Mark Vader Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 I watched "King Kong" on opening night, and I loved every minute of it. People may think the first hour is slow and long, but that was the only time they had to go into character development. I agree the movie really takes off when they get to Skull Island, but thats to be expected. All of the effects were fantastic: the brontosaur stampede, the giant insects & lizards, Kong & the 3 V-Rex's, and the battle atop the Empire State Building. The look of New York City during the 30's was amazing. All of the homages to the original film: the tribal dance in the theatre, the opening credits, RKO & Fay, "Cooper.......I should have known". Jack Black is very good as the director and showman Carl Denham, and Adrian Brody is good as Jack Driscoll. However, it is Naomi Watts who steals the show. She is stunning, funny, and sympathetic. The second half of the movie she spends mostly with Kong, and during that time she becomes a silent movie actor where she can only react and emote instead of just talking, and she does it brilliantly. Peter Jackson did an amazing job in making this film. I've been looking forward to it all year. I was taken aback when I heard it would be 3 hours long, but now I can not wait to see it again. For those of you concerned about the 3 hour plus running time, here is something that may comfort you. Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, & Lord of the Rings:Return of the King, are actually longer movies. And I mean that as individual films, you smart-asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 How does it stack up to the origninal Mark? Im a big fan of the first one. Classic film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 HA! That was the best part of seeing at midnight (11:59PM, to be exact)... only 1 preview! It was for Denzel & Jodie Foster's new movie about a bank robbery. Still left the theater after 3 AM. , good thing I'm off this week. 532588[/snapback] Rico, did your preview of "Inside Man" play up that it was directed by Spike Lee? The preview I saw before Kong didn't even mention Lee. That movie has a friggin' awesome cast, why downplay Lee's role??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 How does it stack up to the origninal Mark? Im a big fan of the first one. Classic film. 534627[/snapback] Better. I watched the original on Tuesday night, then saw Jackson's version on Wed. The '33 version is great for what it was, but Jackson takes it to a level the orginial directors would have LOVED. There are remnants of dialogue, scenes and allusions to the orginial film as well. Jackson did his favorite film proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 Rico, did your preview of "Inside Man" play up that it was directed by Spike Lee?The preview I saw before Kong didn't even mention Lee. That movie has a friggin' awesome cast, why downplay Lee's role??? 534724[/snapback] Nope. No "Spike Lee joint", nothing. May be a smart move... doesn't look to be like any Spike Lee movie I've ever seen, his name may be box office poison to the masses... better to push Denzel & Jodie instead IMO. Better. I watched the original on Tuesday night, then saw Jackson's version on Wed. The '33 version is great for what it was, but Jackson takes it to a level the orginial directors would have LOVED. There are remnants of dialogue, scenes and allusions to the orginial film as well. Jackson did his favorite film proud. 534725[/snapback] It's really apples to oranges IMO, two totally different eras... I've easily seen the original at least 50x, don't know if I'll be doing the same for the new one. One thing's for sure to me... Jack Black is no Robert Armstrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 For those of you concerned about the 3 hour plus running time, here is something that may comfort you.Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, & Lord of the Rings:Return of the King, are actually longer movies. And I mean that as individual films, you smart-asses. 534545[/snapback] That scene at Mt. Doom dragged on so long, I was rooting for Gollum to pitch both of those squirts into the lava. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I watched "King Kong" on opening night, and I loved every minute of it. People may think the first hour is slow and long, but that was the only time they had to go into character development. I agree the movie really takes off when they get to Skull Island, but thats to be expected. All of the effects were fantastic: the brontosaur stampede, the giant insects & lizards, Kong & the 3 V-Rex's, and the battle atop the Empire State Building. The look of New York City during the 30's was amazing. All of the homages to the original film: the tribal dance in the theatre, the opening credits, RKO & Fay, "Cooper.......I should have known". Jack Black is very good as the director and showman Carl Denham, and Adrian Brody is good as Jack Driscoll. However, it is Naomi Watts who steals the show. She is stunning, funny, and sympathetic. The second half of the movie she spends mostly with Kong, and during that time she becomes a silent movie actor where she can only react and emote instead of just talking, and she does it brilliantly. Peter Jackson did an amazing job in making this film. I've been looking forward to it all year. I was taken aback when I heard it would be 3 hours long, but now I can not wait to see it again. For those of you concerned about the 3 hour plus running time, here is something that may comfort you. Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, & Lord of the Rings:Return of the King, are actually longer movies. And I mean that as individual films, you smart-asses. 534545[/snapback] Agreed, Mark. I saw King Kong last night, and I thought it was incredible. For as much hype and as many glowing reviews as it received, I was wary of it not living up to the hype. It's even better than what I expected. I like how you mentioned Watts and how she had to "act" in those scenes w/ Kong. It's pretty amazing how she could pull that off, especially considering that she not only did it w/out words, but did it w/out a co-star in essence, as Kong was all CGI, and a very well done CGI @ that. Jackson's company can more than hold their own against ILM. Those who saw the LOTR movies and remember how awesome the Gollum character is know what I mean. For those who are worried about the 3 hour length, I suggest you go see one of the 90 minute car chases, karate fights in slow motion, or idiotic comedies where everyone goes around calling each other "duuuuuude" all day that Hollywood offers up on the daily. Those are probably more your speed. Don't forget your Hot Pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I like how you mentioned Watts and how she had to "act" in those scenes w/ Kong. It's pretty amazing how she could pull that off, especially considering that she not only did it w/out words, but did it w/out a co-star in essence, as Kong was all CGI, and a very well done CGI @ 534822[/snapback] A movie nerd fact...Andy Serkis who played Gollum and Kong (he is also the chef in Kong) was in every scene with Watts acting out Kong's motions. I heard they had him up on a crane and he "aped" out all the movements and reactions for what became the CGI Kong in the finished film. It's still a credit to Watts to pull off her performance, but Serkis's presence (and Jackson's inventiveness) certainly had to help. Makes it easier than if she were just staring at a green screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 That scene at Mt. Doom dragged on so long, I was rooting for Gollum to pitch both of those squirts into the lava. 534771[/snapback] And even beyond that...even though Return of the King was a very good movie, it felt like it ended about fifteen minutes after it finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 For those who are worried about the 3 hour length, I suggest you go see one of the 90 minute car chases, karate fights in slow motion, or idiotic comedies where everyone goes around calling each other "duuuuuude" all day that Hollywood offers up on the daily. Those are probably more your speed. Don't forget your Hot Pockets. 534822[/snapback] PJ Interview (no direct link) What can we expect from the KING KONG DVD? Well, I'm not quite sure, because unlike LORD OF THE RINGS, and in LORD OF THE RINGS situation, once the first movie came out, then the extended DVD's were like sort of a foregone conclusion, and we were even doing the visual effects for the extended DVD's sort of straight after the film was finished. In this case Universal I think are waiting until the release of the film before they decide what strategically they want to do. The tentative plan is to release the movie as it is in the theatres on DVD sometime in the middle of next year, and there's certainly been talk of an extended cut, but I don't know, we haven't started working on it yet, that would be something we do during the new year. If I was putting in some other cool scenes, we'd have about thirty or forty minutes worth of extra stuff that we could do. There's some dinosaur sequences and some things as well that it's not just drama and character stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 i'm not planning on seeing Kong. i try to stay away from anything involving Jack Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 So...it's good for the medium 8 dollar popcorn and the big 6 dollar coke combo? 532598[/snapback] 8 dollor popcorn and 6 dollar coke im guessing you go to discount movie theaters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 That scene at Mt. Doom dragged on so long, I was rooting for Gollum to pitch both of those squirts into the lava. 534771[/snapback] Return of the King would be a much better movie if the lanced about 20 minutes out of the last hour. The whole Sam-Frodo thing was way overdone. "Do you remember The Shire, Mr. Frodo?" "Do you remember strawberries, Mr. Frodo?" "Do you remember when I asked you if you remembered The Shire a few minutes ago, Mr. Frodo?" ..... There's the ring. There's the volcano. Throw it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted December 18, 2005 Author Share Posted December 18, 2005 Return of the King would be a much better movie if the lanced about 20 minutes out of the last hour. The whole Sam-Frodo thing was way overdone. "Do you remember The Shire, Mr. Frodo?" "Do you remember strawberries, Mr. Frodo?" "Do you remember when I asked you if you remembered The Shire a few minutes ago, Mr. Frodo?" ..... There's the ring. There's the volcano. Throw it in. 535246[/snapback] Agree somewhat... but "You bow to no man" at the wedding was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I think I'm in love with Naomi Watts. Much better film than I expected, but I still think some scenes drug on a little too long. Just a minute here, and a couple minutes there, but all in all well worth seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I think I'm in love with Naomi Watts. What took you so long? Much better film than I expected, but I still think some scenes drug on a little too long. Just a minute here, and a couple minutes there, but all in all well worth seeing. 536129[/snapback] Reasonably, Jackson could have cut that by a good half an hour just by ditching the irrelevant sub-plots he threw in and trimming some of the gratuitious scenes (a few looked like he was thinking "Hey, this looked good in Lord of the Rings!...") And they changed the ending too much, letting the monkey live...oh, no, wait, that was Adrien Brody. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted December 19, 2005 Author Share Posted December 19, 2005 What took you so long?Reasonably, Jackson could have cut that by a good half an hour just by ditching the irrelevant sub-plots he threw in and trimming some of the gratuitious scenes (a few looked like he was thinking "Hey, this looked good in Lord of the Rings!...") And they changed the ending too much, letting the monkey live...oh, no, wait, that was Adrien Brody. Never mind. 536151[/snapback] Not to spoil, but especially Young Jimmy & the Second-in-Command. ..their presence will probably make more sense in the Extended DVD Edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 Not to spoil, but especially Young Jimmy & the Second-in-Command. ..their presence will probably make more sense in the Extended DVD Edition. 536405[/snapback] That wouldn't necessarily spoil it...my main beef is, if you're going to cut out that sub-plot, don't go halfway. Axe it or do it right. As it stood, it served no purpose. Ditto the extended bug attack...actually, I thought the whole scene at the log bridge was recreated poorly, from "turn back" to the deus ex machina rescue. It could have been done much simpler, more straightforward, and been more powerful. As it was, I thought it detracted from the otherwise overall excellence of the movie. But then, I could say the same thing about each of the LOTR movies. That's just Peter Jackson for you... At least his references in tribute to the original were nicely subtle...I loved the Fay Wray reference at the beginning. One thing I would like to know though...the King Kong posters in the New York scenes: does anyone know if those were reproductions of the original 1933 movie posters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I think I'm in love with Naomi Watts. Much better film than I expected, but I still think some scenes drug on a little too long. Just a minute here, and a couple minutes there, but all in all well worth seeing. 536129[/snapback] Did you ever see "21 Grams"? Naomi Watts is awesome in that film, as is Benicio Del Toro and Sean Penn. She has been very good in a lot of movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted December 19, 2005 Share Posted December 19, 2005 I picked up the DVD from this little Chinese lady on Canal Street Saturday. I'll let you know how "bad" the bootleg was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts