3
   

King Kong 2005

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 May, 2006 08:53 am
Maybe Jackson's lesser films are just "okay," but "King Kong" is exactly what I expected from the director as a culmination of his youthful affection for the original film. He also succeeded in not just making Kong a reluctant monster but one I can have empathy for and even with knowing the outcome, I wished he could make it back to his island. Then again, that would make the movie resemble "Mighty Joe Young." (which looks like it influenced the characterization of the ape). Naomi Watts gave the performance of her career. The special effects were state-of-the-art (Jackson is giving Lucas a run for his money!) Andy Serkis even deserved some award recognition for his portrayal of Kong.
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 May, 2006 09:08 am
I feel Andy Serkis is very underated.He is doing a drama in the UK, I think its about the Moors murders, so hoepfully he will become known for his face and acting abilities.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 10:04 am
I finally watched King Kong... over three nights. It was so long and over done I could barely make it through. I can't imagine seeing this in the theater and having to sit through the whole thing in one sitting. I like long movies that have a reason to be long, but this was just over directed.

The fight scenes went on and on and on. The plot wasn't forwarded very well. The casting was bad. The acting was bad.

I did enjoy the special effects, but the rest of the movie, IMO, relied on the special effects and forgot about the story. Very disappointing.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 10:22 am
im doing the same thing JP.

this afternoon will be 'part 2' because it is so long.

I do 'like' it..
but I dont ... LOVE it..
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 11:09 am
What part are you at, shewolf?

I liked the first part too, but thought it really started to go downhill once they made it to the island.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 11:41 am
She ( I forgot the womans name..) Ann? I believe?
Was dancing on the rock ledge, and Kong had decided it was funnier to make her fall over..


I too...liked the opening more then the island part.

Though.. the native people were looking a bit creepy..
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 11:43 am
Yeah... that is about where I really started getting annoyed. Good luck with part 2.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 09:51 pm
Some of you people are trying too hard.

If you didn't like it - OK, you probably didn't like the original, Son of King, or Mighty Joe Young.

You're not a bad person if you don't like Gorilla Movies, but you are pinched.

I probably should run through all prior posts before I makes this assertion, but my sense is that if one wasn't thrown for a loop by the original King Kong, one was not about to appreciate the remake.

Like I said before, some of us like Gorilla Movies...

This is a movie that can be judged by it's cinematic qualities (and here I don't think it is found wanting), but is best judged by the expectations of its viewers.

Come to think of it, the same can be said about Jackson's LOTR.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 May, 2006 07:28 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Some of you people are trying too hard.

If you didn't like it - OK, you probably didn't like the original, Son of King, or Mighty Joe Young.


Actually I tried really hard to like it... but didn't. Is that so bad? Do I have to like every movie I go and see?

It has nothing to do with liking (which I did) or not the original King Kong... it has to do with the remake being a too long, overly dramatic, overproduced, overdirected, overacted POS.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion too and won't call you any names for liking it.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 01:08 am
The action scenes did seem overdone, and it's just amazing how some of the characters, and even the dinosaurs, can live through half of what they went through in the movie.

In the spiderman comics, Gwen Stacy died because of whiplash. In this movie, the characters seem immune to it...

I do think that it's a good movie though. Good directing and story overall. The acting was good too.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 07:01 am
my thoughts as well.

I was more amazed at the thought of ann surviving being thrown about like that.
Truthfully.. if an ape that size was holding on to a human the way he was, just shaking her would have caused a broken neck.

I loved the dinosaurs.
The bugs freaked me out.. and I was reallllllly into the scene where everyone was being overrun by those huge cricket looking things.. until that young guy started shooting with his eyes closed and was supposedly hitting all of the bugs and not the people. Rolling Eyes

Sheer force alone would have sent that bullet through the bug and into the person's body.

but- hey - it wasn't in the script I guess..

I kept watching with interest, until he was on stage in the opera house.
Then I believe I started doing laundry, and cleaning up dinner.

Im glad it was a free rental frankly.

I enjoyed it.. but.. not that much.

The fantasy of the dinosaurs, and the fight between Kong and the 2 T-rexs....
That was the highlight to me. Kong can kick some ass. :-)
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 09:19 am
The young 'un shooting at the bugs was a bit of slapstick humor -- he was chastized earlier for not being able to shoot a gun accurately.

Taking the film too seriously is a serious lack of perception. It's an epic action fantasy film, the earlier version more of a monster on-the-loose flick. It was meant to scare one out of their wits. This film was meant to charm you with the relationship of Ann and Kong, which was, admittedly, taken from "Mighty Joe Young." I found the movie recreated New York ambiance in the 20's successfully and did built up more interest in the individual characters, especially Ann. While Jackson may be criticized for handling his actors like components of the film, that's what this story demands -- trying to flesh out complex characterizations would have made this a four hour movie. Kong is the male lead, Ann the female lead. There was no smarmy sexual tension as in the earlier remake -- Ann had "adopted" Kong as her pet and wanted to protect him. I thought the relationships between the characters was in the script but wasn't fully evident because of all the CGI effects amazing the audience. On a second viewing, I appreciated what Jackson had achieved here. An epic action fantasy that doesn't fail to entertain, despite the original being so familiar.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 11:57 am
It was certainly entertaining.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2016 07:41 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » King Kong 2005
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/23/2022 at 05:42:24