The long wait is over. King Kong isn’t the best film of 2005 but, for me, it was the most anticipated!

When I saw that a local multiplex was having a 12:01AM show, I didn’t allow myself to get too confident that I’d actually get in to see it. Wouldn’t it sell out? Funny thing – it wasn’t really all that crowded – they had it on at least four screens and I think it (the midnight show, not the film) wasn’t publicized too much.

My first impression of Peter Jackson’s King Kong:

Absolutely every frame is gorgeous. Visually, it sets a whole new standard for storytelling via computer graphics. There’s a fight scene – Kong vs. a bunch of dinosaurs – that’s probably the best battle scene ever put onto film, bar none. Not even considering the fantastic job they did on the ape himself, the dinosaurs and the other creatures on Skull Island blow away anything in the Jurassic Park movies – or anything else in that genre. There are so many powerful scenes – a cinematic wham-o every minute – that the three-hour running time seems short. I wish they had made two or three movies of two or three hours apiece. I hold out hope for a prequel film – Kong’s life on Skull Island before the white people arrive.

The beautifully sad story of Kong as a compassionate and loveable creature that it unjustifiably tormented by most of the humans is told so well that I’ll bet most of you will cry at the end.

Jack Black is spot-on great as Carl Denham, a fanatical filmmaker (I took it as an autobiographical nod by Peter Jackson) who keeps shooting [film] as his crew is dying around him on the island. He comes across as a semi-sleazy, wheeler-dealer, wide-eyed crazy who can think of only one thing – he doesn’t blink at the mayhem but, when some of his exposed film is destroyed, he’s devastated. Naomi Watts is well cast as Ann Darrow, the young actress that Kong grows to love and saves from an incredible succession of threats. It was important that the tender connection between Kong and Ann be convincingly rendered on the screen. They have several touching scenes together – beautifully shot – that show what a wonderful “guy” Kong is in spite of his appearance – the classic “beauty and the beast” story.

My only complaint about King Kong is the character of Jack Driscoll – he’s the third side of the love triangle (with Kong and Ann.) The filmmakers made a huge mistake by casting Adrien Brody as Jack. While he’s done some great work (he was well-cast as a loveable fool in The Village) – he is best in two types of parts: (a) a diabolically evil villain; or (b) a silly or crazy character. I blanched when he won the Oscar for The Pianist. When he plays a good guy he overplays the part by a full order of magnitude – no human is that perfect – and when he suffers in silence, with the Basset-Hound-puppy-dog eyebrows, I feel like I’m having a massive saccharine overdose. The trouble in this movie is that we’re supposed to believe that he’s such an ideal guy that Ann might choose him over Kong, the biggest stud on the planet. But it’s only a supporting part and it doesn’t come close to ruining the movie – and if you’re a huge fan of Adrien Brody you’ll disagree with this whole paragraph.

I hope: Oscars for Jack Black, Peter Jackson and the technical wizards.

Anyway, King Kong is such an event film, such a visual extravaganza, that you absolutely need to see it in a theater – nothing less than 35mm will do it justice. Kong’s head is 30 feet high and the resolution is fantastic. So don’t even consider waiting for the DVD.

Can you edit the title to say "King Kong REVIEW"?

I guess it doesn't really matter but I almost read the thing, and I'm not seeing the movie until 7pm!

SPOILER!!!

just kidding, I'll read it tonight.
bk

Sorry, bennyk, but I really don’t think of what I wrote as containing spoilers – but I guess if you’re trying to stay absolutely pure you just can’t read anything! When a film gets as much publicity as this one, I find it impossible not to encounter some info about it.

You saw the trailer – right?

Okay, I skipped over your post because it looked like it possibly had spoilers, but I'm going to see it between classes today and I'm really excited!

I made a change to the title just in case. I hate having a movie "unsuprised"

Saw it,nice movie but JB didnt do it for me at all. Could have been many better picks but i suppose it was a way to save money,i'm sure he jumped at the chance and did it cheap.

I made a change to the title just in case. I hate having a movie "unsuprised"

Thanks, Reverend, for at least saying possible spoilers since, even after re-reading my post a couple of times, I can’t see anything that I would consider a spoiler.

I’ve had a film website (see my profile) for almost two years and have had to grapple with the issue of how much to reveal in order to make the points that I feel need to be made in reviewing a film. Sometimes I can’t see how to adequately analyze the film without revealing certain details. It’s a tradeoff – a balance between making an important point and the degree to which that point will spoil a surprise in the movie.

Here’s the thing about King Kong – it’s a remake of a hugely popular and very well known movie. The thrill and impact of the film doesn’t depend on surprise, at least in terms of plot. We all know what’s going to happen – right?

Finally, what I wrote is not really a review. I called it a “first impression” – it’s just some stuff that I dashed off at 4:30am after going to a midnight show – I drank some tea (caffeinated) before the show so I wouldn’t fall asleep. I was still wired when I got home so I wrote that post. It’s incomplete and lacks the balance (way too much emphasis on the Adrien Brody issue) of a full review.

I look forward to all of your comments on King Kong – it’s the “event film” of the year – something that we can enjoy seeing and enjoy discussing. And to repeat an important point – you must see it in a theater – this is a big-screen film.

Saw it,nice movie but JB didnt do it for me at all. Could have been many better picks but i suppose it was a way to save money,i'm sure he jumped at the chance and did it cheap.

“JB” is Jack Black – right? I really can’t believe that, in this $200M+ movie – in which Peter Jackson had complete control after the LOTR movies – that they would cast a major part like that with an eye to saving a couple million if that would compromise the film as a whole.

On the other hand, I can see how his wide-eyed craziness could be seen as over the top – but I loved it and thought it was perfect for the film.

Jack Black was okay, but I don't think he really fit in this movie. That was my only gripe besides the way over-the-top natives. The visual effects were amazing, though. I am going to go see it again and hope all that is good that I don't end up with talkative jerks this time. People like that need to be brought out back and shot. Repeatedly.

Jack Black was okay, but I don't think he really fit in this movie. That was my only gripe besides the way over-the-top natives. The visual effects were amazing, though. I am going to go see it again and hope all that is good that I don't end up with talkative jerks this time. People like that need to be brought out back and shot. Repeatedly.

I realize the not many people are going to agree with me but I identified with the maniacal filmmaker as Jack Black played it – and I liked that idea that Peter Jackson may have stuck that in as an autobiographical reference – self-deprecating humor.

I will admit, however, that I was a little over the top on one point in my original post: there’s no way that Jack Black is going to get an Oscar for this role. I love the way the part fits in with the overall feel of the movie, but it’s virtually impossible that a significant number of Academy members are going to share that feeling.

I saw it again last night – another midnight show – and I continue to be amazed at the technical achievement – the ape in particular.

cool website freddy http://img.buzznet.com/assets/users9/ziggurat/default/msg-11342937306-2.jpg I'm going to look through some of the reviews today


btw, Be Cool was an absolute POS. I've read the book, and although F. Gary Gray is a decent director-for-hire--he obviously couldn't handle that type of genre piece, an auteur he isn't. He needs to stick with Italian Job or Negotiator films where he is strong. I was hoping they could get Sonnenfeld again for Be Cool, but I'm not surprised.

- thanks to the review i'm going to wait for the $11.99 DVD at Target (although matinees around here are $2 off at around noon time; i *never* buy soda or popcorn)

I saw it again last night – another midnight show – and I continue to be amazed at the technical achievement – the ape in particular.

You can get a real sense that some animators spent many hours studying gorilla behavior and movement for this film.

Ok, may I be the dissenting voice of reason here, please?

Question: Why did Pete Jackson remake King Kong?
Answer: When he saw the original as a child, he got a big chubby and a big head as well. Thinking 'I can do this better.'

I haven't seen the movie, and probably won't... on principle.

The original King Kong was stupendous! Given the era and the technology available, it was brilliant! The movie has already been remade what two other times and there was no value added to the movies other than the special effects aided by techonological advancements. Now, Jackson has remade it yet again... and the only thing talked about is the special effects. BFD, there's more to a film than just how much of it you can do on a computer, and the seamlessnes with which you can intergrate it.

I'm not impressed Pete. You want to impress me and motivate me to buy a ticket? Get an original idea and then put it to film. Write an original story and then work you computer hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo on it and allow me to suspend my belief for two and a half hours on some idea that YOU came up with.

Pete Jackson's King Kong, phooey! What's next, Pete Jackson's Sound of Music? Ha!

Thanks... I feel much better now. :)

- thanks to the review i'm going to wait for the $11.99 DVD at Target (although matinees around here are $2 off at around noon time; i *never* buy soda or popcorn)
It's one of the few movies that needs to be seen on the big screen.

Thanks for the encouragement, Ziqqurat. Be Cool won’t make my “best of” list but I’m surprised that you dismiss it as a “absolute POS” – does that mean that none of the scenes made you laugh? I liked Vince Vaughn’s character.

Stacey – if you restrict yourself to films based on original material, you not only limit your scope, but many of those movies are mediocre – so you’re not left with much. BTW, the 1933 version of King Kong is actually an adaptation – loosely adapted – of the old folk tale, Beauty and the Beast.

Mirona – I heard that Andy Serkis (who performed as Kong) went to Africa (against the wishes of Peter Jackson) to study gorillas in the wild.

Stacey – if you restrict yourself to films based on original material, you not only limit your scope, but many of those movies are mediocre – so you’re not left with much. BTW, the 1933 version of King Kong is actually an adaptation – loosely adapted – of the old folk tale, Beauty and the Beast.

You're absolutly right, and there is what something like only 7 or 10 different major story lines, something like that and every other story is a spin off of those story lines. Yes, if we reduce it down. However, this isn't even a spin off. PJ has just remade the movie. Big deal. But thanks for the literature appreciation class. ;)

Please tell me with a straight face that you believe that a remake of The Sound of Music, regardless of any spedial digital enhancements, could be anywhere near BETTER than the original.

I've got a hundred bucks that says you can't.

You're absolutly right, and there is what something like only 7 or 10 different major story lines, something like that and every other story is a spin off of those story lines. Yes, if we reduce it down. However, this isn't even a spin off. PJ has just remade the movie. Big deal. But thanks for the literature appreciation class. ;)

Please tell me with a straight face that you believe that a remake of The Sound of Music, regardless of any spedial digital enhancements, could be anywhere near BETTER than the original.

I've got a hundred bucks that says you can't.

OK, re-making Sound of Music as an effects-driven film is absurd and I can’t imagine anything good coming out of it. Special effects are a powerful tool for storytelling – but in some cases they are totally inappropriate – Sound of Music is a good example. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine making a movie like King Kong without special effects – the 1933 original is certainly an effects movie.

The original was stop motion & scale shifting, the new one is all CG. Wow! Anyone with with a big enough computer and the right software can pull of the same thing.

It takes a master to do believable stop motion... I present Wallace & Grommet. Brilliant!

Let;s just leave this as a chocolate & vanilla. You seem to be a fan of the whiz bang techno computer effects re-do's of classic movies and that's all right. If you like it.

I'm a fan of the classic originals, done as they were intended and that's good too.

...

Please tell me with a straight face that you believe that a remake of The Sound of Music, regardless of any spedial digital enhancements, could be anywhere near BETTER than the original.

...

this is on my 'to see' list


The Happiness of the Katakuris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happiness_of_the_Katakuris)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/The_Happiness_of_the_Katakuris_%28DVD%29.jpg

King Kong was the shiz-nit. Andy Serkis is also a really good actor, I'd like to see him act in more than just Jackson films. Naomi Watts will one day marry me.

this is on my 'to see' list


The Happiness of the Katakuris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happiness_of_the_Katakuris)



Now, that looks like a blast! I've added it to my netflix queue!

I saw it Friday....I'd say it was definitely very good. However.....other than special effects, I don't think he added anything to the movie. I think it was well done, but nothing stood out over the original other than special effects. Actors all did great jobs, but so did the original actors.

I don't do movies "just" for special effects, but I will say, this one might be worth seeing on the big screen to really see the detail on Kong's face and such. However, there were some scenes where special effects got a little cheesy....so it wasn't "perfectly" done in terms of effects.

I wish film makers would return to their roots and put money and time into screenplay, plot and such for movies and pay less attention to special effects. I'm sick of so much attention being given to the special effects of movie and nobody giving a rats ass about what a crap fest of a plot and bad actors they often are.

[QUOTE=Ziggurat]this is on my 'to see' list


The Happiness of the Katakuris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happiness_of_the_Katakuris)
[ end quote]


I thought this might be a silly movie in a genre-bending sort of way until I noticed that it was directed by Takashi Miike. Here’s a link to his bio:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0586281/

He’s got 65 film credits as a director – pretty amazing. He did Box – the best of three shorts in Three… Extremes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420251/

That was playing the indie circuit around Halloween this year – competing with Saw II. I thought that if the people looking for a horror/slasher movie had just given Three… Extremes a chance they would have been blown away. It makes Saw II look small and docile.

I can honestly say that Peter Jackson has outdone himself once again with King Kong. The visual wonderland that Jackson has captured in every scene made it difficult for me to want to follow the storyline.

The characters assembled in this movie were chosen wisely; all of them had a larger than life kind of role that made them stretch their typical role playing to a whole other level. Jack Black known for his comedic slap-stick kind of humor displayed his take on the director brilliantly I did not once see a glimpse of the usual sarcastic, sometimes dim-witted actor that we all know and love from him and that in itself makes the movie excellent. Naomi Watts was brilliant as this vaudeville kind of veteran which is definitely a role we have not seen her do in her somewhat short career of movie history. The physical feats she probably had to endure throughout the movie must've been very challenging to her. Adrien Brody who usually plays characters that seep into the blood stream subtly and finds a home right next to your heart has outdone himself in this movie. I think that he played it just right if Jackson had picked someone who was more mainstream and was absolutely gorgeous it would shift the dynamics of the triangle that was that of King Kong, His Blonde beauty, and the Hero. The connection betwixt Naomi's and Adrien's character seemed like an actual romance that probably could not be duplicated. Jackson made a balance all around and the result was a beautifully nostalgic love story between a man, a woman, and the beast.

Saw it again and ya know,its just abit to corny,overdone.

I saw it Friday....I'd say it was definitely very good. However.....other than special effects, I don't think he added anything to the movie. I think it was well done, but nothing stood out over the original other than special effects. Actors all did great jobs, but so did the original actors.

I don't do movies "just" for special effects, but I will say, this one might be worth seeing on the big screen to really see the detail on Kong's face and such. However, there were some scenes where special effects got a little cheesy....so it wasn't "perfectly" done in terms of effects.

I wish film makers would return to their roots and put money and time into screenplay, plot and such for movies and pay less attention to special effects. I'm sick of so much attention being given to the special effects of movie and nobody giving a rats ass about what a crap fest of a plot and bad actors they often are.


A fresh voice of reason amid a cacophony of fawning blather. Thanks!

There are some good movies coming out and they all seem to be in May.

In regards to Jack Black in the film...

Yes, he was out of his normal element (School of Rock, Orange County, Shallow Hal), he was very good for the role of Carl Denham. I can't think of anyone that should have been in his place that could come across with the same tenacity (pardon the pun, if you get it).

I thought he had just enough of a crazy-eyed attitude as Denham's character should while still being serious.

Jack Black ownes * Holywood. got that? :D

*edit* pwnes, p3nws, etc.

I still say they saved a few bucks with JB and the dude with the flaring noseholes. Couldnt take my eyes off of it so i dont even remember who it was.

King Kong is not a patch on the original 'Magilla Gorilla' series.

I saw King Kong the other night and I loved it. I thought the effects were excellent. I mean, the fight with the dinosuars and the insects? C'mon man, that was fantastic. I felt so bad for the ape, I was almost in tears....poor guy just wanted a blond girlfriend. As a simian myself, I could relate very well. My wife made fun of me when I said I was having an alergy issue what with all the sniffling....

This film also made me very mad at the human race as a whole. Couldn't just leav it alone, could they?

...

I thought this might be a silly movie in a genre-bending sort of way until I noticed that it was directed by Takashi Miike. Here’s a link to his bio:

...

Miike's interesting, that's my take. Audition is definitely worth watching, that's where I saw the trailer for The Happiness of the Katukuri's--I was like "WTF?!?!" and "rewound" it a few times. Cheesy, definitely--but it looks interesting.

I'm interested in manzai as well, if anyone knows where to get some on DVD--please post here or PM me.

:)

Saw it again and ya know, it's just a bit to corny, overdone.

+1

Cinematography was wonderful, and it deserves the Oscar it's bound to get, if only for the ape-dinosaur fight. But (forgive me all you King Kong fans out there) it's also really, really long long.

SPOILER COMING, in case there were not enough of them already. Stop reading if you haven't seen the movie.
















I mean did we really need to have the spiders, the bats, the bugs and those vicious man-eating water worm things as well so many different sorts of dinosaur? Did the ship have to be crashed against quite so many rocks for quite so long? How do we get a world where dinosaurs coexist with giant apes anyway? Did we have to wait quite so long for them to get to New York definitely the best bit of the movie? Couldn't they have found slightly less corny music?

Very easy to beat up on a dead fictional monkey, isn't it?


You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!


























:D KONG LIVES! (Now that movie sucked.)

Very easy to beat up on a dead fictional monkey, isn't it?
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

:D KONG LIVES! (Now that movie sucked.)

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: