King Kong

[IamErik771]

Here is the thread in which we can discuss Peter Jackson's latest masterpiece.

I personally thought that the Lord of the Rings films were the very best trilogy ever made, so I was a bit skeptical about Kong at first. I thought, "Why is PJ wasting his time with this instead of filming The Hobbit?" But now that I've seen the trailers, visited the site, read and listened to many rave reviews, and played a bit of the video game, I have to say that I am now really looking forward to seeing it. And I'm glad PJ isn't "trimming it down" too much - it's over 3 hours long, and we don't see Kong himself until about an hour in! :D

[Countess Cain]

I plan on seeing it. First, it has Peter Jackson, Adrian Brody, Jack Black, and all those other awesome people in it. Also, the trailer seems to be pretty good... So yeah.

As for 'The Hobbit'... I don't think they were able to get the rights to it from what I've heard.

[IamErik771]

Really? That's a bummer. Actually, what I think it was about was that New Line Cinema and Warner Brothers were fighting over who had the rights to make it. I don't think it really matters, but since New Line did the LOTR series, they should do Hobbit as well. 'Tis only fair.

[Victome15]

King Kong is the best movie of the year. Point blank.

[sunshine]

Wow! can't wait to see this movie I've heard lots of good reviews about it, but haven't got to go to see it yet {sigh's}. I know its been out fot awhile already but have been realy caught up in school and with christmas and all. well hope to go see it soon :D

[The Khanum]

I saw it yesterday... Definitely a must-see. PJ did an excellent job with the emotional aspect of the story. True, it had it's semi-hokey parts, but all in all, definitely worth the money.

Plus, Adrian Brody is like, whoa. :D

[Countess Cain]

I saw it a few years ago. It was pretty good... The landscapes were really beautiful, the acting was good, and... Yeah.

The tribal people scared me more than the dinosaurs did. O_o;

[Angelic]

I want to see it, but I don't know if any of my friends want to as well. I love Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. I'm curious about this one and it looks amazing though rather long yet it's Peter Jackson, who wouldn't expect that? Plus Adrien Brody is very tempting heh. :D

[goldenflower141]

It was a dissapointment, really. But Naomi Watts and Adrian Brody were awesome!

[Angelic]

I've heard mixed reviews about it, but I hope I can see it before it's out of theaters, but who knows. I want to see Jackson's take on the story. *nods*

[Rapturous Angel]

I saw it. *Sniff, sniff* the ending was so sad!

[Jacques de Chagny]

My mom and sister are in love with this movie.... my little sister cries at the end ALL THE TIME... I like it too, just not like they do.

[Eriks_Christine]

Ugh! Personally, I thought the movie was just plain stupid. It had tones of pointless stuff! And I am only half way through it! I guess I am not a big fan with the whole intense stuff. Oh well, that's just my opinion!

[Chance_or_Destiny]

I really wasn't looking forward to seeing King Kong, but my friends voted and i lost. But i have to say that i was very wrong about it - the plot was intense and moving. And i was very very unhappy with the fact that he died. The fact that the emotion and chaos was so perfectly captured was astonding, and thats what sold it to me.

[AAW0487]

I can't really decide whether to rent this movie or not. I heard it won some really good awards, but there are a lot of mixed reviews on it. I guess I will have to check it out in the next few weeks though.

[MystMoonstruck]

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't read this unless you really want to know about "KK"! I give examples of why this is an AWFUL movie! I don't want to spoil "surprises" for anyone. But, if you'd like to be forewarned...

I was looking soooo forward to seeing this film since the original is one of my all-time favorites. The remake with Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges was dreadful, horrible, ghastly, pitiful, etc.

So, with great expectations, I watched "KK" when it debuted on HBO. I was aghast! Surely this couldn't be as awful as I thought! So, I watched it again. No. Still dreadful to a degree that couldn't have come from PJ! So, I watched it with my mother, who had this to say at various times: "Are they serious?" "Is this supposed to be a spoof?" "They've got to be kidding!" "That's ridiculous!" "Peter Jackson did this?!" "I think the Zucker brothers would be jealous of this as a spoof!" "You're SURE they're serious?!"

It's a shameful mess! They destroyed Carl Denham's character, making him a loser who is more interested in his film than anyone else. He's a coward and a wimp, whereas the original is a boisterous, courageous, perhaps foolhardy filmmaker who is ready to take risks. Carl is based on one of the men who gave us the original.

Yes, the effects are amazing though the matte/greenscreen stuff gets awfully sloppy at times.

First, we're given all this about the Depression. Then, they change the gruff, stoic hero of the original into a writer played by A Brody! They make fun of the dialogue and other parts of the original film. NASTY, PJ! That's just snide and nasty!

The natives in Kong were portrayed as noble and brave, worshiping Kong more than truly fearing him. In the movie, they're hideous creatures who barely seem human! WHY?!

The cheesy leading man in no way resembles someone who would have been an action hero/leading man type in that time period. Even the posters on his cabin wall are objectionable, especially the one in which the girl reveals so much cleavage. NOT in that time period could you find a sleazy movie poster such as that! Also, he's played as a buffoon, calling for a stnd-in at one point. The original movie doesn't even have such a character because Carl Denham was going to have Ann as Beauty to whatever Beast was on the island.

Instead of one T-rex as in the original, we now have THREE of them, all wanting one tiny little morsel of girl! One even pursues her while hanging on to the enormous creature it has killed. WHY?! If it has such a huge meal, why is it chasing her?! If it wants her, why not dump the other creature? Did PJ and other screenwriters think they had to have MORE critters than the original?!

A real person would have been long gone if thrown around as much as Ann is by Kong! Later, he holds her throughout the battle--even with his foot at one point!

So, how strong ARE those vines? They manage to hold up T-rexes AND Kong?! That's ridiculous!

The kid, who has never used a gun tommyguns insects off AB's body without filling him full of holes, then he throws the gun away! So, what was the point of his character even, why build up his story if it wasn't for some purpose?

Why the giant batlike creatures?! I guess pterodactyls weren't good enough for their new film, so they had to thrown in whatever they were supposed to be.

The sauropods stampeded through a narrow canyon--pursued by--um--what are they? raptors? little rexes? perhaps an allosaurus or two? Adrian shoulder-bumps one and knocks it over?! Oh! Get real! Only four of them get smushed by the stampede, while others slip and slide around the bodies!

Although biplanes later kill Kong, all it takes is a spray of bullets to bring down a sauropod! WHAT?!

What's with the ridiculous vaudeville routine for the gorilla?! Ann bonds with Kong?! I don't think so! And the bit where they slide around on the icy pond that doesn't collapse under an enormous gorilla... So, how does she run around in a satin gown and heels during wintry weather and never get cold, especially during the end trek? Ann tries to wave away the biplanes! Also, she stands on the tiptop of the Empire State Building, and the breeze gently flows through her hair and over her gown. Sure it does! They run into each other's arms--on the top of the ESB! Then, there's her marathon climb up the side of the building: Show biplanes, show Kong, show Ann climbing, show biplanes, show Ann climbing, show Kong, show Ann climbing... Repeat as necessary.

I could list a hundred awful moments with scarcely one "WOW!" I'm disappointed and disgusted with this film. Go watch the original! The magic of it is that Kong is a fearsome creature throughout, terrorizing Ann and everyone else, yet we still feel sad when he dies at the end. Get it?! This one sets up an Ahhhh thing about Kong, shows us a kidnapped girl bonding with an enormous beast, then acts as if the romance is between her and Kong, not the man who rescues her.

Why the bit about "Heart of Darkness"?! You're not making "Apocalypse Kong", PJ! Talk about something sticking out like a sore thumb! Don't have two characters discussing Joseph Conrad (even in voiceover!) during a fantasy film! Also, don't start with endless footage about the Depression! It takes forever before they EVER get to the island!

Trust me: I could continue this tirade. It makes me angry that a trusted filmmaker could betray his material so thoroughly, even making fun of it throughout his "homage". It's no salute to a beloved classic! The "Let him roar" line should have been delivered by a reporter, whose flashing bulbs made Kong believe that he was attacking Ann, thus causing his escape. In this, Kong is upset because they gave him the wrong blonde?! ARRRGH! Also, Kong goes through how many blondes looking for Ann, but he immediately recognizes Brody's character?! *SIGH*

I love PJ's work, but I detest this one! I've given it several chances to change my mind. I despise it more each time. You should be able to lose yourself in a fantasy. Stephen King says that it takes mental muscles to lift SF/fantasy/horror, to achieve "suspension of disbelief". PJ did this stunningly, effectively, dazzlingly in "LOTR". He fails miserably in "King Kong". I need to watch the original to remind myself how it SHOULD be done!

PLEASE! Do yourself a huge favor, and watch the original from the '30s. The soundtrack is probably the first to be written for a film. Before then, they composed bits here and there or used classical music. Max Steiner, who wrote the music for "Gone With the Wind", did a magnificent job. Yes, the special effects look clumsy at times, but Willis O'Brien created stop motion, which was what preceded CGI. His Kong was brought to life by moving a model a fraction at a time, shooting frames then repeating until there was a complete movement. His Kong might have been a small model, but it acts. Fay Wray is luminous as Ann--delicate, feisty and one of the best screamers in film history. Watch Carl Denham in this. Jack Black is the palest shadow of this character. Back when I was young and this was on TV, we couldn't imagine how this was made. It truly seemed to be magic. O'Brien invented matte shots and other inventive film tricks that would be copied for decades to come. Kong's attack on the el train is so evocative that, when there was a dreadful crash 60some years later, most people would say they were reminded of "King Kong"; I know that I was. It's a beautiful fantasy film, and you'll grieve over Kong's ending just as much, even though Ann is terrified of him till the end. He transcends being a monster.

[ChristineJ16]

LMAO!!!!! MystMoonstruck, your review on King Kong 2005 made me laugh quite hard, but it's also so true. Parts of it I liked, but there was a lot of corniness. It also was way too long. The spider pit scene should have never been filmed. It was totally pointless. The original was great, I just would have liked to see Fay Wray's Ann loosen up just a little bit. It showed that she hated Kong the whole time. Even when he protected her she still always showed she was terrified of him. It's one of the things I liked about the 1976 version. Jessica Lange's version of Ann, Dwan, warmed up a little bit, but still stayed a bit fearful. That's the perfect mixture to have. Naomi Watts was practically falling in love with Kong, which is pretty cheesy. Oh, well, maybe another remake will be made and someone will get it right. Until then we still have the original, the best one yet.