Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong - Page 20  

post #571 of 814
11/29/05 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Not 10,000.


325.
The warm up guy gave us the head count.
It was great fun, and I'm really a Letterman guy. But, the opportunity presented its self and when I learned Miss Naomi was on....:b
Jay did his usual smarm act, but then, don't most of the actresses seem to welcome that or they wouldn't dress....well, no, I can't follow through on that.
Anyway, she did have a set of granny panties for show and tell.
The dress.
The was filmy and the neckline kept being pulled down by the weight of the lapel mike. She pulled it back up, countless times, or maybe it was 27. Studio was quite cool and did I mention I was 30 feet away and the dress was filmy?
post #572 of 814
11/29/05 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Studio was quite cool and did I mention I was 30 feet away and the dress was filmy?
Having watched 21 Grams, I can see why this would bear repeating.

--
H
post #573 of 814
12/1/05 at 8:53am
KIK.Net has the first review out of the recent screening in NYC. The gist--very positive, with a few minor complaints about length. Some spoilers therein:

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/17/1133443854

--Jefferson Morris
post #574 of 814
12/1/05 at 9:16am
I'm scheduled to see it tomorrow morning at the exhibitor screening, will report back later.
post #575 of 814
12/1/05 at 11:59am
All the interviews w/ clips posts on kongisking.net look great. Only 2 weeks left.
post #576 of 814
12/1/05 at 2:09pm
Just rewatched the 1976 version, first time in ages. Anyway I find that one very mediocre. Certainly it's passable entertainment. But they don't seem to spend a lot of time on Kong or about Kong, with the exception of playing up his supposed lusting for Jessica Lange. I'm sorry, but I don't think a 100 ft Gorilla is going to find a tiny human female attractive as a sex object. Just doesn't wash.

I hope the new movie will have a much more interesting story, including finding out about Kong, why is he so big, etc.
post #577 of 814
12/1/05 at 2:59pm
Easy, radioactive waste!
post #578 of 814
12/1/05 at 3:58pm
Quote:
including finding out about Kong, why is he so big
I hope not. I hate movies that try to come up with lame pseudo-scientific explanations for the unexplainable. It's a monster movie and Kong's the monster. That's all I need to know.
post #579 of 814
12/1/05 at 4:13pm
Quote:
I hope not. I hate movies that try to come up with lame pseudo-scientific explanations for the unexplainable.

Amen. Midichlorians, anyone??
post #580 of 814
12/1/05 at 4:40pm
Quote:
including finding out about Kong, why is he so big

They bump into mad Dr. Moreau (Jeremy Irons) on the island, still experimenting...

Kong's tiny next to Godzilla, let's see, Kong's about 50ft? pfft pipsqueak! The Big G... 400ft in it's stocking feet. Now that's impressive.
post #581 of 814
12/1/05 at 5:12pm
Oh Jeffrey Wells...losing his shit again

Quote:
"I love you, Kong, and I don't know to say except that I can't be with you and it's breaking my heart, just as it's breaking yours. The wind chill factor feels like icy serrated steel 89 or 90 stories above Manhattan in the dead of winter with snow on the streets, and little me wearing only a sheer white evening dress. But I'm not thinking about my physical comfort or how soggy and stinky your palm feels against my skin, but how you must be crying in your heart, and how similar our bond is to the one Jessica Lange had with that guy in the ape suit in Dino de Laurentiis's 1976 crap-level Kong film. It's the same sentimental shit, basically, and all I want to to is let go and let the tears run down my cheeks."


Oh Jeffrey Wells...
post #582 of 814
12/1/05 at 6:06pm
Quote:
I hope not. I hate movies that try to come up with lame pseudo-scientific explanations for the unexplainable. It's a monster movie and Kong's the monster. That's all I need to know.

Same here. I loved Tremors and they barely tried to explain the graboids.
post #583 of 814
12/2/05 at 6:35am
First reviews are coming out.. and they are raves:

Link
post #584 of 814
12/2/05 at 9:13am
Tonight on Dateline NBC....

SHOW TITLE: Dateline NBC
CATEGORY:
SYNOPSIS: Director Peter Jackson and actor Jack Black discuss their remake of ``King Kong.''
CHANNEL: 4 [WRC]
DATE / TIME: December 2: 10:00PM
Set Reminder
LENGTH: 60 Minutes
NOTES: English
post #585 of 814
12/2/05 at 10:54am
Quote:
Oh Jeffrey Wells...


What do you expect? It is Wells talking about a Peter Jackson film. You expect him to take it seriously?

Jason
post #586 of 814
12/2/05 at 11:10am
I don't know why Wells bothers with fantasy films - he's gone on record as having no use for the genre. Why subject himself (and his readers) to the torture?

But as hard as he's going to be on Kong, it'll be nothing compared to what's going to happen when he feasts his eyes on Narnia. A Christian-themed fantasy featuring four English children in a land with talking animals?? It won't be pretty...
post #587 of 814
12/2/05 at 11:24am
But, what if the film really isn't all that? Not saying it won't be but the world self-indulgent has been thrown around from people who have seen it....

And yes, Wells shouldn't even bother.
post #588 of 814
12/2/05 at 11:27am
The write-up was exactly what I expected of Wells, and that's probably the main reason I read him. I can't wait to read what smug, arrogant, dismissive and ultimately obtuse write-up he's going to post next, and it's sad because you know some day he's going to self-destruct. Reading him is like watching some really bad Hollywood disaster pic.

Anyway, that Dateline special should be good tonight.
post #589 of 814
12/2/05 at 11:46am
Quote:
Not saying it won't be but the world self-indulgent has been thrown around from people who have seen it....


The reviews coming out have been raves.

From the London Daily Mail:
Quote:
And he has made a picture I can only describe as jaw-droppingly brilliant: the most entertaining blockbuster movie this year.


From The Toronto Star:
Quote:
If moviegoers respond as positively to the film as the press did Wednesday night following its world-premiere screening here...
It runs an epic three hours that rarely flag, with special effects that will be the talk of schoolyards and around office water coolers.

Rob Alacorn of Cinema Confidential on Best Picture chances:
Quote:
"I came [to the screening] thinking, 'No way in hell.' But I was really impressed with the quality across the board. It had everything you would be looking for."


From CNN Showbiz tonight:
Quote:
Peter Jackson did an amazing job in this movie. The effects, it just kept you at the edge of your seat for three hours.


No, it looks like this is just Wells being Wells again.
post #590 of 814
12/2/05 at 1:45pm
Quote:
The write-up was exactly what I expected of Wells, and that's probably the main reason I read him. I can't wait to read what smug, arrogant, dismissive and ultimately obtuse write-up he's going to post next, and it's sad because you know some day he's going to self-destruct. Reading him is like watching some really bad Hollywood disaster pic.


Actually, I think he has worthwhile things to say here and there. It is just that he has his prejudices, and you just accept them. Anything he feels is overly glossy and "fake" in his mind is going to get squashed by him. I just accept that.

Jason
post #591 of 814
12/2/05 at 4:32pm
Devin over at Chud just posted his review. It's pretty schizophrenic at times, but overall positive. One criticism I don't think I'll share is that the action scenes are boring. Most of the V-rex fight has been posted online and it looks phenomenal. He calls the fight "Spielbergian" as a criticism, yet to me, that's always a compliment.

Chud's Kong Review
post #592 of 814
12/2/05 at 5:58pm
Saw it this morning at the exhibitors screening in NYC.

Spoiler-free: It's a spectacular achievement, the best monster movie in ages. Jackson doesn't so much remake the original as he does expand it. Most of what's charming and great about the 1933 film (I'm pretending the '76 travesty never happened) has been preserved, including snippets of the original dialogue. The characters don't act like modern types plunked down in 30's clothes, for the most part they behave as they should. All the performances are excellent with Jack Black really channeling late-30s Orson Welles - he's very entertaining. Special effects are stunning - no complaints from this not-easily-impressed viewer at all. Moment that brought tears to my eyes - hearing a selection of Max Steiner's original 1933 music being played in a beautiful new recording for one long sequence. James Newton Howard's original score is very good; while I'm disappointed that Howard Shore's music was not used, JNH surpassed himself with the replacement score.

9 out of 10 from me.
post #593 of 814
12/2/05 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Spoiler-free: It's a spectacular achievement, the best monster movie in ages.

Well, hells bells, I'm sold. BTW, thanks for the spoiler-free review.
post #594 of 814
12/2/05 at 8:05pm
Funny,

Reading Peter's comments got me more excited about KK,
than all those other reviews.

Thanks Peter!



-mw
post #595 of 814
12/2/05 at 8:21pm
Just watched the Dateline NBC segments on Kong....pretty interesting and Jack Black's own segment was very funny..."STONE PHILLIPS, MORE THAN MEETS THE EYYYYYYE!".
post #596 of 814
12/2/05 at 9:47pm
the dateline segment has definitely got me more excited about this film, especially the jack black portion. for a while i was really nervous about his casting and i was afraid he would be too much like himself. but the explanation they gave into his character and the clips they showed, really make me feel a lot more comfortable.

my friend drew asked me recently what i thought of this movie and i responded with "i just see it as a kick ass special feature"(much like you guys saw "batman and robin" as a blooper reel on the batman collection dvds). but now, i'm actually really starting to see it as more of a stand-alone film.

i desperately want to make the 90 minute drive to the closest drive in to see this movie too, by the way...well, maybe not the first time around, but definitely at some point.
post #597 of 814
12/3/05 at 8:12am
I'm not too familiar with this Jeffery Wells guy. I'd LOVE to read what he has to say about the LOTR movies. I'd probably agree with him. And I hope he isn't being dismissed here simply because he didn't like Kong.

I'll go see this as I just saw the original. But I won't expect too much more than to be entertained somewhat.
post #598 of 814
12/3/05 at 9:34am
3 hours long .. *yawn*

count me out. I definitely don't think a story about a monkey and a girl needs to be that long.

Seems like anything Peter Jackson puts out will be 3 hours long with a 4 hour extended cut on dvd.
post #599 of 814
12/3/05 at 9:52am
It’s unfair to judge something you haven’t seen or even maybe irresponsible to have a prejudice like that. How could anyone know how long a movie about a subject matter should be? If it’s well done and well directed and the story is working, it will pass real fast. If something is not good, even a running time of 90mins will look long.
post #600 of 814
12/3/05 at 10:12am
Quote:
I'd probably agree with him. And I hope he isn't being dismissed here simply because he didn't like Kong.


No, it's more because he has extreme prejudices against any movie involving fantasy and when he can't come up with good, solid criticisms, he'll resort to mocking a movie instead of critiquing it. On the other hand, I'll give the guy his dues when it comes to smaller movies. I went to see Hustle and Flow mainly because of how hard he pushed it and he was right, that really is one of the best films of the year.

The new production diary is up. It's basically Peter Jackson talking to the camera, answering Junket-type questions readers have sent in. Even he admits to being surprised by how long the movie turned out to be. Now that I've seen the clips though, I think the length is pretty understandable: more character development + longer, more complex action scenes. KongisKing is listing the official runtime as 187 minutes, 20 seconds.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
This thread is locked  
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong