I NEED to see this!

[Quintus 5,391]

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=23347

Sounds like the best idea for a movie in ages

[AC1 3,565]

Really? It sounds like one of them comedies with the word "Movie" in its title.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

If it's Jack Black, I'll most likely see it.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Jack Black takes effort to watch sometimes

[fommes 126]

But it takes great effort to watch Jack Black.

[Wojo 2,442]

Play the best song in the world, or I'll eat your soul.

[Quintus 5,391]

After finally getting around to seeing School of Rock recently, I'm a new fan of Jack Black and I'm looking forward to this.

[Henry B 49]

Really? It sounds like one of them comedies with the word "Movie" in its title.

Yeah, it sounds super generic. I don't get what the big deal is.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Sign me up.

I'm not always a fan of Black -- King Kong -- but when he's on, he's exceptional.

[indy4 152]

I thought Black did very well in King Kong. The film had other issues, but I would not blame Black at all.

I must say that I agree with Alex and Henry for this one.

[Hitch 55]

Jack Black is the most boring and irritating movie star at the moment....second only to Tom Cruise and Pia Zadora

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Don't judge me!

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I thought Black did very well in King Kong. The film had other issues, but I would not blame Black at all.

I don't think Black did a poor job in King Kong, per se; it's just a performance that doesn't work for me. Black feels extremely '00s, and the role seems to call for something a bit more '30s. And it's also hard for me to take him seriously. Too many of the early scenes with Denham are comical, and the later scenes of the movie don't adequately counterbalance that aspect, whereas overall Denham ought to be a character whose obsessions inspire you to be sort of chilled by what he is willing to do. I don't get any of that from Black.

To be fair, this is as much Peter Jackson's fault, and the fault of the casting in general; more so, really.

It doesn't kill the movie for me; it's just one of the reasons I find it to be a lesser movie than what it could have been.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I thought Jackson's King Kong was a really good film.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

It is.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Good, so it's just not me then.

[Romão 1,931]

In my very humble of opinion, it's one of the worst bug budget movies in recent years.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I thought Jackson's King Kong was a really good film.

It is -- but that doesn't mean it's perfect.

And it's not perfect.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

Few films are perfect. In Jackson's case, the only film that stands a slight chance (perhaps even a fairly good one, but that's not my point) is Heavenly Creatures.

Still, I say if Jackson's Kong sucked, then so did the 1933 original. I think neither sucked, and I think Jackson's is the richer of the two. They share the same flaws, but Jackson's version has quite a bit of depth because it takes its time and develops its characters. And as I said before, a film that can have a giant CGI gorilla sliding around a frozen lake in Central Park and not be utterly hilarious (and in fact bring tears to my eyes) must have succeeded in establishing its characters.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I agree with Marian, I felt something for Kong. I was emotionally involved throughout the whole Empire State Building sequence.

[indy4 152]

It is an okay film, IMO. It suffers from many flaws, one being a running time that is waaaay too long.

[artyjeffrey 20]

I thought Jackson's King Kong was a really good film.

It is -- but that doesn't mean it's perfect.

And it's not perfect.

Yep. There's been many a time that I've looked at my dvd shelf and said, "There it is.... the version of King Kong that takes TWO discs to tell itself." And then I implore myself to rip it to my pc and perform an edit job on it to see if I can cut it down to 2 hours and make it a REALLY good movie.

I sure hope (no, actually I don't give a hoot) that Jackson has learned his lesson with Kong, and will no longer make movies that are so long that there might have been incidents that people passed away in the theatre while trying to just finish watching them.

(It's tough for me, but if a movie's past 2 and a half hours, and I've bought a drink, I have to always urinate right near the end, the "crucial" revelation part or something)

[indy4 152]

I think that certain films, such as The Lord of the Rings, lend themselves to a longer film, as the story itself is longer. The films were extremely edited when compared to the books, and while there were a few added scenes, I think that a film adaptation that was completely faithful to the books would have been longer (and it wouldn't have worked as well on screen). Anyways, my point is that if the film works in a 3 hour format, then fine. But King Kong definetly did not, and that is probably its greatest flaw.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

My biggest problem with Jackson's King Kong is that the opening forty-five minutes or so -- everything prior to them arriving at Skull Island -- feels utterly phony. I don't mean visually, either; it looks great. But, in all but a few short scenes (such as the marvelous moment in which Denham catches his first glimpse of Ann Darrow), the tone is all wrong. And I think Black's mis-casting is at the heart of this, although it's not the entirety of the problem; Howard's score is off in a few places, too, occasionally sounding like something out of The Muppets Take Manhattan. (His score is excellent elsewhere in the film, though.)

Jackson is trying to make this world of the '30s, which is practically a fantasy world by now, seem as magical to us as it must, as the era that gave birth to his favorite movie, seem to him. But none of it feels real; it's just hokey. Some of the early ship-board scenes are similarly awkward and unrealistic.

Once they get to the island, though, these problems are entirely gone, and what is left is pretty spectacular. I've got some quarrels with the love story between Ann and Jack, which seems, somehow, both forced and underdeveloped, and is a waste of energy anyways, since the only relationship anyone cares about is between Ann and Kong. But by and large, the last couple of hours are tremendous.

Lest it seem as if I'm crouching over this movie after having eaten an entire bottle of Ex-Lax, let me emphasize: I love the movie for all of the things that it does very, very well. But I'm also very critical of the places in which it doesn't work, because those areas keep it from being the masterpiece that it could (and should) have been.

For the record, I'm also a big fan of both the original film and the 1976 version. Yes, you heard me right: I love the '76 version. A lot of it is cheesy, but when it works, it works extremely well.

Bring on the next version in 2043!

[indy4 152]

I have no problems with the beggining, in fact I'd say that the time on the island is where the most cutting of scenes should have been done.

I will say that parts of the film were very effective. The scene with all the giant bugs and creatures is utterly disturbing in every way, it creeped me out when I first saw it.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

The scene with all the giant bugs and creatures is utterly disturbing in every way, it creeped me out when I first saw it.

Yeah, that's some of THE best CGI that's ever been done. Jackson must've loved doing that scene.

[indy4 152]

But at the same time, the T-Rex didn't seem very realistic to me.

I'm sure a part of that is because Jurassic Park raised the bar so high when it comes to dinosaur effects, but the dinosaurs in King Kong did not look nearly as good as those in JP.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

But at the same time, the T-Rex didn't seem very realistic to me.

I'm sure a part of that is because Jurassic Park raised the bar so high when it comes to dinosaur effects, but the dinosaurs in King Kong did not look nearly as good as those in JP.

I think they look equally good in terms of the CGI shots, and the dinos in King Kong get to do many cooler things than the dinos in Jurassic Park, thanks to the liberating quality of CGI on movement.

What Jurassic Park had going for it (and still does) is the practical effects work. A well-done shot featuring an animatronic, or whatever it was Spielberg and Winston used, is almost always going to have something going for it that CGI simply can't replicate.

That said, the CGI Kong is utterly convincing. I cried and cried at the end of that damned movie...

[Quintus 5,391]

After seeing it theatrically (I enjoyed it immensely, but it faded fast) I avoided PJ's Kong for a long time, right up until it screened on ITV a few weeks ago. I have to say I thought it was brilliant, BUT it really is waaaay too long. Trim an hour of the runtime and I'd give it 5 stars without a second thought. Once they reach Skull Island, the film shifts into first gear and doesn't let up. An emotional rollercoaster firing on all cylinders and I was gripped. It's just a shame the over indulgent bollocks of the setup ruins it so much.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

My biggest problem with Jackson's King Kong is that the opening forty-five minutes or so

Once they get to the island, though, these problems are entirely gone, and what is left is pretty spectacular.

That's what most people seem to say. I think the first act is integral to the movie, and the reason it works. It sets up not just the mood and atmosphere (something the 33 original didn't have to do, because it was set in the "present day") but also the characters, and that's something the 33 version just never did. That's the one point where the PJ film runs much longer than the original, but I think seriously shortening it would undermine the emotional connection needed for the later parts.

The island stuff, spectacular as it is, can easily be considered gratuitous. That includes the length of the action sequences, the number of them, and of course the bug pit. I personally enjoy them, but the important point is: The 33 movie also had its most "useless" stuff in the middle segment. Back then, the effects work was probably so stupendous that people didn't even have time to wonder if a sequence does anything for the movie (the effects in the PJ version are also outstanding, Kong himself is the best CG effect I've seen, but it's just one more, albeit impressive, step to perfectioning a tool that's in regular use, whereas in 33, this kind of thing was certainly a milestone). They even cut the bug pit from the original, but people have been wanting to see it ever since, so while even PJ thought about dropping his version of it, I can appreciate it being left in.

The extended cut does not improve anything though. I don't think it makes the movie worse. It just makes it longer with a few fun scenes at are, in the end, utterly useless. It's nice to see the new take on the triceratops sequence, but it really wasn't necessary.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I didn't have many problems with the film. The biggest thing I noticed was the huge gap from Skull Island back to New York. Honestly though, it doesn't really matter and if they showed the whole sequence of returning, it would be an extra scene that could be cut. I thought the beginning was handled well, although I an see the problems people had with it. I also didn't have a problem with the running time. The movie wasn't boring at all, I was entertained for the full length. I guess I would be the only one that liked the Extended Version. EDIT: Although I agree with Marian that it is useless.

[Vaderbait1 1]

I didn't have many problems with the film. The biggest thing I noticed was the huge gap from Skull Island back to New York. Honestly though, it doesn't really matter and if they showed the whole sequence of returning, it would be an extra scene that could be cut. I thought the beginning was handled well, although I an see the problems people had with it. I also didn't have a problem with the running time. The movie wasn't boring at all, I was entertained for the full length. I guess I would be the only one that liked the Extended Version. EDIT: Although I agree with Marian that it is useless.

Back on track....I don't see what is so big about this film. It's a spoof. A spy spoof? How many of these are born every day? It might be good, because Black can be funny sometimes, but the pitch doesn't sound any different than your average movie idea.

[Wojo 2,442]

Well comparing it to one of the flicks with ends in "Movie" like "Epic," "Scary," or "Disaster" is probably unfair.

Because in 1997 or 1998, the idea of an ex-SNL actor making a movie that spoofs just about every spy movie that came before it (although more specifically, the world of James Bond), many people would've thought you were nuts. But the Austin Powers trilogy was very popular and hip.

So maybe there's something to this. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it just because Jack Black's in it. He's been involved with some duds, but others he's made are ok. I guess we better live with it, because Hollywood isn't getting too many original ideas anymore, so high quality homages and spoofs are better than nothing.

[Red 73]

It's hard for me not to like Jack Black. I'll be watching out for this movie.

[Ollie 859]

Jack Black in a spoof of the Bourne films?

What an original idea.

I enjoyed Jackson's Kong. What I didn't like, or feel was neccessary, was the splitting of Jack Driscoll's character in to two seperate ones. They should have left him as the first mate of the ship. As long as the film is it moves at a brisk pace as far as I'm concerned.