[squarejawhero]

The effects were great?

On Kong, sure, and the invisible effects were awesome (end sequence, 1920's New York) but the actual "show-stopper" effects minus Kong were terrible.

[Lucien21]

The Kong Effects were not that great.



Only got two hairs on his head.

DOOOOOHHHHH!!!

[Henke]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

The effects were great?

On Kong, sure, and the invisible effects were awesome (end sequence, 1920's New York) but the actual "show-stopper" effects minus Kong were terrible.

I agree that you saw the composition between the live-action and the CG really well, but the fact that the camerawork were really excellent (being possible foremost because most of it was in CG) made me far more impressed over what was happening on screen then I've been over most past movies that have tried the same thing. I almost think Spielberg has met his match for now. Jurassic Park and E.T. (and in some cases even Indiana Jones) have been surpassed by this movie in many aspects IMO.

[squarejawhero]

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you on the Spielberg part. The tone and themes of this movie were a mess - it was a rollercoaster ride disguised as an art museum filled with fakes of varying quality.

The first Indy was at least strong structurally, the right length, and had very solid characterisation in comparasion to this, relying firmly on a tight script and great dialogue. I can barely remember the characters or their lines in Kong, and if anything, it shows the main problem at the moment - good Hollywood pictures are so few and far between now that Kong is being passed off as a masterpiece purely on "feel". The Mummy also had the same feel, but was a tighter movie and at least had the guts to pass itself off for what it was, and nothing more! Kong played too many cards without living up to any one of them. If it had stuck to the pacing and atmosphere of the start (up until the boat leaves) and the glamour of the finale, it could've been a much better film.

The compositing WAS bad, but there was nothing in the design nor the effects other than Kong himself (aside from the backgrounds, even if many suffered the same model scale issues as LOTR) that truly stood out, nothing in the story, script or characterisation that made it stand head and shoulders above past glories in any way whatsoever. I firmly believe this film is destined to eventually be put down as the overhyped and bloated mess it is, strong in parts but overall thematically weak and without the effects to truly coast it along as an SFX masterpiece.

If it was truly merely a rollercoaster film, then how come it tried so hard to connect on horror and dramatic levels? What about the endlessly bad editing and jerky slow-motion? The scenes which would flit from one to another without showing any passing of time?

I'm sorry, but to me this film is a disappointment, and I believe I've back up that disappointment thoroughly.

[Kolzig]

I finally got to watch the original with my friends yesterday *night*.

It was a great movie and the fight scene with the T-rex or V-rex was wonderfully done. There were a lot less dramatic moments in the original movie, they kind of always went straight to the point and didn't tell any backstories unlike in the PJ version.

That's what I loved about the new movie, even though you guys have said that PJ did too much story building in his movie. The original leaves room for imagination when they seem to skip some scenes quite fast. Also in the original, Kong was just a beast that killed everything except Ann, he even ate several humans. I think PJ successfully made Kong more than just a beast.

Well anyways, both movies are really good and I still can't decide which is better, there were a lot of scenes that were nicely done in the new one that were exactly like in the original movie.

My friend said that PJ has said that he hates the 70's movie, but my friend said that PJ has taken a lot of stuff from the 70's movie too. Like the part where Ann falls in love with Kong. There wasn't any love in the original between the two.

I'm going to the 70's Kong now, because it's apparently on tv today, starting in a few hours.

[squarejawhero]

Say what you want about the 70's movie, at least Kong didn't look like a big, slightly scarred silverback gorilla.

[Kolzig]

Ohh yes, I didn't get to see the 70's Kong...

It was aired in the morning, and I was sleeping then, when I posted that earlier message, the movie was already been on for too long for me to jump in and start watching it.

Damn New Year hangover.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Kolzig

I finally got to watch the original with my friends yesterday *night*.

It was a great movie and the fight scene with the T-rex or V-rex was wonderfully done. There were a lot less dramatic moments in the original movie, they kind of always went straight to the point and didn't tell any backstories unlike in the PJ version.

That's what I loved about the new movie, even though you guys have said that PJ did too much story building in his movie.

Too much story building??? I haven't read the entire thread here so I have to say that I couldn't disagree more. That was the best part of the whole movie.

[squarejawhero]

There was a story?

[Henke]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

There was a story?

You missed the first half of the movie and only saw the rest?

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Henke

You missed the first half of the movie and only saw the rest?

In my view, the problem with the first hour is that it attempts to develop characters who end up being irrelevant cardboard cutouts in hours 2 and 3 anyhow. There is some "story" in that sense, but is it necessary or effective? Not really. The original isn't a great film either, but it sets everything up in a much more reasonable amount of time and I cared about those characters just as much (which is to say...not much, but at least I didn't have to watch them for an hour before anything happened).

[Melanie68]

My Dad made the comment that he liked the 70's version better (I don't think he's seen the original) because it wasn't so gory. I think they could have kept some of the fights (but not as many) with the other beasts on the island, cut down on the gore and deaths and really concentrated on Kong's relationship with Ann and the movie would have had a better feel to it (in my opinion) and maybe even some of the humerous parts (that Squarsie thought were a bit incongruous) would have played better. It was also hard to tell how the other characters felt about Kong at the end (especially Driscoll). I guess I hoped he would have felt differently about him seeing how Ann felt.

[natalia]

Saw it this weekend. I liked it a lot. A big romping adventure movie. But, yes, it really was too long and would have benefitted enormously from more judicious editing. I liked Naomi Watts in the movie, and even though I love Adrian Brody, it must be tough playing second fiddle to a big ape for the whole movie.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by natalia

Saw it this weekend. I liked it a lot. A big romping adventure movie. But, yes, it really was too long and would have benefitted enormously from more judicious editing. I liked Naomi Watts in the movie, and even though I love Adrian Brody, it must be tough playing second fiddle to a big ape for the whole movie.

Heh, I like Brody too (especially in The Pianist), and I agree that he sort of felt tacked on compared to the big CG character. About the editing though, I wonder if there's a way they could edit out about 2/3 of that huge beak on Brody's face. At the very least the big kissing scene should have had Naomi Watts in the more visible position. My goodness...I felt bad for her...Brody's nose was causing her left cheek to cave in. His nose was probing the inside of her mouth through the very flesh of her face...

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

In my view, the problem with the first hour is that it attempts to develop characters who end up being irrelevant cardboard cutouts in hours 2 and 3 anyhow. There is some "story" in that sense, but is it necessary or effective? Not really. The original isn't a great film either, but it sets everything up in a much more reasonable amount of time and I cared about those characters just as much (which is to say...not much, but at least I didn't have to watch them for an hour before anything happened).

Yes, they were more or less (although not entirely) irrelevant cardboard cutouts for the rest of the movie. I still say that if they had shortened all the action- and thrill-scenes in hours 2 and 3 and put some more of the quality the movie actually had in the beginning it would have been much better. It's still good though IMO. But then again I'm a sucker for gory adventuremovies.

[natalia]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

About the editing though, I wonder if there's a way they could edit out about 2/3 of that huge beak on Brody's face. At the very least the big kissing scene should have had Naomi Watts in the more visible position. My goodness...I felt bad for her...Brody's nose was causing her left cheek to cave in. His nose was probing the inside of her mouth through the very flesh of her face...

Hee! You know, I was thinking that exactly. He goes in for the big kiss and I was hoping that they'd turn his nose away from the camera...but no, just a screen full of that big beak!

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by Kolzig

Ohh yes, I didn't get to see the 70's Kong...

It was aired in the morning, and I was sleeping then, when I posted that earlier message, the movie was already been on for too long for me to jump in and start watching it.

Damn New Year hangover.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I woke up to it and lay in my bed watching it. Although I was quite disappointed by the PJ Kong I felt the 70's version was even worse actually. A stupid story about an oil company and that movie never got me on the emotional level the PJ one did (not that it did it very well either). The original Kong I've never seen so I can't comment on it.

[Kolzig]

I'm going to see the 70's Kong soon, I'll just need to figure out first where I'm going to find it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Just watched it tonight. Gorgeous. The final scene on top of the Empire State was magnificently intimate.

I cried at the end. Who couldn't?

Am I the only GUY in here who isn't obsessed with all this special effects shit talk can actually be swayed by the EMOTIONAL WEIGHT of this movie? C'mon, you men, shed a damn tear here and there and dump the damn nerd talk for once!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Oh. Shit.

I should NOT have googled Thomas Kretschmann, the actor who played the ship's captain. Goddammit, now I won't be able to sleep tonight. AAARRRRGHH!!!! God help me.

........................