It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong - Page 24  

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) 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

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

big negative review from Scott Holleran over on Box office Mojo
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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



Ape is an animal, yes?

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.



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

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

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

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"

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.

Ouch.

Tell us how you really feel Tino.

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

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?

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

At least, I hope it is.

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

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.

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

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

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!

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).

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

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.

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

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

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.