King Kong movie discussion (SPOILERS!)

ProjectX2

Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
25,007
So, I just saw this. I put a review up at Necro Technology, so go read it.

Overall, I liked it. More spoilers tomorrow when I can remember what happened in the movie.
 

ProjectX2

Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
25,007
Pandrio said:
I want to see this too, but isn't it like over three hours?

Yeah, I think it was three hours exactly. At least, in my cinema it was.

But yeah, Jack Black has some weird moments which made some people laugh, yet it was more of a serious role rather than a humourous one. His main motivation was to "shoot his picture," rather than help anyone else.

An interesting fact: The chef is played by Andy Serkis, who you may know as Gollum/Smeagol from The Lord of the Rings and he also mapped out the movement for King Kong. When he is being attacked by the cockroaches, he screams and it sounds exactly like Gollum.
 

Goodwill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
12,818
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Andy Serkis is actually a really good actor. He puts in a lot of energy into his performances... That's whether or not he's behind a computer generated character. I respect him.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
293
Haven't seen it. Can only quote Dino De Laurentis, who abused a young Jessica Lange into one of the worst movies of all time.

His promotional quote?

Big monkey die, everybody cry.
 

leather_w0lf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
422
Location
Syracuse, NY
OK, so I went into this movie prejudging and bit biased. Both the 1933 King Kong and 1976 remake (as bad as it is!), are personal and intimate favorite movies of mine. The films have been great inspirations in my personal and creative lives (I have facial hair simply because Jeff Bridges did in the 76 version!). Most times one would be leary of yet another remake of such a classic film (especially since the 76 version is quite simply stupid!) Time and time agin in my adult life I have seen horrible or not-quite right remakes (Planet of the Apes is a good example - Tim Burton's version improved on production but lost the heart of the original Apes and left me wanting more.).

Jackson's re-imagined (a term I will use for this as it is less a remake and more a re-inventing) Kong is a monumental film. It breaks the mold of the hacked out remake and thrills you with it's beauty. The secret is the characters and the superb script. In a day where the television is ruled by shows like LOST and House (which have excellent writing), a theatrical film better pack a punch. Kong smacks you with a round house and sucks you into it's Depression-era world.

The special effects enhance the film instead of taking over. As Jackson did in his Lord of the Rings trilogy, he utilizes the effects for their true purpose - to amaze and astound. They never take over the film and you never forget about the human actors. The crowning acheivment is Kong himself - no longer a stop motion puppet but a real actor in Andy Serkis (who also plays ship's cook Lumpy and also was Gollum in LOTR). Serkis studied gorillas in their natural environment to get Kong's movements, facial expressions and vocalizations. These were all transfered to the character in the same manner as Gollum - through computer animation. The result is a real life breathing and heart beating animal - a 25 foot tall ancient gorilla - the last of his race and master of his lost world. And is he ever lonely.

Essentially, the story is a deep metaphor for love and how it effects men and women on different levels. In Kong it shows how truly dangerous the world is - he must fight for his life every day against a plethora of carnivorous enemies. He is the Beast but he is also the embodiment of everything male. Jackson's Skull Island is a wonderful yet terrifying place full of primative savages, dinosaurs and giant insects. Into this deadly world is thrown the Beauty - Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts and the symbol of the every-woman) and Kong is never the same again. The same can be said of any man when he falls in love. Kong's feelings for Ann are clearly not romantic - procreation isn't an option here - but he longs for companionship and attention that doesn't want him dead. He finds it in Ann but it forever alters his life and sends him on his path to destruction. Kong isn't a monster - he's every guy that longs for something more in life and finds it in a special girl.

Thank you, Peter Jackson, for re-imagining your (and mine!) favorite boyhood film.
 

Entropy

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
1,080
Location
North of the equator
I completely and utterly agree with leather's comments about this film. It was phenomenal, truly epic. Jackson remembers what movies once were, what they meant and what they sought to do, and he very clearly reminds us of those facts with this film. Outstanding.
 

Friday

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
8,903
Location
Washington, PA
I was disapointed. It was King Kong, and it was pretty, but honestly, it wasn't anything I hadn't seen. It was just... More. More Kong, More Island, More depression, more fights... I really wanted to like it more. I wanted so say Peter Jackson did something good that wasn't Lord of The Rings or The Frightners (God are his other movies bad...). I wanted to say I was blown away, on the edge of my seat, but by the end I just wanted the damn monkey to fall off te building. I think it just went too long.

I did want to pop in my old VHS copy of Godzilla Vrs King King though.
 

Goodwill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
12,818
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Lord of the Rings didn't do anything new. He just adapted popular books. I didn't find them remotely entertaing not because I thought they were bad movies, but because the subject matter was not my thing. Perhaps this was what was wrong with King Kong for you. With Jurassic Park, Godzilla, and the like coming out showing catastrophies on a larger scale, what's another one? That's what King Kong seems to me, but I'm still really interested in seeing it.
 

leather_w0lf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
422
Location
Syracuse, NY
Well, you've read my previous statement. And I've seen the movie twice so far (On Wednesday and on Saturday).

Baxter - What MORE (or else as the case is?) did you want out of it?

I realize not everyone will share the same opinion. But man, I can't shake that scene with Kong and Ann in the Park out my head. It makes me remember why I love my wife so much. Life sucks, everyone in the world wants to kill you or stare at you, your job sucks, the media tells us what to watch. All we do is live for the minute moments where we can slide on the ice or look at the sunset (BEAUTIFUL!) before society finally kills us.

That's what King Kong is about.

It's not about a giant gorilla, it's not about a hot blond and a quiet hunk or an obnoxious producer and a tough sea captain.

It's about life and love and living and dying.

It only uses the above mentioned characters to tell the story.

Why else do you think Jimmy was reading Heart of Darkness?
 

leather_w0lf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
422
Location
Syracuse, NY
Oh my gawd, I've turned into a King Kong fundamentalist preacher!

Do I have an Amen, brothers and sisters?!?!?

lol.

Someone shoot me, please.

:D
 

ourchair

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
13,105
Location
Philippines
Goodwill said:
Yeah, I really want to see this... Jack Black in a serious role? Different to say the least.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but when you watch it you realize how perfect he is for the role. With his wild-eyed expressions and intensely resolute sense of mania, he makes the best choice for a filmmaker whose ambitions easily outstrip the justifications he creates for them.
 

E.Vi.L.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
1,276
Location
Montréal
Saw it.

I thought it was really good.

I was marked by Driscoll's comment about Carl Denham's "Unfailing ability to destroy everything he loves" when he gazes upon the gaudy and commercial display of Kong. I felt it was a dig at Hollywood and perhaps corporate america in general.

I also felt the movie had a almost mythic proportion and in consequence the illogical elements tended to support the movie instead of detract from it. For example, under normal circumstances I would raise an eyebrow at Carl being able to convince a Captain to look for his damned island without a penny in his pocket. The logistical aspect of it is just nonsense. No captain would be willing to even make the necessary preparation without a serious advance. What moron would finance from his own pocket an expedition on the promise of payment by a wild eyed film director looking for a mysterious island, huh? But somehow, questioning this aspect of the movie felt like questioning how the Greek could possibly have laid siege to Troy for ten years in enemy territory and a month away from their supply base in The Illiad. You know what I mean? That all these characters found themselves sailing toward destiny against all likelyhood enhanced the movie for me instead of detracting from it. It's as if the 1930s worked just as well as a mythical past for me. Anyway. It was good.
 

elfreo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
99
ok so i saw the movie twice, once with my dad, and once with my friends. and it was FREGGIN AWESOME!!!!! i really have to hand it to jackson for this one. i remiember seeing the 76 version when i was five and loving it. until that is reciently seeing it and realizing i wanted to slap myself for ever giving it the time of day. i mean was it me or was the actress playing ann high the entire time? and to make it more stupid, kong stook up straight the entire time! but enough on that. lets get to this version.
so first off, i liked how this version had a relationship established between ann and kong. in the 76 version, kong is like the drunk, jelous. angry boyfriend. however in this one, he deeply cares for ann. i guess the issue is love not lust. in this version, when kong fights the t.rexes(which was the coolest thing ive ever seen!) if you pay attention, you'll see that he's tryin to keep his poker face the entire time. you see, he's the KING, which means that he cant show weakness of emotion. which is shown when he glances at ann only for a breif time in order to make sure she's ok. what this movie shows me is that the title of king wasn't just given to him, it was earned by killin his way to the top. and there he stayed until beauty stained his heart.
there's symbolism everywhere, all you have to do is pay attention. which when watching the movie for a second time with my friends, showes me that their as about as deep as a puddle. my dad told me to ask them what they brought back from the movie, and they said "not to get involved with white *****es." truly deep. but to me theres so much emotion throughout the movie. so many little things that people dont pick up. for instance on the empire state, when kong and ann are looking at the sunset, kong does the "beautiful" thing, and my friends said that that was stupid because ann was talking to him and he could'nt understand. but what made it sad was that she was the ONLY one who understood. everyone else thought of kong as a beast on a rampage. but no one knew that the only reason he did what he did, was because he thought she was in danger, and because he wanted to protect her. even if it ment dying.
so on that i'll stop my rant. sorry it's so long, but believe me i could have written more. i guess the reason i explained it at all is because it's such a good movie and because i think in order to fully appreciate it, you have to absorb all of it.
 

leather_w0lf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
422
Location
Syracuse, NY
elfreo - Dude! I commend you for your perception.

I too loved the 76 Kong.

But I was 10. lol. And I've learned to hate it as an adult, as well.
 

Latest posts

Top