Peter Jackson's KING KONG: The Verdict
 

Well, it's finally here. I'll be seeing it in about three hours. I created a little poll here to see what everyone's opinion is (don't vote until you see the movie!). Anyone who saw midnight showings last night, please vote.

So...did Peter Jackson fail or succeed? Is the movie way too long? Are the special effects the best to date? Is Jack Black miscast? Does the musical score suffer because of the last minute replacement of Howard Shore with James Newton Howard? Let the discussion begin!

By the way, since most of us still haven't seen it yet, feel free to chat away about what you expect from this film. Movie of the Year material? Or do you just want to go and be entertained while you munch on popcorn? I'm leaning toward the latter, but I will be pleasantly surprised if it's closer to the former.

I expect nothing.

I kinda like the cheesiness of the old one (with the mechanical dinosaurs, dunno which one that would be), but this one... I think I'll pass.

Jackson didn't impress me at all with LOTR, anyway.

Ha ha, so you've said. I, on the other hand, enjoyed the LOTR movies (especially the extended cuts). Anyway, the old one you are talking about is the 1933 version. The special effects were certainly primitive. In my opinion, there are very few classic films that should be remade. Kong is arguably one of them, but it depends on how it actually turns out. Another one that I've long wanted to remake myself (if I ever got the chance) would be F.W. Murnau's Faust.

The poll will, of course, mean nothing to me, as I haven't seen any of the versions of King Kong yet...

King Kong has been getting positive review across the board here in the states. I have a feeling that this one will be a remake that surpasses the original. Peter Jackson attempted to strengthen the bond between Kong and Anna stronger and apparently it works very well and the scenes once Kong gets to NY even more emotional and heart pounding. It's definitely a movie of the year candidate for me even though it got completely snubbed by the Golden Glove Committee.

OT:Sanji, your movie, got 7 Golden Glove nominations. I'm excited for Ang Lee and can't wait to see the film. Wouldn't it be amazing if it become the first gay themed movie to win the Best Picture at the Oscar?

Golden Glove?! Wow, they are giving baseball awards to movies now?! ;) Just kidding, I know it was a simple typo. Yes, that would be very cool if Brokeback Mountain won Best Picture (even though the Oscars don't really mean a whole lot, they seem to carry weight with the general public). It has a chance to win though, for sure. I still haven't seen The New World, Munich, King Kong, and some others though...

When are you seeing Kong gilly?

Is this movie trying to get recognition and success based on the fact that it's done by the same guy that did Lord of the Rings? I suppose I'll end up seeing it, though...

[The game version of it has a silly title though, "Peter Jacksons King Kong The Official Game of the Movie"... ooookay].

I will be seeing Kong in a high quality theater in Tampere on Friday. My King Kong 1933 dvd is most likely arriving during next week so I'll be watching that too with my friends then.

I'll answer this thread next week propably.

But I can't wait to see Kong, it just feels like an exciting movie. :)

The only Kong movie that I've seen so far is the 1976 abomination, I saw it when they aired it on tv some years ago. Holy crap that movie was really horrible. :r

The only version I've seen was the 70's one, which I really liked as a kid. Didn't it have a sequel? I remember always feeling very sorry for the monkey.

I recently bought King Kong (1933) on dvd, but I´m yet to see it..I saw it as a kid many years ago, but I can´t remember much from the movie..And Once a Villain, have you seen Murnau´s Nosferatu?

Er, I blame Microsoft. Yea that's it. I blame Microsoft and their spell checker.

One thing that winning the Oscar does for movies like Brokeback Mountain is that it exposes them to more people. People who wouldn't see the movie otherwise would see it. And for a good movie like Brokeback Mountain, that's a good thing.

Get this on King Kong. I'm going to wait till Christmas to see it even though the wait might kill me. I have a feeling that theaters showing Kong in the first few weeks will be a complete mad house on the weekends. I'm going to take my parents who fondly remember the 1933 version on Christmas Day and see it then. There's got to be smaller traffic on the Christmas Day.

Only one has Naomi Watts... *looks blank* *starts drooling*
*wakes up* ..and Adrien Brody(The Pianist is one of my favourite movies), and Jack Black.

I don't like gorillas, so I'm not going to see. King Kong never seemed interesting anyway.

What about Chicago :D

I'll definitely be getting the game. Ironically, I'm not interested in the least that Peter Jackson was involved, or that it's based on King Kong, or that it's the official game of the movie- I just know it'll be good because Michel Ancel, whom Ubisoft has not had the good sense to promote, made it.

But the movie sure looks good. The critics who've disliked it attributed it to directorial overindulgence. Myself, I love that sort of stuff. Bring it on! :D

Same here.

But, I must say, before I do and it slants my so far pure worldview: Gojira rules you all! ;) *chuckle*

Well, I'm back! I just saw the new King Kong. I still haven't voted yet because I actually want to watch the original again on the new DVD. I've seen the original many times, and I've always thought that a faithful remake (unlike the 76 version) would be nice. The special effects in the original really date it in my opinion (I know there are people who will defend those special effects until the day they die...), and the dialogue and acting certainly scream "B-movie". Still, the original is a classic in many ways. Despite its flaws it's a fun adventure story with a solid three act structure, and it doesn't try to be anything it's not.

Anyway, I'm not sure yet which I prefer between the 1933 and 2005 versions. The 2005 version has a huge advantage in special effects, obviously. Kong is truly awesome, the recreation of 1930's New York is absolutely jaw dropping in scale and detail, Kong's battle with three TRex's is computer animated choreography at its best, and the whole climax is top notch. However, I must side with the legions of voices crying out: "This movie is a little too long!" I love a long movie when it has a reason to be long, but three hours for this story is a bit excessive. A lot of time is wasted in attempting to develop insignificant characters (the Hayes and Jimmy subplot relationship, for example).

Additionally, during the Skull Island sequences, I couldn't get rid of the feeling that I was being assaulted by CG overkill. I never thought I'd say this of a Peter Jackson film, but it reminded me of a Star Wars prequel at times (so much sound and fury on the screen, signifying nothing). Don't get me wrong, it's always fun and entertaining, but occasionally in the wrong sort of way as far as I'm concerned. Instead of worrying about the plight of the characters, I was sitting there going, "Wow, these special effects are cool..." It might have been different if some of the action had been more believable, but there are scenes that completely obliterate one's ability to suspend disbelief. I will only make an example of one such scene (out of many): a certain character is being swarmed by huge insects, and another character blows them off of his frantically moving body with a hailstorm of machine gun fire... Puh-leeze...

However, I'm only mentioning the flaws. This movie has a lot of great stuff as well. Better acting than the original film, for one thing. The dialogue occasionally imitates the original to give it that 30's movie feel, but overall the writing is better too. The climax is more emotional and satisfying, as are all of the scenes with Ann and Kong (these are the best scenes in the film). I like their relationship here better than the previous films. This time, she cares for Kong (not romantically, of course), and they have a sort of believable chemistry. In the older versions Kong was a horny ape and the girl never liked him, she simply recognized that he was her only hope for survival in the jungle.

Lastly, I disagree with the common complaint that Jack Black was miscast. He did a fine job I thought. His performance isn't going to win any awards, but he certainly did a nice job playing a slimy bastard. I'm looking forward to seeing this movie again, and watching the original once more. It's a tough call between them, and I guess that's the biggest compliment I can give Jackson's version. His movie stands pretty tall against a Hollywood classic.

Indeed I have. It's a great movie. I don't think that one needs to be remade at all, even though Werner Herzog did a nice job with it in the late 70's. The thing about Faust is...there are some absolutely brilliant images there that could be updated with modern technology. Images with a lot of scope and imagination, and the art direction and cinematography could be astounding with a nice budget. As I watched Murnau's Faust I felt a bit like Peter Jackson probably did when he saw the 1933 King Kong. When he saw Kong pounding his chest at the top of the Empire State Building, I'm sure he dreamed of how he could make that sequence look even more grand and wonderful. That's the way I felt about Faust, even though what is already there is excellent.

True. I agree that the Oscars can sometimes serve a purpose.

For those who are still hesitant about watching King Kong, go read the review at NY Daily News:

Peter Jackson's "King Kong" is the most thrilling, soulful monster picture ever made. At last, it can be said without irony - I laughed, I cried.

Oh, how I cried. The sequence in which the 25-foot beast and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), the blond actress he adores, slide together on a frozen pond in Central Park is one of the most innocently romantic moments ever put to film.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...p-316521c.html

And from NY Post:

Peter Jackson's stupendous, supersized remake not only pays loving tribute to the 1933 classic, it elaborates on the "Beauty and the Beast" story in smart, awe-inspiring ways that will have audiences repeatedly bursting into applause — and reaching for their handkerchiefs as the big ape heads for his date with destiny on the Empire State Building.

http://www.nypost.com/movies/58666.htm

I'm going to see this movie friday, and I got a feeling Im going to love this film to bits. :) The trailers are impressive and the video game is pretty good too. (all good reviews from everywhere so far)

Spitsie

I'll probably wait for DVD for Jackson's one, and I haven't seen the '76 version, so I won't vote.

I will say, however, that the 1933 version is the only movie that's ever made me cry. I must've been about 6 or 7 when I watched it, and my Mum thought it'd be an OK movie to keep me entertained whilst she did the gardening. Being so young, I didn't anticipate the ending at all, so when my Mum came back inside, she found me huddled behind the sofa, bawling my eyes out. :\

Good times. Good times.