|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 7, 2005 0:44:04 GMT -5
siamese, between Kong and Narnia, I'm bummed that you don't live out here. I think we'd have a good time hanging out this month. What a compliment! And I whole-heartedly agree! I would learn so much from you about Lewis! Are you kidding? You'd stop wearing black! You'd start doing good things! RUN AWAY!
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Dec 7, 2005 0:51:00 GMT -5
I think Mr. A and I would have fun! I do like an occasional bit of good, clean fun.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 7, 2005 1:30:51 GMT -5
And I do like an occasional bit of bad, dirty fun.
Wait, no. How about just plain fun?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Dec 9, 2005 18:32:20 GMT -5
Thanks. I completely forgot that I asked about that and forgot to check for some time.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 10, 2005 1:51:33 GMT -5
And I do like an occasional bit of bad, dirty fun. Wait, no. How about just plain fun? No, men of God like it nasty. Just look at Boston priests... sorry...
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 14, 2005 17:40:00 GMT -5
Well, I'm off to see the uber big monkey. I'll see you all when I get back.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Dec 14, 2005 19:14:59 GMT -5
Just got back from seeing this, and my feelings are a bit mixed. For one thing, it did seem pretty long. I was angry at those who complained about the running time before I saw it, but it really does stretch on a bit. Lots of great moments, though, overall I did enjoy it. It just wasn't the earth-shattering event I had hoped it would be (although I hadn't actually even begun really looking forward to it more than a month ago at most).
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 15, 2005 0:13:32 GMT -5
Whew boy. Where to begin? So much to like, yet for some reason I have to tear this movie a new one as well. Let's just start by saying the original is still the best and Peter Jackson's best movie is still the Frighteners. As a fan of the original movie myself, I understand Peter Jackson's love for it. Black and white oldie or not, the original King Kong is still one of the best adventure films ever made. Peter Jackson's enthusiasm about doing a remake to his favorite movie of all time is appearant right out of the gate. It would have been easy to just bring Kong into modern day ala the 1976 remake film of the same name, but Jackson keeps the same setting of the 1930s making the film feel so unique in the current crop of movies. There's also a wonderful passing reference to Fay Wray, RKO, and Merian C. Cooper toward the beginning that I couldn't help but laugh aloud at. Sadly I was the only one laughing, which kind of peeved me off. At that point I knew I was the only one in the audience that knew anything about the original, and probably the only one that had seen it at all. I try to at least go out of my way to see the original before I see the remake, myself. Oh well. Not my problem if these people decide to miss out on a classic. Instead they decide to sit through this 3 hour update. Not a bad choice. I prefer it to the 70's film, that's for sure. And Peter Jackson does have a love for the original film, so it should be the next best thing... I guess. But here I am, reminded of an earlier 2005 film which also happened to be a remake, War of the Worlds. It wanted so desperatly to be the film event of the year, but kind of got lost on the way there. Kong is a better film, but it wants so desperatly to be spectacular but it's reach far exceeds it's grasp (and when you have an arm as long as Kong's, that's saying something). Jackson does have a love for the original, but it seems to be a love that has blinded him, because he far exceeds what is neccissary. For example, in both the 30's and 70's films, the strongest segment was always Skull Island, the most fun and adventurous of Kong's story. In Kong '05, it's the weakest. Why is that? Because it's so damn overblown. Nothing proves my point more than the updating of the Skull Island natives. In the earlier films, their fear of Kong was strong, as was their anger for the explorers for disrupting their ceremony. Here, they seem to be just really angry people made that way to make the scene more intense. It fails. Miserably. Because it doesn't work. Some of their actions are laughably over the top as well. I can't tell you how hard I giggled at the pole vaulting to the ship to kidnap Ann. The jungle scenes fare better, but are dragged down for the same reason of excessivness. The Brontosaur stampeed is much longer than it needs to be and the camera is all over the place, making it hard to figure out where the hell our heroes are at. Not long after that, we get the update of the T-Rex attack, but there's not just one Rex this time, there are three. Once again, Jackson tries to make things bigger, but by now I was worn out by the previous sequences and I didn't much care anymore. I wasn't overly impressed with the CGI either. The stuff in New York is good, but the majority of the work on the island looks cartoonish and inorganic, and the new CG Kong looks his best when he's sitting around, not doing anything. Or maybe it's just that a CG Kong doesn't have that distinctive charm of a Willis O'Brian stop motion effect or Rick Baker in a monkey suit. Sure, Kong's movements are more realistic, but I think I enjoy movie monsters more when it slightly looks fake. But these are mostly personal nitpicks, I think. Maybe the people around me enjoyed it more because they didn't have anything to compare it to. The film is good, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it great. The highlights of the film, for me anyway, is when the movie offers something new that isn't going too far with it. There's a sequence where Ann and Kong slide around on a frozen lake that I just adored. So beautifully concieved and executed, a true look at how excelent this film could have been if it wasn't trying too hard. I also took a small amount of pleasure in watching a sequence in which Kong chases a Taxi driven by someone who has pissed him off, simply because it may or may not be a small wink wink to another recent update of a classic movie monster, 1998's Godzilla, in which something very similar happened (incidenatly, G98 in turn referenced the Kong '76 in the monsters death sequence in which it's heartbeat slows down and eventually stops). But since I brought Godzilla up, I think it's interesting to note that in the end I actually think higher of that critically panned film than this critically praised one. If only because of the fact that it was much more subtle about everything. As for the new Kong, I still say it was good, but Jackson needs to stop making things bigger and start making things better. *** out of ****
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Dec 15, 2005 18:16:38 GMT -5
I couldn't find the original to watch before I went to see this one, short of buying it for 20 bucks or so.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 16, 2005 0:22:28 GMT -5
I will say, where I disagree with you most, is that I though Godzilla 98' just plain sucks. Subtle? Are you on crack? Godzilla - A Roland Emmerich film - is about as subtle as slapping someone in the face with your weiner. In comparision to a film as overboard as Jackson's King Kong? Yes it was subtle.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Dec 16, 2005 11:40:33 GMT -5
So now that this one's done, what's Jackson's next project going to be?
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 17, 2005 2:26:03 GMT -5
In comparision to a film as overboard as Jackson's King Kong? Yes it was subtle. I admit that Jackson's Kong isn't exactly subtle - but that scene where Ann and Kong are sliding on the ice, for example, was more subtle and beautiful than anything in Roland Emmerich's craptacular film. Emmerich never stretched his film longer than it needed to be. In comparison as an entire film is my meaning, which is true. You're not reading what I wrote correctly. Moving on to a different topic, change your damn name back. Halloween is long over.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 17, 2005 14:40:50 GMT -5
Ann and Kong on the ice, goofing around? Can someone tell me, because I'm sure not going to spend 11 bucks to see this, do they make Ann a real feminine woman of the 30's or is she some contemporary feminist tough gal in 30's clothing...? just curious
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 18, 2005 12:09:36 GMT -5
Emmerich never stretched his film longer than it needed to be. In comparison as an entire film is my meaning, which is true. You're not reading what I wrote correctly. Moving on to a different topic, change your damn name back. Halloween is long over. It's still a stretch to call Godzilla subtle. I cannot find one thing subtle about it. The word subtle has nothing to do with length. Perhaps you're not reading my words right? I think I like my name Did I say it was a subtle movie period? I said it was subtle compared to King Kong. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Burton on Dec 20, 2005 13:25:51 GMT -5
I didn't like it. I can't stand the heaps of praise it's getting. I'm glad it's not doing good at the box office. Hopefully the remake will die. Too many crappy things to list but briefly:
LONG. I have no qualms about films lengths. Jackson's Extended Versions of LOTD are much better than the theatrical versions, but Kong felt like the an eternity. I took TWO bathroom breaks! NEVER has that happened.
The whole Skull Island scene is numbing. FX for the sake of FX. And the interaction between the FX and the human actors is... BAD.
The much ballyhooed "Ann and Kong on the ice is so magicial and wonderful!" scene. I'm sorry all I could think of during that scene was an ape that damn big would break the ice and fall into the icy water.
The FX for Kong were herkey jerkey in the Skull Island scenes, though it did get better when he was in NY. I much prefered the FX in the 33 and 76 version, because (probably through the crudity of the FX) the ape seemed almost human in it's expressiveness, which actually made the connection between Ann and Kong believable. But in this version.... ummm it's a big ape....
Jackson's irritating headache inducing slo mo shaky cam. Escpecially during the native scenes (it seemed like the movie was headed into Cannibal Holocaust territory for a sec.).
I did like: the first 45 min., the last stand at the Empire State Building, Jackson and Rick Baker cameos and references to Fay Wray and Cooper doing "a picture for RKO", and of course the Dead Alive reference.
In short: marginally better than Godzilla (98).
In short: marginally better than King Kong Lives.
In short: I'll take Jeff Bridges in a beard that obviously inspired Teen Wolf fighting Rick Baker in a monkey suit anyday.
|
|