LOTR or KING KONG???

[fadhatter]

which of these will be remembered long as a P Jackson masterpiece??

i get the feeling the geeks-who-cant-read will rush to Kong and forget Tolkien :(

[Wolfshead]

King Kong isn't out yet, is it?

And again, two threads with the same name :eek: Dodgy forum today methinks :rolleyes:

[fadhatter]

King Kong
Cast: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Jamie Bell, Thomas Kretschmann, Evan Parke, Colin Hanks, John Sumner and Andy Serkis
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Screenplay by: Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Runtime: 187 min
Rating: PG-13
Year: 2005
OFFICIAL SITE
SEE TRAILER
BUY TICKETS
BUY SOUNDTRACK

here are several good reasons why Peter Jackson should not have remade the 1933 classic tale of beauty and the beast, not least of which because it was his favorite movie as a child. The emotive power of the film's original monster, made out of clay and models by Willis O'Brien, was something Jackson had already matched in his stunning creation of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings. The original King Kong and Gollum are more than just three-dimensional characters in a sweeping narrative; they're signposts in motion picture history. But Jackson's remake of King Kong is a horse of a different color: an attempt to recreate lightning in a bottle, and perhaps improve on O'Brien's "clunky" or "dated" clay animations using the very technology that serviced Gollum so well (a combination of computer generated elements, motion capture on a live actor, and the digitally recreated acting of Andy Serkis, who was given screen credit as Gollum and now as Kong).

The 1933 King Kong was given a re-release on DVD, and in watching the movie we still somehow forget that the creature is an utter fabrication, even though it's plain to the modern eye that the effects are crude. Yet that handmade quality is what gives the movie its heart and soul. When King Kong's face registers love or fear, it was the result of an artist's painstaking construction. That still translates, no matter how much technology has improved. To attempt to fix something that isn't broken in the first place is a fool's errand. Jackson, who proved long before his astonishing Lord of the Rings that he is one of the master fantasists of contemporary cinema, is no fool; but his very love and nostalgia for this beast is what kills the movie.

In terms of technique, this King Kong is as spectacular as The Lord of the Rings, particularly in Jackson's reveal of Skull Island as a mammoth lost world encased in fog, mud, and decay. When the heroes arrive in the hopes of making a Hollywood movie and discover they've landed in a place where dinosaurs still walk the earth, Jackson doesn't pull a Jurassic Park with super-slick looking, well-researched creatures, instead giving the monsters an expressionistic flourish of evil-looking eyes, larger-than-life monster teeth, and nightmarishly-wrong proportions. When the monsters chase after our heroes during the second hour of this three-hour-plus epic, there are moments where Jackson is at the top of his game. When spiders and squid monsters, insects and night creatures pop out of the caves, it's like the squeam-inducing manipulation of a master showman.

It's in the second hour that we get those best-of-Hollywood thrills and chills, but here is a perilously bloated first hour to get through, where the human characters are introduced and given comprehensive character development and backstory. Jackson sets up the Great Depression, the Hollywood studio system of that era, the struggles of a working actress, Ann Darrow (charming Naomi Watts, in the Fay Wray role), trying to make it in the Big Apple, the Orson Welles grandeur and pomp of an egotistical film director, Carl Denham (Jack Black), the yearning heart of a sensitive playwright, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), and half-a-dozen characters aboard the ship to Skull Island who are given their little "moments" because, after all, we have to get to know them before they're devoured by dinosaurs or thrown off of mountainsides by the mighty Kong.

With Lord of the Rings there were a dozen major characters in a story that takes place on an operatic scale—a tale of war, castles, and kings. But King Kong is never meant to be taken on that level. For all its epic scope, it is a simple fairy tale about beauty and the beast, and that essence of the tale is beautiful and needs no bells and whistles. You feel like screaming, "Get to the God-damned island already!" When Jackson finally does, the politically correct will be gnawing off their arms about his treatment of the native islanders, who basically stand in as third-world, dark-skinned Uruk-Hai. Jackson tries to deflect the racism here by casting Jamaican actor Evan Parke as one of the first mates who discovers Skull Island, though having the only other major black character be the one spouting moral platitudes before obviously being marked as one of Kong's first victims feels like we're stuck back in the casual prejudice of 1933, only now it's stuck in the double standard of trying to apologize for itself while simultaneously following the genre rules established by Alien: the black guy's gotta die. Any critic who tries to write about this aspect of King Kong has no choice but to harp on it or ignore it. Either way, it's there.

During the final hour of King Kong, the mighty beast is captured and put on display in Times Square. This sequence might have paid off if the relationship between King Kong and Ann was established during that second hour in the jungle. Jackson handles action sequences splendidly, yet when it comes to having the computer-generated monster have chemistry with the human blonde, there is no relationship. Serkis's pesonality, which came through so strong in Gollum (as deserving of an Academy Award nomination as John Hurt in The Elephant Man), doesn't come through in Kong. There seems to be no point in casting an actor in a role so devoid of humanity; it feels like Kong's emotions are as computer-generated as his hulking body. There's no real acting on display. It's an action character, not an emotional one. Jackson tries really, really hard to have his audience connect with Kong during sentimental long takes where the beast stares into computer-generated golden sunsets, but we never see the beast's poetry, or its soul.

Watts valiantly tries to make that connection herself and there's a strange sequence where her character, as a comedienne, does a little vaudeville act to amuse Kong. Getting a kick out of her shtick, he starts repeatedly knocking her over with his giant finger, chuckling in glee as she's getting slowly battered. It shows a modern sensibility when Ann says, "No!" to Kong, refusing to be his victim. One would think this would create a sense of character development in Ann and Kong; it's certainly a strong conceit. Still, it's one painted in broad strokes, and since we never see Ann and Kong as more than objects in a large adventure story, it's difficult to feel for them. Kong feels as fake as that CGI sunset.

Since their scenes together feel like boring pastiches of domestic life, when the third act arrives with Kong trashing New York City and Ann trying to soothe the savage beast, the famous conclusion atop the Empire State Building doesn't have that "not a dry eye in the house" sense of tragedy Jackson so clearly aspires to (and which the original film genuinely achieved). As if he knew it needed bolstering, Jackson and co-screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens add in a long, trying-too-hard-to-be-sparkling-cute sequence in Central Park where Kong and Ann spin around atop an icy lake. Jackson is a true-blue sentimentalist, and his early gore films derived much of their impact from his wonderment at the nature of true love amidst all the splatter. But those low-budget features were ambitious for what they were; whereas this blockbuster is more like the arrogance of a guy who had a huge hit with Lord of the Rings and didn't know when to quit.

Jackson remains one of the strongest cinematic craftsmen working today. There is some measure of awe inspired in this King Kong, and it's funny to think that while the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings may have played slightly better than the shorter theatrical releases, this movie would be so much stronger in retracted form. More to the point, Jackson should consider scaling down his enterprise, letting a smaller story be told in a smaller way. Black's character, the enthusiastic and obsessive filmmaker who values saving the rolls of film in his camera over the lives of his crew, says, "What is [the studio] going to do? Sue me? Huh? They can get in line. I'm not going to let them kill my film." Jackson needed no interference. He successfully killed this beast himself.

Jeremiah Kipp
© slant magazine, 2005.

Same ole Peter jackson mistakes : racism, no character development, too much CGI, 3+ hrs !!!

As lewton hewitt would say !!! Com'ON !!!!

[Wolfshead]

When Jackson finally does, the politically correct will be gnawing off their arms about his treatment of the native islanders, who basically stand in as third-world, dark-skinned Uruk-Hai. Jackson tries to deflect the racism here by casting Jamaican actor Evan Parke as one of the first mates who discovers Skull Island, though having the only other major black character be the one spouting moral platitudes before obviously being marked as one of Kong's first victims feels like we're stuck back in the casual prejudice of 1933, only now it's stuck in the double standard of trying to apologize for itself while simultaneously following the genre rules established by Alien: the black guy's gotta die. Any critic who tries to write about this aspect of King Kong has no choice but to harp on it or ignore it. Either way, it's there.
Same ole Peter jackson mistakes : racism
Forgive me for not understanding, but how do we surmise Peter Jackson is racist?

[Corvis]

He's rascist!? What!? Anyway I definetly think that LOTR will be remebered as PJ's greatest masterpiece because that was the film project that boosted him into stardom. Also This is the third time King Kong is being made so a lot of people has been through this film already and plus LOTR has a bigger fan base than KING KONG. Plus is the HObbit comes out then he and LOTR will just become huge once again years after KING KONG has died down.

[e.Blackstar]

LotR, I would guess, mostly because KK is a remake and therefore is too likely to hit pitfalls.

[baragund]

LOTR definitely. Because of all the Oscars he won, because of the overall good job he did making a movie that was supposed to be "unfilmable".

More than 3 hours for King Kong?? Good Lord, that's way too long for such a story!!

[Barliman Butterbur]

LOTR definitely. Because of all the Oscars he won, because of the overall good job he did making a movie that was supposed to be "unfilmable".

Yeah, what he said. ;)

As for PJ being a racist — utter rubbish — very trollish (http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm) remark.

Barley

[Gandalf White]

Gotta love fadhatter. Out of 17 reviews, he manages to post the only one that gives King Kong a "rotten" rating. :rolleyes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/

[fadhatter]

Gotta love fadhatter. Out of 17 reviews, he manages to post the only one that gives King Kong a "rotten" rating. :rolleyes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/


didnt they send you to film school to learn critical thinking?? :D

an unfavourable criticism is more valuable then the hogwash of false praise from a bunch over-educated fools

[Gandalf White]

I don't recall ever attending film school.

There are now 20 reviews. 19 of them are "fresh."

May I ask if you've seen the movie?

[simbelmyne]

I don't recall ever attending film school.

Hmmm...neither do I.

In all justice to fadhatter, I think its a miracle there was a negative review on rotten tomatoes at all. I had a hard time finding negative reviews even for "Brothers Grimm" (*shudder*). People in America will watch anything and "critics" will praise just about anything unless praising a movie interferes with all of the perks they get from movie studios.

Back on topic, I have yet to see Kong. And really, I'm not very interested. Is it just me, or is that story a little dated? A giant gorilla on the Empire State Building? Like Hulk - just doesn't translate well to modern audiences. At least to me. There are so many good movies out right now - I don't know when I'll get to it. I hven't even seen Walk the Line - or Narnia!!!

*I voted for Heavenly Creatures. That is an incredible, ingenious moive.

[simbelmyne]

Wow. I just went and checked rotten tomatoes and there are quite a few bad reviews. Here are a few tidbits...

"Peter Jackson may have lost weight, but he hasn't lost his gluttony. There is no excuse for the 3 hour and 7 minute running time of King Kong. Hollywood needs an enema, and Peter Jackson needs an editor."
-- Kevin Carr, 7M PICTURES

"It wasn't beauty killed the beast... it was bloat."
-- Sean Burns, PHILADELPHIA WEEKLY

Kong's eye-popping array of cinematic tricks reflects the filmmaking philosophy of a director for whom anything worth doing is worth overdoing, then doing to death. "
-- Carol Cling, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL


Ouch. Has anyone actually seen the movie yet?

[Barliman Butterbur]

Has anyone actually seen the movie yet?

I'm planning to see it next week.

They love to have "The Making of _____" (you fill in the blank with a movie title) featurettes on cable TV, and we watched one about King Kong.

Right away I noticed this: all the live actors seemed to be moving in a totally computer-generated universe: buildings, sky, clouds, everything. There is an all-pervading sense of "unreality" which I never got anywhere in LOTR. (Could PJ be slipping? Maybe he needs to get fat again...)

Also I noticed that the Big K and the dinosaurs moved in that ultra-smooth gliding manner that's a dead giveaway of CG. Maybe I shouldn't have watched that featurette; as I said, my wife and I are going to see the film next week, and I'm going to see Narnia as well — by myself possibly, because my wife's not interested in seeing it.

Barley

[Gandalf White]

@ Simbelmyne

First off, long time no see. Greetings.

With regard to the Brothers Grimm, how could you not find a rotten rating? I was going to see it soon after it opened, but after reading the critics reviews I decided against it because, well, they were rotten. By my last count, rotten reviews outweighed the fresh by 1.5.

I, too, have yet to see Kong, though I have plans for this Thursday (after finals!). So far, modern audiences are loving it.

Some tidbits I found:

"This is one of the years best films."
-- Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

"One hundred eighty-seven minutes of mesmerization, astonishment, thrills, chills, spills, kills and ills, Peter Jackson's big monkey picture show is certainly the best popular entertainment of the year."
-- Stephen Hunter, WASHINGTON POST

"One of the season's most enjoyable films - even if it's a wee bit overlong."
-- David Foucher, EDGE BOSTON

All things considered, I believe I'm looking forward to it.

[fadhatter]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178983,00.html

What's happened? Peter Jackson's "King Kong" — a three-hour, $300 million extravaganza that wowed advance screening audiences — is a catastrophe in the making.

[Barliman Butterbur]

If we are to judge the worth of a movie merely on its opening boxoffice figures and the judgment of its current critics (so many of whom turn out to be idiots in the long run), we're all in trouble. Opening boxoffice income is hardly a benchmark of cinematic worth.

The long history of cinema shows plenty of movies that almost sneaked unannounced into the theater by the back door and went on to become evergreen benchmarks of cinematic excellence and quality. And there are movies that made a huge splash at the box office and went on to almost immediate well-deserved oblivion.

Barley

[fadhatter]

well if we take foxnews seriously, tis a sadder day for the fadhatter too...

still tis good to see PJ get some karma back :D

"It was beauty killed the Beast"-----did it shound corny from Black???

[Corvis]

Somebody had told me that it was originally planned for Fay Wray to recite the infamous lines at the end of the movie, but since she passed away this past summer they could never do it and Black had to.

[Gandalf White]

If we are to judge the worth of a movie merely on its opening boxoffice figures and the judgment of its current critics (so many of whom turn out to be idiots in the long run), we're all in trouble. Opening boxoffice income is hardly a benchmark of cinematic worth.

The long history of cinema shows plenty of movies that almost sneaked unannounced into the theater by the back door and went on to become evergreen benchmarks of cinematic excellence and quality. And there are movies that made a huge splash at the box office and went on to almost immediate well-deserved oblivion.

Barley

I don't think anyone implied that we are to judge the worth of a movie merely on its opening boxoffice figures and the judgment of its current critics. It would also be foolish to entirely ignore boxoffice figures and critics. The reason so much attention is being paid to them in this thread is because they are all that we in this thread have to go on. Until we see the film, that is.

[fadhatter]

If we are to judge the worth of a movie merely on its opening boxoffice figures and the judgment of its current critics (so many of whom turn out to be idiots in the long run), we're all in trouble. Opening boxoffice income is hardly a benchmark of cinematic worth.

The long history of cinema shows plenty of movies that almost sneaked unannounced into the theater by the back door and went on to become evergreen benchmarks of cinematic excellence and quality. And there are movies that made a huge splash at the box office and went on to almost immediate well-deserved oblivion.

Barley

Gawd knows we have three prime examples from the master b-movie director himself lol :D

Which is also the reason for this poll erhmm i mean troll, erhhm i mean poll.....1 year removed from RTOK, why are people still gobbsmacked from CGI??

WERE they purely gobbsmacked from CGI in RTOK??

[Gothmog]

I don't think anyone implied that we are to judge the worth of a movie merely on its opening boxoffice figures and the judgment of its current critics. It would also be foolish to entirely ignore boxoffice figures and critics. The reason so much attention is being paid to them in this thread is because they are all that we in this thread have to go on. Until we see the film, that is.
I have to ask. Why would it be foolish to entirely ignore critics? Personally I have very rarely even read critics reviews of films either before or after watching a film and it has neither spoiled or improved my enjoyment. On the rare occasion when I have done so I usually end up wondering what film they when to see as the review seems to refer to a different one than I saw.

To me the only critic worth taking note of is myself. As for others people, it might improve their enjoyment to do the same. ;)

After all, unless you want to allow someone else to tell you what to do, the only way to know if you like a film or not is to watch it yourself.

[simbelmyne]

First off, long time no see. Greetings.
Thanks! Its great to be here! Just finished my finals...
With regard to the Brothers Grimm, how could you not find a rotten rating?
I know, right? I checked the reviews BEFORE opening weekend (I went on opening day) - there were a few negative reviews but not too many. Its like once critics realized it was a klunker (after it opened) everyone admitted how bad it was. Maybe I'm being cynical, but rotten tomatoes reviews DEFINATELY left me with hopes...in case anyone cares, the movie was horrid.

I, too, have yet to see Kong, though I have plans for this Thursday (after finals!). So far, modern audiences are loving it.
Well, GW, I think "loving it" might be taking it a bit far:) , but I'm very curious to hear a post-viewing opinion!!!



So has PJ lost a ton of weight? Weird. Does anyone have a photo of this?

[Gandalf White]

@ Gothmog:

In my experience, critics have been helpful. Mind you, I don't swallow their words hook, line, and sinker. I check the number of good to bad, read the headlines, and perhaps a full article or two. Then I check with my gut instinct based on what I've read. I must say it hasn't failed me yet. (Except perhaps for Constantine, which I expected to be a worse movie.)

@ simbelmyne:

Ok, so loving it is perhaps going a bit too far. Enjoying it?

For a picture of the "new" PJ:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178623,00.html It's the last photo in the little photo section.

[Khôr’nagan]

Okay, that picture is terrifying. :eek: Honestly, if I didn't know it was Peter Jackson before seeing it, I might not recognize who he was.

Anyhow, I don't think it's a good idea to get these preconceptions in mind before seeing the movie. Really, you should just try to enjoy the movie for what it is and try to avoid criticizing it for what it isn't. This method has rarely ever failed me, and indeed, I enjoy almost every movie I ever see. Some more than others, certainly, but enjoy never the less.

I hope to see it sometime this week, and I hope I can purge all the negativity I picked up about it from this thread before then. YOU PEOPLE SHOULD DO THE SAME. Once people tell you about all the errors they make, it's hard to see anything else when you're watching it. I'm going to have a tough time not noticing how smooth the dinosaurs move after reading this thread, and that's exactly the kind of thing you want to avoid doing. You should wait until you've seen the movie before you start pointing out errors, and before you start reading what they were.

[Barliman Butterbur]

For those who care (Simbelmyne, are you there?) ;) you can read my reactions to the film at http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showpost.php?p=466159&postcount=7 .

And as Gothmog so sagely advises: pay minuscule attention to critics! To which I add, including the ones on this board! :p

And yes, PJ has lost an astonishing amount of weight! Slim, trim and flat-bellied! That, and he had lasik surgery and no longer wears glasses. He looks like a totally different person. (His nose now looks quite large.) He attributes his weight loss to substituting yogurt and meusli for hamburgers...wish I could believe that! (I just might try it anyway...)

Barley

[Gandalf White]

Barley: posting your critique on the film, but advising others to pay miniscule attention to it? My my, wonders never cease. ;)

(You know I'm playing with you.)

I finally get to see it today; last week's viewing was postponed, due to some horrid snow. In preparation, I have purged my mind of anyone's and everyone's comments on the film.

Toodles.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Barley: posting your critique on the film, but advising others to pay miniscule attention to it? My my, wonders never cease. ;)

Well, OK then — except for mine (it's 99.99% positive anyway)!

Barley :)

[fadhatter]

Jackson's next project is Halo for the PC game......they wont give him The Hobbit.

PJ will be the next Uwe Bolle

[Merry Grimas]

Wow. King Kong was everything I was afraid it was going to be. I bet there are a lot of PJ fans out there who secretly feel the same way. KK showcased all of the weaknesses of Jackson and his team and few of the strengths.
I loved the rings movies, but I guess the NPWs now have a great weapon to use against the enemy. Kong is bloated and abysmal, with about two really shining moments. meh. I still think they could do a good job with the Hobbit :p (if they don't lose all of their hollywood cred with this bomb-in-the-making)

[Gandalf White]

Admittedly, KK had its weak spots all throughout...but its greatness still shone through.

As I've said elsewhere, I was bored throughout most of it. I really don't care if I ever see it again. But I still hold it was a brilliant film.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Wow. King Kong was everything I was afraid it was going to be. I bet there are a lot of PJ fans out there who secretly feel the same way. KK showcased all of the weaknesses of Jackson and his team and few of the strengths.
I loved the rings movies, but I guess the NPWs now have a great weapon to use against the enemy. Kong is bloated and abysmal, with about two really shining moments. meh. I still think they could do a good job with the Hobbit :p (if they don't lose all of their hollywood cred with this bomb-in-the-making)

Oh, and it's so important for the NPWs to have a "great weapon" to use against "the enemy!":rolleyes:

Neverthless, the more time elapses after I've seen it, the more "the fizz has left the drink." It was fun to have seen it — once — but I won't miss never seeing it again, despite what I said in my initial enthusiasm.

I hope that PJ has gotten something out of his system, and will be in a better and more mature position now to use what he learned in the making of KK on The Hobbit — if he ever gets to make it. :eek:

Barley

[simbelmyne]

First off, thanks for the PJ picture, GW. Peter Jackson is sort of attractive now-and that disturbs me *eww*. I hope he doesn't leave his wife (or whatever she is) for some blonde bimbo.
Neverthless, the more time elapses after I've seen it, the more "the fizz has left the drink." It was fun to have seen it — once — but I won't miss never seeing it again, despite what I said in my initial enthusiasm.

As I've said elsewhere, I was bored throughout most of it. I really don't care if I ever see it again. But I still hold it was a brilliant film.

OK, guys, what do these comments about the movie mean? How can it be boring and brilliant at the same time? I'm confused. What about it did you like or not like? CGI? Acting? Dialogue? Forgive my curiosity but I won't be seeing it and want to know if y'all thought it was good....

I have no desire to see it NOT because of PJ, but I just don't find the story of a giant gorilla on the Empire State building that interesting.

[Merry Grimas]

This is why I didn't like it (something I posted in another forum):

I'm heartened that a lot of people seem to legitimately like this flick. I'll definitely give it another chance when there is a director's cut of some kind. Maybe Jackson will redeem himself a bit.
I think my biggest beef boils down to how flat all of the characters are. While the movie was in production, Jackson talked about working to create very believable characters that are thrust into completely unbelievable situations. That was one of the strengths of Lord of the Rings. This is why the Rings movies diverge so much from the books -- the characters were made less noble, more flawed and [arguably] more believable by today’s standards. Though many Tolkien fans criticised Jackson for doing this, I really liked it. It brought the story down to earth. It made the highs that much higher and the lows that much lower,
But I don’t see this at all with Kong. All of the characters are flat and cartoonish. None grow or change in any real way over the course of 3+ hours. I never got to know who these people were. There was, therefore, little at stake in what would could have been some of the most absurdly gripping horror scenes of all time. As it stands, I didn't care if these folks were squashed by the stamped of Brontosauruses. I didn’t feel an inkling of sorrow when Kong slid off the empire state building, because I didn’t believe in the relationship between Kong and Watts. To me, it felt contrived every step of the way. As a result, (as in the equally soulless matrix series) the action sequences became just a bunch of nonsensical digital patterns on the screen. I would have gotten as much out of watching a trippy screensaver for three hours.
One can argue that Jackson was just being true to his source material and wanted to recreate the campy, flat characters of the original Kong, but Lord of the Rings should show us that he has no qualms about obliterating source material to create something cool and resonant.
For me, Kong just didn’t succeed as high art, or as a popcorn flick, or as really much of anything. I’ve actually been in a bit of a slump all day because of it. Meh. That’s my rant.
It’s a real shame about Shore. His music had a big hand in making LOTR great. I can’t remember a single musical theme from Kong. Were there any?

[Barliman Butterbur]

...what do these comments about the movie mean? How can it be boring and brilliant at the same time?...What about it did you like or not like? CGI? Acting? Dialogue?

It wasn't me that made the boring/brilliant comment, so you'll need to find the answer from someone else.

What I liked about the movie was the mastery of the computer animation, how it blended into "reality" and the dazzling spectacles put so realistically onto the screen. What PJ puts on the screen, you believe! (At least, while you're watching it ;) ) Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts are great actors (The Pianist, The Village, Dummy, Mullholland Drive, Undertaking Betty), this was an easy gig for them. Jack Black was disturbingly weak and couldn't carry his role, IMO. I thought Andy Serkis as Lumpy the Cook looked like Popeye's father Poopdeck Pappy. :p

I thought John Howard's competently effective (but no more than that) film score well-suited to the movie, and heightened the emotions properly. I was expecting Howard Shore, but noticed the difference immediately, and rather enjoyed the change.

The story line is totally outrageously stupid! But we can't fault PJ for that, that comes from a movie out of the Depression Era, and in those days, people (who actually had enough money to spend) going to the movies wanted to escape from the horrible reality that was their lives during those days. That was certainly escape!

For its time the original King Kong was cutting-edge technology. And that was the movie that sparked something in a nine-year-old kid who went on to become what I call a "brilliant-but-flawed" cinematic genius. He took that stupid movie and made an absolutely knock-your-socks-off-boffo stupid movie! :p So I guess we need to be grateful to old KK for giving us new PJ!

Anyway — that's why I liked it but most likely won't go see it in theaters again. I'll probably get the DVD when they finally decide on a hi-def format.

Barley

[fadhatter]

damned it, they need a better film school for gandalf white...his critical thinking is terrible.

Amazingly jackson and his team kinda understood this movie: they added "heart of darkness" part about people...

alas, jackson has never gone through with any new good ideas in his last 4 films.

ps. chris tolkien still has the rights to the hobbit right???

[Merry Grimas]

Those absurdly heavy-handed 'Heart of Darkness' references were the worst. I think I will see King Kong in the theatre again. I'm sure the whole thing was tongue-in-cheek. That doesn't make it any better though... Just intentionally terrible. I'm a sucker for self punishment and mindless distraction.

[Gandalf White]

My three major points are as follows:

CGI

As Barley said, the CGI was simply amazing. Perhaps one or two shots looked a little "off," but considering how much CGI was used in the movie, that's nothing. A definite A+.

A source of my boredom, though, was how often this CGI was used to create overlong action scenes. Perhaps PJ had the Engergizer Bunny directing these parts; I just don't know. Admittedly, the greatness of the CGI still made it worth watching at least once.


Acting

I agree with Barley on most (all?) of his comments regarding the acting in KK. Naomi Watts and Adrian Brody were great. But there was something about Jack Black that just wasn't right; it was nagging at the back of my mind the whole movie. Because of this, the final line just doesn't have the impact it's supposed to have.

As to the characters being "flat," I'm not sure how much more dimension could be added. Unless, perhaps, you want the back story of every single crewmember who died. At any rate, one cannot accuse Naomi Watts (or Adrian Brody's) character of being "flat." :rolleyes:

Storyline

Quite simply, I found the unbelievable totally believable, largely due to the previous two elements.

All the different characters (Kong, Darrow, Denham, Driscoll, etc) were brought together, and the results were altogether believable. (You didn't have any "Theodens" popping up, in other words.) ;)

But for me, what made the movie brilliant was how it portrayed the different sides of human nature, and it hit the nail on the head. So while I was bored throughout most of it, I was still able to appreciate its insight.

"There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness." ~ Nietzsche

[Ermundo]

The CGI Balrog was sweet though. It looked so lifelike and freakin cool!!!!!!!!!!