|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 14, 2020 21:15:53 GMT
Any fans of Peter Jackson's "King Kong"? How has it held up after 15 years? I think a pro-con list best describes some my feelings for the movie: Pro-Naomi Watts (For all the CGI work she had to do, she worked with it like a pro) -Good action scenes - Stampede, Empire State Building battle, T-Rex attack (although some run a little long like the T-Rex attack for example) -Visual effects have held up well (For the most part. The stampede, for example, shows some dated effects. Kong looks great though.) Con-Definite overlength (a 2:20 minute runtime would have worked best) -A game-but-miscast Jack Black and Adrien Brody (they're adequate, but not the ideal casting choices to me) -Unnecessary development for characters like Jimmy (You don't see him again in New York, so what's the point of developing him?) But all things considered, I do think the movie is good and still works today. It just could have been much better if some flaws were fixed. In regards to the extended version, none of the added scenes really add anything to the movie, but they're not bad. The theatrical version is still the better of the two versions. Trivia: Peter Jackson got paid a high salary of $20 million for this movie. Leonard Maltin Movie Guide Review: King Kong (2005) - 3.5 out of 4 stars"In Depression-era N.Y.C., conniving movie producer Carl Denham (Black) shanghais a crew, a screenwriter (Brody), and a leading lady (Watts) for an ocean voyage to Skull Island on the biggest gamble of his career. They soon find themselves in a desperate struggle to survive in a jungle inhabited by predatory prehistoric creatures, while Kong is distracted by the feisty blonde girl. A rare remake that reinvents the original film while honoring it at the same time. Jackson pulls us into a world of wonder, both on Skull and Manhattan island, and takes us on a long but thrilling adventure that's hard to beat. He also cowrote it with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. Oscar winner for Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Visual Effects."  |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Dec 14, 2020 21:19:15 GMT
I actually prefer '76.
|
|
Ransom
Junior Member
@ransom
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 288
|
Post by Ransom on Dec 14, 2020 21:23:15 GMT
Adrien Brody was okay in it actually and they already had Kyle Chandler and the ship's captain if you found yourself starved of an action hero throughout the film. Adrien wasn't a bad choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 14, 2020 21:29:39 GMT
"Dated" is being generous to the stampede scene. It was mocked even at the time. Kong looked great, though.
I'd have to side with Ransom, I was okay with Adrien Brody. He was more nebbishy by design, and to contrast with the more Hollywood idealized hero Kyle Chandler played. Jack Black sucked, though. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he's proven himself in more serious roles like Bernie, but he's winking at the camera for half of this movie.
|
|
Ransom
Junior Member
@ransom
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 288
|
Post by Ransom on Dec 14, 2020 21:33:48 GMT
"Dated" is being generous to the stampede scene. It was mocked even at the time. Kong looked great, though. I'd have to side with Ransom, I was okay with Adrien Brody. He was more nebbishy by design, and to contrast with the more Hollywood idealized hero Kyle Chandler played. Jack Black sucked, though. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he's proven himself in more serious roles like Bernie, but he's winking at the camera for half of this movie. The stampede scene was okay too. It had those slow large brachiosaurus long necked dinosaurs so it was never going to be that exciting. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 14, 2020 21:39:55 GMT
Bad casting-especially Black.
Cgi overkill.
Unnecessary sub plots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 14, 2020 21:40:46 GMT
The movie was ok overall i think, but it should have been between 60 and 90 minutes shorter. I don`t mind watching long movies, but personally i think this movie would have been a lot better if had been between 90 and 120 minutes and not 187 minutes
People may disagree, but that is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Dec 14, 2020 21:57:02 GMT
I remember one thing from it, seemed like a real chore to sit through. imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Dec 14, 2020 21:58:17 GMT
3.5 out 4
Still like it quite a bit. In a movie often filled with excellent FX, the stampede scene looks strangely unpolished. Kong looks great as does its recreation of 1933 New York City. The finale atop the Empire State Building and Kong’s inevitable fate is terrific. Definitely has more heart and soul over the 1976 film but lacks the prehistoric charm of the 1933 film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Dec 14, 2020 21:59:37 GMT
I liked it at the time, but I never re-watched it.
I was surprised by how well the original one from the 1930s held up when I watched it a few years ago. Somehow I don't think many people will be watching the 2005 version around 2095.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 14, 2020 22:04:25 GMT
I liked it at the time, but I never re-watched it.
I was surprised by how well the original one from the 1930s held up when I watched it a few years ago. Somehow I don't think many people will be watching the 2005 version around 2095.
You know a good movie does not suddenly turn bad because its more than 5 minutes old.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 14, 2020 22:12:31 GMT
But is it as good as "Mighty Joe Young" (1998)?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2020 22:13:31 GMT
I always preferred it over the 1976 version, but it’s got a lot of problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Dec 15, 2020 1:21:14 GMT
It will never replace the 1933 original.
However, I thoroughly enjoyed it with all the its plusses and minuses.
NYC is the greatest city in the world and I've always been fascinated by the 1920's so I was quite at home during those atmospheric scenes leading up to boarding the ship. By contrast, the 1933 epic was a no frills, get to the point nail biter, pausing only for a few moments here and there to let the audience catch its breath before plunging into another furious scene.
The dino pile up in the gorge was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in a movie. A million pounds of dino blubber tumbling down the slope. Hilarious. Also liked Kong sliding on the ice. A lot of people hated it, but who knows what a giant gorilla would do when encountering ice for the first time? The Kong-Rex match up may be exciting at first, but the longer it goes on, the more unsatisfying it becomes, opposed to the first movie where the fight was genuinely thrilling and frightening. Can't say I have anything against Naomi Watts, but no human being could have survived being tossed about that violently.
Hated Jack Black. Robert Armstrong was, at the very least, a likable opportunist who had enough heart to understand his part in the tragedy; Black was just a nasty scoundrel with no redeeming qualities. Bruce Cabot was an amiable, macho/shy lug who was, nonetheless, rather endearing in his confusion about Ann; Adrien Broody was just plain vapid.
The 1976 version was a monumental disappointment, a high camp travesty with Rick Baker in a gorilla suit and one quick shot of the giant moth eaten robot that was constructed for the film but failed to work. I recall it standing stiffly in the doorway of the Great Wall in '76, but I don't know if it remains in the television copy (it was that bad).
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 15, 2020 1:44:44 GMT
I adore this movie. It's incredible what Jackson accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 15, 2020 2:24:14 GMT
Exceptional production value, alas I didn't connect with it.
King Kong for me, 1933, is a walking anthropomorphic monster. PJ's Kong was literally a giant ape, a wild animal super sized... & that angle took lore out of it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Dec 15, 2020 5:54:39 GMT
7/10 Really good despite the flaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Dec 15, 2020 6:01:08 GMT
Most of the CGI holds up well and the ape looks authentic, but by golly is it long! 3 hours is simply too much for a film of this nature. It's a good movie, but I'm not sure if I'd ever be willing to commit to another marathon viewing session. I mean, it's not The Godfather Part II we're dealing with here. I'd be happier with a 2 hour version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 15, 2020 11:48:22 GMT
|
|
Toxicalicity
Junior Member
@toxicalicity
Posts: 1,944
Likes: 1,265
|
Post by Toxicalicity on Dec 15, 2020 14:58:31 GMT
The creature pit scene is one of the greatest monster movie moments in history for me. The subtly building sinister music makes it so creepy, especially with Gollum getting eaten by a giant penis.
|
|
