King Kong

[ASSE]Hinchy · 23 Dec 2005 at 03:01

I loved it really! I love Naomi Watts though so I was bound to.

But yeah, the three hours really flew by for me. Any film that can do that has to have been a success

SiD the Turtle · 23 Dec 2005 at 09:01

The Bear said:
Snip

Yeah there are pros and cons to all the character building, but while each Lord of the Rings was equally as long, it seemed to have better pacing and I felt more for the characters. And yeah, Andy Serkis did some great work in Kong, its just I didn't feel his attachment to Ann Darrow.

ElvisFan · 23 Dec 2005 at 13:14

The Bear said:
dude.... what? i expect that kinda answer in primary school.

People who start a post with "Dude...." should not make digs about primary school.

The Bear · 23 Dec 2005 at 13:27

alright mr smarty pants!

edit: also my dad could beat up your dad

lol

daz · 23 Dec 2005 at 13:29

ElvisFan · 23 Dec 2005 at 17:58

The Bear said:
also my dad could beat up your dad lol

V. Good

ross-o · 23 Dec 2005 at 18:40

ElvisFan said:
What?? The entire point of the films is to make adults say, "Well that was complete rubbish."??

well i am an adult and that is the complete opposite of what I was thinking, and as it would seem the general concencus of the peeps subscribed to this thread.

:confused:

Mr Bulbous · 23 Dec 2005 at 22:40

Well, I'm an adult and took my 13 year old Nephew to see King Kong today, we both really enjoyed it, as did the rest of the cinema that was packed out.

LOL at the people taking this film too seriously

and being over critical.

I actually enjoyed this film a lot more than I expected to, the CG on Kong is just the most amazing I've ever seen, the facial expressions are just stunning.

I enjoyed the iconic Kong on top of the Empire States building end scene the best, they really paid homage to the original film here IMHO.

9.5 out of 10 from me and 10 out of 10 from my Nephew, cant wait for the DVD to come out now.

Yas786 · 24 Dec 2005 at 01:50

Saw this on tues myself and a friend and thought it was ok but for 3 hrs it was a bit bum achingly boring tbh. Other than that great CG stuff on Kong and the T Rex's...deffo loved that part.

Id give it an 7/10 though, was a good movie to watch but something i wouldnt go and see again though tbh.

ross-o · 24 Dec 2005 at 19:45

Mr Bulbous said:
Well, I'm an adult and took my 13 year old Nephew to see King Kong today, we both really enjoyed it, as did the rest of the cinema that was packed out.

LOL at the people taking this film too seriously and being over critical.

bang on

Garp · 24 Dec 2005 at 19:57

Saw this last night.

Way too long. Could do with being cut down by an hour, and I can think of a few ways it could have been achieved without compromising the story at all.
Was good though, well worth having watched.. but I don't think I'd want to watch it again in a hurry.

Chunky · 31 Dec 2005 at 03:23

mm I wasn't really that impressed with King Kong. I'd give it 3/10, though if they had cut out most of the opening hour, which was pointless, I'd give it a 6/10.
The main Kong fight scene was pretty weak and unbelievable, and every other scene about 20 new crew members appeared out of nowhere just so they could die.
Good film if you like pointless action but not if your looking for a clever plot.

Jonesiani · 31 Dec 2005 at 16:41

I would also give it 6/10. I thought the dinosaurs looked very unrealistic, and the fight scene with the t-rex was just plain silly. The jungle area of the film went on for too long imo. I did enjoy the rampaging through the city. And how many more cgi bugs do you need...really.

Nitefly · 31 Dec 2005 at 17:15

I havn't read anyone elses reveiws, so this is all my own thoughts.

I thought it was a film that could have been so much better if they cut out a lot of it. It started off very well, giving you a good intro, but went downhill with too much irrelivance on skull island. I thought the end was also far too long, and somewhat boring. However, I did genuinely feel for kong being tied up in the chains and when he died, so something must have been done right despite I almost screamed 'JUST DIE ALREADY' at the screen. I did get the impression that man was the real monster after all.

One thing that struck me about the movie that there was absolutely no way this wouldn't have been panned by the critics if it wasn't a remake, but an original.

Bluebells · 31 Dec 2005 at 17:50

Thought the movie was excellent, Naomi Watts was perfect for the role.

One question, how did they get Kong from the Island back to New York? :confused:

theleg · 31 Dec 2005 at 18:51

Bluebells said:
Thought the movie was excellent, Naomi Watts was perfect for the role.

One question, how did they get Kong from the Island back to New York?

On the ship...Hes only about 25-30 feet tall

Spud21 · 31 Dec 2005 at 19:04

Chunky said:
mm I wasn't really that impressed with King Kong. I'd give it 3/10, though if they had cut out most of the opening hourly, which was pointless, I'd give it a 6/10.
The main Kong fight scene was pretty weak and unbelievable, and every other scene about 20 new crew members appeared out of nowhere just so they could die.
Good film if you like pointless action but not if your looking for a clever plot.

How in the name of god can you make a fight between a dinosaur and a 50 odd foot ape believable ? Mabye i'm not clynically insane like some but i don't think i'd ever believe that that sort of fight could ever plausably happen.

What sort of person goes to watch KING KONG looking for a clever plot ? There simply is no plot, monkey on a rampage is the plot of the entire film. I couldunderstand these type of comments if the original had a wonderfully twisting and elaborate plot and Jackson had ripped it apart, but the 30's kong had no plot, so why was anyone expecting anything else of the remake ?

SiD the Turtle · 1 Jan 2006 at 11:05

I don't think people are trying to say that it doesn't look 'physically' correct (an arguement earlier in this thread, but that the fight was way OTT. Its hard to explain, but there were so many leaps it was hard to believe.

And I believe the movie was one that did try to have a clever plot (but failed). I think if you believe that the movie is 'monkey on a rampage', then you could have got Uwe Boll to direct the film and make it a B movie. It was so hyped up, and then ended up a second rate action movie.

Mr Bulbous · 1 Jan 2006 at 12:07

Spud21 said:
How in the name of god can you make a fight between a dinosaur and a 50 odd foot ape believable ?

Who cares? we all know its not real, its just ... *gasp* ... Entertainment. For me, it was a great Christmas outing and popcorn rollercoaster ride of a movie, whats so wrong with that?

Mabye i'm not clynically insane like some but i don't think i'd ever believe that that sort of fight could ever plausably happen.

And you assume we do? I still say, you are missing the point of a movie like this, its not to try be the next Barry Norman, or look cool condeming a new film, it was about fun ... anyone remember fun?

What sort of person goes to watch KING KONG looking for a clever plot ?

Not me, did you think it might have one? I went to have fun, was that wrong?

There simply is no plot, monkey on a rampage is the plot of the entire film. I couldunderstand these type of comments if the original had a wonderfully twisting and elaborate plot and Jackson had ripped it apart, but the 30's kong had no plot, so why was anyone expecting anything else of the remake ?

You are too harsh on the original 30's King Kong ... I watched it the other night after seeing Jackson's remake and was in awe of what that old movie must have looked like to our Grandparents or Parents?

I expected a fun time watching Peter Jackson's 2005 King Kong, and that's exactly what I got.

To put things in perspective, many people here seem to adore the Star War movies (and I'm not against them) But, your argument "How in the name of god can you make a fight between a dinosaur and a 50 odd foot ape believable ?" could be used against those movies too.

At the end of the day, Films/Movies are just about enjoying yourself, please don't assume because someone enjoyed King Kong 2005 ... they are less able to aprreciate something more complicated as well.

Joe T · 1 Jan 2006 at 12:09

Im off to see this tomoz.