"King Kong" - monkey talk and movie talk

Boss Radio · 11-30-2005, 02:44 AM

Think of it as a restoration - the ultimate tribute from a superfan, in much the same reverence, the same spirit and passion as James Cameron brought to his dream of recreating the Titanic.

Stan4dSteph · 11-30-2005, 09:58 AM

Premiere magazine has Peter Jackson on the cover of the current issue. He has lost a lot of weight! He looks like he could be Dominic Monaghan's brother!

Cadaverous Pallor · 11-30-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

Premiere magazine has Peter Jackson on the cover of the current issue. He has lost a lot of weight! He looks like he could be Dominic Monaghan's brother!

Yeah, saw that! Good for him! He also got laser eye surgery, so no more ill-fitting glasses. I'll bet he spent some money on clothing too.

http://www.obesitycures.com/peter-ja...ight-loss.html

mistyisjafo · 11-30-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss Radio

Think of it as a restoration - the ultimate tribute from a superfan, in much the same reverence, the same spirit and passion as James Cameron brought to his dream of recreating the Titanic.

True, plus the effects that I've seen look pretty cool. Why do I get the feeling I'll end up seeing it??

Snowflake · 12-03-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss Radio

Think of it as a restoration - the ultimate tribute from a superfan, in much the same reverence, the same spirit and passion as James Cameron brought to his dream of recreating the Titanic.

But not with the ridiculous plot of Titanic. Cameron, for all the special effects and detail in re-creating the Titanic basically dumbed down the tragedy of the sinking and loss of life to the Kate & Leo show.

I've seen some footage because I arrived at Harry Potter in time to see some preview material. I think Jackson will score mightly with this film. I, for one, was so happy that he kept the film in the period of the 1930s and done with a care that Merian C. Cooper and Willis O'Brien would have done, had they today's technology. I appreciate that the 1970s Kong started Jessica Lange's film career, but that film did absolutely nothing for me.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing this on the big screen.

Donna

Alex · 12-14-2005, 07:37 PM

Saw it today.

It is a good movie. The first act (the one I've seen most questioned in the reviews) worked very well for me. The last act (back in New York City) also was wonderful. The middle act (on Skull Island) was very hit and miss.

The Kong-Tyrannosaur fight was very well done. But most of the other action set pieces tended towards stupid. The dinosaur stampede (I've not put this in spoilers because I saw all of them mentioned openly in the press covrerage) has been lauded in most of the reviews I've read but it really didn't work for me.

As long as there were no people in the picture with the dinosaurs they looked fine. But whenver they were together it looked really crappy. Most of them could have been cut and I don't think it would have hurt the story at all.

Jackson made one horrible mistake, in my opinion, that is just such a lapse of judgment that I have to wonder if he showed up to work drunk that day. It is really minor but it totally took me out of the moment when it happened. This I will put in a spoiler.

Spoiler:

Once everybody is back in New York City though, it really turns into a movie with substance. The extra characterization (particularly of Ann Darrow and King Kong) gives their bond real emotional heft that is missing in the original.

I was always suspicious of the casting of Jack Black. I just don't think he is much of an actor (though he is good at slapstick). He grows into the role a bit but early on he isn't very good and just can't stop with the weird facial expressions he does.

Oh, and the damn village still has a King Kong sized gate built into it. Which makes absolutely no sense. I know why it has to be there from the filmmakers point of view but it is just so incongruous (particularly in the form the fortifications take in this version).

Oh well. Still a very fun and entertaining three hours even with the missteps.

I think it will do boffo the first couple weeks but I wonder if it will have legs
like Titanic (a comparison I've seen for box office projections). At my showing, when the movie ended everybody immediately stood up and started leaving. No applause, no lingering to think about it or watch the credits. My feeling was a crowd that had been entertained but not moved.

11-30-2005, 02:44 AM	#1
Boss Radio The Littlest Hobo Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hobo Junction Posts: 393	Think of it as a restoration - the ultimate tribute from a superfan, in much the same reverence, the same spirit and passion as James Cameron brought to his dream of recreating the Titanic.
	Submit to Quotes

11-30-2005, 09:58 AM	#2
Stan4dSteph Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,156	Premiere magazine has Peter Jackson on the cover of the current issue. He has lost a lot of weight! He looks like he could be Dominic Monaghan's brother!
	Submit to Quotes

12-14-2005, 07:37 PM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Saw it today. It is a good movie. The first act (the one I've seen most questioned in the reviews) worked very well for me. The last act (back in New York City) also was wonderful. The middle act (on Skull Island) was very hit and miss. The Kong-Tyrannosaur fight was very well done. But most of the other action set pieces tended towards stupid. The dinosaur stampede (I've not put this in spoilers because I saw all of them mentioned openly in the press covrerage) has been lauded in most of the reviews I've read but it really didn't work for me. As long as there were no people in the picture with the dinosaurs they looked fine. But whenver they were together it looked really crappy. Most of them could have been cut and I don't think it would have hurt the story at all. Jackson made one horrible mistake, in my opinion, that is just such a lapse of judgment that I have to wonder if he showed up to work drunk that day. It is really minor but it totally took me out of the moment when it happened. This I will put in a spoiler. Spoiler: In the dinosaur stampede, the search party is overtaken and the dinosaurs are stampeding around them, over them, and occasionally on them. This part with them running among the dinosaur legs looks horribly fake, but then there is a split second when you see Lumpy (Andy Serkis's human role) running and taking drags off his everpresent cigarette. Sure, mildly funny but not at all keeping with the otherwise serious and dramatic sequence. Once everybody is back in New York City though, it really turns into a movie with substance. The extra characterization (particularly of Ann Darrow and King Kong) gives their bond real emotional heft that is missing in the original. I was always suspicious of the casting of Jack Black. I just don't think he is much of an actor (though he is good at slapstick). He grows into the role a bit but early on he isn't very good and just can't stop with the weird facial expressions he does. Oh, and the damn village still has a King Kong sized gate built into it. Which makes absolutely no sense. I know why it has to be there from the filmmakers point of view but it is just so incongruous (particularly in the form the fortifications take in this version). Oh well. Still a very fun and entertaining three hours even with the missteps. I think it will do boffo the first couple weeks but I wonder if it will have legs like Titanic (a comparison I've seen for box office projections). At my showing, when the movie ended everybody immediately stood up and started leaving. No applause, no lingering to think about it or watch the credits. My feeling was a crowd that had been entertained but not moved.
	Submit to Quotes