Author |
Message |
Jeff
Christian's #1 Fan
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate
|
bABA wrote: its one of those thing and i guess atleast in my case rogue and i won't see eye to eye.
For me, when a fantasy element is introduced, everything that still exists in reality should still act in a realistic manner. The fantasy can be anyway you wish it to be. Finally, the interactions between what is fantasy (in this case, Skull island and its inhabitants) and what is reality (the crew and new york) should be how you preceive such a situaiton to turn out to be.
you cannot go ocmpletely fantasy cause that is shit. You cannot go all realistic cause that won't make sense. it must be a mixture of both. hence, i love films like these. I guess Rogue is the opposite.
Ehh, that can work sometimes. But in this case Jackson went to far into the fantasy realm and too far into an attempted realism. That is why I said he could not find a balance between them. If it had been a little less dark during the first hour of the film and a little less over-the-top during the Skull Island sequences, then it would have worked so much better.
And of course, I have to mention that I felt that on Skull Island, so many of the sequences were just to show "look what we can do". They didn't advance the story at all, for example a good portion of the "bugs" sequence.
Also, one final bone of contention, the physics were terrible. In New York, it was almost as if it was "Spider-Kong", the way we was crawling up the buildings. I'm sorry, but 25 foot gorillas just can't do that. There were other places were the physics were so off it was almost funny as well.
And of course I nearly fell out of my chair laughing during the entire "native" scene. It was so insensitive, stereotypical, cliched and utterly ridiculous that if it hadn't been for the fact it is something I just don't do, I would have walked out. I almost did. It was that horribly bad.
_________________ See above.
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:12 pm |
|
 |
Jeff
Christian's #1 Fan
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate
|
choubachou wrote: I don't get your criticism here. It's not like Kong was ready to start a life with Ann, raise a family, etc. The way I see it, Ann was for Kong a source of soothing, a source of beauty. Ann has brought Kong calmness and well-being, something he proabbly hasn't felt for the longest time, on an island where it's everyone against everyone.
Ann has the same effect on Kong as a beautiful painting or a beautiful landscape has on us.
No, watch Kong's face. Jackson tried to instill a human emotional quality to him. The entire "beautiful" word that Anne was trying to teach him was absurd.
_________________ See above.
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:12 pm |
|
 |
choubachou
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 1796
|
Jeff(S). wrote: bABA wrote: its one of those thing and i guess atleast in my case rogue and i won't see eye to eye.
For me, when a fantasy element is introduced, everything that still exists in reality should still act in a realistic manner. The fantasy can be anyway you wish it to be. Finally, the interactions between what is fantasy (in this case, Skull island and its inhabitants) and what is reality (the crew and new york) should be how you preceive such a situaiton to turn out to be.
you cannot go ocmpletely fantasy cause that is shit. You cannot go all realistic cause that won't make sense. it must be a mixture of both. hence, i love films like these. I guess Rogue is the opposite. Ehh, that can work sometimes. But in this case Jackson went to far into the fantasy realm and too far into an attempted realism. That is why I said he could not find a balance between them. If it had been a little less dark during the first hour of the film and a little less over-the-top during the Skull Island sequences, then it would have worked so much better. And of course, I have to mention that I felt that on Skull Island, so many of the sequences were just to show "look what we can do". They didn't advance the story at all, for example a good portion of the "bugs" sequence. Also, one final bone of contention, the physics were terrible. In New York, it was almost as if it was "Spider-Kong", the way we was crawling up the buildings. I'm sorry, but 25 foot gorillas just can't do that. There were other places were the physics were so off it was almost funny as well.
And of course I nearly fell out of my chair laughing during the entire "native" scene. It was so insensitive, stereotypical, cliched and utterly ridiculous that if it hadn't been for the fact it is something I just don't do, I would have walked out. I almost did. It was that horribly bad.
Daaaaaaaaamn. That's SO a minor thing.
_________________ Best of 2014: 1- Apes 9.5/10 2- Noah 9.0/10 3- Lone Survivor 8.5/10 4- Captain America 8.0/10 5- 300: 8.0/10
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:18 pm |
|
 |
zennier
htm
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:38 pm Posts: 10316 Location: berkeley
|
choubachou wrote: Jeff(S). wrote: bABA wrote: its one of those thing and i guess atleast in my case rogue and i won't see eye to eye.
For me, when a fantasy element is introduced, everything that still exists in reality should still act in a realistic manner. The fantasy can be anyway you wish it to be. Finally, the interactions between what is fantasy (in this case, Skull island and its inhabitants) and what is reality (the crew and new york) should be how you preceive such a situaiton to turn out to be.
you cannot go ocmpletely fantasy cause that is shit. You cannot go all realistic cause that won't make sense. it must be a mixture of both. hence, i love films like these. I guess Rogue is the opposite. Ehh, that can work sometimes. But in this case Jackson went to far into the fantasy realm and too far into an attempted realism. That is why I said he could not find a balance between them. If it had been a little less dark during the first hour of the film and a little less over-the-top during the Skull Island sequences, then it would have worked so much better. And of course, I have to mention that I felt that on Skull Island, so many of the sequences were just to show "look what we can do". They didn't advance the story at all, for example a good portion of the "bugs" sequence. Also, one final bone of contention, the physics were terrible. In New York, it was almost as if it was "Spider-Kong", the way we was crawling up the buildings. I'm sorry, but 25 foot gorillas just can't do that. There were other places were the physics were so off it was almost funny as well.
And of course I nearly fell out of my chair laughing during the entire "native" scene. It was so insensitive, stereotypical, cliched and utterly ridiculous that if it hadn't been for the fact it is something I just don't do, I would have walked out. I almost did. It was that horribly bad. Daaaaaaaaamn. That's SO a minor thing.
Not really. If you don't have the imagination to accept something, it makes the movie damn hard to like.
That wasn't a knock on you, Jeff.... From day one I've been curious as to how a multi-ton ape can scale skyscrapers...
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:53 pm |
|
 |
Ahmed Johnson
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:22 pm Posts: 2226 Location: Pearl River, Mississippi
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: Ahmed Johnson wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: Posted from awhile back:
I'm gonna give this a brief review since I've had lack of sleep from working last night and seeing this earlier today.. I'll get right to it: KING KONG borders between a Good movie with some average being thrown in that takes it down a notch.. The GOOD: The emotion between Naomi Watts and the title charcater himself, particularly 1 scene that YES, did bring a tear to my eye invloving the 2 in Central Park on the Ice.. It was very very touching and watching this scene, you knew the inevitable fate this animal was about to experience and that was sad.. 1 thing Peter Jackson did well in this film was bring emotion to the forefront, but also what I didn't care for was that he made KONG almost TOO soft and not enough aggression shown like in the previous 76 film and 1933 Classic.. I thought Adrian Brody did a fine job, but he could've been used alot more than the mediocre Jack Black and Naomi Watts was alright as well which brings me to:
The BAD: Jack Black.. I've said since day 1 that casting this guy in this film was a big BIG Mistake and it was.. Now I understand what Jackson meant at the beginning of shooting this movie abut telling Black to Quote: "Relax the Eyes".. They guy clearly looks wired and every time he tried to act dramatic, it always came out humerous and this movie to me shouldn't of had any humor given the subject matter.. Also, much has been made out of the Dinosaur, specifically, the Brontosaurus stampede and honestly, it wasn't that big a deal and looked like a cross between the 3rd Jurassic Park and Yes, The Land Before Time in terms of it looking too photoshopped or crisp because of the Digital Filmmaking involved.. For the record, Spielberg has nothing to worry about WETA outdoing his 1st Jurassic Park which is still hands down the BEST even after 13 years.. Also, the giant bugs, the giant lizards or gecko's they sort of looked like were Ok, but all of this went by so fast that you just didn't get ENOUGH of this action on the Island once you reached there an hor and a few minutes after the start of the movie.. The T-Rex 3 way battle was good, but again, NOT ENOUGH..
To conclude for now until I get some sleep, this was a good movie, but could've been much MUCH better and the 3 hour running time definitely felt like 3 hours and dragged on a little too much until toward the end.. The KONG FX Looked good, but then again, it seemed like Jackson went too much for the realism effect in this movie having him run on all 4's instead of how he was in the other 2 movies and perhaps, maybe it's because I grew up with it that way, but I prefer Rick Baker's KONG over this one..
Overall, for now, I will touch on more of this movie later, but my grade is: C+
UPDATED: A "C+" STILL means the movie was GOOD in case the "PJ can do no wrong" camp says otherwise and heaven forbid if someone should have a beef with aspects of this movie and not gush over it, but at LEAST this is an honest review considering I said this would SUCK months ago before it came out and the grade I gave it after I saw it.. Can't say the same for Nazgul or Raziel and their highly ptredictable "A" Reviews that I knew they'd post.. MODERATORS PLEASE!
Strike this review! null and void! he has not seen it
PLEASE! Why?? Why should they remove it?? Because I had negative aspects of the movie in my review I didn't care for and this thread should be nothing more than Gushing Fanboy Praise for this movie like your review will be as well as Raziel and Nazgul's were??? I've seen it, YOU HAVEN'T DOPE!!! I look forward to your "A+" Review when you've seen it..
Well you took that bait didn't you
BKB = The Grinch on doughnuts!
_________________
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:13 pm |
|
 |
Ahmed Johnson
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:22 pm Posts: 2226 Location: Pearl River, Mississippi
|
Jeff(S). wrote: What an utterly dissapointing, useless, worthless film. Absolute tripe from beginning to end. Sure, the CGI was fantastic, but it was so overused it was just an exercise in patience. The story moved far to slow and the film desperately needed a better editor. Jackson tried to adapt a darker, more serious King Kong, but it just doesn't work. As an audence we are asked to believe the emotional content he instills in Kong, while at the same time ignoring the utter implausabilities of the plot. Sadly, Jackson just asks too much and the film simply is mediocre.
A decent film, great CGI and fantastic peformances by Watts and Brody can't save the film from being a pointless, useless remake. It will go down as ambitious, but misguided, just like Jackson.
C
(full review coming soon...
Isn't this fellow that Lucas fanboy....
_________________
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:15 pm |
|
 |
Ahmed Johnson
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:22 pm Posts: 2226 Location: Pearl River, Mississippi
|
andaroo wrote: Does every Kong thread on this fucking message board have to put up with Ahmed vs. BKB arguments?
Be calm!
_________________
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:16 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
The Dark Shape wrote: I'll just rate Peter Jackson's four "big movies."
1. The Return of the King 10/10) 2. The Fellowship of the Ring 10/10 3. The Two Towers 9/10 4. King Kong 9/10
As you can see, I'm a fan.
Where would Brain Dead place on there? 
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:25 pm |
|
 |
Jeff
Christian's #1 Fan
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate
|
Ahmed Johnson wrote: Jeff(S). wrote: What an utterly dissapointing, useless, worthless film. Absolute tripe from beginning to end. Sure, the CGI was fantastic, but it was so overused it was just an exercise in patience. The story moved far to slow and the film desperately needed a better editor. Jackson tried to adapt a darker, more serious King Kong, but it just doesn't work. As an audence we are asked to believe the emotional content he instills in Kong, while at the same time ignoring the utter implausabilities of the plot. Sadly, Jackson just asks too much and the film simply is mediocre.
A decent film, great CGI and fantastic peformances by Watts and Brody can't save the film from being a pointless, useless remake. It will go down as ambitious, but misguided, just like Jackson.
C
(full review coming soon... Isn't this fellow that Lucas fanboy....
Ah...no.
Definately not.
_________________ See above.
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:47 pm |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
Riggs27 wrote: King Kong was a mixed bag for me. The first half was extremely boring, but the second half (when Kong finally shows up) had some of the best action I've ever seen. I found Jack Black to be very annoying and Watts was good but definately not Oscar worthy. The entire second half really was one of the greatest movie experiences in a long time. B+
And it's a shame it takes so damn long to get to the part that counts and is cool.. Alot of this was BORING and 3 hours of this was totally unnecessary, but in the end, it was still a Good movie I thought, just not worth seeing again until DVD where you can fast forward through all the nonsense..
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:30 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
So, BKB did you like Kong or Batman Begins more?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:31 am |
|
 |
Jeff
Christian's #1 Fan
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm Posts: 28110 Location: Awaiting my fate
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: So, BKB did you like Kong or Batman Begins more?
I think its obvious which one I liked better. 
_________________ See above.
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:42 am |
|
 |
MovieDude
Where will you be?
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:50 am Posts: 11675
|
Jeff(S). wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: So, BKB did you like Kong or Batman Begins more? I think its obvious which one I liked better. 
I think it's obvious your name isn't BKB. 
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:47 am |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
Best movie of 2005... Hands down
A+ (9.8/10)
Kong was AWESOME!
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:25 am |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: Riggs27 wrote: King Kong was a mixed bag for me. The first half was extremely boring, but the second half (when Kong finally shows up) had some of the best action I've ever seen. I found Jack Black to be very annoying and Watts was good but definately not Oscar worthy. The entire second half really was one of the greatest movie experiences in a long time. B+ And it's a shame it takes so damn long to get to the part that counts and is cool.. Alot of this was BORING and 3 hours of this was totally unnecessary, but in the end, it was still a Good movie I thought, just not worth seeing again until DVD where you can fast forward through all the nonsense..
But it could have been so much better if the first 90 minutes would have been cut down to about 20 mins. I mean, it really was incredible boring and if the entire movie would have been like that it would be a D+, not more.
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:43 am |
|
 |
BennyBlanco
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:51 pm Posts: 1102 Location: The Bronx
|
Damn humans  .
I'm a huge animal lover and whether they are just background or actually play a big role in a particular movie, my sympathies always lie with them. So you can imagine how this movie must have devastated me  .
King Kong was simply a wonderful motion picture. So many great scenes and so much life, character, passion, creativity and fun. I see many reviews that find it hard to come up with the words to describe how they felt about it and that's because it is so difficult to know where to begin.
I love how the movie opened, giving the viewer a spirited glance at depression era New York. I immediately noticed the insane art direction and general attention to detail paid to this re-creation, things that would only get better as the movie went on. Naomi Watts was absolutely luminous and she grabbed everyone's interest with that hypnotic gaze. Jack Black plays Carl Denham with manic energy and I really liked his character up until he hatched the plot to capture Kong, then I wanted to kill him  . I especially liked that early scene in the restaurant between Ann and Carl when he is trying to convince her to be in his movie.
So the scene then shifts to the boat where we are acquainted with a few very memorable supporting characters (loved Serkis as Lumpy) and a budding romance between Ann and Jack. I got such a kick out of the scenes that Ann and Bruce were playing out on the deck of the Venture, true classic acting style and such great cinematography adding a touch of whimsy. As the crew approach Skull Island the sense of foreboding is palpable and the tension is really ratcheted up.
A few classic PJ scenic vista pans later we are knee-deep in a living hell as guys are getting speared and having their heads smashed in by the unruly natives. Talk about a tonal shift. The introduction to Kong is magnificantly handled and by that time everyone in the theatre were chomping at the bit to get a glimpse of the big guy.
Kong is an undeniable high point in the history of visual effects. I consider myself quite the connoiseur when it comes to special effects and cgi usuage in film and I was left awed by the work done here by Weta with the help of Andy Serkis. It's only a few seconds before you're forgetting that what you're seeing is fake and not a large than life character in the movie. The lips, gums, teeth and facial contortions all combine to give Kong a wide range of emotions to display and it's just so much fun to see his different reactions to Ann and everything else around him.
Some wild action sequences transpire while Jack and company attempt to retrieve Ann. Chief among them is the brontosauras stampede which had a few in my theatre howling with glee. There are just so many rolling dino bodies and flailing humans.......it's just friggin nuts! Sure there are a few compositing issues during this sequence, but seriously, the ambitious nature of it more than makes up for that. If there is a complaint, it is that this scene is followed too closely by two other action set-pieces, the T-Rex vs. Kong fight and the bug pit.
The sunset that Ann and Kong shared was one of the most memorable moments of the film for me. Kong was just tired of all the damn fighting and climbed onto that cliff to take it all in and be at peace with nature. It was great how he wasn't having any of Ann's shenanigans and the point where she caught on to this was magical. And then that bastard Denham ruined it all! Kong's last reach for Ann as he fell asleep was touching.
Transported back to New York and the movie really takes flight, providing my favourite action sequence in the form of a rampaging Kong in Times Square. There is so much going on, background and foreground, in this scene that it boggles the mind. And to hear that no location shooting whatsoever was done in New York is just unbelievable. Kong smashes his way through marquees, a shitload of traffic and manuevers himself down alleyways, all the while searching for Ann and tossing aside all the unfortunate blondes that don't fit the profile  .
Kong and Ann meet up in a tear-jerking sequence where he daintily takes hold of her and gingerly makes his way down the street to a park and a frollick on the ice. It reminded me a lot of Titanic in that you see these two having a great time and yet you know something terrible is about to happen, which lends so much more weight to the scene. The peace is then rocked by the military and we move to the capper at the Empire State Building.
Amazingly beautiful vistas accompany these scenes as Kong climbs higher and higher in hopes of getting away from all the madness. All those swooping shots of the bi-planes are thrilling and Kong's reactions to every bullet just sting, his smashing of those few planes - applause inducing. And then he begins to falter and he gets to share one last moment with Ann before being finished off and plummeting to his death. Instant misty-eyes for me, no doubt.
So yeah, pretty fucking superb flick and I expect this to receive many techincal nominations come oscar time, though I'm still unsure of its chances for picture or director. The two I would love to see it win for are Art Direction and Visual Effects, both of which are head and shoulders above anything else I've seen this year. I'm sorry, but Sith is a joke compared to this. It should also be a contender in the sound and cinematography. And what the hell! James Newton Howard's score was fantastic. It never really called attention to itself or was overly bombastic and their were some truly lovely pieces playing during the more tender moments (James is always good at scoring these kind of scenes). Pretty damn impressive that he delivered this kind of quality in the alloted time. Nice to see Shore's cameo too  .
A+
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:59 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
Riggs27 wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: Riggs27 wrote: King Kong was a mixed bag for me. The first half was extremely boring, but the second half (when Kong finally shows up) had some of the best action I've ever seen. I found Jack Black to be very annoying and Watts was good but definately not Oscar worthy. The entire second half really was one of the greatest movie experiences in a long time. B+ And it's a shame it takes so damn long to get to the part that counts and is cool.. Alot of this was BORING and 3 hours of this was totally unnecessary, but in the end, it was still a Good movie I thought, just not worth seeing again until DVD where you can fast forward through all the nonsense..But it could have been so much better if the first 90 minutes would have been cut down to about 20 mins. I mean, it really was incredible boring and if the entire movie would have been like that it would be a D+, not more.
Plus, now that I think about it, would it of hurt Jackson to show how they got KONG back to New York instead of glossing over this and going from 1 scene where he's on Skull Island and the next, he's in New York?? It was already 3 hours long as it stood, so why not show this scene?? At least KONG from 76(which in some cases is better than Jackson's version) showed you how they got him back..
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:13 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: So, BKB did you like Kong or Batman Begins more?
Action wise?? I'd have to go with KONG cause in the end, even though BATMAN BEGINS was a vast improvement over the Schumacher ######## of the last 2 movie's, it was still boring throughout alot of the movie and could've used alot more action than what we saw.. From a story standpoint unto itself??? I'd say BATMAN BEGINS cause the story flowed pretty quickly, even if it did drag some, it went by quicker than the 1st half of KONG.. In the end, I liked both movies, but then again, I saw BEGINS only once at the theatre and unfortunately, KONG will be the same way.. It's just not worth sitting through more than once which will hurt it's chances at even thinking about challenging TITANIC which is laughable in it's own... However, I will get KONG when it comes on DVD to at least fast forward through all the nonsense of the 1st hour and go right to Skull Island..
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:18 am |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: Riggs27 wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: Riggs27 wrote: King Kong was a mixed bag for me. The first half was extremely boring, but the second half (when Kong finally shows up) had some of the best action I've ever seen. I found Jack Black to be very annoying and Watts was good but definately not Oscar worthy. The entire second half really was one of the greatest movie experiences in a long time. B+ And it's a shame it takes so damn long to get to the part that counts and is cool.. Alot of this was BORING and 3 hours of this was totally unnecessary, but in the end, it was still a Good movie I thought, just not worth seeing again until DVD where you can fast forward through all the nonsense..But it could have been so much better if the first 90 minutes would have been cut down to about 20 mins. I mean, it really was incredible boring and if the entire movie would have been like that it would be a D+, not more. Plus, now that I think about it, would it of hurt Jackson to show how they got KONG back to New York instead of glossing over this and going from 1 scene where he's on Skull Island and the next, he's in New York?? It was already 3 hours long as it stood, so why not show this scene?? At least KONG from 76(which in some cases is better than Jackson's version) showed you how they got him back..
I thought of that too. That would have been at least interesting to watch.
It really makes me kind sad when I think what they could have done out of this movie.
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:41 am |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: However, I will get KONG when it comes on DVD to at least fast forward through all the nonsense of the 1st hour and go right to Skull Island..[/b]
That's exactly what I thought when I saw the movie yesterday. There's a very slim chance I will see this damn first half ever again.
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:45 am |
|
 |
Mr. Reynolds
Confessing on a Dance Floor
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:46 am Posts: 5578 Location: Celebratin' in Chitown
|
Not sure I understand why it's getting like insane reviews, but it wasn't bad at all. Definitely something to watch on the big screen. But nothing like anything from any of the LOTR movies.
I hated Jack Black. With a passion. I disliked all the other casting choices as well except for naomi watts.
It's a B for me. There are some brilliant scenes but the film doesn't hold together all the way through for me.
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:50 am |
|
 |
Riggs
We had our time together
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:36 am Posts: 13299 Location: Vienna
|
I_Was_Your_Sam wrote: I hated Jack Black. With a passion.
Oooooooh yes!
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:57 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
Another interesting thing I thought about Jackson's version of this was: Since Jackson was bent on making this like the 1933 film set in the Depression Era, what if he would've made this film in Black and White over a colorized version of this?? Would you accept it if this film were in Black and White as even more of a homage to the original movie??? 
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:43 am |
|
 |
The Dark Shape
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:56 am Posts: 12119 Location: Adrift in L.A.
|
Jackson and his D.P. discussed it. On that point I'd say: by making it black-and-white, you're endeavering in Quentin Tarantino-like depths of self-enjoyment. If you want to be the original film so badly, just re-release it theatrically.
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:43 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
I loved all the casting choices, they all fit their roles... damnit
I cried MULTIPLE times... like when he got captured... in the park... at the end...
The parts that stick out the most are the moments between Ann and Kong... like when their first in his lair and she dances for him  ... or when they sit in the sunset/sunrise... but the best part was when Kong tapped his chest when they were in New York watching the sunrise 
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:09 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 27 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|