3
   

King Kong 2005

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 09:44 pm
LINK TO FULL REVIEW -- REQUIRED REGISTRATION
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 12:29 pm
Although Universal had a goal of $90,000.00, Kong still made a respectable beginning this weekend:

Domestic: $66,200,000 45.3%
+ Overseas: $80,000,000 54.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $146,200,000

Looks like it's on its way to make money with about a $200M cost but will it sustain long enough to get on the top ten list of all time big money makers?

Ebert and Roeper gave it two big thumbs up, Roeper nothing that it was the best use of CGI effects ever.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 05:26 pm
I saw it yesterday.

Alone...couldn't get anyone to come! (My friend who comes with me to this sort of film wouldn't because it was too long)


Bored in the first bit....until they hit the fog...then, wowee!

It felt a bit like when Raiders of the Lost Ark first came out, and was a genuinely thrilling roller coaster ride, before those sorts of special effects became ho hum....I found it genuinely thrilling.

I agree with the too much stuff, and there sure was a lot of rather precious hokeyness, but I agree the Darrow and Kong characters worked.


Fun!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 04:17 pm
This weekend's box office is crucial to the financial success of "King Kong" as well as the week ending on New Year's Day. Most analysts are already projecting it will surpass it's cost but what about taking a stab at the top ten box office successes? I somehow doubt that it will. I think it may make 500M world wide which is going to make Jackson quite happy enough.
0 Replies
 
Ellinas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 03:57 pm
Is this one an exact remake of the old movie or it has a different storyline?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Dec, 2005 04:06 pm
Almost identical storyline in the same time frame, early 30's.

Kong barely edged out Narnia over the holiday and is neck-and-neck with the first LOTR film. With international box office it's edging close to $200M.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2005 11:57 am
I saw it Monday night. Spectacular cinematography, but I wouldn't rave over it. I thought it was good but not great.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2005 01:24 am
I thought it was great. I don't mind the time, because honestly, I din't really notice. Maybe I would have if I had a sudden urge to go to the restroom. The beginning was pretty interesting anyways. Overall, I thought it was a pretty meaningful movie, even though there were tons of monster chases.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2005 01:46 am
farmerman wrote:
ITS 3.5 hours of big monkey. Cmon.


Not enough.

The more hours of Gorilla movie the better!

Only lovers of:

King Kong
Son of Kong
Mighty Joe Young


can understand.

I've still not seen the modern Kong but from everything I've read it will turn the triumverate into a quadrangle.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2005 01:47 am
Lightwizard wrote:
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.


Philistine!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2005 01:48 am
Lightwizard wrote:
The sequel to the 1933 movie, "Son of Kong" was a travesty.


Philistine!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2005 01:49 am
farmerman wrote:
no, de Laurentis had his own sequel "Kong Lives" , I looked it up. SCience saved Kong after he jumped off the WTC.
I never saw Son of Kong. , You realize then, that implies a Mother of SOn of Kong, since Kong was a King. He seemed kind of butch anyway.


That was a travesty!
0 Replies
 
Paaskynen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Dec, 2005 01:23 pm
Well, I saw King Kong the other day in Bangkok and it left me with a terible cold (being in the freezing airconditioned theatre for three hours was too much).
It stuck pretty much to the original story, including the unexplained parts, but tried to outdo the original with bigger effects and more monsters (Kong battles not one but three tyrannosaurs, etc.). I thought it was overwhelming in its effects and action, but forgettable plotwise since it added very little to the story I already knew.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 07:53 pm
I just got back from seeing it.

Act I: I thought the whole part about getting to Skull Island was great. They probably could have cut some of it, but what was there worked.

Act II: Really good stuff, but too much of it. Action is great, but after awhile I felt like I was on some kind of spinning, flying, looping ride with some drunk carnival guy running the thing. It was great stuff for awhile, but I did feel almost exhausted by the time they got to NYC. This is where I thought they could have cut about twenty minutes or so and it would have helped the movie.

Act III: Excellent. That goddammed monkey almost made me cry. I loved it.

Overall, it was a very fun movie even with the sap factor on high. Everytime I thought, "Sheesh, how freaking ridiculously cornball can you get," the next scene would blow me away and more than make up for it. Really cool and worthwhile movie.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 09:25 pm
To hold a woman in the palm of your hand makes King Kong much larger than the purported 25-foot ape. Suppose Fay Ray was 5-feet tall, it would really make Kong maybe at least 50 feet tall. Oh well, its just a movie.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jan, 2006 02:40 am
Saw it tonight myself and generally agree with kicky.

Jackson is a $$$ maker. He gets what he wants , and all artists want what they create. He's in a position to tell the editor to shove it.

The movie could have easily lost at least 30 minutes.

Having said this, I loved it.

King Kong is Kong and Jackson appreciates this. All of the characters have been expanded and better rounded than in the original RKO classic , but none more poignantly than Kong.

A beautiful film.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2006 03:03 pm
Saw it New Years' night. Loved it. I think Roger Ebert summed up the relationship between Ann and Kong beautifully...

There are astonishments to behold in Peter Jackson's new "King Kong," but one sequence, relatively subdued, holds the key to the movie's success. Kong has captured Ann Darrow and carried her to his perch high on the mountain. He puts her down, not roughly, and then begins to roar, bare his teeth and pound his chest. Ann, an unemployed vaudeville acrobat, somehow instinctively knows that the gorilla is not threatening her but trying to impress her by behaving as an alpha male -- the King of the Jungle. She doesn't know how Queen Kong would respond, but she does what she can: She goes into her stage routine, doing backflips, dancing like Chaplin, juggling three stones.

Her instincts and empathy serve her well. Kong's eyes widen in curiosity, wonder and finally what may pass for delight. From then on, he thinks of himself as the girl's possessor and protector. She is like a tiny beautiful toy that he has been given for his very own, and before long, they are regarding the sunset together, both of them silenced by its majesty.

The scene is crucial because it removes the element of creepiness in the gorilla/girl relationship in the two earlier "Kongs" (1933 and 1976), creating a wordless bond that allows her to trust him. When Jack Driscoll climbs the mountain to rescue her, he finds her comfortably nestled in Kong's big palm. Ann and Kong in this movie will be threatened by dinosaurs, man-eating worms, giant bats, loathsome insects, spiders, machineguns and the Army Air Corps, and could fall to their death into chasms on Skull Island or from the Empire State Building. But Ann will be as safe as Kong can make her, and he will protect her even from her own species.

Ebert's Review of King Kong 2005
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jan, 2006 03:38 pm
I saw it yesterday...thought it was pretty good. Actually going to be a great dvd to pick up for the home theatre.
0 Replies
 
Mirage
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 08:47 am
I don't like it at all. I haven't seen the previous part, maybe 'couse of that. But really, nothing intrigated me there, maybe ending...
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 10:16 am
I haven't read any of this thread, so forgive me if I am duplicating.

IMO, nearly every scene was twice as long as it should have been. The special effects were brilliant, but the whole thing could have been wrapped up in an hour.

KING LONG.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » King Kong 2005
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 02:04:16