King Kong

I just loved it when the giant fanged worm thingy started to devour the guy's head.

Steve

Lets hope the game is as good.

quote:

Originally posted by Yo-yo Master:
I just loved it when the giant fanged worm thingy started to devour the guy's head.

Steve

Our oldest daughter imformed me that the guy who was the cook(Chap getting eaten by worm thingy)was the gent who played Golum in the Lord of the rings saga.In addition,during the making of the film,the same was the actor who doubled as king Kong for all the C.G.I. work.

Saw it last night and echo the good comments it's had. Totally excellent. One for the DVD collection without doubt.

Steve

quote:

was the gent who played Golum

Andy Serkis english actor.

Howard

I went along a couple of nights ago, and from an action movie POV found it pretty intense. Lengthy - yes, and in some cases IMHO needlessly so... sure he could have made a great movie in 2 hours or so - yet during the three hours, there wasn't much time to be bored.

Peter Jackson's customary attention to infintessimal detail adds to the wow-factor. Suspension of disbelief maintained for much of the movie, despite large dinosaurs being held off ground by vines/creepers (sorry, I wanted to avoid spoilers). I think the sublety of the soundmixing is truly excellent. Suspension of disbelief is not required for the New York City scenes - it's really well done.

Like princess-fairytale wedding that the bride has planned since she was seven years old, this is the movie Jackson has been planning in his head since he was nine - and it shows; a massive and detailed movie wrapped around a fairly small script.

Worth seeing if only to view the current state of the art in special effects, CGI realism, and a large budget spent in Wellywood.

Intense?Are you kidding Rico? Without doubt this is the worst film I've ever seen - possibly worse even than 'Love Actually'.

The entirely pointless CGI eye-candy was only eclipsed in cackness by what was basically the same cliched 'emotional' moment, with the same tear jerky string-welling music and the same pouty look from Naomi Thing, repeated again and again and again. There was no real plot, just a succession of 'moments'. I kept looking for some kind of interest, anything beyond the cheap efforts at sentiment and eye-candy, to make the three hours (?) pass more quickly. There was none.

Marketing and PR puffery seem to have taken over everyone's critical faculties when it comes to films. Ho hum.

Tim J

Tim,

I think that Jackson has done a good job taking a fairly intelligence free original film and turning it into a modern roller coaster ride; still without any intellectual weight, but with a LOT of heart.

I think to criticise the film on the basis of plot is to miss the point.....the source material was hardly plot driven.

Cliched? Maybe. But for me Jackson pulled of the relationship between Kong and Darrow, cleverly missing the whirlpool of sexual attraction suggested by the original ; the attraction was based on loneliness.

This film had a range of emotions for me and my family. My wife and I were in tears of laughter during the T-Rex fight....brilliant.

I think the first act could have been pruned. The references to 'Heart of Darkness' were, for me, some effort to bring a thinking weight to the film that the flimsiness of the material just could not support.

Once Skull Island is reached fasten your seat-belts!

Overall I would throughly recommend going to see it, definitely one for the big screen. Just DON'T think about it too much afterwards, or even during it. Accept it at face value and enjoy.

7/10

Martin

quote:

Intense?Are you kidding Rico? Without doubt this is the worst film I've ever seen - possibly worse even than 'Love Actually'.

oh dear, is this going to degenerate into a thread of qualifications?

I didn't say it was good or even that I liked it. I described it as intense from the POV of action (not at all my genre) and effects - it was one scene/ or wild effect/or weird bug done par excellence/ after another from the moment they reached the island.

Tim, you knew it had no plot before you saw it - you've surely seen either the 1976 remake or the original before? As for the recycled pufy-eyed momnents were true to the original style (see 1930's movies). There wasn't much else to do was there.

I just accepted it for what it was, turned off all critical faculties while viewing for entertainment, and never expected to base a dissertation on the quality (or lack thereof) of my viewing experience.

cheers

The movie was 3 hours of mind numbing entertainment. If you need to disect it,we're back to talking hi fi...
It was what it was.
The lines were long and many to get in...
I wonder what that should mean??

And of course, 1930's new york recreated in Wellington. Not bad!

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Jones:
Without doubt this is the worst film I've ever seen - possibly worse even than 'Love Actually'.

I wasn't even going to see it as in my usual boring way I had wondered why anyone would want to remake a classic like King Kong. It's not as if it's a convincing story anyway (I always wondered how this huge monster that could climb the Empire State spanning several floors at once could then fit on a stage in a theatre or in a cage on a boat ).
I'll probably go now I've read this thread, but I am still pleased to read Tim's different opinion. Thank goodness for that.

FAO - Stephen Tate

My son (15) has the game (PS2) which he says is superb, but he completed it in a total time of about 7 Hours! However he told me the gameplay is really excellent and it is worth replaying. He also saw the film with his friends on Saturday and said it was awesome, so much so he wanted to go again on Sunday!

Regards
Geoff

Geoff, thanks - i will be gettin the game for my son. (i prefer games to films)