King Kong

MetalGoddess · Post by **MetalGoddess** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:20 pm

The trailer makes the movie look fantastic. I have not been this excited about a movie, let alone a remake, in years!

I just bought our tickets on Fandango for the first show Saturday morning. I wish we could go sooner. I hear the movie is 3 hours long...I hope it keeps my interest.

Is anyone going opening day, tomorrow?

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:27 pm

MetalGoddess wrote:Is anyone going opening day, tomorrow?

Angelica and I may go see it tonight after I get back from Vulgarizer practice. I wonder if it's playing at the Cinerama

Angelica · Post by **Angelica** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:04 pm

NO!:swear: Narnia is still there! Maybe by the weekend.. but it's on like 20 screens at Meridian!

AchimbaProphet · Post by **AchimbaProphet** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:15 pm

Fuck all remakes. This has got to be one of the most rediculous remakes ever. I place it at number two behind Godzilla. I will never see this and the previews do nothing for me (obviously).

Clark Chaos · Post by **Clark Chaos** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:20 am

Kong was pretty good.

It is a much better remake then Godzilla was, way beyond Godzilla.

A bit on the long side but it was a quick 3 hours.

llapman · Post by **llapman** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:13 am

It's Peter Jackson, so it has to be at least worth a look. I'll check it out this afternoon.

C-YA

Latte Thunder · Post by **Latte Thunder** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:13 pm

I'm really having a hard time getting excited for Kong. Everyone I know is pitching a tent for it and thinks I'm crazy for not grinding my teeth in anticipation, but I make no apologies. It's got a lot riding against it as far as I'm concerned.

#1
It's a remake. I couldn't care less if it IS Peter Jackson. I expect more from the guy who did epic right with each of the Lord of the Rings movies. You come off an overwhelming success with the world at your fingertips and you're entitled to do anything you want and you remake a movie? Come on, Pete.

#2
It's Peter Jackson. There's a sort of fanboy association with that name that I just don't want to be associated with. This is really just me being bitchy and unreasonable, but I think that a lot of the greasy assholes who used to worship at the temple of George Lucas abandoned ship when the prequels came out and found a new dork icon in Peter Jackson. Just because the guy rocked your socks off with some dungeons and dragons doesn't automatically mean that all his output in the future is must-see entertainment. Prove it, Jackson.

#3
I feel, most importantly, that this is what is stopping me from foaming at the mouth over Kong. The original is such an impressive piece of cinema because of the work that Willis O'Brien and his crew put into the stop motion special effects. These guys were doing it all by hand with a physical puppet. The detail of every King Kong animation scene is staggering when you consider that these guys were just moving each piece of the puppets around and snapping a single shot with the camera. It boggles the mind. Stop motion is such complicated stuff! Now consider that the remake is all done on blue screen soundstages with a CGI model being manipulated inside an SGI computer. Yes, there's a certain degree of wow that comes with outstanding computer animation. It's not easy, but hundreds of thousands of times easier than manipulating one or more stop motion puppets. It's an undisputable fact that the new Kong model is detailed beyond some of the most detailed computer models that have come before. The facial expressions, skin textures and hair are top notch! But it's still not enough to move me. It's just not as impressive as the original and leaves me with no compelling urge to spend my theater dollar on it.

Maybe it's just because I went to school for multimedia and a lot of my education focused on CGI animation that this sort of spectacle just doesn't move me.

I don't mean to be a downer and I hope you guys that ARE looking forward to it go and get your money's worth. I think I'm the odd man out here as I've read nothing but high praise for it but I can't help but wonder if genre cine has been in such a slump in recent years that the public will take anything slightly above average and run with it like it's the second coming of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.

zach · Post by **zach** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:07 pm

Everyone seems to be interested in fellatiating peter jackson. He did Bad Taste folks, remember that always. And Meet the Feebles. No one is cumming in their britches for those classics.

Angelica · Post by **Angelica** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:41 pm

I actually heard that Bad Taste was pretty good.

Huh.

Latte Thunder · Post by **Latte Thunder** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:10 pm

zach wrote:Everyone seems to be interested in fellatiating peter jackson. He did Bad Taste folks, remember that always. And Meet the Feebles. No one is cumming in their britches for those classics.

Except me. I think they're both great.

The guy has had a pretty low key career until Lord of the Rings, and as much as I love those movies, I'd take Heavenly Creatures or The Frighteners before I watched Rings again.

Jackson is a great director, make no mistake, I just think it's going to take more than Hobbits to turn me into the drooling fanboy that my friends are.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:24 pm

I don't understand why people buy movies. Seeing a movie once is enough.

But Bad Taste is one of the 2 or 3 movies I want on DVD. Bad Taste rules, don't be a derrick...

Hopefully seeing kong tonight. But yeah, the commercials for it are making me not want to see it.

Angelica · Post by **Angelica** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:44 am

Yea, the Coldplay commercials almost scared me away...

Just got back... awesome movie!! Despite the few near cheesy moments I thought the movie was overall... amazing.

The one review I read was correct, they found the two actors in Hollywood with the saddest eyes and made it work.

zach · Post by **zach** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:53 am

Latte Thunder wrote:Except me. I think they're both great.

The guy has had a pretty low key career until Lord of the Rings, and as much as I love those movies, I'd take Heavenly Creatures or The Frighteners before I watched Rings again.

Jackson is a great director, make no mistake, I just think it's going to take more than Hobbits to turn me into the drooling fanboy that my friends are.

And you just nailed my point. I have nothing against peter jackson's early work. In fact, i think his films such as The Frighteners and Bad Taste are better than LoTR (at least i enjoyed them more). Not to say LoTR aren't good movies, but c'mon... just because he was able to make Elijah Wood look like a midget doesn't mean he's all of a sudden God. It means he has a lot of fuckin' money to blow on his movies.

Griff [Mola] · Post by **Griff [Mola]** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:35 pm

Latte Thunder wrote:Jackson is a great director, make no mistake, I just think it's going to take more than Hobbits to turn me into the drooling fanboy that my friends are.

Well, its not like Jackson is asking you to be a drooling fanboy. If you think he's a great director, why deny yourself a potentially pleasant experience just because you've gotta beef with your lame buddies? Tell yourself you're gonna go see it because you like BAD TASTE if that makes you feel any better.

As I recall, you pissed your panties over FELLOWSHIP, even likening it to the marvels of RAIDERS and EMPIRE. Well, that kinda rare cinematic wonder is all over the new KONG. You'd be a fool to miss it just because the hype is getting you down.

I guarantee you'll absolutely adore most of it.

Latte Thunder · Post by **Latte Thunder** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:41 am

'Griff [Mola wrote:']I guarantee you'll absolutely adore most of it.

I'll get around to it, eventually. I'm just being bitchy. There's just something about it that doesn't grab me like it did everyone else.

Kimberly · Post by **Kimberly** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:49 am

Angelica wrote:I actually heard that Bad Taste was pretty good.

Huh.

The bastards have landed!!

MetalGoddess · Post by **MetalGoddess** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:35 pm

Wow, I just got back from seeing the movie. It was fucking amazing!!!

I enjoyed the movie so much that it didn't even seem like three hours. Showing the depression era in New York at the beginning of the movie was very realistic and a good opportunity to answer my kids' questions about why the people were hungry.

All the scenes on the island had me on the edge of my seat. Holy crap!! The brontosaurus stampede, Kong fighting the meatasauruses, the bugs (yuck!), the huge vampire bats, the creepy natives. I loved watching Ann bond with Kong, it was very well done.

I was worried after all the hype that I would be let down. Oh, no. I'm still hyped up from that awesome movie!!! Two thumbs up from me!!!

mickey brown-eye · Post by **mickey brown-eye** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:26 pm

zach wrote:Everyone seems to be interested in fellatiating peter jackson. He did Bad Taste folks, remember that always. And Meet the Feebles. No one is cumming in their britches for those classics.

I am!

mickey brown-eye · Post by **mickey brown-eye** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:34 pm

I also liked it a lot. The whole scene with the dinosaurs was amazing and somehow, even though it was all CGI, It made me think of a Harryhausen movie. I never thought I would get teary-eyed over a CGI creation, but Kong might as well have been real. Adrian brodie was great, so was Kong's acting(?) The scene with the guy getting his head chewed off by the giant snail thing was like something out of a childhood nightmare for me. I also cringed when Kong took out that last tyranosaur. Brutal!

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:14 am

mickey brown-eye wrote:I also cringed when Kong took out that last tyranosaur. Brutal!

slapping it around after that was the shit. a pretty damn good movie. I went hope and pet my cat, promising it that I'll never, ever take her to New York.

hodgy · Post by **hodgy** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:55 pm

I spent yesterday watching first the '76 film (which I haven't watched all the way through in many years), then the '33 classic (which I probably haven't watched all the way through ever, except maybe when I was a kid). The Peter Jackson movie really tied the older two together in a way that I enjoyed. I liked that it was truly a 'remake' of the original in that it was told in the 1930's- which at the time it was released it was 'modern day'. Mother fuckers knew about breadlines and hardships. Something the first remake did was to develop the relationship between Ann (well, Jessica Lange's character was named Dwan) and Kong. If you remember the original, Faye Raye does nothing but scream and run. Bitch. She didn't love that monkey. But Naomi Watts sure does. Also amusing was the scene where Ann and the big movie star were doing a scene together on the ship. It was lifted line-for-line from the original, where Ann was getting to know her love interest- horrid 1930's acting and all. My biggest bitch was that while there were plenty of opportunities to see Ms. Watts' tits, there isn't even one goddamn nip-slip when she's climbing up the Empire State Building. Guess I'll watch 'Mulholland Drive' again.

Proxi · Post by **Proxi** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:14 am

hodgy wrote:I spent yesterday watching first the '76 film (which I haven't watched all the way through in many years), then the '33 classic (which I probably haven't watched all the way through ever, except maybe when I was a kid). The Peter Jackson movie really tied the older two together in a way that I enjoyed. I liked that it was truly a 'remake' of the original in that it was told in the 1930's- which at the time it was released it was 'modern day'. Mother fuckers knew about breadlines and hardships. Something the first remake did was to develop the relationship between Ann (well, Jessica Lange's character was named Dwan) and Kong. If you remember the original, Faye Raye does nothing but scream and run. Bitch. She didn't love that monkey. But Naomi Watts sure does. Also amusing was the scene where Ann and the big movie star were doing a scene together on the ship. It was lifted line-for-line from the original, where Ann was getting to know her love interest- horrid 1930's acting and all. My biggest bitch was that while there were plenty of opportunities to see Ms. Watts' tits, there isn't even one goddamn nip-slip when she's climbing up the Empire State Building. Guess I'll watch 'Mulholland Drive' again.

Best review ever!!!!!! Had a big smile

while reading through Hodgy's write up of the movie.

mickey brown-eye · Post by **mickey brown-eye** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:57 am

hodgy wrote:I spent yesterday watching first the '76 film (which I haven't watched all the way through in many years), then the '33 classic (which I probably haven't watched all the way through ever, except maybe when I was a kid). The Peter Jackson movie really tied the older two together in a way that I enjoyed. I liked that it was truly a 'remake' of the original in that it was told in the 1930's- which at the time it was released it was 'modern day'. Mother fuckers knew about breadlines and hardships. Something the first remake did was to develop the relationship between Ann (well, Jessica Lange's character was named Dwan) and Kong. If you remember the original, Faye Raye does nothing but scream and run. Bitch. She didn't love that monkey. But Naomi Watts sure does. Also amusing was the scene where Ann and the big movie star were doing a scene together on the ship. It was lifted line-for-line from the original, where Ann was getting to know her love interest- horrid 1930's acting and all. My biggest bitch was that while there were plenty of opportunities to see Ms. Watts' tits, there isn't even one goddamn nip-slip when she's climbing up the Empire State Building. Guess I'll watch 'Mulholland Drive' again.

There was a few nipples-through-the-blouse scenes though. Damn tease.

llapman · Post by **llapman** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:58 pm

zach wrote:Everyone seems to be interested in fellatiating peter jackson. He did Bad Taste folks, remember that always. And Meet the Feebles. No one is cumming in their britches for those classics.

I am a fan from wayyyy back, so I actually do cum in my britches over those classics. As well as Dead Alive, and Beautiful Creatures. So far, i've enjoyed all the films he's made thus far, which is why I do have hope for Kong. My hope that this would be good is based on ALL his other flicks, not just "The Trilogy". Lucas is only known for Star Wars, and he didn't direct all of those anyway.

Later

YouTube · Post by **Chris Slack** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:31 pm

Justt got back from my second viewing and it was just as good as the first. Only difference is that this time I got teary eyed even sooner.

Forums of Filth

CD reviews, music reviews, music discussion, horror discussion, movie discussion

King Kong

King Kong