Peter Jackson's KING KONG

[Figure 8]

If Kong were based on a novel... this would never have been an issue.

You know, probably not, but that's because those are two completely different mediums.  I think I'm just stating the obvious in this post so I'm going to stop there.

Yeah... but no... different mediums with the exact same objective, so what's really the difference?  It's distressing that even people who appreciate film generally regard it as a less worthy medium than literature or theatre.

Yeah, but if you're remaking something in the same medium then I think that's a completely different thing than remaking a book into a movie because they work completely different.  But I agree with you on that last part, but I think that I have more respect for actors in theater because each show is one shot all in that time, right in front of people, but I'm guessing there's a different thread to say that in.

[Gold Trumpet]

OK, I saw the film and really a terrible movie. I dont want to make any bones with anyone here. Really just my honest opinion. I won't even serve up a review. I actually expected to like this movie. Advance word was great from you guys and Hollywood has been making better films of entertainment, (Harry Potter and Mr. and Mrs. Smith) but this film was torture for me to watch. I just want to make a note to a few of you that people can love movie movies and not like this one.

[Ravi]

I just want to make a note to a few of you that people can love movie movies and not like this one.

There's this aura of protectiveness going on about the film, both here and at another forum, I noticed.  That people like and even love this film doesn't bother me, but those of us who didn't think it was a spectacular film aren't idiots.  I didn't absolutely hate it like GT.  But it was a flawed but entertaining movie that I probably won't watch again any time soon.

[Pubrick]

... I won't even serve up a review. ... Hollywood has been making better films of entertainment, (Harry Potter and Mr. and Mrs. Smith)

no review necessary.

ravi, i hope you don't mean me. i've been arguing points about the movie but i really don't care if someone doesn't like it. i guess it's an acquired taste, a polarizing film like all great works of art.

[bonanzataz]

this movie was fucking perfect. like rene said, it restored my faith in big budget hollywood productions. now, the question begs to be asked, is that a good thing?

[JG]

this film seems to be very either you loved it a lot or didn't.  for me i just liked it.  3/4. 

the more i think about it, the one thing that was so stupid was the CSI style slow-mo camera. 

[Gold Trumpet]

... I won't even serve up a review. ... Hollywood has been making better films of entertainment, (Harry Potter and Mr. and Mrs. Smith)

no review necessary.

ravi, i hope you don't mean me. i've been arguing points about the movie but i really don't care if someone doesn't like it. i guess it's an acquired taste, a polarizing film like all great works of art.

Actually, after I posted I decided later I would review this film. My silence didn't mean I had nothing to say. I just knew my voice would likely anger people. I can imagine a few people do not want to hear why, but I imagine some do.

[Pozer]

It doesn't anger me... cause I know you secretly love it.

[Ravi]

ravi, i hope you don't mean me. i've been arguing points about the movie but i really don't care if someone doesn't like it. i guess it's an acquired taste, a polarizing film like all great works of art.

I don't mean you.  I was talking more about this thread at HTF.  As if some just can't understand why anyone wouldn't love the film and others are saying there's no point in criticizing the film because it was the director's vision.  Its strange.

[Crash]

I don't even know if anyone's going to read this cuz it's so old. But I'm in the Czech Republic and King Kong just came out about a month ago. I went and saw and I was sadly unimpressed. The graphics were good but with such a lacking storyline, or maybe pacing, the graphics were just cheap thrills. How many more shots are we going to see of Kong beating his chest? How many times and Naomi Watts going to attempt some stupid feat to be with this animal (who, hello, isn't even her species so they couldn't even make babies if they wanted to). I also did not for the Beauty and the Beast crap. What was that last line by Denham? I respect Jack Black as an actor and I think he has a chance maybe at doing some more serious roles, but that line would make anyone look the fool. And then the whole scene with the stampede of dinosaurs. Impossible for two reasons:

1) Dinosaurs are extinct.

2) If some of the dinosaurs in the stampeded themselves didn't survive, how are we supposed to believe that a rag-tag crew could somehow not die. On top of that DIALOGUE!!! How do you have a friggin' conversation in the midsts of crushing prehistoric animals bearing upon your through a canyon. And was it just me, or did the crew grow exponentially during this scene. Suddenly, all these extras are getting stomped but no one you really saw before. I mean, I'm pretty sure I saw some guy in a business suit get smashed by a dinosaur.

And of course, there's all those inconsistency errors with the snow, the grueling three hours, the repetitious of Ann Darrow in Kong's hand as he runs through the forest. Let me tell you my friends, I want my 99 crowns back (roughly $ 4).

[Pozer]

Some of what you say is true, yes, but why let that bother you with this type of movie, man?  It's just good popcorn fun filled with thought and creativity.

[Pubrick]

wait, why did you even bother talking sense to this idiot? one of his major problems with the film was that the dinosaur chase is impossible cos dinosaurs are EXTINCT??!! yet he had no logical problem with the movie being based around the existence of a giant fucking ape which he knew full well going into it. "oh shit i thought this was gonna be about the reign of Kong III in 12th century kingdom of Rand McNally."

Crash, unless you're a hot czech chick, or resemble katja kassin in anyway, and your name is not taken from the haggis movie.. consider yourself invalidated for life. a movie like this is clearly beyond your imagination, that bird flu's gone to your brain.

EDIT: nevermind, i just rememberd Crash is the guy with the old marley avatar in love with his buddy jonny.

[Reinhold]

I don't even know if anyone's going to read this cuz it's so old. But I'm in the Czech Republic and King Kong just came out about a month ago. I went and saw and I was sadly unimpressed. The graphics were good but with such a lacking storyline, or maybe pacing, the graphics were just cheap thrills. How many more shots are we going to see of Kong beating his chest? How many times and Naomi Watts going to attempt some stupid feat to be with this animal (who, hello, isn't even her species so they couldn't even make babies if they wanted to). I also did not for the Beauty and the Beast crap. What was that last line by Denham? I respect Jack Black as an actor and I think he has a chance maybe at doing some more serious roles, but that line would make anyone look the fool. And then the whole scene with the stampede of dinosaurs. Impossible for two reasons:

1) Dinosaurs are extinct.

2) If some of the dinosaurs in the stampeded themselves didn't survive, how are we supposed to believe that a rag-tag crew could somehow not die. On top of that DIALOGUE!!! How do you have a friggin' conversation in the midsts of crushing prehistoric animals bearing upon your through a canyon. And was it just me, or did the crew grow exponentially during this scene. Suddenly, all these extras are getting stomped but no one you really saw before. I mean, I'm pretty sure I saw some guy in a business suit get smashed by a dinosaur.

And of course, there's all those inconsistency errors with the snow, the grueling three hours, the repetitious of Ann Darrow in Kong's hand as he runs through the forest. Let me tell you my friends, I want my 99 crowns back (roughly $ 4).

stop breathing. now.

[Link]

Well, I can see some of Crash's points.

But Crash, did you ever consider some abstract/existential interpretations?  If dinosaurs indeed really are extinct, then the conversation going on underneath the nonexistent beings can be interpreted in a whole lot of ways.  Schizophrenia, etc.

If you look at it that way, the scene takes on a certain level of poignancy that wasn't there before.

[Crash]

wait, why did you even bother talking sense to this idiot? one of his major problems with the film was that the dinosaur chase is impossible cos dinosaurs are EXTINCT??!! yet he had no logical problem with the movie being based around the existence of a giant fucking ape which he knew full well going into it. "oh shit i thought this was gonna be about the reign of Kong III in 12th century kingdom of Rand McNally."

Crash, unless you're a hot czech chick, or resemble katja kassin in anyway, and your name is not taken from the haggis movie.. consider yourself invalidated for life. a movie like this is clearly beyond your imagination, that bird flu's gone to your brain.

i was rolling when i read this! i am an idiot but only because i try. my apologies. but seriously though...

yes, i was joking about the whole extinct thing (i mean, come on, that's just funny). but really this is me being serious.
the movie was fun to watch, i was entertained and wouldn't really want my money back because i got what i paid for: entertainment.
so i shouldn't complain. i liked the film. BUTT i think the beauty and the beast thing was covered by an ocean of graphics and close ups of Kong and Noami Watt. i saw a nice parallel between kong fighting for the girl and the writer guy (adrien brody) trying to rescue her from a gigantic gorilla. both were attempting an impossible feat but both regarded her only with their "primal instinct". so see, i thought that was nice. and see? i'm not just a yapping wannabe, i have real opinions outside of my lame jokes.

EDIT: nevermind, i just rememberd Crash is the guy with the old marley avatar in love with his buddy jonny.

i love you for remembering me. it brings a tear to my eye.

Well, I can see some of Crash's points.

But Crash, did you ever consider some abstract/existential interpretations?  If dinosaurs indeed really are extinct, then the conversation going on underneath the nonexistent beings can be interpreted in a whole lot of ways.  Schizophrenia, etc.

If you look at it that way, the scene takes on a certain level of poignancy that wasn't there before.

you just blew my mind...

levels of parallelism between Barbary apes and prehistoric beings. the notion that ones own pet may have been a savage mantooth, shakes the core of cinema even as far as to re-combobulate our very methods of aspirations towards theatrical formulas. 

you cut to the core of me, Link...
you know me...