King Kong ....

I want to see this somewhat.......

I'm curious to see how it turns out. Jackson claims to be a fan of the story from when he was little and he wanted to be true to the material. Whether that happens or not is another story.

I got a free ticket with the director's cut of "The Frighteners". I'll prolly see it either this or next weekend, but only cause it's free. While I'm interested, I'm not interested enough to drop 9 bucks to see it.

I heard it's decent and pretty faithful, but Jackson expanded the backstory which doubles the amount of time that it took to get to Kong in the original. Almost 40 minutes, from what I understand. It worked for Batman Begins, but there is no Bruce Wayne to this story. Sounds like it will prolly be boring for the first act of the movie.

Since I've been bombed with Trailers for it since the summer, I feel i've seen all the good bits of the film anyway so I think I'll pass on it. I was never a fan of the original and this re-vamp looks a bit like LOTR with extra Monkey.

Ok, you guys have NO idea how excited I am for this. Now, to get everyone else as excited as I am, here are some lovely reviews praising Jackson with what appears to be his next critical and box-office hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

The movie seals Jackson's reputation: He's the most gifted big-picture artist working today, a master of epics from a human-eye view who excels at employing 21st-century technological wizardry to suit the needs of ageless, personal storytelling... But what resonates is the story, which is a very human tale of compassion, greed, loss, bravery, creativity, foolishness, and love. Something, as Carl Denham might have said, for everyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jami Bernard, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Peter Jackson's King Kong is the most thrilling, soulful monster picture ever made. At last, it can be said without irony -- I laughed, I cried.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd McCarthy, VARIETY

It's the Return of the King all over again, and he's got a dazzling Queen. Almost too much of a good thing, Peter Jackson's remake of the film that made him want to make movies is a super-sized version of a yarn that was big to begin with, a stupendous adventure that maximizes, and sometimes oversells, its dazzling wares; but, no matter how spectacular the action, "King Kong" is never more captivating than when the giant ape and his blond captive are looking into each others' eyes... What's up on screen is rarely short of staggering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasha Stone, OSCARWATCH

Has there ever a big effects film as good as Peter Jackson’s King Kong? It appears to us now the way the 1933 version must have appeared to audiences: as something utterly breathtaking and new. Where Jackson goes with his, how he aimed higher and achieved more than the human imagination seems capable of with cinema as its mode of expression, is breathtaking. But it isn’t just a spectacle – like the mighty beast itself, Jackson’s film reveals a beating heart. Here is the true story of love and sex between males and females – nature in all of its grotesque beauty.

---

Yay Jackson!

It looks great, I can't wait to see it!

I might see it, I bet its funny cause Jack Black is in it:D

I hear Black is the weakest link. But given that he was working alongside an Oscar nominated actress and an Oscar award winning actor, I don't find that to be much of a surprise.

Watts for Best Actress 2006. :up:

I hear Kong gives an Oscar-worthy performance.

Jack Black is never a weak link. I can't get enough of that guy :)

Bip

I'll go see it, but I'm not that excited about it.

i want jack black to just break out in song at the end of the movie.

doo dee badoo be doo dee, fligigoo gigoo. xD

Stay Essential
EE

I've never been interested in Kong. Even after I heard Jackson was doing it. I thought he was ruining his career. But I just saw Aeon Flux earlier this week and it had a trailer for Kong, and it actaully looked pretty darn good.

I was never, ever interested in anything King Kong, because I thought it was silly, but when Jackson said he was going to make it, I decided I was going to see it. Only because it's him. I've only seen one trailer, but it looks absolutely amazing. I love Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts. Jack Black is okay too. ;D

I'm excited about it :)

Ive just come back from the cinema with a big smile on my face, Kong was brilliant, Movie of the year, definately.
It was long, very long, but every minute was entertaining.
There were some scenes I particularly Liked, probably the part when Kong takes on 3 T-rexes, the bit where Kong and Naomi were on the ice, with Kong sliding about ( until it abruptly stopped ), and probably the part with Kong dying on the top of the Empire State Building. That was sadder than I thought. Kinda got attached to that big guy.
There were some problems I had with the movie though, one, was I wanted to know more about those weird tribe people holding Kong in the jungle. Never got explained why they were there, what they did, what was wrong with them, why they sacrificed Naomi. Lots ok.....
And I was disappointed with the ending climax to the movie, I was thinking that the part when Kong rushed through NYC was going to be the highlight, but in all honesty, it was dull. Although the parts with just Kong and Naomi in between the action were some of the best scenes.
I'd recommend this movie to anyone, its a must see.

Prolly gonna see it tomorrow.

I loooved it! It started out kinda slow, though, and I wasn't crazy about Jack Black's performance, but that didn't take away from the movie at all. It's definitely one of the best I've seen this year.

Seeing it on Tuesday... as long as they dont make a new-gen Godzilla VS. King Kong its all good. (No disrepect to Godzilla but the new-gen film sucked.)

I'm a tad bit excited about it but the Chronicles of Narnia looks more my cup of tea.

I saw it, liked it lots!

• I think the story of King Kong is rather lame to begin with.
  
• I'm rather tired of all the sequels, remakes, and adaptations that more or less completely comprise the Hollywood movie industry at this point.
  
• I'm not a LotR fan so it makes no difference to me whether Peter Jackson is the one doing it.
  
• Watching an ape snort and jump around is impossible to take seriously.

Buuuuut I'm sure someone's going to drag me along to see it anyway.

I saw it yesterday and wasn't impressed, I found it laughable.

King Kong owns.

I saw it yesterday. I had my doubts, especially considering how emotional people were saying it was. I mean, it's a friggin ape.

But, I'm not ashamed to admit that I teared up a bit.

I don't know. I hated the original King Kong with a passion -- my dad was crazy about it. The fact that King Kong inspired Jackson to make movies is even more ridiculous. >.> I actually haven't seen a single trailer for the movie, but the great big honking posters actually look pretty cool.

So, I'll see it as soon as someone pays for my ticket.

Yep, it actually looks pretty good! much better than what I would of expected.

I may see it if it is good.:)

Im planning on going to see it at The Printworks in my hometown of Manchester. Reason is the movie is 3 hours long and cinema seats arent too comfy after a while. And at the Printworks theres an area where you can take beer in with you and you have a couch instead of a seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~SapphireStar~

you have a couch instead of a seat.

---

Sweet!

it did end on an abrupting note i had a wtf!? reaction but the rest before that was pretty bloody awesome! I like the comic element to Kong (the end of the trx fight...hilarious), makes it harder to see his fate in the end. Despite the fact that it is a big giant ape Jackson somehow captures human reaction quite realistically...imean if we were ever to be faced in a situation like that (i know we wont but think for a sec) we (minus somewhat of a minority) would probably react in the same manner!

i missed jacksons cameo...he was supposed to be on one of those planes near the end!

movie was friggen sweet though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

• I think the story of King Kong is rather lame to begin with.
  
• I'm rather tired of all the sequels, remakes, and adaptations that more or less completely comprise the Hollywood movie industry at this point.
  
• Watching an ape snort and jump around is impossible to take seriously.

---

I agree with all of that I quoted...but unlike Kawaii someone isn't gonna end up dragging me out to see this movie.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20051205l.jpg

Kong is a cool when he roars:choc2:

This movie rocked hardcore. Defiantly in my top ten. I dont care if you like King Kong, Peter Jackson, or whatever, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. It will melt your face off.

The only problem was that they could have cast someone better than Jack Black. But that's it.

Plus, Naomi Watts is hotter than .

This movie was spectacular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My review

It is a little tricky to know exactly where to kick off with this film, so I shall begin with a confession. I have never seen the original, or any other version of King Kong. Some of you will doubtless consider this a significant crime, whilst others will shrug and wander along. At any rate, I feel it is an important point to make; I have not got the prior offerings to compare this to.

Having said as much, I was in truth blown away by King Kong in the 21st century (Hey, there's an idea to pitch to an anime studio... MECHA-KONG!). I shall mention the obvious things you already know first. The special effects are magnificent. The various dinosaurs are amazing, and likely will elicit the same reaction as Jurassic Park did when form you when you first saw that, as it did me. The creepy-crawly bugs and insects are among the most disgusting things I have ever seen, and they are excellently realized. And then there is Kong himself - truly, defiant to the lion, the King of the jungle. He is massive, mighty, and awe-inspiring. Serkis proves himself to be adaptable to this role as well, as the amazing emotion conveyed through Kong's eyes belie an unreasonable amount of time engaged in studying gorillas. He moves with deliberation, and with a strange grace that somehow perfectly befits a thirty foot tall, many-tonned primate.

Kong has his human co-actors, of course, and foremost in my mind is Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow. From a somewhat unprofessional, but irresistable, perspective she is one of the most outright beautiful people to have ever graced the silver screen. Further, she carries her role excellently, fully believable in the way Carl sees her, and fully believable in her rejections of his offer. And so, we come to Carl Denham. He is utterly despicable, free from morals, and apparently without a shred of loyalty in his body. He is also absolutely delightful, and his expression of determination is one which will stay with, and perhaps lightly amuse, you long after the film has ended. There is also a lovely performance from Adrian Brody, as the playwright Jack Driscoll, and Kong's rival for Ann's heart. Furthermore, most of the lesser character roles were filled by able people, and Captain Englehorn was an especially likable chap to my mind.

There was a sub-plot which appeared to lead to nowhere, that of the relationship between Hayes and Jimmy, and whilst the dialogue is well-constructed and very well delivered, it just doesn't seem to have much of a point. Possibly because once the matter reaches a real point of change, the characters take a back seat to the action of capturing Kong and relocating him.

Again, Serkis shines. Kong moves through despondence and depression, through to distant hope, and then massive, terrible rage as that hope is torn away from him, effortlessly and with what must be an illegal amount of pathos. This sets Kong on his rampage around depression-hit New York, which boasts an amazing skyling and an excellent version of a classic movie ending. Ann's determination and begging is almost too much to bear, and Kong's loyalty to the last has the same effect. And then, he dies, and slides off the roof to the city streets far, far below. The expression of that ape in his death is one which will stay with me for a long, long time.

Heartily, heartily recommended. But bring a cushion, it clocks in at a little over three hours, and with trailers and such included that could add quite a bit. Not that there's a second which isn't a gripping and rip-roaring adventure of the kind young boys would sell their sisters to go on. And I.

---

Normally I'm all for freedom of opinion and such, but if you don't like King Kong, you don't know what a good movie is, and you still wouldn't if it clawed your face off.

I know what good movies are, and this king kong remake is not one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anaisa

I know what good movies are, and this king kong remake is not one of them.

---

Balls isn't it. Give me some reasons. I can think of a few flaws, and none of them significant enough to render this anything less than a classic.

It was a good movie. Not as good as LOTR, but still an excellent outing from Jackson. My only complaints were that maybe they overdid it a bit on the FX, and that I felt there was too much of the giant eyed stares from Watts in particular, although I know the original was probably the same in that respect.

The ending alone is worth the price of admission alone IMO. It really was devistating even though you knew it was going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Balls isn't it. Give me some reasons. I can think of a few flaws, and none of them significant enough to render this anything less than a classic.

---

Ok, firstly both Kong and the trexes teeth are wrong. This is not a major issue but with the budget this movie has there is really no excuse to get things like that wrong. Kongs facial expressions are humanoid and look completely out of place on a gorilla. The scene where the dinosaurs all stumble and start falling on top of each other is ridiculous its like some cheap stunt off "you've been framed" . The fight with the trexes is completely laughable, again they have made Kong humanoid. The flips they have Kong doing with the rexes is just comedic and not at all like anything a gorilla would actually fight like. The whole fight was totally flawed. And as for the trex raveled in the vines and swinging scene, that was so stupid I can't even believe it was in the film. Then we have the Kong on ice scene, Kong sliding on ice for fun.......?! pathetic.

You appearantly missed the WHOLE point of kong. Read the comic above. Man is the real monster. The fight with the T-Rex is important but not what the actual fight looks like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anaisa

Ok, firstly both Kong and the trexes teeth are wrong.

---

It's a monster movie not a documentary.
But, for the record those look more like Allosaurs not Tyrannosaur. You can tell by the 3 fingers on each hand. The Tyrannosaur family had two fingers on each.

I loved it! I thought it was wonderful and completly true to the original. The scene where Kong destroys that tree trunk with all the sailors on it brought back some childhood memories of the original. Peter Jackson couldnt have done more to make it better if he tried.

But everyone has their own opinion I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pauten

It's a monster movie not a documentary.
But, for the record those look more like Allosaurs not Tyrannosaur. You can tell by the 3 fingers on each hand. The Tyrannosaur family had two fingers on each.

---

They are supposed to be Trexes. My brother said he thought he saw the same finger flaw but he wasn't entirely sure which is why I didn't mention it. And the teeth on the Trexes matches that of neither an Allosaur or a Tyranosaur. Whether its a movie or not having such flaws is just plain shoddy.

The 3 fingers was a homage to the original, which made that mistake. And again, you are arguing symantics about a movie with a giant gorilla.

And apparently you don't watch movies much. You can point out such symantics for every movie in history. Moviemakers make alot of mistakes and most of the time they don't bother to fix them because either it isn't important or would cost too much money.

In this case, it just doesn't farking matter. What kind of person would walk into King Kong and make a big deal about his teeth? WTF?

I thought it was pretty much fantastic. The first 45 minutes were slow, but after that the action (and excellence) was pretty much non-stop. The denouement was inevitable, but all the better for it. You know Kong's not going to escape, but you still hope he does, such is the character that he is portrayed with.

I can't think of many flaws, bar the slow first section and Jack Black's performance (not bad or anything, but only occassionally getting above adequate). Just about everything else was a highlight (including the excellent skating scene - that's when I fell in love with the film).

Anaisa: lighten up. :) It's a fantasy, so you've got to let your imagination do some of the work.

I like how people, such as Anasia, forget that movies are about entertainment. Which King Kong does to the fullest extent. Try not to take it so seriously. You're bickering about the teeth structure of a giant ape who manages to get Naomi Watts to fall in love with him for craps sake.


Also:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imdb.com

The tyrannosaurus has hands with three fingers (instead of the scientifically correct two) as an homage to the original King Kong (1933) in which the tyrannosaurus also had an extra digit, and is explained by the idea that the dinosaurs on Skull Island have evolved in the 65 million years since the two-fingered tyrannosaurus went extinct elsewhere in the world.

---

The movie was amazing. Very sad though.

I personally dont give a crap about accuracy. I love Dinosaurs by the way but,
It's a monster movie!
King Kong is one of those rare movies that reminds you that you go to the cinema to hava a great time!

I watched it 2 days ago it was very funny!jack black tried to give a cannibal chocolate.

The t-rex had 2 fingers when I watched it.

Im not saying Kongs teeth trexes fingers etc, was a major issue, as yes, most if not all movies have little mistakes in them. I really wouldn't let the fact that Kongs teeth aren't right etc bother me to the extent that it would make me dislike the movie. I listed these points as minor in my complaints about Kong post. And I didn't have a problem with taking the movie seriously, I was laughing practically all the way though it.

Just to annoy the fans:

Booooring. Unbelievably boring and far too long. *snore*

That's what SHE said.

It was alright... pretty good actually. I actually didn't mind the first part before Kong showed up... I thought it was pretty interesting. The main problem with the movie is that it's not epic material, but has an epic runtime... which means there's a lot that could have been cut out. Towards the end, especially, the use of slow motion gets really irratating (every sad/touching/dramatic scene is accompanied by a bunch of slow motion and multiple closeups of everyone's face). The movie just isn't tight enough. I think at least half an hour to an hour could have been cut out with no loss. Though I didn't mind knowing it, we really didn't need to know the backstory to all the characters to such depth. But yea... the slow motion/dramatic closeups were probably waaaayyy overused. There were also a lot of scenes where it seemed they were just showing off their digital effects (which, by the way, were excellent). There was like a 10 minute scene of just Kong running and then snorting and waving his hands around... I had absolutely no clue what the hell was going on.

The action scenes were pretty damn awesome, though... the Kong vs dinosaur action was amazing... as was the bug stuff. Kong himself is like a new benchmark for digital effects... he looks damn good. The emotional side of the story works as well, but once again, Jackson relies way too much on dramatic closeups and slow motion... so at the end, when you're supposed to totally sucked into this 'Beauty and the Beat' thing, the slow motion just gets in the way. Every time a new slomo scene came on I just got pissed off/annoyed and couldn't concentrate on the scene. It almost becomes laughable...

Anyway, overall, the movie was good. I definitely wouldn't say 'classic' good, but it was good. I'd give it maybe 3.5/5 stars. It just drags on WAAAY too long. If it had been cut down to size, I think this movie could have been great. I really don't think Jackson is cut out to create a movie of such size... all the LotRs felt too long, as does this movie. He needs to get things a lot tighter... I really hope his next movie is going to go back to his B-horror movie roots. Man, I loved his old movies.

Oh yea... and I don't think those dinos are T-rexes... I've heard them being called V-rexes... some sort of fictionaly dinosaur.

Personally, I thought is was amazing. Having never seen the originals (though I knew the story, obviously), I didn't really know what to expect, but I found it incredibly good. It was definitely my favourite film of 2005. Naomi Watts was fabulous in it, as was Adrien Brody, and even Jack Black was watchable. 10/10. And I am not at all ashamed to admit I sobbed my eyes out. :D

I watched it. I loved it. I cried.