tell the kids they were diabetic - it saves a lot of money on sweets!
:neener:

Well, that's really not such a bad idea, too much sugar early on in life raises the chances of becoming diabetic later on in life.

firstsingle
12-15-2005, 10:48 AM
I've seen to many films to count. Since a child i''ve been a lover and study of fine acting both stage and film. I thought Naomi Watts delivered a great performance in this film. Let me know what you think when you see it.

bluerider
12-15-2005, 10:54 AM
Shall do, I will go in with an open mind in my fact finding mission concerning the acting............and off course tell you why it was subservient to other factors i.e. big hairy monkey :D ?

All "badger baiting" aside :jester: , whats your favorite gerne' in film?

firstsingle
12-15-2005, 11:12 AM
Has to be Drama 1st and action 2nd. "Enemy At The Gate" is still one of my favorite films. Can't forget an old classic "Shane". Thought Cold mountain was timeless.
For some reason I have to see at least a half hour of The Incredibles everyday, hehehe. What's your favorite gerne' in film?

ted
12-15-2005, 11:22 AM
The Wife and I happened to be in New York for the Opening. They had a life sized King Kong in Times Square. I was dissapointed that it was not moving though. It just sat there. :thumbsdow

I'm not going to listen to any of you who saw it. I'm usually dissapointed when everyone tells me how good a movie was.
Low expectations results in satisfaction! ;)

handron
12-15-2005, 11:47 AM
I saw the movie last night. I thought it was very good although not as great as some have exclaimed. Just a matter of preference I suppose. I highly recommend it. My critiques are as follows:

1. The first hour dragged a bit. After about 55 min. we barely arrive at the island. They used it to get us to identify with the characters but it didn't work for me. The exception was Naomi Watts. She did a great job. Adrian Brody also worked well. As for the others, there was no character arc to identify with as the film progresses.

2. There were a couple of events where we needed to suspend belief. Don't get me wrong, most movies require this. What I mean is the way certain things were handled I felt could have been better.

Other than that, as you noticed these things are very minor to the overall experience. So stop sitting around reading post in the forum and go see the movie already! :thumbsup:

bluerider
12-15-2005, 12:13 PM
Has to be Drama 1st and action 2nd. "Enemy At The Gate" is still one of my favorite films. Can't forget an old classic "Shane". Thought Cold mountain was timeless.
For some reason I have to see at least a half hour of The Incredibles everyday, hehehe. What's your favorite gerne' in film?

I don't know what gerne actually means, I just typed it in because I like the sound of the word?

OK.....Theres a few gernes I like. Theres alot of old classics I like. There are few live action films I can watch twice because I have the attention span of a newt?

Sci-Fi, Horror and old Classics mainly. "The Shinning" is my fav horror.

Alfred Hitchcocks "North by North West" Carol Reeds "Third Man" are two films I have watched a good number of times. Marcel Carney and Cocteau's films I usually like and will watch again.

For Sci Fi I think Lucas made an awesome film with THX 1138.

What happened from there is anybodies guess, his films get more plotless as the years go by. "Serenity" was a wonderful surprise.

My favorite film genre of all is animation. The greatest animator for me is frederic Bach and "The man who planted trees".

Yuri norstein "Tales of Tales" is also a masterpiece.

For feature animations it has to be "Grave of the fireflies" by Yoshifumi, the greatest anti war film I've ever seen. It makes Spielberg's "saving private Ryan" look like a recruiting campaign for the "gunhos" of this world?

OK, I do like war films as well, theres the best anti war film live action which is Pietersons "Stalingrad"......if you like war films you have to see that film. As you know hes the chap who did "Das Boot".

Well in my student days at Art College I spent alot of time watching film and pretending it was research, now I have to work for a living and don't get much time to watch film :bday: ?

JamesCurtis
12-15-2005, 12:17 PM
Me thinks this thread has strayed a bit from the topic!!!

So let's get back to it...

Haven't seen the new Kong yet, but I agree, the trailer looks awesome. Wonder if any part of it was LW [previz, modeling]?

bluerider
12-15-2005, 12:20 PM
The chap who started the topic ask me what i liked to watch. As he is hosting the thread I think it only polite to answer.

P.S. I don't think your straying from the thread at all, your doing real well :thumbsup:

Safe Harbor
12-15-2005, 12:52 PM
I just don't think I can take Jack Black seriously...I keep expecting him to crack a loony joke or something.

I haven't seen either of the other Kong movies, and even though I'm mildly aware of the storyline, I won't know exactly what's coming next, so I'm looking forward to it.

But after seeing Aslan in Narnia, I'm not sure how the gorilla will compare. That lion was absolutely incredible. I though he'd walk right off the screen and he looked soft enough to touch.

badllarma
12-15-2005, 02:27 PM
Well I'm going to see it tomorrow and to be honest I'm not that bothered about it.
I was looking foward to the "Lion Witch and the Wardrobe" which I have now seen and enjoyed it even though the Lion went slightly blury at certain points? God knows why as the fur stood up very well when it was sharp. Pitty it was 12A over here in the UK as the battle scenes could have really gone to town on.

I'm really going just to see the CGI and the girl friend wants to see it, (if it was just down to the CGI I would not bother ). I've no intrest in the story or the characters to be honest in King Kong.

pooby
12-15-2005, 04:20 PM
if you come out of the cinema, still saying that, you have a heart of stone.

I just saw it.. and it's astounding..

otacon
12-15-2005, 05:59 PM
Its probably the best movie ive ever seen. Im seeing it again this weekend.

Rory_L
12-15-2005, 08:59 PM
I haven't seen either of the other Kong movies

If any of you guys here have not seen the original B&W King Kong, then there`s really little point in going to see the new one. The effects creator, Willis o`Brien and his Kong was the inspiration for Ray Harryhausen, arguably the father of modern special FX. Educate yourselves: rent the 1933 film and then go and see Jackson`s homage pic.

Cheers,

R

pooby
12-16-2005, 02:07 AM
what a silly thing to say... It's not about the point!

gjjackson
12-16-2005, 06:49 AM
If any of you guys here have not seen the original B&W King Kong, then there`s really little point in going to see the new one. The effects creator, Willis o`Brien and his Kong was the inspiration for Ray Harryhausen, arguably the father of modern special FX. Educate yourselves: rent the 1933 film and then go and see Jackson`s homage pic.

Cheers,

R

I haven't seen it yet. From the previews it seemed as though it followed the original 33 version. The scene where Kong is in full screen and growls looked great. I've seen the 33 version several times and enjoyed it. I always wanted to see a 'modern' version of the old one. One where it was more realistic. To get the same sense the people back then got when it was new to them and state of the art.

Zane Condren
12-16-2005, 07:47 AM
Did you guys Know that There is Lightwave in King Kong? Cafe FX got called in at the last minute to finish a bunch of stuff with LightWave

theo
12-16-2005, 11:23 AM
...I've no intrest in the story or the characters to be honest in King Kong.

Same here. The King Kong story does not work for me. The whole sexual analogy of the Kong romp is food for some philosophics but beyond that I am assuming Jackson's reel will showcase the usual human ineptitudes that run the gamut from predictable inabilities to destroy mad giant beasts to the predictable manipulation of the viewer's inate human emotions that are stretched to their extreme to accept bizarre relationships (for example the insanity of an attraction of the brunette beauty and her Hellboy), in this case a 5 foot blonde bombshell and a massive stinky primate that has the intelligence to recognize the ultimate symbol of pure sexuality- the blonde in all her glory- yet cannot seem to figure out much else.

This is one film I will have to be dragged to or just watch at the house on DVD. Same with War of the Worlds which I have yet to see and have not an inkling of interest in.

Frankly I must confess that I am at a stage where about 98% of the films at the theatre seemed to be just so much canned vapidity. So this may have some bearing on my non-existent interest in Kong.

otacon
12-16-2005, 11:45 AM
Same here. The King Kong story does not work for me. The whole sexual analogy of the Kong romp is food for some philosophics but beyond that I am assuming Jackson's reel will showcase the usual human ineptitudes that run the gamut from predictable inabilities to destroy mad giant beasts to the predictable manipulation of the viewer's inate human emotions that are stretched to their extreme to accept bizarre relationships (for example the insanity of an attraction of the brunette beauty and her Hellboy), in this case a 5 foot blonde bombshell and a massive stinky primate that has the intelligence to recognize the ultimate symbol of pure sexuality- the blonde in all her glory- yet cannot seem to figure out much else.

This is one film I will have to be dragged to or just watch at the house on DVD. Same with War of the Worlds which I have yet to see and have not an inkling of interest in.

Frankly I must confess that I am at a stage where about 98% of the films at the theatre seemed to be just so much canned vapidity. So this may have some bearing on my non-existent interest in Kong.


Then you will be missing out on the best special effects of any movie to date.

Chris S. (Fez)
12-16-2005, 12:01 PM
If for nothing else, see it for the sheer spectacle! The audience I saw it with was gasping, laughing and crying uncontrollably.

I am gonna call it a day and go see it again!

mattclary
12-16-2005, 01:06 PM
If any of you guys here have not seen the original B&W King Kong, then there`s really little point in going to see the new one.

What a presumptuous statement. I get sick of "classic" movies and actors being treated like religious icons due to nostalgia. People who make statements like that just come across as snooty and elitist.

The TRAILERS for this movie are more emotionally moving than the original, IMO.

theo
12-16-2005, 01:32 PM
Then you will be missing out on the best special effects of any movie to date.

Ok then....I will go for the effects....later.....after the surge.... to avoid the emotional reelings of the huddled masses as their minds get shaped like so much putty in the hands of a splendor-drunk Jackson.

bluerider
12-16-2005, 02:13 PM
You can't beat a good book to stimulate the imagination.

I think I may bring one to the cinema with my special night vision googles :hey: ?

badllarma
12-17-2005, 12:58 AM
Well all I watched it last night to a packed theater and I must admit I enjoyed it the CGI was excellent and terrible I don't know if they were going for the B movie look at some points but they got it thats for sure. Goes to show 200 million still cannot get you perfection.

Kong was excellent as were most of the other monsters / creatures the acting was well done mostly the thing that made me cringe most was it was far too long and dragged out in places you could have cut one monster battle out completely to save 10 mins at least. And every time the girl was carried around in kongs hand it just looked crap. Just like a doll in a puppets hand in fact.

Would I see it again NO only on DVD. Where I can get up and stretch my legs.

Best bit (not to spoil it for every one) was the insect bit I really though the gf was going to climb over the chair and hide in the row behind (she screems if she sees a spider in the bath) so this was not good for her :D

badllarma
12-17-2005, 01:04 AM
Then you will be missing out on the best special effects of any movie to date.

As movie making is art I really would say this was a personal preference it WOULD NOT be in my top 5 of best FX films to date.

GregMalick
12-17-2005, 01:59 AM
Awesome movie.
I've seen the original and the other remakes and I like this one the best.

Kong did indeed look real - and my wife, Alice ended up crying at the end.

The T-Rex's kicked Jurassic Parks *ss.
Also great humor, action, and acting.

Best movie ever? - now that's a silly question. That's a matter of taste.
But it was awesome enough to make its way into my top 20.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: 2-thumbs up!

jin choung
12-17-2005, 11:18 PM
it's a crowd pleaser and it has some fantastic effects (and one really bad one) and incredulously spectacular action sequences.

the bug scene is wonderfully apocalyptic! the stampede is as breathlessly lunacy filled as one could hope... and finally, we have men with automatic weapons confronting dinos who actually take down a few with man made lead!

but not a masterpiece by any means. it is a spectacular b-movie and nothing more.

first hour is pretty long and i'm pretty sure it's longer than it has to be. jack black was completely miscast. some actors just carry far too much audience expectation (like how agent smith was elrond [that to me was a ludicrously bad call too {"you must destroy the ring... mr. anderson!"}]) and everytime he popped on screen, i imagined that this was all a tenacious d/meatloaf music video that happens to feature kong for some reason.

peter jackson is still a HACKY director. (there, i said it).

i disliked fellowship, despised two towers but i LOVED return of the king. it seemed like jackson was simply outclassed by the material in the first two and he exercised cinematic styles that seemed inappropriate for the subject matter - you don't need mach 3, strafing the death star camera moves in fellowship for heavens sake!

it seemed like he finally matured in ROTK. imo, he should have been that mature to tackle the series in the first place.

but he goes back to juvenilism at times in kong. again, there's a mach 2 (perhaps only mach 1.3?) panorama of the skull island natives' base and i suppose it's gratifying for the model makers... but it's just kinda flashy for the sake of it. and WHY do it TWICE?!

also, the skip frame slow motion with the superfluous motion blur shots of the natives... wtf? who was hit with an lsd dart? again, he resorts to a flash and excess where a more formal style would have played more in keeping with the content.

for an older guy, he still has an inexplicable predilection for mtv glitz and gaud.

naomi watts is luminous and hot as **** as always... but she almost seems better at playing bad actresses (ann darrow as well as her character in mulholland drive) than being an actual good actress.... (am i being unpopular enough with my opinions yet? :) ). must confess that i was disappointed that her breasts did not play a more prominent role as they do in many of her other films.

as for the 1 really bad fx shot? it's the one with the natives pole vaulting... that was just conspicuously wretched.

jin

FONGOOL
12-18-2005, 03:47 PM
Actually, I found that any time humans were composited into scenes with CG monsters it looked like crap. Except maybe the insect sequence. All those weird soft shadows and halos around the people just looked funky.

The first hour could have been lopped off. Sometimes you don't need so much pathos and character development in a monster movie. Actually, they should have saved all that junk for the DVD.

Whenever Kong runs/fights/jumps around with the girl in his fist, I just can't fathom how her spine and neck don't instantly shatter from the whiplash. That constantly ruined my suspension of disbelief.

I think by the time Kong arrives in New York, Jackson falls prey to his selfconscious desire to pay homage to the original and it derails the whole thing. In the screening I went to, it seemed that many of the people there had never seen the original, so by the time Jack says the classic "it was beauty killed the beast" line, they were audibly groaning and laughing throughout the theatre.

I just felt bad for the poor schmuck who gets the girl on the rebound from her relationship with the giant monkey.

But I enjoyed the "Sumatran Rat Monkey" gag in the background of the ship's hold.

jin choung
12-18-2005, 04:33 PM
Whenever Kong runs/fights/jumps around with the girl in his fist, I just can't fathom how her spine and neck don't instantly shatter from the whiplash. That constantly ruined my suspension of disbelief.


haha,

that's a funny point! but considering that humans pick up kittens, mice, guinea pigs, etc. and move them according to our scale, i think she would require some intense accupuncture/chiropractics rather than a coffin.

granted, i never toss around animals ala kong but if i were to, i think they would survive.

jin

Jim_C
12-18-2005, 05:29 PM
It was a decent monster flick.

V-Rex was scary.

Too many dinosaur scenes.

Bug scene too long.

Some effects did look like they were contracted out to the lowest bidder.

Kong looked awesome!

Didn't understand the slow mo stutter effect representing the island either.

Guess I've enjoyed Jack Black's schtick too many times after partaking various sundries, cause I couldn't get into his acting/character.

Jackson wanted to give the last line of the movie to Fay Wray, but sadly she passed a few years before he could get it all going. (Many of the '33 crew had cameos)
Sad because, it was pure shmaltz coming from Black.
And after he delivered it, someone in the audience yelled out,
"NO IT DIDN'T!!! YOU DID YOU BASTA%$!!!!!"


Fun Movie all around.

bluerider
12-18-2005, 05:36 PM
FONGOOL quotes="I just felt bad for the poor schmuck who gets the girl on the rebound from her relationship with the giant monkey."
--------------------------

PMSL :D

Jim_C
12-18-2005, 05:59 PM
And think how they upset the ecological balance of Skull Island by removing the Last Kong.

Kinda like taking frogs to Australia....

theo
12-18-2005, 07:11 PM
And think how they upset the ecological balance of Skull Island by removing the Last Kong.

Kinda like taking frogs to Australia....

Actually Jim, removing the last and aged creature from an ecosystem may be the most favorable condition for NOT creating a large scale ripple effect leading to eco-disaster.

The beast may not be living much longer anyways and since he is the last of the species the biological balance of the island has probably already started assimilating into an ecosystem that will no longer be supporting a highly competitive species like Kongs.

So in this case it would not be anything like transporting frogs to Australia or zebra mussels to the Great Lakes.

Jim_C
12-18-2005, 07:17 PM
What about Koalas to Kalamazoo??

theo
12-18-2005, 09:02 PM
What about Koalas to Kalamazoo??

Nope, not even like koalas to Kalamazoo my friend....sorry... :D

distortion
12-20-2005, 08:16 PM
And think how they upset the ecological balance of Skull Island by removing the Last Kong.

Kinda like taking frogs to Australia....


umm we actually have lots of frogs in Australia...

Jim_C
12-20-2005, 08:18 PM
umm we actually have lots of frogs in Australia...


Yea.. Thanks to Bart Simpson.....

Rory_L
12-20-2005, 09:43 PM
what a silly thing to say... It's not about the point!
that`s me, Pooby: silly to the core! :)

But I`m not elitist, matt. Can`t see how liking B&W films makes a person elitist...

Cageman
12-21-2005, 11:09 AM
that`s me, Pooby: silly to the core! :)

But I`m not elitist, matt. Can`t see how liking B&W films makes a person elitist...

The fact that you said that we should see the B&W 1933 version before seeing Jacksons version, and educate ourselves, sounds pretty elite IMHO.

Jim_C
12-21-2005, 04:39 PM
As many homages, salutes, and hidden little tidbits that Jackson included in the remake, you would certainly benefit from seeing the original. But not a must.

Jim_C
12-22-2005, 06:43 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/21/film.andyserkis.qa.ap/index.html


Article on Andy.

Yamba
12-22-2005, 08:56 AM
Hi Jim_C,

Just a little address to help with your overall development, Bart Simpson certainly has alot to answer for!

http://frogs.org.au/frogs/

Cheer
Yamba
Mac since IIe

Jim_C
12-22-2005, 09:29 AM
fwiw, I know now and knew then that there are frogs in Australia, I was just looking for a funny metaphor for the removal of the Kong species. At the time all I came up with was the Simpson's episode(Bart vs Australia) where Bart smuggled the frog to Australia and it destroyed all the crops. Then the Koala hitched a ride ala Cape Fear back to USA.

Guess I shoulda went with Zebra Mussells to the Great Lakes.

But none of this takes away from the fact that yes, Bart Simpson DOES have a lot to answer for.

Cheers back at ya
Jim
:)

bluerider
12-28-2005, 06:40 AM
Watched King Kong last night, great action movie enjoyed it.

Story was good, acting was good. I loved the CGI vistas and the Gorilla.

Fight scene between the T-rexes and monkey were fab. As an action movie, 9 out of 10 :thumbsup:

The only bit that jarred me slightly was the bit in central park on the ice.........I don't think it added to the story in anyway. It was obvious before that part that a bond had formed between the beauty and beast.

Korvar
12-28-2005, 11:05 AM
The only bit that jarred me slightly was the bit in central park on the ice.........I don't think it added to the story in anyway. It was obvious before that part that a bond had formed between the beauty and beast.

To me, that was actually the saddest scene in the movie. Just watching him play and have fun, and you know what's about to happen...

Emmanuel
12-29-2005, 11:47 AM
I think King Kong:The Remake is remarkable.
Not only because of the FX, but I felt that Jackson REALLY put his heart and soul into this project, giving it so much atmosphere, detail and love.
Okay, it IS a bit long, after seeing it once, I don't feel like seeing it again the next 12 months, but I think it is really well done and a more interesting 3-hour-movie than Episode3 was in two hours, frankly.
My favourite "eeek" scene was of course when Serkis got to meet those swamp worms.That was freaking consequent and I thought "Yeah, You get a director out of the "Braindead"-niche, but never the "Braindead" out of the director ;) "
He has got this sense of where he is coming from and knows that he has fans who have been with him all the time that he always gives little presents like this. But it IS beyond me how he could convince the studio to leave that part in the movie, its so disgusting ;)

PS:I think Adrian Brody could be the ultimate performer as the leading character in "The Shadow".That NOSE !!!

starbase1
12-30-2005, 11:51 AM
OK, saw the film this afternoon.

Thought it was ok, good in parts, weak in others.

The Ann Darrow character was well acted, with everyone else you could not really tell as every role was a complete cliche. Plucky cabin boy, cynical first mate, insensitive reporters, brutal natives, scheming lying director, actor who puts up photos of himself, backers with no faith in the project,plucky young actress who won't take on dodgy work, cliche central from start to finish.

Jack Black really needs to learn a second expression - three hours of him relentlessly looking from side to side, from under his eyebrows was way way too much.

AD excepted, anyone who was impressed by the acting really out to go to a proper theatre and see a proper play, with real actors who don't get a second take.

Kong worked well when moving slowly, or in close up, (very strong emotion, excellent), but there was some VERY dodgy movement when he moved quickly - sometimes it seemed as jerky as Harryhausen, but without the attention to detail.I was wondering if they turned off motion blur, to recreate the stop motion look...

Lighting on the ship in partial dark was all over the place, and at times appeared to be coming up from the sea! I'm pretty sure there was cheapy filter over the camera and avoid the horizon for distant night shots too.

A couple of bits in the dinosaur fight struck me as particularly silly - a mouth like the t-rex around an upper arm would not be pushed off without stripping the flesh to the bone. Others were more fun, running in the stampede, silly but good fun.

Integration of people with Kong was generally pretty good.

Was it me, or were there very few cars endlessly copied on the streets? I know there were not many brands in those days, but these seemed completely identical in condition colour and everthing.

As in Lord of the Rings, there were several sections when I just wished he would stop whizzing the camera around so fast.

I enjoyed it overall, but it really was a B movie with an A movie budget.
3.5 stars.

Nick

ted
12-30-2005, 10:48 PM
OK, most of you are going to hate me, but here goes a quick review.
Most every segment should have been cut by about 20 to 30%
The effects were fine, but there was no need whatsoever for dragging each segment out so long, extending the unbelievable to more unbelievable lengths.
I don't mind a 3 hour movie when needed, i.e. Dances With Wolves. BUT for goodness sake, this was ridiculous.

Those scenes where the 100 ft. dinosaurs couldn't catch the humans in a foot race were the breaking point. They could have made the humans play hide and seek if they wanted it to go on this long.
The insect scene was done poorly. Then they suddenly just went away??? Using a Tommy gun to shoot them off a guys back, too much to stomach.
The repeated falls only to be saved by vines again and again and again, hanging by the T-Rex head, failure. Do that gag once and I'll want to say WOW. Then stop and move onto another danger.
Being "saved" by the killer bats only to safely fall into the river, come on. Find another way off the mountain.
How the heck would people ALWAYS get from one place to another and be in the right place at the right time. JUST A LITTLE CREATIVE WRITING WOULD HAVE MADE THIS DIGESTABLE.
How the heck did they get Kong on the boat? Give me a shot of a raft taking him to the boat and a crane lifting it up. Everyone said "WHAT" when they jumped from the edge of the water with the boat out at sea to New York city.
The first 20 scenes in New York had almost no snow, and then the city was covered in the next shots?????

I could go on for 3 Hours" about this, but I'll keep this reasonable UNLIKE the movie.

DON'T GET ME WRONG! I can appreciate this type of movie. Over the top, impossible, no problem. But this was executed so poorly, other then the popcorn, I couldn't digest the storytelling. AND I REALLY WANTED TO! Thatís what really hurt.

The key to movie making is to make the impossible and unbelievable seem possible. I've seen this done many times before. The director can make you want to believe an event could happen, an incident could play out that way. But this wasn't the case.

King Kong died and so did the effort to make this movie sell.
Sorry guys, if this movie had to make money based on good movie making and not on hype, it would already be on DVD.
JMHO.

Cageman
12-31-2005, 12:57 AM
I'm curios to know what you expected out of a movie with a giant monkey and dinosaurs on an island with a big jungle?

EDIT: I think it is one of the best AND entertaining movies I have ever seen. :)

Jim_C
12-31-2005, 08:42 AM
How the heck did they get Kong on the boat? Give me a shot of a raft taking him to the boat and a crane lifting it up. Everyone said "WHAT" when they jumped from the edge of the water with the boat out at sea to New York city.


I read Jackson decided to stick with the 33 original here. Where you get no glimpse of him being loaded, transferred, unloaded. As opposed to the campy 70's number where we see the love story top side/scarve flutters into pen, Kong goes ape scene.

ted
12-31-2005, 11:47 AM
Cageman, I guess you don't see many movies, do you?
Just kiddin with ya. We all have our own viewpoints, and it's not like we're talking about Michael Moores so called documentary! :p
I tried to go in with low expectations and well...Kong even dissapointed those for me and my wife.

Cageman
12-31-2005, 12:43 PM
Cageman, I guess you don't see many movies, do you?
Just kiddin with ya. We all have our own viewpoints, and it's not like we're talking about Michael Moores so called documentary! :p
I tried to go in with low expectations and well...Kong even dissapointed those for me and my wife.

Hehe... Well, I see alot of movies and to be honest, I seldom get dissapointed. :)

Barry Oborne
01-01-2006, 11:43 AM
firstsingle,
KK just released in India, I'm a KK fan from way back my story is similar to
Peter Jackson's, the original King Kong got me into modeling _I used plastic in those days- and animation. Several years ago I rented a tape of the originale 1933 version and showed to a couple of new generation kids, twelve and thirteen, and they went nuts over it. So I thought it would be hard act to follow. Like I say I'm a big fan of KK and I think Peter Jackson did a great job, I really think it was a labor of love and for me it showed good casting, nice attention to detail, super animation and adding Conrad'd Heart of Darkness element was a nice stroke. :thumbsup:

starbase1
01-01-2006, 12:04 PM
At the risk of talking about graphics, some of Harryhausen's work is available in the internet movie archive, if anyone wants to pick it apart and see how he works.

Jason fighting the skeletons is not here, (nnot surprising really!), but even with his early stuff done to nursury rhymes the attention to detail is remarkable.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=harryhausen%20AND%20mediatype%3Am ovies

Nick

bluerider
01-03-2006, 06:34 PM
OK, most of you are going to hate me, but here goes a quick review.
Most every segment should have been cut by about 20 to 30%
The effects were fine, but there was no need whatsoever for dragging each segment out so long, extending the unbelievable to more unbelievable lengths.
I don't mind a 3 hour movie when needed, i.e. Dances With Wolves. BUT for goodness sake, this was ridiculous.

Those scenes where the 100 ft. dinosaurs couldn't catch the humans in a foot race were the breaking point. They could have made the humans play hide and seek if they wanted it to go on this long.
The insect scene was done poorly. Then they suddenly just went away??? Using a Tommy gun to shoot them off a guys back, too much to stomach.
The repeated falls only to be saved by vines again and again and again, hanging by the T-Rex head, failure. Do that gag once and I'll want to say WOW. Then stop and move onto another danger.
Being "saved" by the killer bats only to safely fall into the river, come on. Find another way off the mountain.
How the heck would people ALWAYS get from one place to another and be in the right place at the right time. JUST A LITTLE CREATIVE WRITING WOULD HAVE MADE THIS DIGESTABLE.
How the heck did they get Kong on the boat? Give me a shot of a raft taking him to the boat and a crane lifting it up. Everyone said "WHAT" when they jumped from the edge of the water with the boat out at sea to New York city.
The first 20 scenes in New York had almost no snow, and then the city was covered in the next shots?????

I could go on for 3 Hours" about this, but I'll keep this reasonable UNLIKE the movie.

DON'T GET ME WRONG! I can appreciate this type of movie. Over the top, impossible, no problem. But this was executed so poorly, other then the popcorn, I couldn't digest the storytelling. AND I REALLY WANTED TO! Thatís what really hurt.

The key to movie making is to make the impossible and unbelievable seem possible. I've seen this done many times before. The director can make you want to believe an event could happen, an incident could play out that way. But this wasn't the case.

King Kong died and so did the effort to make this movie sell.
Sorry guys, if this movie had to make money based on good movie making and not on hype, it would already be on DVD.
JMHO.


Lol....so you didn't really like the movie then :D

ted
01-03-2006, 06:51 PM
:D
I did like the quality and craftmanship of the effects. Other then that, the popcorn was good too! :hey:

theo
01-03-2006, 09:47 PM
Nah- I really don't hate Hollywood. I really DO hate what passes as visual entertainment mostly. I watch films but like few of them.

Off topic I shall go....My biggest gripe with a lot of films is that a lot of them seem to have such mediocre scripting. Directors need to let writers have more input in the film production process. Which I believe is not the case. Once a script is purchased the director can pretty much do as he wishes with it.

I am not near as harsh on requiring a film to have perfect special effects or immaculate imagery but I am pretty demanding on requiring storylines that do not insult my intelligence, even comedy films can be outrageously funny without insulting my intelligence.

Films that are fantasy-based or even bizarre can be done without insulting the viewer's intelligence.

You can quite literally watch a film just by viewing the commercial for it. Kind of like reading the headlines on Drudge.

This watering-down effect is ultimately having an effect on the movie industry. Since most films are marketed to a young demographic the film has to lack a certain amount of depth just to hold this type of viewers attention span.

Since this may have been Hollywood's worst year in a long time we may start to see changes in this flawed approach.

colkai
01-04-2006, 02:56 AM
Since this may have been Hollywood's worst year in a long time we may start to see changes in this flawed approach.

..But they still made money - so don't hold ya breath. ;)

We are talking about suits here, that's why we can get so much stupid humor and "reality TV" and lose some really good works. Lowest common denominator, the unwashed masses etc..

theo
01-04-2006, 08:43 AM
..But they still made money - so don't hold ya breath. ;)

We are talking about suits here, that's why we can get so much stupid humor and "reality TV" and lose some really good works. Lowest common denominator, the unwashed masses etc..

True...and I am certainly not really holding my breath as the movie industry cannot seem to rid itself of the purest root of all evil- the LOVE of money.

It's one thing to LIKE money and to NEED money but it can be troublesome to LOVE money. Maybe in two hundred years mankind will have figured out a way to create a symmetry between the arts and profit. Because as far as I can tell this relationship weighs so heavy in the favor of profit that movie entertainment is exactly as you and I stated- created in most cases with an emphasis on the lowest common denominator.

Cheers to those two hundred years from now you lucky bastards you....

warmiak
01-04-2006, 08:54 AM
Because as far as I can tell this relationship weighs so heavy in the favor of profit that movie entertainment is exactly as you and I stated- created in most cases with an emphasis on the lowest common denominator.

I think you are being a bit unfair towards "suits".

One can make the argument that this sort of entertainment is so expensive to make because the creative side is driving costs enormously and thus to make money the finished products needs to go for the lowest common denominator :-)

archiea
01-04-2006, 08:19 PM
I hate reviews....

Most reviews sound like a bunch of autopsy doctors reviewing a beauty contest...

"yes... the fat content of the gluteous maximous is quite adequate, as are the mass content of the mammaries, however their appears to be to little muscle structure in proportion to the body mass and..."

as impressive as that sounds, it would be suffice to say "nice curves but she could be a bit more toned".

Point being do folks ever actually enjoy movies or do they just sit there looking for every defect, regardless of the context of the film (i.e. debating believability when the movie is about giant apes and dinosaurs!! I mean c'mon), as a means to feed their general irritability.

Its a big problem here in LA when you hear people talking by the water cooler, dissecting a film, talking about how its thrid act was weak (what the heck does that mean?), how the character development was two dimmensional (well, the screen is flat, so how would it be three dimensional), and, OF COURSE, oh all of the holes in the story. Then you come to realize that they were talking about a film like "wedding Crashers" or something.. like that was the goal of the filmmakers.

You add to the fact that people today seem to hate "crowds and would rather watch movies at home.. alone.. without an audience... as apparent by article I posted below. I find this sad, as I enjoy the audience esperience, and the escapism of films, and many folks get too caught up in details as if to elevate themselves. No community experience.. everyone will be their own armchair critic sitting at home with their DVD's... with no one to listen...

Movies May Hit DVD, Cable Simultaneously

By SARAH MCBRIDE, PETER GRANT and MERISSA MARR
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 4, 2006; Page B1

Cable companies and major studios are discussing strategies to release movies through video-on-demand cable services the same day they come out on DVD.

Although the talks have been in progress for several months without an agreement, people familiar with the matter say some studios could do a trial run of the strategy early this year.

Such a move would mark a major shift in the way Hollywood distributes movies -- and demonstrate how eager studios are to boost sales and cater to tech-savvy consumers. Historically, movie studios have staggered distribution points -- called "windows" in the industry -- to maximize revenue. A movie is generally released first to theaters, then several months later on DVD. Weeks or months after that, the movie is released through video-on-demand and on other platforms, with pay-per-view and regular television release coming last.

Now, declining box-office figures and slower growth in DVD sales, along with the emergence of new technology, have prompted talk of collapsing or eliminating the traditional windows. The idea raises many complex questions, from pricing to piracy prevention. And studios need to weigh whether releasing movies earlier to video-on-demand would cut into DVD sales. But on balance, studios and cable operators hope that they will make more money if they give consumers quicker access to movies they want, in the form they want them.

The studios most aggressively pursuing the idea are Walt Disney Co., General Electric Co.'s Universal Pictures, Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. and News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox , said people familiar with the matter. Some have also been exploring ways of giving viewers the right to buy a movie on demand and watch it repeatedly. That plan wouldn't necessarily involve moving up the date to match DVD release dates though.

Proceeds from video-on-demand sales typically are split between studios and cable operators. If films are released to cable earlier, studios could demand a bigger share of the revenue. Cable companies, meanwhile, are eager to boost their video-on-demand business.

Video-on-demand titles typically cost around $4, compared with an average of about $20 for a new-release feature film on DVD. In a test, cable companies might experiment with raising the video-on-demand prices of movies that get released at the same time as DVDs. In separate tests, they might also explore allowing a consumer to keep the movie on a digital video recorder, or perhaps even to transfer it to a computer and burn it onto a disc.

Studios clearly feel a sense of urgency -- but they are also wary. Media companies generally are scrambling for ways to deliver entertainment more quickly, as evidenced by the recent deals by Disney and NBC Universal to make television shows available on Apple Computer Inc.'s video-capable iPod. Meanwhile, box-office revenue in North America fell 5.2% to $8.9 billion in 2005 and growth in sales of DVDs fell to single digits.

At the same time, DVD sales remain highly lucrative and the studios don't want to hasten the decline of that revenue stream. DVD sales and rentals in the U.S. totaled $23.4 billion last year, more than double box-offices sales, according to Adams Media Research.

Studios like the idea of saving money on packaging and transporting DVDs. But if studios give consumers earlier and easier access to video-on-demand, they could make it easier for people to pirate their product.

Opposition from retailers is another obstacle. Any test of the strategy would likely raise an outcry from retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that sell vast numbers of DVDs. Retailers often sell DVDs at a loss, hoping consumers lured into the store by cheap movies will buy other goods. In fact, maintaining good relationships with big-box retailers, a major revenue source for the studios, is one reason why such tests haven't taken place already, and why some studios aren't considering these tests at all.

For cable companies, access to newer movies could help boost sales of on-demand services, which haven't been as strong as the industry had hoped. Video-on-demand via cable, telephone companies and the Internet totaled just $531 million in 2005, according to Adams Media Research.

More importantly, a new strategy could help cable operators in an increasingly heated competition with Internet concerns, telephone companies and satellite operators to be the preeminent provider of video entertainment in the home.

Time Warner's cable division has been talking to major studios about testing the idea in a handful of markets early this year, people familiar with the matter say. Comcast Corp. also has discussed such a plan, but may decide to first test a less radical service that it has dubbed "DVDs on Demand," offering movies on demand to subscribers who also agree to buy the DVD (and order it through the cable company), according to a person familiar with the talks.

Tom Adams, president of Carmel, Calif.-based Adams Media Research, which tracks home-entertainment trends, notes that the industry must balance between "cannibalization'' and "incremental growth." But he notes that, historically, when studios have adopted new technologies -- such as VHS and DVD -- they end up with higher profits overall.

In many ways, the studios have already pulled back on their traditional "window" system. The gap between a movie's release into theaters and its release on DVD, can be as little as three months, down from half a year. By capturing some of the buzz around a theatrical release, studios say, this approach has increased DVD sales.

But theater owners are furiously opposed to releasing films in any form earlier, arguing that such moves will hurt box-office sales. Indeed, Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger caused a near revolt of theater owners last year when he floated the idea of releasing movies to the theater and DVD simultaneousy.

Some Hollywood players -- including technology entrepreneur Mark Cuban, director Steven Soderbergh, and actor Morgan Freeman -- have been experimenting with releasing movies in theaters, on DVD and through television services simultaneously. For example, Mr. Soderbergh's movie, "Bubble," due for release early this year, will arrive at the same time in theaters, on DVD and on pay-per-view. But traditional theater companies have refused to carry "Bubble." It will run at the 60 Landmark theaters owned by Mr. Cuban and his partner Todd Wagner.

If the studios involved in the talks can reach an agreement, a trial to release movies on video-on-demand and on DVD at the same time would likely start in three or four midsize markets, say people familiar with the negotiations. Studios and cable companies expect video-on-demand sales of tested titles to jump significantly in those markets, because they would be able to tap into some of the buzz surrounding the DVD sales. But the studios would be watching carefully to see if DVD sales are hurt. "Do we get a 20% bump on video-on-demand, but an offsetting drop that's worse on DVD?" asks a studio executive. "That's what we want to understand."

The issue of piracy has also influenced Disney's strategy in other attempts to deliver films directly to TV viewers. Disney hasn't given up on Moviebeam, its proprietary movie-delivery service that allows consumers who buy special TV-top boxes to get Disney movies beamed into their homes.

The service was tested in a few markets and put on hold, but people familiar with the matter say that Disney plans to revive it this year, in conjunction with several technology partners, and test releasing movies via Moviebeam at the same time they put them out on DVD.

Write to Sarah McBride at [email protected], Peter Grant at [email protected] and Merissa Marr at [email protected]




URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113634253382637201.html




Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:[email protected]
(2) mailto:[email protected]
(3) mailto:[email protected]

Jim_C
01-10-2006, 09:18 AM
If anybody saw the Critic's Choice awards last night, King Kong (the character himself, not the movie) got a 'Special performance in character something something' award.

Basically it was for and about Andy Serkis. Showed a nice little montage of behind the scenes footage of him doing motion capture work and acting with Naomi.


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/comments/?entryid=273642