King Kong 2005

ITS 3.5 hours of big monkey. Cmon.

What!!That long!!Blimey, then again it is direceted by the guy that did Lord of the Rings.
Should be worth it tho.They usually have a break in films that long, dont they?

I saw the trailer this weekend with Jarhead...It was almost as long as the movie, but it did look pretty cool.

Cant wait to see Brothers Grimm, I seem to be into fantasy make believe films!
Oh and Narnia.

Re: King Kong 2005


Saw the new Harry Potter today.They showed the King Kong trailer which stated opening UK early December.Looked to me like a cross between Jurassic Park and Mighty Joe Young.Seeing as we all know the ending,I hope Peter Jackson can weave his magic and hope the acting is up to scratch :wink:

I totally agree. I saw the trailer for Narnia and it looks fantastic. I had been hearing alot of hype about it, but after I saw the trailer I understood why! Have you seen how amazing the visual effects are going to be for itt? Check this out...

http://movies.aol.com/movie/main.adp?tab=trailers&mid=19417

Also, are you a Heath Ledger fan - you mentioned Brothers Grimm?

It will be opened in Malaysia on 17 Dec.

Re: King Kong 2005


Read a review last night.First 55 mins,not a lot happens but,apparently,you don't notice the time.When they reach the island,bing,bash,bop.Non-stop action from here-on-in.
One or two dodgy effects but the story/plot and acting,are supposed to be top notch.
I'm deffo gonna see it

Livingthedream-Nope Im not really a fan of anyone in it.I think Monica Belluchi looks fabulous in it.Id seen her in a still of the film about a year ago and wanted to see the film that went with it.
Im more of a fantasy fan really, I loved Jabbawocky.

Annoying thing is, I was gona see it last week but was too pooped after a day out, now its no longer at the cinema.

School days they were, when I saw the b/w ones. It was hillarious then, and it'd be the same now.

I'm afraid the original has become somewhat of a novelty -- early special effects that are now so creaky and obvious it's hard to take any of it seriously. If Jackson retains the atmosphere and suspense of the original along with what I've seen as state-of-the-art special effects, he'll have a hit. It premiered in New York last night I believe. Haven't read any press releases.

Wow! It's rare that we disagree, LW, but on this point we disagree profoundly. I recently bought the King Kong (1933) dvd, and although the special effects are fairly obvious (albeit ingenious), the story still packs a punch. The screenplay (which is always overshadowed by Willis O'Brien's stop-motion creations) is smart, well-paced, nuanced, engaging, and entertaining. The dated special effects no more detract from the story than the dated special effects in Bride of Frankenstein or Metropolis detract from those movies. King Kong is not only a groundbreaking film, it is still a really good film.

Material Girl,

I've asked a few friends who are big fantasy film fans and none of them have gotten an opportunity to see the movie yet. So, when you get the energy to go see it - please let me know what you think (and I'll pass the word along). I'm a big Ledger fan so I'd be going for that reason. I'm looking forward to seeing him in Casanova...but that's a different story!

I did however, just get to see Narnia, and it is one of the best films I have seen in a very long time. There were laughs, tears, and edge of your seat action. I can't say enough about it - you must go see it (pooped or not!) Let me know what you think if you do!

I wasn't altogether writing about my own assessment of the film but of a general audience which is a good reason why Jackson has remade the film. I stated it was hard to take it seriously and it is. However, it doesn't mean I don't take the film as a serious effort in film history but perhaps less so than "Metropolis." Stop motion wasn't a new process -- it was used in the silent verison of "The Lost World." It's not as much ingenious as labor intensive. Marian C. Cooper and the studio risked a lot in investing in the film and they succeeded. The acting was good but not great (way too "hammy silent movie" in many scenes).
Jackson's casting is inspired and I'm anxious to see their take on the roles. I've perhaps seen the original too many times and became jaded with the movie and I'm anticipating what Jackson has done to update the special effects (his CGI group is as good as Lucas, maybe even better) but retain the mystery, suspense and excitement of the original. I don't believe I will have issue with the length as I always regretted there wasn't more build-up to the introduction of Kong, allowing more character development and anticipation. The original introduces Kong in the first twenty minutes I believe. It's a hell of a great monster story, nuanced by the affection one feels for the giant ape after man subdues and uses him. "It was beauty that killed the beast," but, perhaps more, it was the misunderstanding of the animal persona and the level of their intelligence that also killed him. It's a parable to a great degree of all kinds of prejudices.

And it was used in Metropolis as well. Indeed, many camera "tricks" date back to the Lumiere brothers. That doesn't diminish from O'Brien's achievements in King Kong.


I urge you to get a hold of the dvd version of the film, with the documentary on the making of King Kong on the extras disc. I would venture to guess that, after watching that, you'll agree with me that many of the special effects in the film were truly ingenious.


I think it might be a bit longer than that, but stretching out the opening in order to devote extra time to character development is a luxury when the film only has a running time of 1:40.

I met Ray Harryhausen at a science fiction convention in the 50's where he gave an address at one of the events. He acknowledged his debt to Willis O'Brien whose first effort was in 1916, "The Missing Link." He also stated he wasn't an innovator but had refined the process to a new level. Tim Burton and his group have refined it to its apex. Once the "trick" was experimented with, it was more of an artistic problem to make the models more realistic. In the original Kong, it always broke the illusion for me when his hair started shifting around with every movement. He suddenly becomes a miniature blown up and thus my comment about being a novelty. I'm aware that this wasn't the only special effect process used -- nearly every one available in the era was used but nothing that wasn't already invented. Back projection, matte painting, et al, were brought together to make a film that was to establish a precedent for all sci-fi monster movies.

The special effects in "Metropolis" and in even in the rather lame musical "Just Imagine," or "Transatlantic Tunnel" of 1932 are far more impressive.

The original movie was cut, including a scene of giant spiders devouring some of the ship's crew (people walked out at the preview and Cooper excised the scene). There were also scenes of Kong dining out on some of the hapless sailors, apparantly all restored in the newest version (except for the spiders).

1933's "Kong" is a very good movie but not a great movie, certainly not a masterpiece. I'm doubting the new one by Jackson will be a great movie either but considering what reviews are in it appears to also be very good mostly due to the advance in CGI effects. Several reviews credit Jackson for instilling even more empathy for the giant ape making the ending more tear inducing than the original.

For its time, it is a landmark film but I do feel Jackson is justified remaking it with modern special effects.

The reviews are beginnning to pile in with a 95%
Rotten Tomatoes gauge of favorable reviews. The one desenter is the Slant magazine reviewer who also disliked "Brokeback Mountain."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/

Ive seen the trailers and Im more concerned about the materials science and physics of the CGI monkey who can leap as far as he does. (I know, leave ones disbelief at the ticket booth).
However, one does not see hippos or elephants doing "airbud" stunts like the big monkey. I think they could have gotten some more techy advice like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (even though T-Rex was able to run waay too fast for his bones)

Guess were gonna see it , What better movie to celebrate this joyous season of rebirth than another make of KK.

It appears that the story has been transferred back to its original story line. At least that much is good. I hated the phony geophysical survey of the movie with Jeffy and Jessica.

I hope they dont leave us wondering why the natives build a monkey-sized gate for Kong to get through if they built a wall to keep him out in the first place. This bit of dumass engineering needs explanation.

Didnt Dino de Laurentis do a sequel to King KongII?

No sequel to my recollection but could try imdb.com and see.

I have no quarrel with an action adventure movie taking liberties with science. The notion of a gigantic ape is not exactly scientific since there are no fossels. I'm also not sure how one would calculate distances and speeds in a movie where the action is taking place in seconds -- could we measure by the scale to the humans? Maybe some slow motion when the DVD comes out.