King Kong
- Thread starter AnMarie
- Start date
Strangely I'm kind of looking forward to this too. I usually despise remakes, but just because it's Jackson. And the trailer does look pretty stonking.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I reckon it'll be shit...
May Kasahara
take me to the feeling
Have only seen the trailer, but the Kong FX look pretty shit by today's standards - far too much like cheap computer-game movement.
I'm not sure my arse can take another 3 hour Jackson sit-fest anyway.
I'm not sure my arse can take another 3 hour Jackson sit-fest anyway.
The Kong FX are superb. Seriously. You have never seen ANYTHING like it at the Cinema before. His eyes are incredible.
The probs with the FX are mostly in the Brontosaurus chase. You may have seen the clip in the trailer of one of them falling off the cliff? Itsnot great.
Anyone who doesnt choke up during the "ice skating" scene is an inhuman MONSTER, BTW.
The probs with the FX are mostly in the Brontosaurus chase. You may have seen the clip in the trailer of one of them falling off the cliff? Itsnot great.
Anyone who doesnt choke up during the "ice skating" scene is an inhuman MONSTER, BTW.
I'm looking forward to seeing it.
I was reading a review of it and it said that at over three hours long many cinema goes would avoid it, which I found weird as I never usually bother finding out how long a film is before going to watch it.
I did nip out for a cigarette during a boring bit in one of the Lord of The Rings films though.
But yeah Kong, looks good. So does Peter Jackson these days. He's half the man he used to be.
I was reading a review of it and it said that at over three hours long many cinema goes would avoid it, which I found weird as I never usually bother finding out how long a film is before going to watch it.
I did nip out for a cigarette during a boring bit in one of the Lord of The Rings films though.
But yeah Kong, looks good. So does Peter Jackson these days. He's half the man he used to be.
Chester Copperpot
Triple stones
Kid_Eternity said:
Me too... Bobbins I say.
pilchardman
Dances With Penguins
I'm not familiar with his work, never having seen any of the Bored to my Ring trilogy. But I am a fan of Naomi Watts' ...work.AnMarie said:
It is NOT reminiscent of either Titanic or Jurassic Park. That reviewer is a lazy arsehole. Just cos its got a doomed love story and dinosaurs in it. I fucking hate "critics" who compare inappropriate films and pass it off as critique - "oooh, you liked that, youre gonna LOVE this!"
And PJ did not open his own cheque book to cover this. He isnt George Lucas Rich, well not yet anyway. The cost overrun was underwritten by the studio on the proviso of a slight drop in profits that Jacksons production company receives.
Stupid fucking journos.
And PJ did not open his own cheque book to cover this. He isnt George Lucas Rich, well not yet anyway. The cost overrun was underwritten by the studio on the proviso of a slight drop in profits that Jacksons production company receives.
Stupid fucking journos.
Well I imagine he's fairly rich, seeing as the last film he directed is the second highest grossing film of all time. And according to the beeb, Jackson and Universal split the extra costs between them.Echo Base said:
Reno
The In Kraut
I was hoping that this would be good despite being slightly underwhelmed by the early trailers but King Kong is the rare big budget special effects extravaganza that didn't just meet but utterly exceed my expectations.
Some critics have complained that the first act is too slow, but the film does a great job in introducing and making you care for the characters. What you get for nearly an hour is a good period picture about the entertainment industry during the depression. Most effects driven films these days can't wait to tear right into the action but this gives you the slow climb of a roller coaster before cutting lose.
Once the ship arrives at Skull Island the film turns into a series of the most sustained and exciting action set pieces since Ripley returned to wipe out her acid drooling pals in Aliens. It's excessive but fun and when you think that the whole thing can't top itself any further it still does. There is a scene where Kong, Ann and a couple of Tyrannosauruses tumble down a ravine which is outlandish and funny in a way that reminded me of a Chuck Jones cartoon and yet it is also utterly terrifying. During moments like this the audience screamed and laughed with excitement in a way that I haven't heard for a long time in a cinema. When the film returns to New York for the last act the pace barely lets up and the film starts to pay off on an emotional level. The friend I went with bawled her eyes out for about the last 15 minutes.
The special effects are mostly great and even when they don't always look completely realistic it doesn't really matter, because as with Lord Of The Rings Peter Jackson goes for a look of heightened reality. Skull Island is like series of covers for Edgar Rice Burroughs novels come to life rather than a real place and Manhattan is the glittering Art Deco backdrop for an Astaire and Rodgers musical. Kong himself is thoroughly credible, both as a special effects creation and as a character, as is his change from genuinely fearsome beast to caring protector. Naomi Watts turns what in the original was a pretty blonde with powerful lungs into a warm, smart and genuinely heroic character.
There are flaws, but they are minor. When the characters encounter the natives (who are wonderfully scary and who caused a couple of mothers with traumatised children to head for the exits) Jackson gives in to his tendency for "action slow motion" and there are vast tracking shots across landscapes that remind you that they can only be created in a computer. There is an ugly and pointless digital step printing effect that started to get me very worried, but once Kong appears Jackson reigns it in.
I never cared for Tolkien at all, but despite their flaws I enjoyed Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings films for the sheer scale and spectacle. If anything this is even more spectacular, but it's all held together by a narrative that is much more suitable for the cinema. The film stays true to the spirit of the original while expanding and improving on it in all the right places. I think Jackson updates it in a way that makes it as exciting and spectacular as the 1933 King Kong must have been for its generation. It's the one film I've seen this year that for three hours made me forget absolutely everything, that turned me into a ten year old kid again and made me leave the cinema blissfully happy.
Some critics have complained that the first act is too slow, but the film does a great job in introducing and making you care for the characters. What you get for nearly an hour is a good period picture about the entertainment industry during the depression. Most effects driven films these days can't wait to tear right into the action but this gives you the slow climb of a roller coaster before cutting lose.
Once the ship arrives at Skull Island the film turns into a series of the most sustained and exciting action set pieces since Ripley returned to wipe out her acid drooling pals in Aliens. It's excessive but fun and when you think that the whole thing can't top itself any further it still does. There is a scene where Kong, Ann and a couple of Tyrannosauruses tumble down a ravine which is outlandish and funny in a way that reminded me of a Chuck Jones cartoon and yet it is also utterly terrifying. During moments like this the audience screamed and laughed with excitement in a way that I haven't heard for a long time in a cinema. When the film returns to New York for the last act the pace barely lets up and the film starts to pay off on an emotional level. The friend I went with bawled her eyes out for about the last 15 minutes.
The special effects are mostly great and even when they don't always look completely realistic it doesn't really matter, because as with Lord Of The Rings Peter Jackson goes for a look of heightened reality. Skull Island is like series of covers for Edgar Rice Burroughs novels come to life rather than a real place and Manhattan is the glittering Art Deco backdrop for an Astaire and Rodgers musical. Kong himself is thoroughly credible, both as a special effects creation and as a character, as is his change from genuinely fearsome beast to caring protector. Naomi Watts turns what in the original was a pretty blonde with powerful lungs into a warm, smart and genuinely heroic character.
There are flaws, but they are minor. When the characters encounter the natives (who are wonderfully scary and who caused a couple of mothers with traumatised children to head for the exits) Jackson gives in to his tendency for "action slow motion" and there are vast tracking shots across landscapes that remind you that they can only be created in a computer. There is an ugly and pointless digital step printing effect that started to get me very worried, but once Kong appears Jackson reigns it in.
I never cared for Tolkien at all, but despite their flaws I enjoyed Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings films for the sheer scale and spectacle. If anything this is even more spectacular, but it's all held together by a narrative that is much more suitable for the cinema. The film stays true to the spirit of the original while expanding and improving on it in all the right places. I think Jackson updates it in a way that makes it as exciting and spectacular as the 1933 King Kong must have been for its generation. It's the one film I've seen this year that for three hours made me forget absolutely everything, that turned me into a ten year old kid again and made me leave the cinema blissfully happy.
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
Mr Stibs and I went to the early showing of this. I am quite amazed, and would like to see it again straight away, so that's probably a good sign. 
I've just tried writing a review for you, but it all comes tumbling out, and it's quite hard to keep calm about it, there's so much to say.
Acting's top, it's funny in the right places, you jump, you shriek, you yell "Go Primates!!" when Kong batters fuck out of three T-Rex's. It's over-the-top, overblown, self-indulgent, panoramic, and epic in a 'Jesus Christ that must have cost a fortune' type way. I checked my ticket on the way out and it still said five quid twenty, which is a very good deal in anyone's book for three hours of eye-candy like you don't often get.
The 1930s New York rendered by Jackson is awesome, and the CGI for the vast amount of time holds up to the rigourous demands the director makes of it. He really does act as though nothing is impossible.
It has patches where your suspended disbelief is tested, but very few - and when they do come, it's with a self-referencing cleverness that takes you back to those outrageous monster movies of the past, with the can-do attitude, the audacious ambition.
Andy Serkis has to get a special mention. He stands out as a thwarthy seafaring salty dog, tattooed and with a suspicious emotional bond to the ship's Japanese chef. He dies in quite the most horrific way, a real jaw-dropper of a death. You wait.
But as Kong he is fucking stunning. You can't really see him under the CGI, and the CGI itself on Kong is by far the best I've ever seen. But he is there, it's in the swing of his arms, and his eyes, and in a million other signals that show the human behind the Kong character. And he is a character; real, violent, loving, lonely, brave. You fall quite in love with him, and when his great eyes cloud over at the end, your heart breaks along with hers.
You know those people who say: You must go and see this film, it's amazing.
I never say that, I've never thought it true before - but...
You must go and see this film, it's amazing!
I've just tried writing a review for you, but it all comes tumbling out, and it's quite hard to keep calm about it, there's so much to say.
Acting's top, it's funny in the right places, you jump, you shriek, you yell "Go Primates!!" when Kong batters fuck out of three T-Rex's. It's over-the-top, overblown, self-indulgent, panoramic, and epic in a 'Jesus Christ that must have cost a fortune' type way. I checked my ticket on the way out and it still said five quid twenty, which is a very good deal in anyone's book for three hours of eye-candy like you don't often get.
The 1930s New York rendered by Jackson is awesome, and the CGI for the vast amount of time holds up to the rigourous demands the director makes of it. He really does act as though nothing is impossible.
It has patches where your suspended disbelief is tested, but very few - and when they do come, it's with a self-referencing cleverness that takes you back to those outrageous monster movies of the past, with the can-do attitude, the audacious ambition.
Andy Serkis has to get a special mention. He stands out as a thwarthy seafaring salty dog, tattooed and with a suspicious emotional bond to the ship's Japanese chef. He dies in quite the most horrific way, a real jaw-dropper of a death. You wait.
But as Kong he is fucking stunning. You can't really see him under the CGI, and the CGI itself on Kong is by far the best I've ever seen. But he is there, it's in the swing of his arms, and his eyes, and in a million other signals that show the human behind the Kong character. And he is a character; real, violent, loving, lonely, brave. You fall quite in love with him, and when his great eyes cloud over at the end, your heart breaks along with hers.
You know those people who say: You must go and see this film, it's amazing.
I never say that, I've never thought it true before - but...
You must go and see this film, it's amazing!
This isn't out in the cinema in China until 1st January 
I am so, so looking forward to it after all the good reviews though. If it were just a crappy remake by a rubbish director I might not care, but everyone has said it rocks.
I am so, so looking forward to it after all the good reviews though. If it were just a crappy remake by a rubbish director I might not care, but everyone has said it rocks.
Gramsci said:
I still thought the LOTR films had an edge to them though. Even though they were big-time, big budget entertainment, they had that kind of eerie edginess that they wouldn't have had had Spielberg or Lucas tried to do a Rings film (perish the thought)
Reno
The In Kraut
Gramsci said:
My favourite among his early films is Braindead from 1992 and it was the last time he tried did something vaguely subversive. It's a bit difficult to compare the mega buck blockbusters he does now to the low budget gross out comedies he started out with, but his talent for how to use special effects and his desire to entertain and impress beyond the call of duty is still the same.
Something that not many people are aware of is that Peter Jackson and his wife Fran Walsh are a film-making team of equals and comparable to how the Coen Brothers work, sharing writing, directing and production duties. Heavenly Creatures, the odd film out, is more Fran Walsh's film than Peter Jackson's and I assume she'll also take the lead on their next film, an adaptation of Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones. This hasn't really been made public because Fran Walsh is an intensely shy and private person and has chosen to stay out of the spot light with Jackson being the public face of what is an equal film-making partnership.
Similar threads
