Sandor 797 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I know I called this "The best movie of 2005" long before today based on my faith in Peter Jackson's talent. For me; this guy is the Steven Spielberg of a new generation. He made fantasy films count again with The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and King Kong will only confirm his status as a great, imaginitive filmmaker. Just check these two links:http://www.showbizdata.com/mreviews.cfm/19...99166/KING_KONG(Note that it hadly ever happens that a film gets a 5-star rating on this site)http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/If it's not "The" best film of 2005 it will certainly be remembered as "One" of the best films of 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,796 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 from what its seen in the trailers, the look of the movie its too 'painting' this was great in LOTR, but in king kong its not right IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Longbottom 0 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I were shown the trailer and is it really dinosaurs in it? It felt like watching The Lost World for a couple of frames. Peter Jackson shouldn't push it that hard with aspiring to make every of his films remarkable! There could come times when special effects may not do the whole trick and his preciseness may not be paying off. Will King Kong be as impressive on small TV sets as it is designed to be on big screens?Roman.-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I must be looking at a completely different set of previews because I really don't see a problem with the CGI. It looks just as good as ILM and way better than most films use.It appears that this film is being well received so far but the major gripe is that it could have been trimmed by 30 mins. I'm even more anxious to see Kong based on alot of these reviews and especially after watching what Jackson and WETA did for the DVD release of the original KK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 reviews have been positive so far, but not overwhelmingly so. seems to be that the consensus is that had PJ been not too carried away, this could have been another great 2hr+ movie instead of any okay 3hr movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,211 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 He made fantasy films count again with The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and King Kong will only confirm his status as a great, imaginitive filmmaker.He confirmed that years ago with Heavenly Creatures.Marian - very excited about Kong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incanus 5,716 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 He made fantasy films count again with The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and King Kong will only confirm his status as a great, imaginitive filmmaker.He confirmed that years ago with Heavenly Creatures.Marian - very excited about Kong.You had actually heard of this Heavenly Creatures before LOTR movies came out? The name Peter Jackson was not familiar to me prior to LOTR. I even had not seen his splatter horror movie classics like Bad Taste or Brain Dead.With LOTR Jackson has proved to be a visionary and a great director. I hope he continues with challenging new film projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bondo 33 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 The Frighteners was the first and only PJ film I had seen prior to LOTR. The Director's Cut of it just came out on DVD..... great film! Very Tim Burton-ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I love The Frighteners. I already did long before LotR turned up on my radar. Heavenly Creatures is also an excellent film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Agreed. The murderous scene at the end of Heavenly Creatures makes for suprisingly very powerful cinema, especially with that truly haunting piece of music playing in the background before the kill. Whats it called again? I only have a crappy mono version of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 You had actually heard of this Heavenly Creatures before LOTR movies came out?Absolutely. That movie was fairly popular here in the States as an "art" film. It was excellent when I first saw it, and was even better after each subsequent viewing. I had also seen Braindead and The Frighteners before I even knew he wanted to do LotR.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,211 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 You had actually heard of this Heavenly Creatures before LOTR movies came out?I remember taping it off TV for my mother many years ago (probably the first broadcast of it in these parts), when I had absolutely no interest in it. I basically became aware of PJ when LOTR was announced and tried to find out more about him, so I did eventually see both Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners before FOTR.I wasn't impressed with Frighteners when I first saw it on TV, but I later picked up the old DVD cheaply in London and it has since become a favourite of mine... Fox is great, and Combs is outstanding. The new DVD is on my christmas wishlist.Heavenly Creatures, on the other hand, is one of the most amazing films I have seen. I really did feel quite numb after watching it the first time, and it still has at least some of that effect. (That piece of music is from Puccini's Madame Butterfly, by the way). Incidentally, my mother still hasn't seen it. The first PJ I've seen was probably Braindead, which I kind of liked, but I didn't really know what to think about it at first. I haven't seen it since, though I have Bad Taste and think it's great. I still haven't had a chance to see Meet the Feebles.Marian - who highly recommends Forgotten Silver (but don't read anything about it in advance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeshopk 8 Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 You had actually heard of this Heavenly Creatures before LOTR movies came out? The name Peter Jackson was not familiar to me prior to LOTR. I even had not seen his splatter horror movie classics like Bad Taste or Brain Dead. With LOTR Jackson has proved to be a visionary and a great director. I hope he continues with challenging new film projects.I'd seen all of PJ's movies before I even knew he wanted to do LOTR. I thought he would be an odd director for LOTR, but it explains a lot of the orc closeups and wierd shots. He's still a so-so director to me, with some brilliant scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie_twinkle 48 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 He made fantasy films count again with The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and King Kong will only confirm his status as a great, imaginitive filmmaker.He confirmed that years ago with Heavenly Creatures.Marian - very excited about Kong.You had actually heard of this Heavenly Creatures before LOTR movies came out? The name Peter Jackson was not familiar to me prior to LOTR. I even had not seen his splatter horror movie classics like Bad Taste or Brain Dead.With LOTR Jackson has proved to be a visionary and a great director. I hope he continues with challenging new film projects.I've been a Jackson fan ever since I saw Braindead back in the early 90s. What a classic gory comedy. I still think Heavenly Creatures is far and away his best picture. I love all the acting in HC which is a lot more than I can say for LOTR. I remember quite liking The Frighteners but feeling it was a little unremarkable for PJ. I haven't seen it since it was at the cinema though so maybe it's time to reevaluate it.I'm looking forward to Kong though. The original is one of my favourite films and has been since I was about 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,646 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I love PJ, and may it just be because of his personality. He just does what he loves to do, and if he has to pay for it himself ... what the hell? I find that brilliant. As Adrian Brody put it: "He's the ultimate fan." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,796 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 He just does what he loves to do, and if he has to pay for it himself ... what the hell? I find that brilliant.Yet, you find George Lucas completely despisable.Luke who thinks both directors are very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Except one can direct, the other has got so wrapped up in himself he's forgotten how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,796 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 But we are talking about their insterests, not their skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeshopk 8 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Lucas and Jackson both have trouble directing and editing their movies in a way that makes everything perfect. Lucas DEFINITELY has trouble directing child actors (or maybe it is because he made british kids do fake american accents with Anakin's friends).Jackson's worst habits are cheesy slow motion, occasional overacting, and boring composition of facial closeups. Lucas' worst habits are choosing bad takes, bad editing, and not being able to get the best out of his actors at all times (underacting). But Lucas has a better eye for cinematic composition IMO. Jackson clearly gets better performances out of his actors overall, and at least he doesn't butcher his scores (after Kong, I don't know). But Lucas has better music, though it is butchered. In all, I can see valid reasons for preferring either of them. Sometimes I'm in a Jackson mood, other times I'm in a Lucas mood.One thing I would also give Lucas the edge for is that when you compare their early carreers, Lucas could make a professional project on a shoestring budget. THX, Grafitti and Star Wars are all superbly shot, while Bad Taste and Jackson's early films are really stupidly shot. They've got a crass and unique camera style, but it isn't really quality film making. This shows that innately, Lucas seems to have been born with more potential. I do think he got a little lazy with the Prequels, letting animatics directors take over too many creative decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Jackson is a decent director, and he is able to get more out of his actors than Lucas. As for Lucas, you can say all you want about him, but one thing is certain, he is a visual genius. he'd probably make a good cinematographer too. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,646 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yet, you find George Lucas completely despisable. Luke who thinks both directors are very similar.With the little difference that Lucas sold himself and completely lost "it", as well as his connection to reality.Jackson can pull it off, Lucas can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeshopk 8 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 With the little difference that Lucas sold himself and completely lost "it", as well as his connection to reality. Jackson can pull it off, Lucas can't.I don't know, it seems like Lucas got gradually better over the last 10 years, while Jackson got gradually worse. I'll have to see with Kong.I think ROTS is better than ROTK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 So do I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyMaker 0 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Peter Jackson shouldn't push it that hard with aspiring to make every of his films remarkable! Roman.-)What an interesting statement! Do you think the same with Williams, for him not to push so hard when composing? I am guessing that you are not one to have a high goal for yourself? I would like to encourage you to do otherwise, and you'll see that you'll be happier within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,646 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I don't know, it seems like Lucas got gradually better over the last 10 yearsYeah, although I highly disagree here, that certainly would be an achievement, with 3 movies in 10 years, and with the first being considered by many as one of the worst ever.I think ROTS is better than ROTK... well, what can you say? The love for JW has clearly slowed your mind. PJ managed to adapt a highly complex literary opus, whereas GL failed at adequately presenting his own (kind of) story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 ROTK was a very bad adaptation. IT had more corny moments that the entire star wars saga put together.On the other hand, I loved FOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkgyver 1,646 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yes, it had its corny moments, but they work because PJ earned every one of them in FOTR/TTT. The prequels didn't even earn the Anakin vs. Obi- Wan duel; the existence of this duel, much like the making of the prequels themselves and everything else in there, is only justified by the quality and success of the original Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I can admire PJ's dedication and hard work he devoted to the LOTR trilogy, but I still think the result is very far from perfect. I also thought the casting was specially bad, with the exceptions of Gandalf, Saruman, Wormtongue, Galadriel and Boromir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,211 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 ROTK was a very bad adaptation. IT had more corny moments that the entire star wars saga put together.It had two or three really annoying moments (and one or two more in the EE), but the rest is awesome. And considering how many people would completely have removed the (already severely shortened) ending (or multiple endings, they claim) shows how good the adaption really is compared to what most others would have done.Marian - who considers the casting brilliant. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Oh, Gollum was also very cast. Forgot about Serkis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,796 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 All of Aragorn's conversations with Eowyn are in par with anakin's and Padme. Arwen's are pure class too.And i think due to the length of the films, there is much more 'material' for that in LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Wasn't this thread supposed to be about King Kong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robthehand 3 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Wasn't this thread supposed to be about King Kong?You can talk! (Jeez, we went off topic a bit there, eh? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,796 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I know I called this "The best movie of 2005" long before today based on my faith in Peter Jackson's talent. For me; this guy is the Steven Spielberg of a new generation. He made fantasy films count again with The Lord Of The Rings trilogy and King Kong will only confirm his status as a great, imaginitive filmmaker.Wasn't this thread supposed to be about King Kong? Who included LOTR on the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Longbottom 0 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Peter Jackson shouldn't push it that hard with aspiring to make every of his films remarkable! Roman.-)What an interesting statement! Do you think the same with Williams, for him not to push so hard when composing? I am guessing that you are not one to have a high goal for yourself? I would like to encourage you to do otherwise, and you'll see that you'll be happier within.For me it's about this. Take for example "Alien" and compare it to "Aliens". I find myself hundred times more impressed with "Alien". "Aliens" boast with special effects and they have that Cameron's dialogue and scene preciseness imprinted within. But still, while I find "Alien" simpler in special effects, its plot directness and lankier visual feast give out much better overall experience. I think even in this advanced age of everything going full-digital, it is still possible to tell a good story and impress audience without being overly artistic and contemporary cost it what it may.And you know how this debate all started? I was always against re-doing "King Kong" and I didn't see any reason why this would have needed being remade. If Peter Jacskon thought he could tell the story even better than it was told years ago, I would be first to object that daring. So the only reason left there must have been the goal to make it look more naturalistic. And that's what I don't completely hold with. Too much money invested to earn even more by re-telling the story that has already been told, and possibly in a much satisfying way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Who included LOTR on the first place?Oops! Sorry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Well, now I've gotten curious to see this. It looks like it could be a nice escapist adventure. From what I've seen in the previews, what really has impressed me is the reconstitution of New York in the 30's.But I don't think too much merit can be given to PJ for exploring a pop culture icon and mythology that he didn't star to begin with.Romão, whose dream project would be to remake Dune in a massive 3 part movie series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 All of Aragorn's conversations with Eowyn are in par with anakin's and Padme. Arwen's are pure class too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now