ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

King Kong (2005)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 2001 to 2010
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: King Kong (2005) Reply with quote




Okay, let's just focus for a moment on the aspect of this movie that was supposed to be its big strength, the thing that Roger Ebert claimed made it so much better than the original.

The so-called "heart" which this one had and the original lacked.

In this version, Kong isn't just a huge brutal beast with no more intelligence than . . . well, a huge brutal beast. In this version, he's a huge brutal beast who occasionally shows a tiny bit of intelligence and who gazes at sunsets.






Good Lord, is this actually supposed to make me go all warm and fuzzy over this creature? Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that he rips people's heads off and tosses blonds over his shoulder? Am I really supposed to admire Naomi Watts for being so brave and unselfish when she stands in front of Kong waving her arms and crying when the planes close in for the kill?

After all the death and destruction Kong had caused, was she actually hoping that everybody would just forgive the big lug and let him roam around loose?

My apologies to all the folks who responded to this movie the way Jackson intended, but many of us just sat there wondering how much cornball, dewy-eyed, sentimental, cliched bull crap Jackson was going to load into this overblown, hollow-headed insult to one of the greatest movies every made.





Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:53 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bongopete
Interstellar Explorer


Joined: 17 Dec 2013
Posts: 76
Location: Dallas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me say that on the whole, I actually liked Jackson's version of Kong.

I could have done with less of the infamous spider pit sequence.

In the end though, I have to say that I never really had much sympathy for the big fella . . . at least not the way that others feel . . . then again, I have never been a fan of Gorillas and monkeys and PEPE!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Doctor Kaiju
Senior Crewman


Joined: 09 Nov 2014
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guilty of feeling sympathy for King Kong. It's not his fault he was taken to NYC!

So he ate some people, big deal. That's a given when you bring him on tour.

_________________
The Giant Giant Monster Movie List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tom
Solar Explorer


Joined: 07 Nov 2014
Posts: 53
Location: Gulf Coast

PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What stands out in this version is the dinosaur sequences. I love dinosaurs and these were really cool.

Was there a gorrilla in this? Where?

You know the difference between King Kong & Godzilla?

King Kong throws cars and climbs on buildings
Godzilla steps on cars and knocks down buildings.

Good movie, but could have done with less mush and more destruction . . . RAH!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pye-Rate
Starship Co-Pilot


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 626

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I rate this weep wagon at 2 sap buckets under the TV.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Doctor Kaiju
Senior Crewman


Joined: 09 Nov 2014
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, considering the other giant monster movies we had at the time in the theater, King Kong was a big hit for me, though I would have cut about an hour from the movie. And maybe thrown in Godzilla . . . and a few more buckets of bright red blood.

But otherwise solid.

_________________
The Giant Giant Monster Movie List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
noetic_hatter
Planetary Explorer


Joined: 26 Nov 2014
Posts: 40

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have not seen this one since the cinema, and I remember feeling kind of meh towards it. I think it's because Peter Jackson has no sense of editing -- he must always include everything his brain thinks up, so the movie just goes on and on and on.

These days, I have a hard time watching too much CGI - it just looks phony. And as attractive as the dinos were in 2005, they look pretty dated and cartoony now. (I just got a copy from the library, and I glanced at it after converting to mp4 to make sure the video came out okay.)

Still, Naomi Watts is always lovely, and Jackson clearly adores the material. I figured it was worth another watch almost 10 years later. I will check it out soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The things that bothered me the most about the movie were the scenes that were supposedly tributes to the original.

For example, I was literally slack-jawed with amazement (and anger) as I watched a scene in which the actors-playing-actors stood at the railing of the ship and parroted the romantic dialog between Ann and Jack so the audience could chuckle at how bad it supposedly was.

In the original film, Carl Denham was an imaginative, successful filmmaker, a world traveling adventurer, and a brave man who risked his own life to rescue Ann from Kong.

Peter Jackson decided that was hokey and dull, so he made Denham a lying, self-serving, con artist who wasn't worth the gum stuck to the sole of his shoe.

Jackson couldn't figure out what to do with Jack Driscoll, a brave and handsome hero who triumphs over incredible odds to save Ann. So Jackson split the character into two people: a vain no-talent actor, and a nondescript writer. Neither of these two characters were very interesting.

In New York we see that gawd-awful scene on the stage where Kong is sitting like a fat baby, and showgirls prance all around. Damn, did Jackson actually think that was a worthy successor to this scene?



And what music does Jackson use for this insulting version of Kong's Broadway premiere? Why naturally he selected Max Steiner's rousing "native ritual" music, which did such a fine job of underscoring the savage pagan ceremony on the island.

That was salt-in-the wound for a Kong fan like me. Jackson inflicted his misguided version of Kong's New York appearance on the audience, then he takes the great music from a powerful scene in the original and slaps it onto something completely different and completely wrong for the story.

By the time the movie showed us the Eighth Wonder of the World sliding playfully on his fuzzy belly across a frozen pond while Ann Darrow clings to his back and giggles, I wanted to find Peter Jackson's house and put a burning paper bag filled with gorilla crap on this doorstep! Shocked

It wasn't just that Jackson's movie was a horribly misguided remake of the original — Jackson's movie gleefully slapped the original in the face with insulting scenes like those I've described.

And yet the visual effects were stunning. I loved stop motion as a kid and still love the movies that used it well, so I don't really want CGI monsters to look "real", I want them to look like well executed artwork.

When I did this drawing, I didn't try to duplicate the photograph I used as a reference. I wanted a woman's face made out pencil lines that look sort of "scribbled" onto the paper.





I was trying to do something in the style of famed artist Paul Calle, as seen in this portrait of Neal Armstrong.





So, CGI that looks like CGI is okay with me, if it's actually supposed to look like an aesthetically pleasing variation on reality.

Does that make sense? Confused

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:37 am; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert (Butch) Day
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1437
Location: Arlington, WA USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WOW!!!!!!!



Bud, whomever she is, she bares an almost identical look and demeanor of Barb Dryer, my Canadian girlfriend, at age 23 — almost 40 years ago! She STILL looks like this, except her hair is just slightly below her shoulders!

_________________
Common Sense ISN'T Common
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Btuch, the young lady in the drawing was my wife, back in 1978. She was 26.

The trailers for this movie certainly makes it look like a dream come true for fans of the 1933 classic.
________________________________


_______________ King Kong Official Trailer #1


__________



_______________ King Kong Official Trailer #2


__________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogmeister
Galactic Fleet Vice Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 574

PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2019 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

____________
_____

This was the 2nd remake of the famous 1933 film, this time by Peter Jackson, he of the Lord of the Rings franchise. The first remake was in 1976.

This is set during the same time frame of the original film — the thirties — a sign of Jackson's overarching reverence for the old film. But this does make sense, because it's hard to imagine the finding of some lost island in this day and age, so setting it in the 21st century probably wouldn't work, unless it involved some sort of dimensional travel or time travel (of course, tell that to the makers of Cast Away, the Tom Hanks film).

As it is, Jackson plunges us into the era of Depression-marked New York City and its various citizens, helped by extensive CGI to realize all the ambiance and architecture. It's a bright look at such an era; everything looks new and clean, and there's some over-emphasis on eye-popping moving visuals, such as the horde of 1930s automobiles moving up the bridge, like huge beetles in an urban jungle. Jackson was already showing off the skills of his tech guys at this early stage.




The casting seemed curious, as far as Jack Black and Adrien Brody, but it works — somehow, it works. Black, usually (or always) in clownish roles in broad comedies, gets the meaty role of Denham, the driven filmmaker who somehow gets his hands on a map which sort of points the way to an unknown island.

Black seems a bit overweight but he delivers an energetic performance and drives the plot, bringing a combo of humor and psychosis to the whole deal. Brody plays the writer Driscoll, plunged into the role of hero. He doesn't look the part at the start, but somehow grows into the role. Naomi Watts has the pivotal role of Ann Darrow, the out-of-work blonde actress who becomes the object of obsession for a huge ape.

Jackson probably overplays the sense of destiny and mysticism involved in this unfolding adventure, and he overdoes several scenes — the scenes of the primitive, gross natives and the dinosaur stampede could have used a lot of editing down. But, it still remains a very watchable fantasy / sci-fi thrill ride for most of the story.

It falls apart to some extent in the final act back in NYC — Jackson again overdoes everything, such as Ann's and Kong's reunion.

But the middle act on the island is still pretty good and memorable for the most part. The CGI is first rate — but that's to be expected with the money involved (the stampede is where it fails to a large degree). As with many things in the film, Jackson saw the opportunity to play out the action scenes as long as possible, because he had the money to do so.

The big one is Kong's battle with 3 T-Rexes. It goes on and on.

I liked Darrow's pluck during all these sequences. Watts is A-OK in this, not just a pretty face. But, for my own reasons, I'm not a fan of the visualization of Kong himself as a very accurately depicted gorilla. I always saw Kong as something more than just a big ape, but more as something halfway between man and ape, due to how Willis O'Brien ended up depicting him with the limitations of stop motion animation.



BoG's Score: 7 out of 10



BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Well, as much as I despise this bloated, egotistical slap-in-the face to the 1933 classic, I must admit that Bogmeister's skillfully written review is so sincere and intelligent that is makes me wonder if I judged this movies too harshly! Shocked

But no . . . I didn't. And yet, while reading the above review, it does make me wonder. For a while.

Bogmeister had the amazing ability to not only see the positive aspects of a movie's elements, he also had the writing skill to present his own optimistic views so well that the reader is swayed by his opinions!

I really hate this movie. But while I'm reading Bogmeister's review I seem to visualize a more worthy version of it which deserves my respect.

For the record, Bogmeister passed away in the summer of 2015 after serving as All Sci-Fi co-site administrator for seven years while desperately (and secretly) trying to make his own message board — the Galactic Base of Science Fiction — become as successful as All Sci-Fi.



Sadly, he only acquired seven members in five years, and they only made a total of eleven posts . . . Sad

And during all that time, he never posted anything on All Sci-Fi that promoted his own board! Shocked

Andrew Bogdan is as much an enigma as the mysterious King Kong himself . . . Shocked

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Spike
Astral Engineer


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 266
Location: Birmingham. Great Britain.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They just couldn't leave him on his island could they...

King Kong is directed by Peter Jackson and Jackson co-writes the screenplay with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. It's based on a story by Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace. It stars Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Colin Hanks, Andy Serkis, Evan Parke, Jamie Bell and Kyle Chandler. Music is by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Andrew Lesnie.

After completing the hugely successful Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson turned his attentions to a reimaging of that daddy of classic creature features, King Kong. With all the new tools of the trade to hand, Jackson set about making a Kong film full of love and respect for the original from 1933, whilst obviously making his own beast as it were. Story remains the same, mankind sets off to a fabled place known as Skull Island, there they find beasties not of this world, not least a gigantic mountain of a gorilla. They stupidly bring him back to America for money making exercises and things go really bad. The End.

I have personally found it most interesting re-watching the film nearly 15 years since its release, especially given we have not long had a different Kong reboot with "Kong: Skull Island" in 2017. For the differences, for better or worse depending on your proclivities in Kongdom, are enormous. Kong: Skull Island is a no brain adventure yarn, high on action but low on intelligence, but it does know it. Jackson's Kong aspired to be much more cerebral, and for the most part it achieves it. Sadly it takes a whopping 3 hours to reveal its intentions, which was a problem to many back in 2005, and is still a hindrance sitting down to watch it these days - this even knowing and preparing once again for how long it is. Frustratingly there's a great film in the mix just crying out for an hour of extraneous filler and clunky dialogue to be jettisoned.

Once set up has been achieved in the first hour, we finally get to Skull Island and it's an absolute technical treat. The look is fantastic, the turn of events as Kong and his acolytes have been introduced is terrific. From here it's creature feature mayhem, the beauty and the beast aspect kicks into gear, and it's all very comforting, thrilling even - with one exception. A dinosaur stampede looks ridiculous, the blend of human actors and CGI is so poor it belies the money spent on the effects for this production. That aside, though, the action sequences are electric, particularly the monster mash ups. Yet the quite reflective periods on Skull Island really strike a chord as well, just sections where Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) are chilling out together, taking in the landscape that money mad men want to take Kong away from...

Then it's back to The States and carnage ensues, culminating in a brilliantly staged last quarter of film, where all that superb period detail gets obliterated during the battle between man and beast, and where even now I'm rooting for Kong to win! As the tenderness of the Beauty and the Beast arc subsides - and it is beautiful - it's then that you once again know that Jackson was too indulgent. His cast were on form, Serkis as Kong a revelation, this is a great picture at times, a real treat in High Definition, if only someone had fronted him up to not over indulge. For then we might have a 9/10 movie as opposed to a bloated 7/10 one.

_________________
The quality of mercy is not strnen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud wrote:
Good Lord, is this actually supposed to make me go all warm and fuzzy over this creature? Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that he rips people's heads off and tosses blonds over his shoulder?

Yes....I think it does. It shows the dichotomy of what it means to be "Human"...Or at least "Hominid". We all contain elements of the primitive integrated with the enlightened, intelligent "Man". Do we deny the progenitors of humanity with the attributes of mercy and some innate concept of selflessness?

I don't think that is a valid critical reason behind your dislike of this film. Isn't it really that your view is more as a "purist" who could NEVER accept a remake by anyone as anywhere near the signifigance of the impact of the original?

Just askin".

_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
I don't think that is a valid critical reason behind your dislike of this film. Isn't it really that your view is more as a "purist" who could NEVER accept a remake by anyone as anywhere near the significance of the impact of the original?

Nope, that's not it.

I mean, let's be frank. The idea of a huge, viscous monster going all warm and fuzzy with his blond girlfriend and giving her rides across a frozen pond on his belly is pure cornball crap. Rolling Eyes

And then his devoted sweetie pie stands in front of this murderous beasts and begs the guys in the planes not to gun him down. Good lord, did she really think there was any possible way to stop the horrible death and destruction Kong was causing other than killing it? Confused

Peter Jackson's Kong was no different from a rabid dog.

Oddly enough, I think Kong: Skull Island is a terrific movie. Kong was the protector of the island and it' people — despite the fact that those folks weren't exactly fashion models.

That version of Kong is noble and worthy of admiration.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 2001 to 2010 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group