It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong

#691

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 12:25am

Spero D
offline

Joined: February 2000
Post Count: 398

Just saw the movie and loved it. The effects were top notch and I didn't find the film to drag at all.
Warning Spoiler! Click to show

The effects towards the end with Kong on the Empire State building are awesome.

As is the way Peter Jackson has created 1933 New York. I enjoyed Jack Black, and found it hard to dislike him as a baddie as I laughed at most of what he said and did (where maybe I shouldn't of?)

Naomi Watts is both hot and a good actress and the relationship between here and Kong worked. I would give this film an 8 out of 10. A 9 had they trimmed about 30 minutes from the movie. It ran about 2h45m with 15min of credits. Can't wait to get this on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD and listed to the Kong-V-Rex fight on my HT

#692

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 7:59am

Johnny Angell
offline

Joined: December 1998
Location: Little Rock, AR
Post Count: 2,069

Quote:

Johnny, late year Variety magazines are full of FYC ads. They are never sold as posters. You have to get the ads themselves.

Thanks, Chuck. I'll keep an eye on eBay for the Kong * Vrex pair.

Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
Another cat? Perhaps. For love there is also a season; its seeds must be resown. But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that...

#693

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 10:48am

Paul_Scott
offline

Joined: July 2002
Post Count: 6,078

big negative review from Scott Holleran over on Box office Mojo

Quote:

It took director Peter Jackson with a multi-million dollar budget to remake King Kong as an epic, and what a monstrosity he has made. the latest King Kong is a debacle from every angle... This extravaganza is moviemaking at its lowest: small ideas amplified and anthropomorphized with a big budget.

i'm not familiar with his other reviews, but some of his comments do have me concerned. For me, this could be a repeat of another experience i had this year, where the advance word was overwhelmingly positive and i fully expected the material to be at a certain level and was honestly surprised that it fell well short of that level (for me). and more to the point, that my reaction was well within the derided/dismissed minority opinion.

its weird to walk out a film/event where everyone else is tripping all over themselves gushing praise, and all you can see are weak/poor creative choices at every turn.

#694

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 11:08am

BrianShort
offline

Joined: January 2000
Post Count: 928

Paul, what was the earlier movie you're referring to? I'm not going to read the review, as I don't want to be subconsciously looking for whatever flaws he thought the movie had, but it sounds like he absolutely hated it. Given that nearly every other review I've seen (at least the ones listed at Rotten Tomatoes) are almost complete raves, it's intersting that what works for everyone else doesn't work at all for a few others.

I have experienced this a couple times myself just this year though. ROTS was widely praised, and I didn't care for it that much in the end. WotW was another movie everyone elsed seemed to love that I didn't really get into that much when I saw it in the theater. However, when I recently watched the DVD, I enjoyed it a LOT more.

Brian

#695

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 11:20am

Kyle_D
offline

Joined: August 2004
Post Count: 386

Meh, not a big deal. I usually find Box Office Mojo's critics way too harsh. We all knew the movie was overlong before this and if he doesn't like epic bombast, he shouldn't be watching a Peter Jackson movie.

My Dvd Collection

#696

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 11:30am

Ben Osborne
offline

Joined: March 2002
Post Count: 437

"...small ideas amplified and anthropomorphized.."

Ideas anthropomorphized? That doesn't make any sense. To anthropomorphize is to give something human characteristics. How does this movie give an idea human characteristics? If the reviewer means that the ape is anthropomorphized, then his statement is inaccurate, since the ape is not an "idea". Bad writing.

#697

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 11:46am

Kyle_D
offline

Joined: August 2004
Post Count: 386

New Post Production Diary up, this time on the Junket and Premiere. Some very funny stuff in there (the various clips of Jackson giving the story of him seeing the original Kong when he was 9 and his deadpan introduction to them is priceless) and in the end it even gets a bit bittersweet that next week is the last diary.

My Dvd Collection

#698

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 12:03pm

Paul_Scott
offline

Joined: July 2002
Post Count: 6,078

Brian i'd rather not give the title as it would most likely just become a distraction to the point i was trying to make. anyone that knows me could probably guess it and not be wrong.

and there wasn't so much any specific reference in the review that had me bothered, so much as the whole tone which was in the "emperor has no clothes' vibe.

some of the tweaks Jackson has made strike me as very logical, sound, and to the benefit of a more engaging story over all. that has me exicted. i love to see people put thought into the logic of fantasy situations. especially in terms of motivation.
i was intrigued when jackson said that he was going to explore Ann's background to show how she could believably survive in this situation without being rendered a catatonic casualty. and from what almost every review has 'spoiled', it seems like an intellignet solution that Jackson came up with. and its obvious that Kong himself has finally been treated as a character with motivations that are clearer, more relatable, and even more nuanced than ever before- another huge plus imo.

given all the smart thought that went into the above elements, it bothers me to read the Jeff Wells comments because i actually agree with him and can easily see these things as being very distracting and undercutting the emotional honesty that Pete seems to be otherwise nailing.
to recap, Wells was mocking the contrivance that Kong and Ann are running around NYC in winter, with snow on the ground, and Ann is clad only in a flimsy evening dress and never appears to be affcted by the temperature...even when she is atop the steel cap of the ESB-in what must surely be below freezing wind chill conditions.

#699

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 12:03pm

Patrick Sun
online

Joined: June 1999
Post Count: 33,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic

Quote:

Anthropomorphism, a form of personification (applying human or animal qualities to inanimate objects) and similar to prosopopoeia (adopting the persona of another person), is the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects, or natural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, and unseen or unknown authors of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphosis.

Ape is an animal, yes?

"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Dragon*Con 2009 | Heroes Con 2009

#700

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 12:18pm

Kyle_D
offline

Joined: August 2004
Post Count: 386

Quote:

it bothers me even more to read the Wells comments because i actually agree with him and can easily see these things as being very distracting and undercutting the emotional honesty that Pete seems to be otherwise nailing.
to recap, Wells was mocking the contrivance that Kong and Ann are running around NYC in winter, with snow on the ground, and Ann is clad only in a flimsy evening dress and never appears to be affcted by the temperature...even when she is atop the steel cap of the ESB-in what must surely be below freezing wind chill conditions.

Wells wrote that before seeing the movie, and later posted a quite positive review of the film and almost offered up an apology to Jackson for giving him such a hard time.

Quote:

Ape is an animal, yes?

But the sentence referred to an *idea*, not an ape, being anthropomorphized. An ape is not an idea.

My Dvd Collection

#701

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 12:46pm

Patrick Sun
online

Joined: June 1999
Post Count: 33,000

That's nitpicking, the reviewer was referring to the ape. It happens when people rant.

"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Dragon*Con 2009 | Heroes Con 2009

#702

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 12:58pm

Paul_Scott
offline

Joined: July 2002
Post Count: 6,078

Kyle, you were right, it appears Wells wasn't bothered by that (or other lapses of sense that he says will be enumerated later).

Quote:

I saw King Kong for the second time Monday morning (12.5), and I feel the same way I did after my first viewing Sunday night. About 110 minutes of this three-hour film (i.e., the last two-thirds) are rock 'n' roll and worth double the ticket price. And the finale is genuinely touching.

After Sunday night's screening at the Academy theatre I called the better parts of this monkey movie "damned exciting in an emotional, giddily absurd, logic-free adrenalized way."

Kong isn't better than Jackson's Heavenly Creatures because it's almost entirely about enthusiasm and has almost nothing to do with restraint (bad word!), but it's still the most thoroughly pulse-pumping, rousingly kick-ass film Jackson's ever delivered, and respect needs to be paid.

And I mean especially by someone who's been bashing the pud out of Jackson for the last four years or so, calling him an indulgent (and overly indulged), excessive, paint-splattering "wheeeeee!" director all this time.

Make no mistake -- Kong shows Jackson is still all of these things. But Kong is a movie with a big heart and a stupidly exuberant joie de cinema coarsing through its veins...during the second and third acts, I mean.

And even though Jackson has gone way beyond the point where he's able to show minimal respect for physics and could-this-happen? issues of logic and probability ...a point from which he'll never return...he manages such amazing visual feats and surges once the film takes off that all objections are moot. Even if some of the action scenes are cartoonishly wham-bam and ridiculous.

Sometime next week I'm going to run a list of things in King Kong that make little or no sense (and it's a long list), but right now it's simply time to acknowledge that the parts of the film that get your blood racing and your emotions worked up work really well.

#703

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 2:20pm

TerryRL
offline

Joined: September 2001
Post Count: 3,644

So it begins...

The Broadcast Film Critics Association announced the nominees for the 11th annual Critics' Choice awards and "King Kong" earned nods for Best Picture and Best Director.

'Kong' also made the AFI's Top Ten list for 2005...

"Brokeback Mountain"
"Capote"
"Crash"
"The 40-Year-Old Virgin"
"Good Night, and Good Luck"
"A History of Violence"
"King Kong"
"Munich"
"The Squid and the Whale"
"Syriana"

"Quite an experience to live in fear isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

#704

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 2:37pm

Tino
offline

Joined: April 1999
Post Count: 3,946

Quote:

big negative review from Scott Holleran over on Box office Mojo

Not a fan of this "critic" at all. He seems to hate whatever is popular, judging from his past reviews.

Probably just a disgruntled wannabe serious critic who never made it to the big time.

Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus.

#705

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 2:45pm

TerryRL
offline

Joined: September 2001
Post Count: 3,644

Ouch.

Tell us how you really feel Tino.

"Quite an experience to live in fear isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

#706

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 3:01pm

Kyle_D
offline

Joined: August 2004
Post Count: 386

Quote:

Probably just a disgruntled wannabe serious critic who never made it to the big time.

Well with slip-ups like the anthropomorphized misuse, one can understand why

My Dvd Collection

#707

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 4:32pm

BrianShort
offline

Joined: January 2000
Post Count: 928

I dunno, he really liked Batman Begins. I wanted to see what he said about The Return of the King, but he didn't do a review for it. I think maybe he just prefers movies that are heavy on plot and not so heavy on spectacle?

#708

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 4:52pm

MikeRS
offline

Joined: July 2002
Post Count: 1,326

Quote:

But the sentence referred to an *idea*, not an ape, being anthropomorphized. An ape is not an idea.

A mutated oversized ape is definitely a fictional 'idea'.

At least, I hope it is.

#709

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 6:12pm

Chuck Mayer
offline

Joined: August 2001
Post Count: 7,528

It's still dreadful grammar. More and more prevalent among "journalists" these days. I mourn the skill with the written word.

As for the negative review...ehhh. Every film gets them. It's not critically split. It's pretty heavy one way. I've still disliked a few wildly popular films, and liked some pretty widely hated ones. No big deal. No need to discredit the reviewer.

Take care,
Chuck

Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#710

Rating: 0

12/11/05 at 8:01pm

Mike.P
offline

Joined: December 2004
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post Count: 289

I don't know if I am going to be able to make it 2 more days to this.

Easily my most anticipated movie of the last few months, and probably of the year (although Sin City has something to say about that).

I honestly feel this may be one of the greatest achievements in cinema...funny, I'm pretty sure that possibly earlier in this thread I said I didn't have any interest in this. Funny what 1 trailer (in comparision to the teaser) could do for you.

#711

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 2:25am

Brian W.
offline

Joined: July 1999
Post Count: 1,889

Ooh, Time magazine did NOT like King Kong. They have it as part of a group of reviews of films being released between now and Christmas. The review article is co-authored by their longtime critics Richard Schickel and Richard Corliss, but not sure who wrote what, or if it was a concensus between them:

Quote:

And our response to the ape's doom, once touched by authentic tragedy, is now marked by relief that this wretchedly excessive movie is finally over.

Ouch! (If it's any consolation, they hated Narnia, too.)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...139824,00.html

David Ansen of Newsweek liked it very much... however, it is not among his picks for top ten films of the year.

#712

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 4:22am

Tino
offline

Joined: April 1999
Post Count: 3,946

Quote:

As for the negative review...ehhh. Every film gets them. It's not critically split. It's pretty heavy one way. I've still disliked a few wildly popular films, and liked some pretty widely hated ones. No big deal. No need to discredit the reviewer

I agree Chuck, but sometimes it's fun to discredit some reviewers.

Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus.

#713

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 6:39am

Chuck Mayer
offline

Joined: August 2001
Post Count: 7,528

I know. The guy might deserve it. But until I see the film, I can't judge whether he is a raging tool or not. I can ASSUME he is. I'll know in 48 hours, as I have my ticket to the midnight show

Like ROTK, I kept any interest in KK beneath the surface, but the last two weeks have just demolished my self-restraint. Seeing bits and pieces of TTT and FOTR on TV the past few weeks reminded me of what a truly gifted director PJ is, and this is his dream project. Seeing the ads for Kong show it to be right up my alley (as I expected it would be). I'm thrilled it's almost here.

Take care,
Chuck

Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#714

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 6:46am

Craig S
Craig Seanor
online

Joined: March 2000
Location: League City, TX (just south of Planet Houston)
Post Count: 4,874

I've never liked Holleran much. He's always seemed to be one of those reviewers who goes in with a big chip on his shoulder, especially about blockbusters.

At this point negative reviews aren't going to bother me. The consensus is still quite positive. My favorite critic is (and always will be) Roger Ebert, and his 4 stars are good enough for me!

#715

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 9:06am

Jack Briggs
offline

Joined: June 1999
Post Count: 16,605

The Los Angeles Times's chief film critic, Kenneth Turan, gave the film a rave review in this morning's edition. And, yesterday, Mr. Ebert and Mr. Roeper weighed in highly positively ("two thumbs way up"). And I read elsewhere that some pundits are predicting this film is on its way to the top (as in, look out Titanic).

#716

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 9:13am

Kyle_D
offline

Joined: August 2004
Post Count: 386

Quote:

And I read elsewhere that some pundits are predicting this film is on its way to the top (as in, look out Titanic).

Yeah....that's hype. Kong is going to do well, even fantastically well, but the difference between the number 2 worldwide grosser (Return of the King) and Titanic is something like 800 million. I just can't see it happening, especially since I don't think you're going to see any teenage girls going back to the movie 7 times to fawn over Adrien Brody, Jack Black or a giant gorilla

My Dvd Collection

#717

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 9:22am

Rakesh.S
offline

Joined: October 2002
Post Count: 455

there is no way in hell this is going to touch titanic.

I doubt it'll make $1 billion worldwide.

Best guess -- maybe 600-700 million.

#718

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 9:29am

Tino
offline

Joined: April 1999
Post Count: 3,946

Quote:

I just can't see it happening, especially since I don't think you're going to see any teenage girls going back to the movie 7 times to fawn over Adrien Brody, Jack Black or a giant gorilla

Yeah but...those teenage boys hungering for an action packed monster movie with hot Naomi Watts may go more times than that.

Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus.

#719

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 9:29am

Sam Davatchi
offline

Joined: September 1999
Location: Paris, France
Post Count: 3,121

Quote:

the difference between the number 2 worldwide grosser (Return of the King) and Titanic is something like 800 million.

I'm still amazed. The success of Titanic is really kind of amazing, isn't it!

#720

Rating: 0

12/12/05 at 9:36am

Johnny Angell
offline

Joined: December 1998
Location: Little Rock, AR
Post Count: 2,069

I think there is the potential for this to be number one grosser, but only time will tell. Ebert & Roeper called it the best monster movie of all time. I think it was Roeper who was saying Naomi deserved an oscar nomination.

I was going to say that a 3-hour run time would preclude KK from catching Titanic, but Titanic was over 3 hours too.

Often when you love the original movie and a remake comes out, you hope the remake isn't good. I'm reacting just the opposite, I really want this movie to be great. I'm looking forward to a DVD double feature of two King Kongs.

I think we can safely say that this movie ought to make a buck or two in profits.

Johnny
www.teamfurr.org
Another cat? Perhaps. For love there is also a season; its seeds must be resown. But a family cat is not replaceable like a wornout coat or a set of tires. Each new kitten becomes its own cat, and none is repeated. I am four cats old, measuring out my life in friends that...

Tags

Other Threads

Recent Reviews

What Users Want

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis