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

The review is there now. The link works.

Excellent, excellent review. Four stars. Ebert not only likes it better than the 1970's remake, he likes it better than the 1933 original. I generally find Ebert a useful/insightful reviewer, so for me at least this is very good news indeed.

This sounds like the must see movie of the year.

Oh, please!

I never SAID that I knew the new Kong was bad. I'm only expressing some skepticism about it. And the negative reviews I've read confirm -- yes, "confirm" -- that other people who have actually seen the film don't like what I suspect I might not like. That's all. It's not a fact that the new Kong is bad. And it's not a fact that it's good. But it is a fact that some reviewers don't like it. And what they don't like is exactly what I have feared that I wouldn't like.

Am I not entitled to post that sentiment or to post negative reviews? Is there a "buzz-kill" censorship on HTF?

You can look through this thread and see dozens of postings discussing an eagerness to see the film, but based on nothing except a sight-unseen anticipation of its being good. Fine. I'm not complaining. But be fair. Nobody should complain that I have been anticipating the opposite. As of this moment, almost 30,000 times has this thread been viewed. Maybe some percentage of viewers out there are also skeptical or are also interested in something other than the raves, even if the negative opinion is in the minority.

I happen to think that this new Kong is one of the most NEEDLESS remakes in Hollywood history. So, for me, that's an immediate strike against it.

And, over time, I have grown LESS impressed with Peter Jackson. Having recently re-read the actual LOTR books for the first time in over twenty years, it seems to me that Jackson got as much WRONG as he got right. This thread obviously isn't the place to detail that, but again it happens to be another cause of my skepticism about the new Kong.

Inter alia, for sure.

And do you think your position might be creating the slightest bias against it? It seemed obvious already from your other posts.

BTW what criteria are you using to determine how this is the most NEEDLESS remake in Hollywood history? Is it an objective checklist you could share with us or is it a subjective one? I suspect the latter.

Odd, I recently rewatched the movies and found he got around 80% perfectly, improved on about 10%, and only stumbled with 10%. Overall a masterful adaptation - and that is the key word - adaptation. Once more for posterity, if you want the book then read the book.

You keep on searching for those negative reviews Michael and post them to your hearts content. If you find enough of them, you won't even have to see the movie!

Hell, why see any film. Just let others confirm for you what you suspect right?

I like these two quotes from Ebert's review:

"King Kong" is a magnificent entertainment. It is like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film. Computers are used not merely to create special effects, but also to create style and beauty, to find a look for the film that fits its story. And the characters are not cardboard heroes or villains seen in stark outline, but quirky individuals with personalities.

The result is a surprisingly involving and rather beautiful movie -- one that will appeal strongly to the primary action audience, and also cross over to people who have no plans to see "King Kong" but will change their minds the more they hear. I think the film even has a message, and it isn't that beauty killed the beast. It's that we feel threatened by beauty, especially when it overwhelms us, and we pay a terrible price when we try to deny its essential nature and turn it into a product, or a target. This is one of the year's best films.

Damn Tino I was just about to post the same very two excerpts myself!

Between this thread and the one for Lost I might as well kick back, put my feet up, and leave my posting to you!

Great choices and it crystallizes why I get so pumped when a new PJ film is on the horizon. PJ has a mastery over the technical and human elements of film-making that allows him to expertly craft exciting and emotionally involving stories.

Great minds think alike, right Lou?:b

Bias shmias!

Again, all I said is that I have been skeptical about the new Kong. And that's an HTF crime, apparently.

But all those DOZENS of posts that have gone on and on -- again, also sight-unseen -- with excitement and eagerness and full expectation that the majority positive reviews are true, THOSE are perfectly fine, apparently. Why? Because they cater to the sentiment that wants the movie to be good? Why is THAT sentiment acceptable, but skepticism is not?

Personally, I have nothing invested in the new Kong. I don't care whether IT alone is specifically good or bad. But I'm a film-fan, and that means in general I would like EVERY film to be good. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't be skeptical about an upcoming release, right? Or that I can't express that on HTF, right?


I said that this new Kong strikes me as ONE of the most needless Hollywood remakes. Objective criteria? No, this is just my opinion. Naturally subjective. But so are all our opinions. We share them on HTF, even where we disagree, because we are interested in hearing different points of view. Right?

So, personally, I wasn't hankering for this particular remake because there doesn't seem to be a need to revise or revisit or re-vision the original. It's not like updating the original BEN HUR to the Heston version. Major changes there to take advantage of. But the new Kong basically has new animation technology and... nothing else to offer in the remake because the original was a truly GREAT film, just as it was and is. There's nothing especially LACKING in the original that calls out for a remake. My opinion.


Again, I only said that these negative reviews have "confirmed" that what I have suspected just might be wrong with the new Kong others, who have seen the film, also have in their opinion found to be wrong. It is a mere fact that there are negative reviews. That's the extent of the "confirmation." Nothing more. But all the tens of thousands of HTF viewers don't need to be protected from them. Just as they don't need safeguarding from positive reviews or from the postings of positive sentiments of movies that members haven't yet seen. Right?


Uh huh. Hmm.

Well, again, why not EQUALLY lambast all those MANY people who've posted POSITIVE reviews -- also sight-unseen?

But, ok, buzz-kill censors, you win. I'll shut up.

Plus, I'm sure the moderators don't want this thread to go on in this vein.

The Golden Globe nominations are starting to come in.
(I'll keep editing this)

Score - James Newton Howard
Director - Peter Jackson


There's a break now. They've also announced screenplay, Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress, and Foreign Film. The big awards are coming up. No Actress for Naomi. (I'm watching on Tivo so I'm a few minutes behind)

That's it, they're over. No Picture, Drama, ah well. Great for Peter and JNH though.

You're being martyr weird. Stop it.




We trust the good reviews more than the bad reviews, because of the lineage of the project and the people involved and their proven skills.

Thanks, Vickie. I was going to wait to see the film before picking up the score...now I won't

Semantics, Michael. Yes you did. You stated that a negative review CONFIRMED your suspicions, which is the same as stating you think negatively of the film. Grammar rules. That said, you can continue to post your thoughts. There is no censorship here. Please continue to contribute. I'll be in here tomorrow sharing my thoughts on the film. As for why we tolerate posting positive reviews more happily...hope springs eternal. People love optimists

Patty, it really DIDN'T. Adjusted for inflation, it probably got halfway there. It would have need another $600M to get within spitting distance

Great words by Ebert. I am very excited to see this.

As for PJ, seeing continuous strings of great scenes in TTT and FOTR over the last two weeks have shown him to be a director of truly uncommon poetry, skill, and grace. Yes, he had the huge advantage of Tolkien, but he used it so well, and made it positively sing on screen. I was shocked to see so many seminal scenes in a row when watching just 45 minutes of TTT this weekend (my wife forced me). His films have a real childlike joy of cinema in their very bones.

We don't, but your opinion has been duly noted.





Crawdaddy

Final Golden Globe nominations:

Score - James Newton Howard
Director - Peter Jackson

Wow I never thought Peter Jackson's King Kong would be so well embraced by bored seen-it-all-before critics. Roger Ebert who's not exactly a big fan of Jacksons loved it, "King Kong is a magnificent entertainment", "...one of the year's best films.", I'm gobsmacked, really. Never expected this level of adulation from film critics, it's even popping up in 10 best lists. More than ever I cannot wait to see this film.




The original was indeed a great film but I don't know anyone under the age of 20 who would be interested in watching it. A remake for a new generation, in 50 years there'll probably be another remake and on and on.



No it isn't, but apart from a handful of negative reviews that you're frantically digging up it looks like Peter Jackson has a huge success on his hands. My advice stop looking for reasons to hate this film like you did with Sith and Batman Begins and get in the festive spirit, it's Xmas!

I'm female, and I can not wait to see this!




I think people on this forum tend to forget that we are film geeks and lovers. When I first heard about Peter Jackson remaking this, even I thought it was a bit pointless. But I think we have to remember that "average" people out there tend to dismiss the '33 Kong simply because of dated effects and (gasp) black and white!
I had to bribe my 9 year old niece to watch the original and she said it was a good movie, but would have been better in colour. My sister, who is in her 30's, will not watch any movie in black and white (or widescreen), because black and white = bad and stupid to her.
If Peter Jackson can succeed in bringing this story to another generation, I will be very happy.

Me too Chuck. I'll be picking it up this morning.

Still contemplating whether to see it at midnight tonight or first thing tomorrow!

My Sandra's the same, if I'm watching a B/W film and she's walking thru the room she'll ask me if I'm feeling alright, as if B/W films should only be seen by 85 year olds. If we're watching a movie and there's a flashback in B/W she'll look at me accusingly as if I'm secretly messing around with the remote. Her logic is we have a color tv why on earth would you want to watch a B/W film on it...

Back to Kong, James Newton Howard eh? I've been a fan of his since Flatliners 15 years ago, I was angry when Howard Shore's score was replaced but looks like Peter Jackson knows very well what he's doing, have to pick up that soundtrack.

Michael you are entitled to your opinion of course. Unfortunately you have created a mindset for yourself that will make enjoying it almost impossible now.

You have become predisposed to having a negative view and nothing short of a life changing event will change your mind now. Kong won't be that kind of movie. It could be a lot of fun and you could be missing out on that.

Because those posts are based on PJ's track record.

I won't be seeing Kong til tomorrow at 3PM...can't make it to a midnight show unfortunately, but I'll be on here tomorrow morning to see all your reviews.

Ebert's review got me even more pumped.

New animation technology? That's it? I wonder if you'll feel the same after seeing it. Ebert saying it's better than the '33 version is a pretty big statement.

In case some of you haven't seen it yet, be sure to check out the new Kong site. Some cool stuff on there. http://kingkong.com/home.html

Poorly conceived, badly executed remakes that add nothing to the story are indeed needless, but indications are that Jackson's effort is NOT that. It's clear that it adds depth of characterization and drama to the story, and the updated FX are used to that end. Being so against this film means either hating Jackson for some reason or thinking any conceivable remake is some sort of "desecration", even though Jackson clearly reveres the original.

Because, IMHO, you had crossed over from skepticism into bashing a film you had not seen. Your "Let's hear it for The New Yorker! Right on!", read very much like you would be pleased that the film was not successful.

I think most of the posters in this thread would be disappointed and saddened if the movie was a failure or even mediocre. I think you would probably dance a jig of celebration. At least that's the impression you've given me.

IMHO, I think that's why you've been criticized, not for content, but attitude.

Folks, let's stop pouncing on the skeptical member, huh? The conversation has moved on. Thanks.

I agree that most remakes do not respect the material.. there is a right way of making a remake and the wrong way.. for example.. bewitched is the wrong way to do it and kong is the right way.. I think Jackson has alot of respect for the material like he showed in lotr series.. I have more faith in jackson doing kong then say someone else...

I did see kong last night.. it was the best movie of the year.
my new favorite movie.
one thing for sure.. it had more heart to it.. unlike the other crap that I had seen this year.

JACOB

Nevermind

Jack,

I am shocked, shocked by your apparent cautious interest in this thing... A CGI ladden remake of a reverred classic by the MTV generation darling director of the Lord of the Rings?

*gak*

--
H

I might agree with you if the '76 film had been a good one, but it wasn't. There have been over 70 years that has passed since the original was made. Technology improves, and what you can do on film is very different. What the audience is used to today is different than what audiences expected back in '33. Occasionally remaking films for a new audience is not a bad thing. Hollywood has done it for years, sometimes to great effect. You bring up Ben Hur, and I actually disagree with you that this is a different case. I'd probably argue the primary difference there is technology as well. The wide aspect ratio, color, being better able to film a chariot race, are big additions to the story.

A few pages back, someone mentioned that they didn't think that Star Wars appealed to teenaged girls. I find that a strange comment, since I know lots of women of my generation who love the original trilogy. Maybe you are just talking to the wrong ones...

As for Kong, my wife is really just lukewarm to it because she doesn't like the perception that some might get of gorillas because of these films. (She's thinking that it is like Jaws in that respect.) Her friend has absolutly no interest in seeing it, because she didn't like the original film. Both loved LotR.

Jason

Count me as a "positive" skeptic.

I think KK will be good. HOWEVER does it need to be 3 hours long? One reason I'm not hyped up is because I found a LOT of the LOTR films boring (I actually dozed off during TTT and I never do that...especially after I've paid $8-plus & cola & popcorn). I also found the SFX underwhelming (except Gollum of course).

But this is a different film, a different genre. I enjoyed KK '33 and even tolerate the '76 version. I like Peter Jackson. Even my sister is excited to see this film. So I'll be there. I'll just have a LOT of caffine first.

Or have someone nudge you every 10 minutes.

The creaky ancient 1933 version is more likely to send todays audiences off to the land of nod rather than Peter Jackson's super loud in-your-face remake. Thanks to the LOTR trilogy people are well used to spending hours at the cinema now. I like the fact Kong is 187 mins long, an epic fantasy, why not? Thanks to my girl I've sat thru so many crappy 75-85 min horror films the past few years it'll make a nice change to spend an entire evening at the cinema, just have to make sure it's one where the seats are reasonably comfortable.

You're just ensured yourself at least 1 trip to the bathroom.

--
H

As Ebert said, no good movie is ever too long, and no bad movie ever short enough. Jackson really gives you a lot of movie for your dollar, and not just in running time. That's one of his greatest strengths. He overwhelms. As jacob said, his films always have a lot of heart (something I also attribute to his co-writers). Jackson is a big boy, but having two women there has been a great blessing to film fans. It is a synergy that provides something for everyone...and not just a little something.

Jason, I made the SW/teenage girl comment based on anecdotal evidence. I stand by it, as well. My wife likes the OT as well, but not like I like it.

All indications are that Jackson has added to the basic story from 1933. It's not just the technology, but improvements in the dramatic in the last 70 years that are brought to bear.