King Kong

Bjam · Post by **Bjam** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:24 pm

So how cool does this look? Pretty cool.

Wanna know something cooler? Sure you do.

Who just won 2 tickets to the damn premiere? Me.

But anyway, discuss the movie, old or new.

Bjam · Post by **Bjam** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:07 am

SPOILERS

I dug the movie. More than my brother.

Man, the Islanders. That was some creepy stuff. I, uh, jumped a lot. A lot.

Now to digress a little way. My brother was telling me before the show about how during the midnight showing of ROTK he went to, before one of the big ass battles, the picture flickered for about 5 seconds, then it was that topsy turvy, where the top is on the bottom for about 5 seconds, then it just died. Yeah, uh, that happened tonight. RIGHT AS ANN WAS BEING SACRIFICED! Gah. I don't think I've seen an audience that tense before a group exasperated sigh and shouts of "PUT IT BACK ON!" Luckily it was a perfect point to go and use the bathroom.

Just as I was sitting back in my seat the movie started up again, so hey, good timing.

Skull Island was waaaaay too long. Basically we just hung around watching Anne and Kong get to know one another and her do the whole acceptance thing, while the boys were off fighting a kajillion different things, and then Kong would protect Ann from a pajillion different things.

But the bugs... oh man. If you didn't like Shelob in ROTK, uh, you may want to go pee during this scene(it's a 3 hour movie, you're gonna need to pee at some point). If you don't dig bugs you may want to avert your eyes then otherwise you'll end up like me, squealing and covering my eyes and curling up into a small ball on my chair.

Then came time for Kong to come to NYC. Everything went as it should. And I cried like a little girl because gosh darnit, why can't a 25 ft Kong love me. And then Kong dies and it's all sad and I was still crying because now Ann ends up with Adrien Brody, who is shirtless in a previous scene and, wow, that girl is lucky.

So I really liked it personally. My brother complained that they made Kong too sympathetic. (His reasoning is because Peter Jackson, the director, loves the source so much, he wanted to really tug at the heart strings, thus make the audience love Kong as he does. Which kinda makes sense. I dunno.) I don't cry at movies(Armageddon being the main exception), but man, if a CGI Kong can make me cry... Pretty darn good.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:26 am

A. Beautiful and long. Like, really beautiful, and really long. The effects were obviously the best ever, but everything paled to Kong himself. Fuck Golem. Fuck Aslan. Kong is where it's at. What is 95% just a dumb effects/action movie ala Jurassic Park turns into a very enjoyable spectacle in Jackson's hands. He spends a lot of time winking at the audience, as there are plenty of sly movie references, both of classic films and his own (look for the Sumatran Rat-Monkey cage in the ship's hold), jokes about directors and movie producers, and of course homages to the original. There's a surprising amount of physical or somewhat low comedy in it, especially near the beginning; considering the movie is partly about vaudeville, I suspect that's partly another wink.

But yeah, it was way too long. Jackson is the only man who can stretch an action scene so thin that you get bored of watching dinosaurs stampede. You know there won't be an extended edition DVD, because he sure as hell didn't cut anything out. If everything (including the action) was edited down by 30% this would an A+ from me. Or if at the end William Shatner had a cameo as a man whose son gets squashed: "KOOOOOOOOONG!" That's got A+ written all over it.

Post by jb » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:55 am

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:35 am

wtf? do we have to analyze everything?

another related question, is anyone else ready to kill off the entire human race?

Bjam · Post by **Bjam** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:40 am

Puce wrote: You know there won't be an extended edition DVD, because he sure as hell didn't cut anything out.

Actually, I remember reading about how he's shot loads of footage. For LOTR he shot hours upon hours, not even all of it is the extended edition DVDs. So, considering the ROTK EE was 4 hours, they probably could put in some extra footage from Kong to bump it up to 4 also.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:19 am

surely, they have hours of jack black being funny off camera.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:16 am

Bjam wrote:
Puce wrote: You know there won't be an extended edition DVD, because he sure as hell didn't cut anything out.
They probably could put in some extra footage from Kong to bump it up to 4 hours.

Yeah. And I'll probably watch it. Just being snide with the "didn't cut anything out" thing.

James P. Pinkerton wrote:"...Kong stands for the black man brought in chains from a dark island (full of murderous primitive pagans) and with a penchant for skinny white blondes." Indeed, a Google search using the words "King Kong racism" yielded 490,000 hits.

Ah yes, my favorite journalistic technique: proof by Googling. It's a fact: if a random string returns more than 487,326 hits then my arbitrary interpretation of that string is correct!

That guy is probably offended by chess.

raisedbywolves · Post by **raisedbywolves** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:37 pm

B+ from me.

I don't mind waiting for the action to start; I'm a pretty patient person. But in retrospect, that first hour or so was pretty indulgent and unnecessary to the overall film. I think at 2:30, it's an A.

Oh, the film stopped on me too, Bjam. Right as the boat was approaching the island. Goddamn Philly! No wonder everyone hates us!

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:13 pm

a little long, but awesome.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:30 am

So, did they leave in the scene of the gorilla masturbating on top of the Empire State Building - or will I have to wait for the DVD for the outtakes?
I sent a lot of letters to Peter Jackson telling him how to get it just right. I even made a home movie of myself in my bonobo suit, standing on a chair - just so the special effects guys would have something to work off. PJ loved my ideas and can't wait to work with me again. He said he'd call me (and as a mark of respect, he even added that under no circumstances was I to call him).

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:42 am

fodroy wrote:wtf? do we have to analyze everything?

another related question, is anyone else ready to kill off the entire human race?

Well, not the whole human race, but we can start with "Snooty faux movie reviewers who think they're smarter than everyone else because they can notice things that aren't there".

The whole idea that "black people = savages" has been totally reclaimed, remixed, returned without reciept, repackaged, resold and rehashed in so many different ways since the 1930s that an allegory so broad and hidden isn't going to stir much of anything in people.

Post by jb » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:51 am

Yes, we do have to analyze everything. YOU don't, but somebody does. If you don't want to see the analysis, don't read. I mean, what are you reading for if you don't want to see analysis? Just people going "hey that was great" in variations for 250 words?

People trot this complaint out when they really liked something that others have problems with. They rarely say "why do we have to analyze everything" when the conversation is analyzing why something is awesome.

Why do we have to analyze everything. Can't we just enjoy our ATM videos without deconstructing the whole experience? (Blech, btw.)

Maybe I'm reading your complaint out of context, but if not, I'm tired of it. "Can't we just enjoy the movie without deconstructing it?" Blahblahblah whatever. Let the analysts have their fun.

I felt like Jackson's "savages" were pretty calculated in their race. They were pretty obviously not "African" in their facial features. They sure were scary though. I suppose to please the PC police you'd have to have a multi-ethnic savage people. Perhaps with some wheelchairs. I hate being in the position of complaining about "the PC police".

Because Jackson was so faithful to the original movie in many respects, I choose to chalk up the ethnicity of the savages (and they sure were savage eh?) to another facet of loyalty to his source.

I'd much rather complain about Watts' terrible, terrible pantomiming skills. Why didn't they use a big green finger to poke and prod her, so it would look like she was really being poked and prodded by a giant gorilla finger? That whole sequence was aggravating. She totally couldn't pull that off. She's good at facial expressions, but leave the physical stuff to Tea Leoni.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:11 am

jb wrote:Why do we have to analyze everything. Can't we just enjoy our ATM videos without deconstructing the whole experience? (Blech, btw.)

Not that you're saying this, but there is a general sentiment amongst those who analyze things that if you're not offended by something, then you haven't been paying attention. Which kind of bugs me. It was present in the article linked, with the whole "So why aren't more people protesting?" line of reasoning that presupposes that the things in the movie are protestworthy. Maybe people who like ATM vids have deconstructed the whole thing, and still totally think it's hot. Maybe people totally have deconstructed Kong, understand that Kong is supposed to represent untamable blacknicity in the face of white civility, and ultimately just don't care. I mean, the world has changed so much since the original came out that it just doesn't seem getting all worked up over.

For me. If other people want to do it, then more power to them. I just wish they wouldn't care that more people don't share their lame POV.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:22 pm

jb wrote:I felt like Jackson's "savages" were pretty calculated in their race. They were pretty obviously not "African" in their facial features. They sure were scary though. I suppose to please the PC police you'd have to have a multi-ethnic savage people. Perhaps with some wheelchairs. I hate being in the position of complaining about "the PC police".

Because Jackson was so faithful to the original movie in many respects, I choose to chalk up the ethnicity of the savages (and they sure were savage eh?) to another facet of loyalty to his source.

i guess to please the pc police they could've hired a various assortment of ethnicities to play the savages, but that wouldn't have made sense on an island that no one had discovered.

and then if they hired all white people to avoid the whole "you're portraying (ethnicity name here) as savages," people would complain about them hiring an all white cast (except for that one black guy and the asian chef).

i just think it's unnecessary to analyze aspects of a movie that weren't meant to be the most important things. king kong isn't about savages (as far as humans go). they just needed someone to be scary.

imagine that as an army of savages. that would be weird.

a bebop a rebop · Post by **a bebop a rebop** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:19 pm

Just saw it. It felt like 3 hours of beautiful animated, melodramatic wankery.

No part of that is an exaggeration. I think perhaps the melodrama was on purpose. I haven't seen the original King Kong but I'd imagine it was probably a bit melodramatic and I would be surprised if Jackson played off of that on purpose.

And serious wank... it wasn't just Tyrannosaurus Rex versus King Kong, it was THREE Tyrannosaurus Rexes versus King Kong. Kong, of course, is the victor.

It was a fun movie though.

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:31 am

fodroy: "i wish critics could just appreciate the movie! why do they gotta analyze it!"
fodroy: "blah blah blah stupid bullshit about the favorite boogeyman of everybody, political correctness."

I see some hypocrisy.

Anyway... B-. Peter Jackson/Fran Walsh/Phillipa Boyens need to not write or edit. YES I SPLIT THE INFINITIVE. That shit where he slows the camera down and skips frames looked awful in the Lord of the Rings and it looks awful now and I hate it and it makes me cringe. A lot of the dialogue is really painfully bad (but apparently a lot of it is in homage to the original film, so I'll forgive it in part). The CG dinosaurs looked like shit and CG still looks like shit and people need to stop pretending it doesn't. If that's what $170 million US cash dollars can get us, we've still got a long, long way to go. Kong mostly looked okay, though, and the scene where he fought dinosaurs was awesome (if, like the rest of the movie and many of the scenes, overly long). There were scenes that were wholly erroneous, and the film did not earn or deserve to be three hours long. PJ's not a bad director but, again, his writing and editing leave a lot to be desired. I don't think that an extended DVD cut would be an improvement. To me it feels like what he released is an extended cut, and he should've way the hell trimmed it down for theatrical release. You're not making LOTR, dude, quit going through the LOTR motions, please.

I enjoyed it, though, generally. It's not the worst film I've ever seen.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:15 am

mkilly wrote:fodroy: "i wish critics could just appreciate the movie! why do they gotta analyze it!"
fodroy: "blah blah blah stupid bullshit about the favorite boogeyman of everybody, political correctness."

I see some hypocrisy.

i wasn't trying to analyze the movie with that post. i was being facetious. it was just in a response to jb's post.

i guess what i mean to say is analyze it if it deserves analysis, but if it's just a money making holiday film, let it be.

Post by **Spud** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:18 am

mkilly wrote:CG still looks like shit and people need to stop pretending it doesn't. If that's what $170 million US cash dollars can get us, we've still got a long, long way to go.

Thanks, Marcus, for being so straight up with what I have been thinking for a long time now. Feed the homeless, dudes, and get back to live action. It's cheaper and more realistic.

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:14 pm

Spud wrote:
mkilly wrote:CG still looks like shit and people need to stop pretending it doesn't. If that's what $170 million US cash dollars can get us, we've still got a long, long way to go.
Thanks, Marcus, for being so straight up with what I have been thinking for a long time now. Feed the homeless, dudes, and get back to live action. It's cheaper and more realistic.

NOTE, SPOILERS:

Yeah, I went to see this with a friend yesterday. One of her favorite movies in the world is Jurrassic Park. (ONE OF) We skimmed over Entertainment Weekly's review of it and the writer claims that Jackson's dinasours were not only better but made some lame joke about Jackson's dinasours making Jurassic Park's look like they were rendered in the Jurassic Age. Wholly untrue. Especially when the humans are in the same frame with the dinasours. Jurrassic Park's integration between characters and dinasours LOOKS A WHOLE LOT BETTER even so many years ago than Jackson's NOW.

King Kong's CGI was (IMO) very good. Excellent even. The ONLY time he didn't look good, it wasn't even him that wasn't looking good...it was whenever 'she' was in his hand. Now, I love the LOTR movies. LOVE THEM I tell you. However, even in those, sometimes when the humans were part of the CGI...they too didn't look all that great and you have to suspend some belief. Much easier to do in a fantasy film than one that has so much basis in a reality type world.

The first 45 minutes were fine by me. I really enjoyed the being in NYC back in the 30's. As well as getting back there later.

The relationship brew. Necessary, yes. The first encounter, the last encounter, very necessary. They needed one more in between. NOT A DOZEN back and forth frames between faces. It went back and forth and back and forth. I think it takes away from the VERY END a little bit. By the time you really need your heart to be in it...you've found yourself tired of the whole thing and are just waiting for that fall.

Overall, I think it's ok. I enjoyed it as an action film. The bug scene was my favorite. It looked very real and was the most intense part of the film for me. I'd give this movie a B. I have seen a lot worse movies and I don't want to mix this one up with all the bad ones. I'm critical of this because it was a dissapointment after all the hype and my love for the LOTR movies. HOWEVER, it's still better than a lot of crap out there and I'm critisizing it on a higher level. I mean, this isn't in the same place as 'weekend at bernies' after all.

Sorry for the rant. It's just that I dragged a friend to the movie who didn't want to see it and it turns out I agree with her on most of her complaints afterwards.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:38 pm

Hoblit wrote:Jurrassic Park's integration between characters and dinasours LOOKS A WHOLE LOT BETTER even so many years ago than Jackson's NOW.

Totally agree. This is probably because most shots of dinos in JP were animatronic or "digitally enhanced" animatronics. Same goes for Starship Troopers: all the best looking interactions where done with models, motors, and very talented camera work. Someone needed to tap Lucas on the shoulder (or punch him in the face) and show him this. In KK, the scene where everyone runs away from the "brontosaurus" (homage, not ignorant goof, I suppose) herd was embarrassing looking. To Marcus, I still say that Kong looks awesome, and I'd certainly argue that $170M worth of conventional FX couldn't make him look that good.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:59 pm

mkilly wrote:
fodroy wrote:wtf? do we have to analyze everything?
I see some hypocrisy.

Killy, you must have missed this:

fodroy wrote:another related question, is anyone else ready to kill off the entire human race?

But Dan! You said you wanted to kill off the entire human race, but YOU'RE A HUMAN TOO! Now THAT'S hypocrisy.

Before everyone jumps on Dan for his glib post, I think it's obvious that he's not referring to us or this thread, but to that dumb fuck in the link he provided. And that guy really shouldn't be overanalyzing Kong (or at least it shouldn't be printed in Newsday) because A) he is not a movie reviewer. He is a conservative political writer without an ounce of film critic credibility, but with lots and lots of agenda up his sleeve, and B) he should be too busy being punched in the mouth repeatedly.

<i>[EDIT: Speling]</i>