Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Locked Topic
KING KONG; remake of a classic
Topic Started: Dec 14 2005, 10:18 AM (91 Views)
Chad Matthews
CMV1
Global Moderator
Anyone else pumped about seeing this film?

I'm going to see it today and I'll let you guys who might be on the fence know whether its worth it or not.

Personally, I don't see how you can screw it up...although they managed to screw it up in 1974...but I feel it's real simple...Nail the scream, follow the 30's version and use sweet special effects...

Reallll simple...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stinger
The Admin is Here!
Admin
Right now, I'm leaning towards not seeing it (ever), but I finalize that decision according to what you and others have to say about it. I just can't get exicted about a movie with Jack Black in it, especially when it's not a comedy (and even then, it's a select few).

Then again, it is Peter Jackson, so that might influence my decision.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Snowman
The Snowman Cometh
Global Moderator
I want to see it, but I will probably just wait til it's out on dvd...the theaters tend to piss me off. Too many rude people, too many cell phones, talking, no one has manners anymore. But the movie looks amazing!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Q-BZ

Admin
Snowman
Dec 14 2005, 01:28 PM
I want to see it, but I will probably just wait til it's out on dvd...the theaters tend to piss me off.  Too many rude people, too many cell phones, talking, no one has manners anymore.  But the movie looks amazing!

Me, too.

Hell, I can't tell you how much money I've saved since I stopped going to theaters regularly.

No joke: That's how I've been able to save up and have a fairly nice home theater and so forth. Little things like this DO add up quickly!

They're talking about how they expect this film to maybe shatter all the box office records.

Here's the only two reasons that might happen.

1.) Peter Jackson.

Everyone wants to see what he does next after LOTR.

2.) The movies this year, in total, have been hideous. Very lackluster year, and the box office receipts for every month prove it.

Look at the lineup for the Golden Globes to get an indication. (History of Violence should have been nominated! )

People are damned near desperate for something new, something big, and something fun.


So, besides the Narnia film, which is fairly solid, this is about it. And it looks pretty cool. I'm sure it'll be a fun, and ultimately forgettable romp,



If PJ weren't a part of this film, I can guraantee you not nearly as many people would care. You wouldn't see near as much hype. His name alone now is a commodity now.


I personally was never a big Kong fan. I couldn't care less myself.

I'll probably see this on DVD when it comes out.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The Sandman
2007 ACC Champions
Global Moderator
It's true, I was just thinking about it the other night: What is out there to go see? And what has there been to go see? Nothing for the most part. Last time I went to the theater was in May to see Unleashed(excellent fucking movie, btw).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stinger
The Admin is Here!
Admin
The Sandman
Dec 14 2005, 12:40 PM
It's true, I was just thinking about it the other night: What is out there to go see? And what has there been to go see? Nothing for the most part. Last time I went to the theater was in May to see Unleashed(excellent fucking movie, btw).

I haven't been to the theaters since that dreadful movie Spanglish at the beginning of the year. Sadly, I will not escape 2005 having only been to the theaters once; I've got to take the ex-gf to see The New World on Christmas Day.

And yes, theaters cost way too much money.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Q-BZ

Admin
Maybe this post of mine should be moved to a general movie chat thread or something. I'll leave that up to Smithy, but here goes:



The Sandman
Dec 14 2005, 02:40 PM
It's true, I was just thinking about it the other night:  What is out there to go see?  And what has there been to go see?  Nothing for the most part.  Last time I went to the theater was in May to see Unleashed(excellent fucking movie, btw).

Written by a good friend of mine and movie expert.

Cheap plug: http://www.andyfilm.com/



Anyways:

AndyDursin
 
Disappointing news if you were involved with MUNICH and KING KONG to name a few...really shows that what Hollywood spent money on in the hopes of courting Oscar misfired (KING KONG obviously less so, but I still believe Universal might have had hopes the movie would pull a LOTR and go beyond the genre boundaries).

Should the Oscars echo the Globes like they often do, it also goes without saying this roster of movies will not appeal to most movie-goers...I'm guessing this will go down as THE smallest-rated Oscar telecast ever, without much of anything people have a) seen and B) really would care about to tune in and see what wins.


I agree with Andy 100 percent.

Here's what inspired his comments:




[size=4]
'Brokeback Mountain' Leads Globe Nods

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer 35 minutes ago

The cowboy romance "Brokeback Mountain" positioned itself as a key Oscar competitor Tuesday, roping in seven Golden Globe nominations, including best dramatic picture and honors for actor Heath Ledger and director Ang Lee.

Other best drama picture contenders were the murder thriller "The Constant Gardener," the Edward R. Murrow tale "Good Night, and Good Luck," the mobster story "A History of Violence" and "Match Point," a drama about infidelity.

The Globes were a triumph for smaller budgeted films over big studio productions.

"This is the first time in the history of the Golden Globes that all of the best (dramatic) film nominees are independent movies made for under $30 million," said Philip Berk, president of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.

The Globes have a separate category for musical or comedy films. Nominated were the theater tale "Mrs. Henderson Presents," the Jane Austen costume pageant "Pride & Prejudice," the Broadway musical "The Producers," the divorce story "The Squid and the Whale," and the Johnny Cash film biography "Walk the Line."

The Globes were the latest recognition for "Brokeback Mountain," a critical darling that has received top honors from critics groups in New York City, Los Angeles and Boston.

Along with Ledger, who plays a family man concealing a homosexual affair from his family, best dramatic actor nominees included three actors playing real-life figures: Russell Crowe as Depression-era boxer Jim Braddock in "Cinderella Man," Philip Seymour Hoffman as author Truman Capote in "Capote," and David Strathairn as newsman Murrow in "Good Night, and Good Luck." The fifth nominee was Terrence Howard as a small-time pimp-turned-rap singer in "Hustle & Flow."

"Good Night, and Good Luck" was tied for second-most film nominations with four, along with "Match Point" and "The Producers." The Murrow tale earned a best-director nomination for George Clooney, who also had a supporting actor movie nomination for the oil industry thriller "Syriana."

Felicity Huffman received two nominations — best dramatic actress in a film for her role as a man preparing for sex-change surgery in "Transamerica" and best actress in a TV musical or comedy for "Desperate Housewives." Her "Desperate Housewives" co-stars Marcia Cross, Teri Hatcher and Eva Longoria also were nominated.

Other best dramatic film actress nominees were Maria Bello as a wife learning painful secrets about her husband in "A History of Violence," Gwyneth Paltrow as an unstable math genius' daughter in "Proof," Charlize Theron as a woman leading a sexual harassment lawsuit in "North Country" and Ziyi Zhang as a poor girl who becomes the belle of Japan's geisha houses in "Memoirs of a Geisha."

Based on a short story by Annie Proulx, "Brokeback Mountain" grabbed a supporting actress nomination for Michelle Williams as Ledger's wife, who chooses to ignore his affair with a man (Jake Gyllenhaal) to hold her family together. The movie also scored a directing nomination for Lee and received nominations for best screenplay, score and song.

For best actor in a movie, musical or comedy, Globe voters nominated Pierce Brosnan as a burned-out hit man in "The Matador," Jeff Daniels as a husband unglued by divorce in "The Squid and the Whale," Johnny Depp as candyman Willy Wonka in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," Nathan Lane as a Broadway con man in "The Producers," Cillian Murphy as a cross-dressing Irishman in "Breakfast on Pluto," and Joaquin Phoenix as country legend Cash in "Walk the Line."

Best musical or comedy film actress nominees: Judi Dench as a 1930s British dame who opens a nude theatrical review in "Mrs. Henderson Presents," Keira Knightley as the romantic heroine in "Pride & Prejudice," Laura Linney as a divorcing wife in "The Squid and the Whale," Sarah Jessica Parker as a woman hated by her fiance's relatives in "The Family Stone," and Reese Witherspoon as country singer June Carter in "Walk the Line."

Besides Lee and Clooney, the directing contenders were Woody Allen for "Match Point," Peter Jackson for "King Kong," Fernando Meirelles for "The Constant Gardener," and Steven Spielberg for "Munich."

In addition to Clooney, supporting movie actor nominees were "Matt Dillon for "Crash," Will Ferrell for "The Producers," Paul Giamatti for "Cinderella Man," and Bob Hoskins for "Mrs. Henderson Presents."

Supporting actress nominees: Scarlett Johansson for "Match Point," Shirley MacLaine for "In Her Shoes," Frances McDormand for "North Country," Rachel Weisz for "The Constant Gardener," and Williams for "Brokeback Mountain."

Two years ago, the Golden Globes correctly predicted winners in all key categories, including best-picture champ "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and actors Sean Penn, Theron, Tim Robbins and Renee Zellweger.

But a year ago, the Globes missed the mark, picking "The Aviator" as best picture, an honor that went to "Million Dollar Baby" at the Oscars. Jamie Foxx and Hilary Swank won lead-acting Globes and went on to earn Oscars, but Globe voters chose Clive Owen and Natalie Portman of "Closer" for the supporting-actor honors, which were won at the Oscars by Morgan Freeman for "Million Dollar Baby" and Cate Blanchett for "The Aviator."

The Globes are handed out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, a relatively small group of about 90 reporters for overseas news outlets. Yet with a nationally televised awards ceremony on NBC and a historically solid knack for picking eventual Academy Award winners, the Globes wield a fair amount of sway among the 5,800 Oscar voters.

Winners of the Golden Globes will be announced Jan. 16, five days before polls close for Oscar voters. Oscar nominations come out Jan. 31, and the awards will be presented March 5.

The Globes feature 13 categories for film and 11 for television. Unlike other major movie awards, the Globes have separate divisions for dramas and comedies or musicals in the best-picture and lead-acting categories.

Anthony Hopkins will receive the group's Cecil B. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement.
[/size]


I can't remember the last time I sat through an Oscars show to be honest with you. I can't even imagine some of the staunchest Hollywood marks sitting through this.

The year is a complete dud. No way around it.



Yeah, let's bring out a movie about gay cowboys in time for Christmas. Great call, Hollywood!

At least we have Narnia and Kong for SOME kind of fun and levity during the holidays.

And again: Where the love for History of Violence?! That's probably the best movie of the year, or close to it!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Stinger
The Admin is Here!
Admin
That's fine in here, unless you just want to make that a thread. Either way is fine with me.

I also haven't sat through all of (any award show) in a very long time. I have little interest in them anymore, especially since most of the movies I think are good get passed over.

Nice to see Anthony Hopkins get the lifetime achievement award though.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The Sandman
2007 ACC Champions
Global Moderator
There's seriously a movie about gay cowboys??? Was it inspired by that episode of South Park where they had the film festival?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Q-BZ

Admin
The Sandman
Dec 14 2005, 09:05 PM
There's seriously a movie about gay cowboys???  Was it inspired by that episode of South Park where they had the film festival?

:roflmao:

Nice one. I'd forgotten about that and didn't make that connection until I read your post.

Hell, probably!




Excellent review: http://www.andyfilm.com/


AndyDursin
 
[size=4]

A KONG-sized disappointment?
Andy Reviews Peter Jackson's Remake


Growing up in the ‘80s, I became a huge “King Kong” fan through repeated viewings of both the original 1933 RKO classic and its less-dignified, though still entertaining, 1976 remake. In between those decades, Kong resurfaced in a silly Rankin/Bass cartoon and an affiliated Toho Studios Japanese “Kaiju” spin-off -- not to mention his immortal battle with Godzilla in the early ‘60s.

Therefore, I have no problem at all with Peter Jackson remaking KING KONG for a new generation -- especially not when you see the loving care that Jackson applied to the remake: references to Fay Wray, Marian C. Cooper and RKO Pictures pop up early on. Later in the movie, Max Steiner’s original ‘33 themes are performed by the pit orchestra as Kong is introduced to the city of New York (conducted by Howard Shore, whose original score to this version was tossed out at the last minute), while the goofy tribal dance from the Cooper-Schoedsack classic is reprised by dancers on-stage. The end credits even appear against a backdrop with the 1933 title card fonts -- elements all respectful of the filmmaking milestone that was the very first “King Kong.”

Naturally, Jackson’s movie has the benefit of new technology behind it: this is a film packed with visual delights, from the authentic recreation of Depression-era NYC, to the amazing animation and “performance” of Kong himself. Articulated to a degree by Andy Serkis (Jackson’s Gollum cohort) and marvelously rendered on-screen, this is a Kong that’s a far cry from the stilted Rick Baker suit in Dino DeLaurentiis’ 1976 remake and ranks with the most awe-inspiring technological achievements that special effects wizards have produced throughout the decades.

So, there’s no problem at all with Jackson’s new film, right? A remake respectful of its predecessor with sensational visuals ought to be something to be admired and savored for generations to come, no?

Sadly, not everything in Jackson’s sprawling, overlong, three-hour (!) opus matches its good intentions and aesthetic qualities. This is a movie that plays like the kind of “Director’s Cut” studios indulge filmmakers on DVD, bulging with superfluous details and side characters with no pay-off, and scene after scene that could have been sliced in half and been every bit as effective -- if not more so for their brevity.

Since the original movie’s premise needs little introduction, it’s best to dissect the alterations Jackson and his collaborators (writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) have applied to this version. Here, leading man Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) is a playwright suckered into one of director Carl Denham’s latest productions. Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is a down-on-her-luck actress seeking a way out of the Depression, and finds the opportunity of a lifetime despite the suspicious motives of Denham himself. All three, and a crew led by captain Thomas Kretschmann, find themselves on Skull Island, a prehistoric environment teeming with dinosaurs, giant insects, wild natives and one giant ape named Kong...

One of the first things you’ll realize about Jackson’s “King Kong” is that -- after a marvelous beginning in an early ‘30s Big Apple -- the film chugs along at a snail’s pace. The journey to Skull Island finds Jackson spending minute after minute on extraneous side characters and details; unlike his “Lord of the Rings” adaptations, though, the source material here doesn’t beg for a three-hour treatment, with one especially infuriating subplot involving Jamie Bell’s young seaman and his older, wiser superior (Evan Parke). Their relationship doesn’t add anything to the finished film, and could have been jettisoned without any detriment to the central drama.

Over a third of the movie is over before Kong appears, and naturally there are several “jackpot” set-pieces, including a brontosaurus stampede and a chase with raptors (and later, a pair of T-Rexes) not far behind. Regrettably, the movie then stalls out again with sequences that run on too long: the “spider pit” scene in particular is especially bloated (and atrociously spotted with inappropriate music from a mostly subdued, ultimately forgettable James Newton Howard soundtrack). Eventually, Jackson gets Ann, Jack and Denham off the island and back to New York, but even there, every scene feels several beats off-measure: the icy jaunt through Central Park with Ann and Kong is cute but ought to be over in half the time, and even the final battle on top of the Empire State Building (which Jackson wisely refrains from being overly bloody) leaves you feeling like you’ve watched each and every fly-over of the bi-planes that eventually take Kong down.

Between the bloated running time, over-reliance on side details and minor characters, what one is left with in “King Kong” is a film where the viewer ultimately has little interest in its heroes. Watts looks fetching and is effectively emotive in her encounters with the big ape, yet her scenes with Brody’s Jack are confined to the first third of the movie -- something that detracts from any real chemistry between the two. Brody himself looks as if he could have made for a perfect “everyman” kind of hero, but the script doesn’t give him nearly enough to do. Worst of all is Jack Black’s Denham: the movie clearly didn’t want to make him into the nefarious bad guy that Charles Grodin served up in the ‘76 version, and subsequently balances out some of the character’s despicable behavior with comedic elements. Yet, he’s still unhinged, and the film ultimately doesn’t come down hard enough on him: his reading of the movie’s final line rings false because it’s still Denham in this version who’s truly responsible for the tragedy of the final act.

By the time the would-be heart-tugging climax arrives, I felt more exhausted than moved by the 2005 “King Kong.” This is a reverent and beautifully-made picture that nevertheless wears you down: after all the running, shooting, shaking camera and muddled characterizations, it becomes apparent that Jackson’s movie left its heart somewhere between here and Skull Island.

(**½, 187 mins., PG-13). [/size]


Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The Sandman
2007 ACC Champions
Global Moderator
Yeah, I was gonna try and go see that tonight after my Christmas Party/basketball game, but my date fell through and I wasn't that psyched about seeing a THREE HOUR MOVIE AT 10PM!!!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cav
I ran ball with Mickie James' father. Watch red shorts!
Global Moderator
I disagree with that overly-critical review of the movie after seeing it Saturday afternoon.

I'd say the only weakness I noticed was the above reference to how Darrow and Driscoll maybe weren't given enough time to develop something more. Although, the groundwork for the whole movie and relationship between them was set from the start when she spoke of her admiration for Driscoll's work and how she wanted to act in one of his plays. It's not as if they just met out of nowhere on the ship and fell passionately in love.

To that end, I felt like their little romance was true to that old, 1920's, 30's and 40's style of whirlwind romance. It worked well enough, I thought.

As for the movie not coming down hard enough on Denham, I admit that I initially expected Kong to kill him in the final scenes in New York. However, I don't dock the movie for "not coming down hard enough on him" simply because it was obvious that he was self-destructive in his desire to make that "great film," and, most importantly, because even if he were to be portrayed fully as an evil, selfish character (I thought he came off more as passionate and overly-ambitious at best early on in the film, until things began unfolding on the ship and the island), life often doesn't see those who would seek their fortune at others' expense fully "punished." There are plenty of selfish individuals in this world.

The action scenes and the relationship that developed between Darrow and Kong were just brilliant. The film went from an adrenaline rush of Kong doing battle with dinosaurs one minute to the full gamut of heartbreaking as his connection with her was strengthened and he was ultimately done in.

Very good film, recreating the novelty of Depression-era New York City with the savagery of Skull Island and mixing it with great action and emotion.

I'd give it about 4 1/2 stars.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · The Movie Matinee · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Designed by Mini Maul, coded by Xarina of Infinite Results.
More great themes at Infinite Results.