How good is King Kong (the movie)?

[MSM 126]

Anyone who saw it already? How is the movie?

[Sandor 799]

Didn't see it yet, but these are some quotes from respected critics:

Annlee Ellingson:

"The result is a three-hour epic on par with his Lord of the Rings trilogy both in scale and thematic relevance, securing Jackson's reputation as the next great event filmmaker and heir to Steven Spielberg."

Steven Snyder:

"Peter Jackson is the savior of the modern blockbuster. He gets it."

Walter Chaw:

"They don't really make movies like this anymore; I don't know if they ever did."

Susan Granger:

"Scary and sensational - simply the most spectacular creature feature ever made!"

Lisa Schwartzbaum:

"The movie seals Jackson's reputation: He's the most gifted big-picture artist working today, a master of epics from a human-eye view who excels at employing 21st-century technological wizardry to suit the needs of ageless, personal storytelling."

Jami Bernard:

"Peter Jackson's King Kong is the most thrilling, soulful monster picture ever made. At last, it can be said without irony -- I laughed, I cried."  

Davin Faraci:

"Jackson again reminds us that he's a genius."

[nightscape94 965]

I'll repeat what I put in the other Kong movie thread. Ebert said it was one of the best films of the year and declared it one of the great modern epics.

Tim

[MSM 126]

It seems peter jackson is really becoming the spielberg of the 21st century then. I hope one day he will hire John Williams. Spielberg is no longer interesting.

[publicist 4,643]

Film critics are nerds.

It's a film about a giant ape. On an island inhabited by dinosauers. In the Thirties. Dear Lord, how much more irrelevant to the zeitgeist you can get? It's all about marketing.

[A24 4,368]

It seems peter jackson is really becoming the spielberg of the 21st century then. I hope one day he will hire John Williams. Spielberg is no longer interesting.

That depends on what you find interesting.

[MSM 126]

It seems peter jackson is really becoming the spielberg of the 21st century then. I hope one day he will hire John Williams. Spielberg is no longer interesting.

That depends on what you find interesting.

Well I like to see movies that entertain. I am not interested in realistic drama like Munich. I like movies like Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Mask of Zorro and Lord of the Rings. It is true that those kind of movies only appear once in a few years.

[Sandor 799]

It's a film about a giant ape. On an island inhabited by dinosauers. In the Thirties. Dear Lord, how much more irrelevant to the zeitgeist you can get? It's all about marketing.

Yeah, so are movies about galactic empires, aliens using a musical motif for communication, an archeologist searching for the Holy Grail set in the 30's/40's, an alien left alone on earth and so forth.

What a great argument!

[Jeshopk 8]

Film critics are nerds.  

It's a film about a giant ape. On an island inhabited by dinosauers. In the Thirties. Dear Lord, how much more irrelevant to the zeitgeist you can get? It's all about marketing.

I agree with you, Tom or Sami. I know I should not judge this film before I see it, and I'm sure it will be tender and dramatic, but some of these commentsa are over the top. I will say that if these CGI shots in the commercials were for a Spielberg film or a Lucas film, the effects would already be lamented as the downfall of the film.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

This from Boxofficemojo.com:

"This extravaganza is moviemaking at its lowest: small ideas amplified and anthropomorphized with a big budget."

Mind you, the reviewer Scott (something or other) is a bit of a troll and I've found in the past that he often completely misses the point of a film.

And 150 viewers give the film an average rating of B. Doesn't sound like the work of genius we are promised in the one-sided reviews posted above. Having said that I am really looking forward to this film. The 1933 version has always been a favourite of mine and I'm interested to see what PJ has done with the classic story.

[A24 4,368]

It seems peter jackson is really becoming the spielberg of the 21st century then. I hope one day he will hire John Williams. Spielberg is no longer interesting.

That depends on what you find interesting.

Well I like to see movies that entertain.

That depends on what you find entertaining.

[MSM 126]

It seems peter jackson is really becoming the spielberg of the 21st century then. I hope one day he will hire John Williams. Spielberg is no longer interesting.

That depends on what you find interesting.

Well I like to see movies that entertain.

That depends on what you find entertaining.

"I am not interested in realistic drama like Munich. I like movies like Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Mask of Zorro and Lord of the Rings. It is true that those kind of movies only appear once in a few years."

Was I not clear?

[A24 4,368]

It seems peter jackson is really becoming the spielberg of the 21st century then. I hope one day he will hire John Williams. Spielberg is no longer interesting.

That depends on what you find interesting.

Well I like to see movies that entertain.

That depends on what you find entertaining.

"I am not interested in realistic drama like Munich. I like movies like Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Mask of Zorro and Lord of the Rings. It is true that those kind of movies only appear once in a few years."

Was I not clear?

Very.

[Hitch 58]

Jackson and Spielberg nominated in the Golden Globe's Best Director category. And the Golden Globe goes to.....Ang Lee.

[publicist 4,643]

Yeah, so are movies about galactic empires, aliens using a musical motif for communication, an archeologist searching for the Holy Grail set in the 30's/40's, an alien left alone on earth and so forth.

What a great argument!

How old are you? Five?

There's certainly something fishy about dozens of people seemingly 'in the know' about film history praising an unnecessary turd like this. It's pop culture, for god's sake! With a firm place in the 30s, when it originally was made and were it rightfully belongs.

What i bemoan is that billions of $$ are thrown at the screen to stun the world with...DRUMROLL..a giant ape climbing a house.

That a director like Jackson, with all the power gained form 'LotR' MISUSES his standing to squander years of creative abilities of thousands of people just to produce a shitty monster movie, is really a sad fact.

They could at least try something new...or fresh. Call it whatever you want, but we had enough films about dinosaurs and monster creatures.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Yeah, so are movies about galactic empires, aliens using a musical motif for communication, an archeologist searching for the Holy Grail set in the 30's/40's, an alien left alone on earth and so forth.

What a great argument!

How old are you? Five?

There's certainly something fishy about dozens of people seemingly 'in the know' about film history praising an unnecessary turd like this. It's pop culture, for god's sake! With a firm place in the 30s, when it originally was made and were it rightfully belongs.

What i bemoan is that billions of $$ are thrown at the screen to stun the world with...DRUMROLL..a giant ape climbing a house.

That a director like Jackson, with all the power gained form 'LotR' MISUSES his standing to squander years of creative abilities of thousands of people just to produce a shitty monster movie, is really a sad fact.

They could at least try something new...or fresh. Call it whatever you want, but we had enough films about dinosaurs and monster creatures.

I thought I could see your point earlier, but I disagree with your latest post I'm afraid. If people with your point of view had told people to stop making gangster films after the boom in the 30s/40s we wouldn't have classics like The Godfather (based on a pulp novel!), and most of Scorsese's output. If people had stopped making Westerns after the 50s we wouldn't have The Unforgiven. I'm not saying that the new Kong picture is going to win any awards, or even be a particularly good movie (but until we see it we won't know!) but Jackson has proved his talent to the world on several occasions and as this seems to be something of a pet project for him I think he should be allowed to show us why he feels compelled to make the movie!

[publicist 4,643]

I thought I could see your point earlier, but I disagree with your latest post I'm afraid. If people with your point of view had told people to stop making gangster films after the boom in the 30s/40s we wouldn't have classics like The Godfather (based on a pulp novel!), and most of Scorsese's output. If people had stopped making Westerns after the 50s we wouldn't have The Unforgiven. I'm not saying that the new Kong picture is going to win any awards, or even be a particularly good movie (but until we see it we won't know!) but Jackson has proved his talent to the world on several occasions and as this seems to be something of a pet project for him I think he should be allowed to show us why he feels compelled to make the movie!

No points, my dear.

You are talking about GENRES, not 1-to-1 remakes of a very specific film without modifying anything to make it relevant for todays viewers.

I sincerely hope you see the difference between 'The Godfather' and 'The Public Enemy' or 'Drums along the Mohawk' and 'The Unforgiven'.

Go, see 'Kong' and then tell me what it has added to the zeitgeist or which enrichment of cinema it is going to provide.

I don't expect that from 'Fantastic Four' or the likes, but when people try to sell me a rotten ape as cinematic haute cuisine, i'm defensive.

[Jeshopk 8]

Indeed. It may be good, but not a pinaccle on the horizon of film history as these reviewers seem to put it. What's next, a JAWS remake with the same reviews?

[Ollie 1,069]

In the end who really cares what people think. I don't let other members or critics decide my viewing habits, it's their opinion only and I may or may not share the same opinion.

You may not like something and that's fine but if someone else likes it that's fine too.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

No points, my dear.

You are talking about GENRES, not 1-to-1 remakes of a very specific film without modifying anything to make it relevant for todays viewers.

I was in part refering to your comment about the monster movie in general, which is a genre.

But I still think this film may well be different enough from the original to warrent it's making. The Ben Hur remake has become a classic despite many people taking objection to it being made only 30 years after the incredible success of the silent version. The Charlton Heston version was a retelling for a modern audience. It upped the spectacle, and it was in colour and it had sound. The new Kong film will mean a lot more to the new generation of moviegoers raised on epic scale movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and the like. There aren't many 12 year olds who respond to black and white films and early stop-motion animation any more, let alone the rather trite dialogue of the original Kong. I loved it in my youth because back in the 70s stop-motion was still state of the art, and we didn't get a colour TV until about 1978! The new Kong will introduce a great story to a whole new generation. Zeitgeist or not I think that should be encouraged as a good thing. I doubt it will replace the original for me, I happen to be rather partial to black and white, and stop-motion. And the silent Ben Hur for that matter.

[Sandor 799]

Gee, publicist; you take this REALLY personal. Were you attacked by a monkey as a kid or something?

[Romão 2,276]

Indeed. It may be good, but not a pinaccle on the horizon of film history as these reviewers seem to put it. What's next, a JAWS remake with the same reviews?

I agree with you. It may be fun a ride and one hell of a movie experience, but it can't be that good. And it's a remake...Peter Jackson may have the talent to exploint the myth, but it's still a remake.

And I've always considered to be a little unflatering when they call an artist "the next yadayada". There's a long way for Peter Jackson to travel before he can touch Spielberg's heels. Nevertheless, I do empathize with PJ, and he seems to be a very humble guy, despite all his recent success.

[nightscape94 965]

What's next, a JAWS remake with the same reviews?

In all fairness to King Kong, the material deserved a remake. Although the '33 film is a classic and pioneered an entirely new process of film making and special effects at a time when movies were still in their infancy, the acting is poor (in most cases), the dialogue is questionable, and there are some extreme sterotypes that are laughable (need I bring up the Chinese guy?). I have yet to see the new film, but most part, people are glowing about it.

However, for Jaws, the movie is already perfect. King Kong wasn't.

Tim

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Although the '33 film is a classic and pioneered an entirely new process of film making and special effects at a time when movies were still in their infancy, the acting is poor (in most cases), the dialogue is questionable, and there are some extreme sterotypes that are laughable (need I bring up the Chinese guy?). I have yet to see the new film, but most part, people are glowing about it.  

the acting isn't poor, the sterotypes are laughable, but that was the 1930's, and this superior attitude of the early 21st century is even more laughable.

[Romão 2,276]

I think they should never remake movies that were sucessful. I mean, it's not like King Kong was based on some sort of well-beloved novel and it didn't do the novel justice.

All that King Kong ever was was that 30's film. It cannot improved. You remake it, it no longer is King Kong.

[publicist 4,643]

In all fairness to King Kong, the material deserved a remake.

Does it?

Let me play devil's advocate here: would you prefer a remake of a giant ape monster movie or an altogether new film which at least potentially could be a chance of offering you something more mentally stimulating than a T-Rex mouth ripped apart?

@Roald:

i don't take this personal at all. I just wouldn't let you thru with slippery logic like comparing a 'Kong' remake with 'Star Wars'. It's simply apples and oranges...and for what it's worth: i don't particularly like 'Close Encounters', but to imply that it's basically the same matinee fodder like 'KK' is inane.

[nightscape94 965]

In all fairness to King Kong, the material deserved a remake.

Does it?

Yes, it does, because the new version has more in the way of story, character and emotion. It's not all about special effects.

And by the way, it isn't a superior attitude that I'm wielding.

Tim

[Sandor 799]

It's a film about a giant ape. On an island inhabited by dinosauers. In the Thirties. Dear Lord, how much more irrelevant to the zeitgeist you can get? It's all about marketing.

This is what you said. I based my reaction on that.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

All the reviews I've read say it's at least an hour too long.

Incidentally, after three (but technically one) successful movie(s) and one potential, how can anyone call him "better than Spielberg". Spielberg didn't have a huge name he could rely on for results - Jaws wasn't exactly a household name before the film came along. Let's face it, a trilogy of movies based on phenomenally popular books (LotR) with copious amounts of cash thrown at them were either going to be compelte flops, or box-office smashes. Jackson didn't claw his way up with unsure film ideas that ended up magnificently like Spielberg. Jackson's two (or four) biggest films existed as their own vastly popular entities even before he was born.

So please, until Jackson shows us the staying power of over thirty years as well as a film that wasn't already a book or film, don't compare him to Spielberg.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Once again, see Heavenly Creatures.

[Sandor 799]

Incidentally, after three (but technically one) successful movie(s) and one potential, how can anyone call him "better than Spielberg".

Nobody ever called him that. Not even me.

[publicist 4,643]

Yes, it does, because the new version has more in the way of story, character and emotion. It's not all about special effects.

Riding the dead horse: What for? Does the world need a 200Mio$ celluloid colossus of 'Ben Hur' proportions with more "character and emotion" for a story all of you already know quite well and which isn't too hot to begin with?

OR

Should PJ should have the vision to pump all this money into something new? I don't understand how a lot of the (presumably younger) folks here fall so easily for Universals marketing machine, even the notion of the word 'epos' or 'masterpiece' in one sentence with a 'KK' remake is a laugh riot.

[nightscape94 965]

Have you even seen the new movie yet, or are you just making a pressumption? That isn't an attacking question, I just didn't know if you were making blind accusations or if you are speaking on an impression made by the new film.

I know what you're getting at, and I don't disagree that PJ couldn't have done something more interesting or "ground braking", especially given his future intentions. He's stated in recent articles that he has no current plans to do another special effects pic for a while. He mentioned that, along with his writing buddies Walsh and Boyens, they have a few intimate dramas scheduled to be completed.

I hope to see these new dramatic works in the following years.

Cheers,

Tim

[Sandor 799]

Should PJ should have the vision to pump all this money into something new? I don't understand how a lot of the (presumably younger) folks here fall so easily for Universals marketing machine, even the notion of the word 'epos' or 'masterpiece' in one sentence with a 'KK' remake is a laugh riot.

Why don't you start making movies yourself and let Peter Jackson do what he wants to? Gee; and have you seen King Kong already? No.

You take this SO personal, aggresive even. Lighten up man.

[Luke Skywalker 1,810]

H

I know what you're getting at, and I don't disagree that PJ couldn't have done something more interesting or "ground braking", especially given his future intentions.  He's stated in recent articles that he has no current plans to do another special effects pic for a while.  

You know, George Lucas said the same a few days ago.

[publicist 4,643]

Why don't you start making movies yourself and let Peter Jackson do what he wants to? Gee; and have you seen King Kong already? No.

You take this SO personal, aggresive even. Lighten up man.

My dear boy,

it's called DISCUSSION Board for a reason. If none of these discussions would polarize in one way or another, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Apart from burning questions like 'Does the ewok behind Han wears pink tights?'.

I think you mistake 'aggressive' with 'no need to make smileys and winkies' behind every sentence'.

The 'make your own movies' remark really speaks for itself.

[Mythos 0]

The trick is not to follow the zeitgeist but to to define or create a new zeitgeist!!!

And I think there is a great need for classical storytelling today as it is e.g. in Ben Hur or (old and new) King Kong. And I like those a lot.

[Sandor 799]

it's called DISCUSSION Board for a reason. If none of these discussions would polarize in one way or another, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Maybe you should refrain from calling certain arguments "insane" or, as you put it, "inane". Kind of stops the urge in me to discuss anything you know.

And in the end - but I know I hate this remark when others use it - it's just a movie!

[A24 4,368]

Wait a minute here, what does Ben Hur, a semi-biblical story, have to do with a monster movie like King Kong? :?

[Sandor 799]

Why does anything have to do with King Kong really?

[Romão 2,276]

At least Spielberg honored King Kong with Jurassic Park...he didn't outright make the same movi

[gkgyver 1,646]

and this superior attitude of the early 21st century is even more laughable.  

Ah! You're so right!

At least Spielberg honored King Kong with Jurassic Park...he didn't outright make the same movie

Maybe that's because it wasn't Spielberg's childhood dream to make movies just like King Kong and one day be able to remake it. Maybe because it wasn't Spielberg who wanted to become a filmmaker after seeing King Kong.

For god's sake, PJ doesn't do what we want (if so, he'd have made The Hobbit), he does what he wants, and that's rare enough today.

I hope you don't mind that I corrected your spelling there

[A24 4,368]

And in a few years you will hear Peter Jackson say that he only made King Kong so he could make his new little art house drama.

[Jeshopk 8]

I think that they should remake King Kong with a real gorilla. Next year.

[Romão 2,276]

I don't mind PJ fulfilling his childhood dreams. I just don't think the best way to honor your favorite movie is to remake it. That's the same thing as saying "I could do better".

I would understand PJ's remake if he loved the book or soemthing and felt the movie didn't do it justice.

[Luke Skywalker 1,810]

So PJ does what he wants and is a great director and person.

Now George Lucas does the same, and is a childhood rapist.

Ironies of life.

[Maestro 147]

This movie was terrible. It took itself too seriously to claim to only be a creature film, and was too silly and showy to claim to be a serious epic. The acting was laughable, even from the usually impressive Adrien Brody. Jack Black was as annoying and out-of-place in a "serious" role as one would expect. The length and pace were unforgiveable. And the special effects - while at times impressive - bogged the movie down in such a sea of CG that the story was all but lost. An embarrassing love story, a weak plot, and 2 hours of repetitive animated action all add up to make me hate this movie like I've hated very few others.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Incidentally, after three (but technically one) successful movie(s) and one potential, how can anyone call him "better than Spielberg".

Nobody ever called him that. Not even me.

Oh, that wasn't directed at anyone here, but some online reviews (and ill-advised Jackson fans) have said it.

Once again, see Heavenly Creatures.

I have, and loved it (Kate Winslet's accent is flawless). But considering the sentiments mentioned above were about LotR and Kong, I didn't think it relevant.

[Luke Skywalker 1,810]

I just thought about this:

They tried to make kong as realistic as possible (and here im not saying they havent) but is it really a King?

Or should it be called QUEEN KONG? For what seen in the trailers... Its either she or asexual...

Luke, who thinks that documentaries about gorillas are not censored and are seen by all ages...

Just my weird 2 cents 8O

[nightscape94 965]

So....I guess you really wanted to see Kong's pork sword....I'm sorry to hear about your disappointment. Though I'm sure that, upon seeing it, you would have felt slightly inferior. Consider it a blessing his love stick remained hidden from view.

Tim