So I just saw an early screening of Peter Jackson's latest epic "King Kong."
All I have to say is.... Well, I really don't have anything to say. I think this is the first time a remake actually surpasses its original. The original King Kong is a masterpiece in its own right, but Peter Jackson has taken the story to a whole new level. Jackson and his writing team have developed something magical, suspenseful as hell, and overall breathtaking.
There's not much more I can say than to just see it. Don't even consider not seeing it for a second. It's the best three hours you'll spend at the theatre.
Going to see it first thing in the morning!! I'm so pumped!
I'll add more after I've seen it ...
I think the death penality is wrong!
Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/12/2005 04:45:11
I think the death penality is wrong!
Yes, they shouldn't kill Kong in the end.
You could have put a spoiler warning!!!Ã, >:( >:( >:(
Oh please. If you don't know Kong dies at the end then you don't deserve to watch the movie.
scotch was kidding, man. :P
Weren't you scotch??
Anything's better then that first shitty remake.
obligatory:
(http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051205l.jpg)
I really want to see this movie.
I didn't know that Kong died. I didn't even know he was called Kong, I thought he was actually called King Kong.
I think a comic strip like the one above only exists because there are plenty of people out there who have no idea of how the movie ends, even though it should be fairly obivous.
Well I'm sorry then. The original movie is 70 years old and has been immortalized in cinema history. I assumed too much, I guess, but it's not really a big shocker anyway.
I have to see Narnia first here in London, as King Kong hasn't arrived yet...
But I heared that Kong does not die in Peter's movie. I think he takes off with Gandalff and the last ship, along with the ring bearer.
I envy Darth, for seing it tomorrow... grrrr
Narnia was pretty darn good itself, but I felt it was too watered down. I mean, I know the book wasn't horribly violent but the battle wasn't even a battle!
"Great big frikkin' CGI monkey" is the only thing that strikes me about this film from the trailers. I think I'm becoming allergic to CGI in films, Star Wars Ep 3 brought me out in a huge rash (although I was surprised to find out how much of it was in 'Curse of the Wererabbit' as I mostly didn't notice it at all), and I'm a bit worried that all throughout Kong I'll be thinking about how unrealistic it looks while idly scratching my arms. Although Jackson has already proved that his films go much deeper than the computer technology they're dependent on unlike a lot of the nonsense being churned out these days, so perhaps I'll quickly get over the asthetical issues if I see it :)
Narnia does appear to be much worse in terms of visual abrasion - great big frikkin' CGI Lion that looks about as convincing as a sock puppet! Not that I was ever much of a fan of the Narnia books though, but from my vague memories of reading it (twee little fantasy story about Christian morals that wasn't nearly as epic as the film trailer would lead me to believe) it would seem that the director has taken a few... creative liberties to try and bring it up to the unnecessary grandeur of Lord of the Rings. Such is Hollywood.
If anybody here has seen Queen Kong, I will be... really surprised.
It was supposed to be released around the time of the original, I believe, but they were sued and postponed it for years and years.
It wins the "worst movie award" for every category :D
I have seen Queen Kong. I have not seen all of King Kong.
Narnia's CG cannot surpass that of King Kong's, but Aslan still is well made and I found myself forgetting he was CG.
As for Kong, you will forget he is CG in minutes. Can't say as much for some other creatures, but it's not a big deal as Kong is dead on.
I think that the King Kong movie storyline is crap since the very moment that the scientists...
Spoiler
See a dinosaur
and they preffer to bring a stupid giant monkey to New York... I mean...
Spoiler
It was a tyrannosaurux Rex, man! Which is the interest of seeing an oversized monkey when you do have the chance of seeing an animal that was supposed to be extinct 65 million years ago?!?! I think everybody wants the rex to kill the monkey...
How did they get it off the island? In a boat? And if they did, how did they get it in the boat?
The film is seventy years old. Some allowances have to be made.
But, regarding your point, Farl, their priority is not Kong - I don't remember whether they even know that Kong is a giant gorilla before they get to it (I don't think they do) but their priority is rescuing the girl. ANd by the time they reach the T-Rex, either they kill it or they don't get by, and possibly get dead.
Haddas - me has no idea, but if they don't show it it can't be important. ;D :=
But I think the point is to bring some animal to Manhattan, the "8th World Wonder", no?
Anyway, all is quite silly if you think of it. Tere must be a family of gorillas, not just one, a family of T-Rex, and some other interesting fauna. Just go there and pick the monkey seems silly, unless Mr. Jackson has changed it all to make it more logical. :)
Haddas: Your avatar caption is freaking hilarious ^_^
Well, no, the point is to go there and shoot one hell of a film. The monkey is an afterthought.
...I think. Now I'm not sure. Damn.
Anyway, haven't seen the new one, only the old one. I was impressed, and didn't want to see this remake, but if so many people say it's surprisingly good I might give it a watch.
The reason they bring back Kong instead of the dinosaurs is because Challenger, Summerlee, Roxton, and Malone already brought back dinosaurs. :P
Quote from: Kinoko on Thu 15/12/2005 13:02:25
Haddas: Your avatar caption is freaking hilarious ^_^
This pleases me. I have succeeded in my life goals. I'll change it one day to something equally idiotic :D
Yes I do agree that your avatar, Haddas, is supperb!
Now about the movie:
Have you ever seen a movie with CGI that wasn't stupid? I mean if you need CGI you want to put something in that can't be done!
The King of the Kongs, was a nice idea at the time, but probably outgrew itself over time...
I plan to see it however and maybe have my son to see it too (do they let 2 year old children watch something like this?). I mean it is perfect. All the family/percet/nice values are there. Save the girl. The girl loves the gorilla. Gorilla loves the girl. Gorilla fights for the girl. Gilr climbs for the gorilla. Love is the ultimate good! Love will win (or not?). And all this around a plan that money are no matter (so money mentioning in the movie). Te director is killed (is he?), and al relavent things don't matter... Amnd to think that I haven't seen the movie yet! hehe
But I will see it alone (as my son is uncapable of remaining still for more than half an hour and thqat would be a nightmare...). And I will enjoy it.!!!!!!
And btw, Kinoko, I think that Kong is the best actor ever! ;D
Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 15/12/2005 14:19:57
Have you ever seen a movie with CGI that wasn't stupid? I mean if you need CGI you want to put something in that can't be done!
The King of the Kongs, was a nice idea at the time, but probably outgrew itself over time...
These points are kinda silly...
CGI can work well in films, War of the Worlds anyone? And I intend to see Kong some time.Ã, As for the second point... Could you explain it more please? (unless you meant stupid as in unrealistic, in which case bad choice of words)
Does Jack Black over act in this film? He seems like the sort...
Of course!
Well CGI can work well on films, depending on what you're after in a film. CGI are used when something cannot be done in real life. So na matter how perfect they are they are unreal! Maybe stupid is a bad word, but a giant gorilla+a T-REX+Demons+Alien+whetever else, CGI is usually used to make something unreal seem as real as possible.
I'm actually not making a point, as I mentioned already that I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will. I like movies with CGI! I like fairy tales! I like fantasy! I like all that.
In the second point I didn't use the word stupid. I said "outgrew", meaning that sometimes things progress and somethings are left behind. Sure King Kong was a nice idea in the '30s but now, there can be better things to have (more stretched maybe).
And I would also like to see DOOM! Shooting, monsters, no thinking for 2 hours! Why not? Honestly.
Funny how you make CGI seem to actually define a film. CGI really is no different than stop-motion photography or special effects - it's simply a SFX technique. The original King Kong was also unreal. Cat People (the original) is also unreal, and it sports almost zero special effects.
This brings me to think about something I like very much. 80's... action... movies...
Shallow plot, bodycount 1 000 000, Arnold, Mel, Sylvester. What more could you possibly want?
Chuck Norris?
it is kinda dumb to criticise CGI, we're noway near the limit of what CGI can do, so theres no point pretending to be. Stop kmtion was supposed to look realistic, but it didn't. Nobody complained that they shouldn't use stop motion unless it ooks 100% realistic. CGIU will get better, and one day, we won't be able to tell the difference, unfortuneatley, we're not there yet.
as for kong, i can't wait to see it, tomorrow night is the night, narnia then kong.
From the trailers, King Kong looks like a big CGI monkey. Big and CGI, and I cannot suspend my disbelief. My main problem with CGI is that it tries to be something it isn't, and a lot of the time gets it wrong.
I refuse to see Narnia on the basis that computer generated real animals do NOT resemble their live counterparts. I constantly am reminded of this by the over-shiny fur, the unrealistic muzzle movements for talking, the ever-so-fluid animation. I cannot suspend my disbelief enough to watch a whole film worth of it.
Also, all kingly lions should sound like Mufasa from The Lion King. Aslan does not sound kingly enough.
Giant Frikkin' CGI Lion voiced by James Earl Jones wouldn't really change the weighting of how good the film is really :P
Without CGI, we wouldn't have Matrix, LOTR or a vast amount of other great films.
Quit whining.
CGI is supposed to enhance the suspension of your disbelief, not damage it. Where it does damage it, criticism is justified, especially when we have seen the superb quality of CGI like Gollum in LOTR.
What gets me is that giant monkey and lion should be "easier" to create in CGI than fictional creatures, yet the quality of fictional creatures in films in general seems to be higher.
Just WATCH King Kong. The trailers are nothing compared to the final product. I do agree with Aslan, though, he could've been better.
But honestly.. Would you rather have wire-hung puppets and paper-mache sets? Sure, they have a charm but I have an easier time believing and being entertained by awesomely crafted CGI than I do sets and costumes that look like they were made for a B-Movie in 1965.
Don't get me wrong.. I'd LOVE to see a fantasy/action movie that relied on traditional effects rather than falling back on CG.. But I refuse to knock a spectacular film just because it used alot of CG.
Actually, Zathura is a movie that uses alot of traditional effects, thanks to Stan Winston. The effects in that movie are rather seamless.
I'm not going to get into the discussion about CGI good vs. bad. It's a rather silly argument anyway ... it's here to stay and isn't going away anytime soon!
Anyway ...
I watched it:
I might, for the first time in my life, actually admit that I found a movie with too much action!! It was overwhelming! I'm assuming that was intentionally done. He wanted to overwhelm audiences, just as they were when the orginal was released so many years ago ...
I found the special effects, at parts, slightly lacking and not up to quality of LotR. At other parts the effects blew me away. It felt almost like there were two effects houses working on this film. It was wierd.
Over-all I really liked the movie. I left the theater tired ... not just because it was over 3 hours long, but because the action never let up enough to let me relax!
I think Peter Jackson is good at directing fantasy/epic type films. Now onto the Hobbit!
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 16/12/2005 02:27:36
I think Peter Jackson is good at directing fantasy/epic type films.Ã, Now onto the Hobbit!
I would prefer if he did the Silmarilion... Personal prefferences...
Quote from: Becky on Fri 16/12/2005 00:43:44What gets me is that giant monkey and lion should be "easier" to create in CGI than fictional creatures, yet the quality of fictional creatures in films in general seems to be higher.
Why? We know what a lion or gorilla look like and how they should act, but no one has much of a preconcieved notion of what Gollum should look or act like. We accept him much easier than we accept a "real" animal.
Also: Silmarillion would be hard to do, simply because of the massive amount of plot in it, and also the inconsistencies it presents with the work published later that would have to be resolved.
*****
Five stars!
I saw King Kong. I went to the cinema in order to see Narnia, but there was also King Kong, and to me there wasn't a question! King Kong. I'll see Narnia some other time!
Now about CGI.
Visually perfect! Judging from a dvd I had rented of "Gorillas in the mist", Kong was perfect. All the king size creatures in there were perfect! No argue!
But
The reason I don't particularly like in CGI, is not the visual part. It's the logical part. And I don't mind the existance of monsters, demons, Kongs, vampires (saw a trailer of Underworld Evolution), it is the freaking thing that after 2 hours of chasing in the jungle Naomi Watch (sp) doesn't have not even a scratch. Not ot mention that her make up is still there. And while resting on the *huge* arms of King Kong she's also clean!
You see I really liked the movie, but seeing Naomi being uterly crashed in his hands for half an hour and then not having not even a scratch! That's the problem. There are no limits to what a director want and can do and the put no limits to the action also, which would probably be too much.
*****
She gets beat up a little, but you're right she shouldn't have been so clean at night. Unless he gave her a bath.
Ok, here's my opinion on CGI and films and the like, take it or leave it. So many people complain about CGI and unrealism and not enought CGI, too much CGI.... then people complain about films not being deep enough, or enough action or... well... blah blah blah... the thousand other complaints I hear about movies. What I think is that people have forgotten how to just sit back and enjoy a movie without analyzing everything. I personally think people have gotten too picky. I love movies, and I can usually find something great about almost any movie. Granted... there have been a few that I just think are absolute crap, but they are few and far between.
Remember people. When you agree to watch a movie about a giant gorilla, or talking lions, or hobbits, or wizards, or galaxies far far away... you've already had to suspend a bit of disbelief to see the movie itself. Use your imagination to suspend it a little farther, and you might find that you can enojy so many more movies.
Just my two cents... I hope I didn't offend anyone. :)
I really like it! I just came back from seeing it. In all honesty though, I dont remember much of the original one since I havent seen it in ages. I have to see it again to see which is better. But it looks like this one might be the better movie. Jack Black was awesome.
As far as the CGI... I expected a fake movie, which is what Kong is. So the CGI did not disappoint me. It was as real as CGI gets.
Woah I'm late.
Hello, I just saw the movie. I can't really say if it was good or not, so I'm just going to say it was okay. The plot was very detailed, I liked that. I also liked how some of the backdrops (like the snowy park in New York or the valley where Kong beat Rex) looked like they were actually made in the 30s. They didn't look real, but they looked... magical? I don't know if that was intentional or not, but I liked it. The movie also made me feel like something I haven't felt in years when watching a movie. When Kong kidnapped Ann and ran through the jungle. The shaky camera and stuff made it look painful and nightmarish, something I would never want to feel. I haven't felt like that since I watched a creepy UFO movie when I was a kid. Another parts that made me feel strange were when
- Ann was inside the hollow log and those creepy bugs started approaching her.
- When some of the crew members fell to the bottom of the canyon and all those giant bugs and worms appeared.
I seriously wanted to look away. It was like a nightmare and I wanted to wake up, but I couldn't. I wanted to close my eyes, but that would have been silly. It was icky! I hate that kind of critters. There were some kids watching the movie too, I just wonder how much they got freaked out when those worms ate... Herb? Or whatever was the name of the cook.
The characters were well made in my opinion. I didn't like Carl at all, Jack Black was an excellent choice to play him. Carl was so big asshole, shame he didn't die in the end.
Jack was your average hero, but also very good character. I wanted Ann to escape Kong, but she fell in love with him! What a fool! Though the final scene with them on the roof of Empire State building was very nice.
I didn't quite get Baxter. He wanted to save his own ass everytime, and all of a sudden he wanted to save the crew from the bug ridden canyon! And in the end he suddenly wanted to save his own ass again when it looked that Kong was very pissed off. Baxter was a nice character though, snobbyish and exactly like some selfish actor star would probably be.
As for the minor characters, I liked Jimmy, but I don't quite get why he changed so much during the movie. I mean, at first he was like some small thief, a no good youngster, then suddenly he was all heroish and stuff. Hayes was probably my favourite character though. He was like Jimmy's father or big brother, and the wisest man of the whole crew. Since from the beginning I was hoping he would survive all the way to the end, but somewhere in my mind I knew he was going to die. I swear if the actor would have been white, Hayes wouldn't have died.
Overall, not bad movie. I really liked the idea to have dinosaurs, though I don't think it's fair to compare the first movie with this new one because so much has changed in the movie industry during the years. Go figure.
Quote from: Potch on Fri 16/12/2005 23:31:17
Ok, here's my opinion on CGI and films and the like, take it or leave it.Ã, So many people complain about CGI and unrealism and not enought CGI, too much CGI....
With me, and king kong and say spiderman, the CGI on the humans just looks stupid! They look like ragdolls! I audibly laughed whilst watching king kong when Kong shakes the woman around. This over-reliance on the CGI (Which is fine for Kong himself) ruins the immersion and reminds me I'm watching a film. (Akin to the old computer games where you'd go around collecting floppy disks and joysticks etc)
Hey guys,
I hadn't seen this before so I'll post briefly about King Kong:
Mucho respect for Peter Jackson. His work with Naomie Watts and a CGI gorilla was outstanding. For the first time the reactions were real and believable.
Much of that has to do with Andy Cirkis's job standing in as Kong. Another great performance.
However, the movie was a giant ball of CHEESE. Sure the 1930s was full of fast -talking and high hopes, but jesus- this movie had ridiculous dialogue!!!
Case in point: the black sailor and the young castaway. The WORST dialogue I've heard in a movie this year. My friend and I were literally laughing at the line "It's not about bravery."
The characters simply did not hold any weight. That's my biggest gripe. My second is that many of the FX shots looked bad. NOT Kong at any point, or the fight with the T-Rexes. But the establishing shots of New York, the sweeping shot of the crow's nest of the boat, and of course THE DAMN DINO STAMPEDE IN WHICH A MAN JUMPKICKS A VELOCIRAPTOR. People looked they were standing in front of a green screen and not actually running side by side under dinosaurs. But i digress, overall a good movie.
No arguments further from me, thanks.
So far only two people I know went to go see it and almost left because their behinds were starting to go numb. I'm not sure if the version everyone in Europe sees is the same as it is here in the US... who knows? I'm still interested in seeing it, but I probably will wait for it to arrive on DVD... if it runs for 3 hours, I want to be able to pause the movie for a potty break and more popcorn!
They said that the fight scenes were drawn out too much and the feeling you got was "when is this movie going to end?" They insisted that I watch the "Polar Express" over this dud. :-\
Still want to see it... need more good reviews please. ;)
I didn't regret watching it by any means, but yeah, wait for the DVD, it's very long!
It was probably the last time I go cinema in a long time, at least in my local warner (or as they foolishly call themselves these days, vue) because it just costs too much now for what you're getting.
Peter Jackson Rules, I havnt actually seen king kong yet or the old one coz i dont stay up late waiting for it to come on ABC or BBC but after seeing LOTR and the new potter films i bet its awsome, Peter Jackson kicks snail butt! w00t!