King Kong

John Jay · December 21st, 2005, 04:16 AM

Well it made me laugh and it made me cry, so for me it has the full range of human emotion.

The last time that happened to me in a theatre was 'The Legend of 1900' which incidently also has an amazing portrait shot of a beautiful woman on a ship.

Cant fault it really , definitely one of the best movies ever.

Riley Harmon · December 21st, 2005, 08:06 AM

Kicked a$$

the shot near the end when kong is falling and the camera rotates around looking down at the city, the planes fly by, GAaAAAH BEAUTIFUL (holds hand to heart) naomi watts was absolutely great in this, SHE is beauitful

adrian brodi did awesome as well...jack black...eh..he cant not be funny

Krystian Ramlogan · December 24th, 2005, 01:42 AM

I notice most people saying they were into the visuals; very few mention story or acting.

In my opinion Naomi Watts made this movie watchable: without her all the CGI in the world could not have sold this movie. Adrian Brody was ok, and Jack Black was I guess ok; I wasn't impressed.

Yes the CGI was good with Kong, though in some places unfinished: look at the last scenes where Naomi stands up; she's pretending to hold his finger but you can clearly see there is no finger!! The Dinosaurs, yeah Jurassic Park rules!!

The movie was too long and paid attention to bit characters that added no real value to the overall story. The beginning could easily have been 20 minutes shorter, and the overall movie about 30 minutes shorter, which in my opinion would have led to a more emotional experience and more of a ride, we did all know how it was going to end after all.

The Cinematorgraphy was great; excellent, really nothing to argue about there.

Epic? Hardly. A long movie does not an Epic make. Vaudeville to tame the savage beast? [Does anyone know anything about Vaudeville on this board? It's highly ironic that a caucasian woman tames a wild beast with Vaudeville - just a personal rant here] Maybe on another planet, hardly in the jungle with a beast accustomed to eating the offerings put out by the cannibals/tribe.

My grade for this movie, a B- nothing more.

Mitchell Stookey · December 24th, 2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

Epic? Hardly. A long movie does not an Epic make.

Say whatever you want about this film, but to say it is not epic is ridiculous! Here is the definition of epic - Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size. Everything about that movie falls into that category (even the running time). Kong himself is huge, the action is unrelenting, and especially back in New York. Scenes from the top of the ESB are so gigantic in scope that I felt I was up there, looking down too. After watching that movie you almost wonder how you even begin to make a film that large. King Kong is most definitely an epic movie.

Tyler Baptist · December 24th, 2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchell Stookey

After watching that movie you almost wonder how you even begin to make a film that large.

www.kongisking.net

Watch the Post-Production diaries there. And go buy the Production Diaries, cause they are on DVD now, since they took those off the site.

Krystian Ramlogan · December 24th, 2005, 02:45 PM

"Here is the definition of epic - Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size." - Mitchell Stookey.

Well by your definition then any film is epic, since most films touch on matters that surpass the ordinary, as for scope or size, lol, well then the following are all epic:

Innerspace
Star Wars (no arguement here)
Battlestar Galactica (even the TV series)
Terminator
The Matrix Series
The LOTR Trilogy (no argument there)
6th Element
12 Monkeys
The Sound of Music (anyone wanna argue this one?)
The Godfather Series
Scarface
Jurassic Park (all of them)
Star Trek (all of them?)

I can go on, but I think I provided enough examples above :-)

So, do you disagree?

Kong is not an epic when compared to Ben Hur, the Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, or any of the more classically accepted Epics. Just because a digital landscape suggests size does not automatically make it great in scope. And like I already said, everyone seems to be so caught up in the visual element, the story seems to be getting an automatic passing grade. But, this is all just my opinion. :-)

Michael Wisniewski · December 24th, 2005, 03:57 PM

No need to argue over the definition of epic

A love story between a woman and a monstrous ape is pretty out of the ordinary, and does fit the definition of epic. A monstrous ape that can rip apart a dinosaur's jaw, and then turns around to appreciate a sunset, is definitely out of the ordinary.

But I understand where Krystian is coming from, the classic epics have massive, world changing repercussions for the characters as well as the audience, which is where scope comes in. Maybe a better description of the classic epics would be grand or sweeping epics.

King Kong is a great rollercoaster ride, but you don't really come out of it with an earth-shatteringly different view of the world as we know it.

And yes I admit to tearing up during the movie.

Robert Martens · December 24th, 2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski

But I understand where Krystian is coming from, the classic epics have massive, world changing repercussions for the characters as well as the audience, which is where scope comes in. Maybe a better description of the classic epics would be grand or sweeping epics.

Though I agree with Krystian with regard to the term "epic" (I can't speak for the quality of the film, as I haven't seen it, and have no plans to--I'm not a fan of Kong, nor primates in general...my face flushes red when I think of this film, and I have heated arguments with no one in particular when an ad for the movie shows on TV), I like what you've proposed. In my mind, the issue at hand isn't "what is technically called an epic according to the dictionary", but "what SHOULD be called an epic, according to the feel of the work".

I'm as much a Grammar Nazi as the next guy, but from where I'm sitting, something like Lord of the Rings is epic; continent-wide war, hundred thousand man armies sweeping across the landscape, affecting everyone and everything in their path, forever changing the entire world, a battle between the most basic goods and evils of the universe, all peoples doing their part. On the other hand, a story about a single ape captured by a small team of people, who then escapes and wreaks havoc in a single city, scaring the crap out of a few hundred (or few thousand, maybe?) people, then falling in love with a single woman before dying, is not my idea of "epic". Too isolated. Unique, extraordinary, but not grand in either size or concept. Kong is huge, sure, but that just means HE is epic, as far as animals are concerned. Not the film/story.

Mitchell Stookey · December 25th, 2005, 12:04 AM

I agree mostly with your list. However, you cite the Jurassic Park movies as epic. What, exactly, is the difference between King Kong and Jurassic Park? Not only is there a small number of humans on an island with dinosaurs, but they bring Kong back to destroy New York (on a much larger scale than the JP's) and that took until the SECOND Jurassic Park for that to happen. They are identical, except for the fact that King Kong combines from two of the movies. Also, more than just Kong is huge in that movie. *Possible spoilers if you haven't seen the trailer* The chase with all the brachiosauruses and raptor like things is huge. The fight between Kong and the T-rexes is huge. The amount of danger the humans face again and again is huge. The quest they go on to rescue Anne is as dangerous as Frodo and Sam destroying the ring. Everything about that movie is grand and I still believe that it is epic.

Krystian Ramlogan · December 25th, 2005, 12:56 AM

I was actually suggesting that Jurassic Park was not epic and threrefore Kong is not epic; I was simply showing that accroding to your definition many movies may be called epic, but actually don't really deserve to be.

Kong is many things: a progression in CGI, an advance in the flexibility filmmakers have, a great exposition in ability for Peter Jackson, even an indication of what a remake can be, but Epic requires far more than mere CGI wizardry and the efforts of a couple actors. Epic should, as Michael Wisniewski and Robert Martens support, really change your world view of something; you should come out of that film experience with a sense that the world has changed, or your view of the world has changed. You've experienced a paradigm shift or something close to it. Kong is a good film - with flaws - but, where is the shift in perspective?

What does the story leave you with? We all knew from the start where the filom was going; it is a remake after all. What was added? What questions does it pose that the original filmmakers did not ask? This is the latest in a long line of remakes after all. Does CGI really make that much of a difference to story? Compare Kong to Godzilla, or Kong to Mighty Joe Young.

I love Naomi Watts in this role, she was transcendant; she became the lynchpin of the movie, she carried the movie far more than any other character, including Kong, but what does the film ask of us as an audience that is groundbreaking, original, or new? In my opinion, nothing. Hence my argument that Kong while large in size does not encompass great scope.

With more time and tighter storytelling perhaps Jackson could have brought the bacon home, but not as the film stands right now. More does not equal better in this case. I do respect the opinions of those who think it is a great movie, however as I said, this is just my opinion.

:-)

Georg Liigand · December 25th, 2005, 04:46 AM

King Kong was certainly the best movie I've ever seen. I went to watch it the first day it came to the cinemas and it was simply amazing how it pulled you to the middle of the scenes. The sounds were stunning also. Didn't like the sad end though :(

Robert Martens · December 25th, 2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitchell Stookey

The chase with all the brachiosauruses and raptor like things is huge. The fight between Kong and the T-rexes is huge. The amount of danger the humans face again and again is huge. The quest they go on to rescue Anne is as dangerous as Frodo and Sam destroying the ring. Everything about that movie is grand and I still believe that it is epic.

Can you tell me, though, how MANY dinosaurs he fights? Or in how many places they face off? The creatures and settings are large, perhaps, but it's still just a handful of entities fighting each other in a relatively confined, isolated place, correct?

I just think the spirit of the word "epic" as it relates to stories implies that the story affects lots of people in lots of places--widespread and far-reaching. No matter how big the animals, sets, scenes, and/or individual shots may be, I don't believe they should solely determine a thing like this.

Maybe it's me, but as big as King Kong (the story) is, when you consider Lord of the Rings (my personal definition of "epic"), there's an enormous leap in scale, not only in the size of the environments, but also the geographic diversity of the locations traversed by the characters, the sheer number of people involved, and the fundamental impact the story has on its own world. Sauron, the rings...they changed everything permanently, and affected everyone in that world in some way, however small. Does King Kong have any impact on the rest of the world? Do most people in that imaginary universe hear anything more about him than a report in the newspaper? Do they care? Are their lives changed?

It just seems unfair, in light of that kind of gap, to use the exact same word to refer to the style of both stories.

Krystian Ramlogan · December 25th, 2005, 11:44 AM

Robert got it right in my view: it's what I was saying, size does not equal scope, and no one in NY really cares about Kong or the attachment he's made to Naomi Watts' character. Even Adrian Brody's character never saw KONG as more than a savage beast, perhaps the ultimate competition for the affections of his woman, but even that angle never got major play.

He's just a savage beast, a curiosity that becomes a terror. IF Peter Jackson had contrived to show the humanity behind KONGS actions to more than just one person within the story then it could have become a larger story and affected more people, but he kept the entire emotional interaction between just two characters. There are superficial parallels to LOTRs but really, there is no depth to Kong at the emotional or intellectual level that LOTRs attained.

KONG was a good movie and a great testament to CGI wizardry and the level of realism filmmakers can tap into for their vision, but there were too many flaws for me to even consider this a great movie. If there had been a stronger competitor at the Box Office I hazard a guess that KONG would have done far worse; as always timing is everything.

Once again, just my humble opinion. :-)

Boyd Ostroff · December 25th, 2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

Here is the definition of epic

Well to paraphrase a Supreme Court justice, I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it. :-)

Have just been watching the letterbox version of Greatest Story Ever Told on Turner Classic Movies today. Now that's epic! I've seen this many times on network broadcasts, but never presented in the restored widescreen version on a nice plasma TV. Wow, the photography and especially the lighting in this film is just beautiful. I think I'm going to need to get the DVD so I can see the full quality anamorphic version.

Of course it's w-a-y too l-o-n-g and could be criticized for a lot of other reasons in today's world. But the visuals alone make it worth watching.

Ash Greyson · December 29th, 2005, 06:41 PM

Good movie but not great... just too long IMHO. 30s NY was impressive but the language was NOT like the 30s... the vernacular and script had serious problems. If I was a movie exec I would have made him lose the insects and the dino bowling pin pile up scene... that was just... silly. One major continuity error after the 2 leads are thrown into the water trying to escape, the next cut they are bone dry.

All that is splitting hairs though... my biggest issue is that Peter Jackson LOVED the original as a young boy but the film he made is far too intense for many 9 year olds. Like I said, it is good, not great. I think people fail to realize that the reason Jurassic Park looked so good is that it was 80% real animatronics and 20% CGI....

ash =o)

December 21st, 2005, 04:16 AM	#16
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Well it made me laugh and it made me cry, so for me it has the full range of human emotion. The last time that happened to me in a theatre was 'The Legend of 1900' which incidently also has an amazing portrait shot of a beautiful woman on a ship. Cant fault it really , definitely one of the best movies ever. __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

December 24th, 2005, 01:42 AM	#18
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Kong? I notice most people saying they were into the visuals; very few mention story or acting. In my opinion Naomi Watts made this movie watchable: without her all the CGI in the world could not have sold this movie. Adrian Brody was ok, and Jack Black was I guess ok; I wasn't impressed. Yes the CGI was good with Kong, though in some places unfinished: look at the last scenes where Naomi stands up; she's pretending to hold his finger but you can clearly see there is no finger!! The Dinosaurs, yeah Jurassic Park rules!! The movie was too long and paid attention to bit characters that added no real value to the overall story. The beginning could easily have been 20 minutes shorter, and the overall movie about 30 minutes shorter, which in my opinion would have led to a more emotional experience and more of a ride, we did all know how it was going to end after all. The Cinematorgraphy was great; excellent, really nothing to argue about there. Epic? Hardly. A long movie does not an Epic make. Vaudeville to tame the savage beast? [Does anyone know anything about Vaudeville on this board? It's highly ironic that a caucasian woman tames a wild beast with Vaudeville - just a personal rant here] Maybe on another planet, hardly in the jungle with a beast accustomed to eating the offerings put out by the cannibals/tribe. My grade for this movie, a B- nothing more.

December 24th, 2005, 02:45 PM	#21
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Epic? "Here is the definition of epic - Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size." - Mitchell Stookey. Well by your definition then any film is epic, since most films touch on matters that surpass the ordinary, as for scope or size, lol, well then the following are all epic: Innerspace Star Wars (no arguement here) Battlestar Galactica (even the TV series) Terminator The Matrix Series The LOTR Trilogy (no argument there) 6th Element 12 Monkeys The Sound of Music (anyone wanna argue this one?) The Godfather Series Scarface Jurassic Park (all of them) Star Trek (all of them?) I can go on, but I think I provided enough examples above :-) So, do you disagree? Kong is not an epic when compared to Ben Hur, the Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, or any of the more classically accepted Epics. Just because a digital landscape suggests size does not automatically make it great in scope. And like I already said, everyone seems to be so caught up in the visual element, the story seems to be getting an automatic passing grade. But, this is all just my opinion. :-)

December 24th, 2005, 03:57 PM	#22
Michael Wisniewski Wrangler Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Makati, Metro Manila Posts: 2,706 Images: 32	No need to argue over the definition of epic A love story between a woman and a monstrous ape is pretty out of the ordinary, and does fit the definition of epic. A monstrous ape that can rip apart a dinosaur's jaw, and then turns around to appreciate a sunset, is definitely out of the ordinary. But I understand where Krystian is coming from, the classic epics have massive, world changing repercussions for the characters as well as the audience, which is where scope comes in. Maybe a better description of the classic epics would be grand or sweeping epics. King Kong is a great rollercoaster ride, but you don't really come out of it with an earth-shatteringly different view of the world as we know it. And yes I admit to tearing up during the movie. __________________ "Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese

December 21st, 2005, 08:06 AM	#17
Riley Harmon Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 424	Kicked a$$ the shot near the end when kong is falling and the camera rotates around looking down at the city, the planes fly by, GAaAAAH BEAUTIFUL (holds hand to heart) naomi watts was absolutely great in this, SHE is beauitful adrian brodi did awesome as well...jack black...eh..he cant not be funny

December 25th, 2005, 12:04 AM	#24
Mitchell Stookey Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 196	I agree mostly with your list. However, you cite the Jurassic Park movies as epic. What, exactly, is the difference between King Kong and Jurassic Park? Not only is there a small number of humans on an island with dinosaurs, but they bring Kong back to destroy New York (on a much larger scale than the JP's) and that took until the SECOND Jurassic Park for that to happen. They are identical, except for the fact that King Kong combines from two of the movies. Also, more than just Kong is huge in that movie. Possible spoilers if you haven't seen the trailer The chase with all the brachiosauruses and raptor like things is huge. The fight between Kong and the T-rexes is huge. The amount of danger the humans face again and again is huge. The quest they go on to rescue Anne is as dangerous as Frodo and Sam destroying the ring. Everything about that movie is grand and I still believe that it is epic.

December 25th, 2005, 12:56 AM	#25
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	I was actually suggesting that Jurassic Park was not epic and threrefore Kong is not epic; I was simply showing that accroding to your definition many movies may be called epic, but actually don't really deserve to be. Kong is many things: a progression in CGI, an advance in the flexibility filmmakers have, a great exposition in ability for Peter Jackson, even an indication of what a remake can be, but Epic requires far more than mere CGI wizardry and the efforts of a couple actors. Epic should, as Michael Wisniewski and Robert Martens support, really change your world view of something; you should come out of that film experience with a sense that the world has changed, or your view of the world has changed. You've experienced a paradigm shift or something close to it. Kong is a good film - with flaws - but, where is the shift in perspective? What does the story leave you with? We all knew from the start where the filom was going; it is a remake after all. What was added? What questions does it pose that the original filmmakers did not ask? This is the latest in a long line of remakes after all. Does CGI really make that much of a difference to story? Compare Kong to Godzilla, or Kong to Mighty Joe Young. I love Naomi Watts in this role, she was transcendant; she became the lynchpin of the movie, she carried the movie far more than any other character, including Kong, but what does the film ask of us as an audience that is groundbreaking, original, or new? In my opinion, nothing. Hence my argument that Kong while large in size does not encompass great scope. With more time and tighter storytelling perhaps Jackson could have brought the bacon home, but not as the film stands right now. More does not equal better in this case. I do respect the opinions of those who think it is a great movie, however as I said, this is just my opinion. :-)

December 25th, 2005, 04:46 AM	#26
Georg Liigand Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Estonia Posts: 214	King Kong was certainly the best movie I've ever seen. I went to watch it the first day it came to the cinemas and it was simply amazing how it pulled you to the middle of the scenes. The sounds were stunning also. Didn't like the sad end though :(

December 25th, 2005, 11:44 AM	#28
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Robert got it right in my view: it's what I was saying, size does not equal scope, and no one in NY really cares about Kong or the attachment he's made to Naomi Watts' character. Even Adrian Brody's character never saw KONG as more than a savage beast, perhaps the ultimate competition for the affections of his woman, but even that angle never got major play. He's just a savage beast, a curiosity that becomes a terror. IF Peter Jackson had contrived to show the humanity behind KONGS actions to more than just one person within the story then it could have become a larger story and affected more people, but he kept the entire emotional interaction between just two characters. There are superficial parallels to LOTRs but really, there is no depth to Kong at the emotional or intellectual level that LOTRs attained. KONG was a good movie and a great testament to CGI wizardry and the level of realism filmmakers can tap into for their vision, but there were too many flaws for me to even consider this a great movie. If there had been a stronger competitor at the Box Office I hazard a guess that KONG would have done far worse; as always timing is everything. Once again, just my humble opinion. :-)

December 29th, 2005, 06:41 PM	#30
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Good movie but not great... just too long IMHO. 30s NY was impressive but the language was NOT like the 30s... the vernacular and script had serious problems. If I was a movie exec I would have made him lose the insects and the dino bowling pin pile up scene... that was just... silly. One major continuity error after the 2 leads are thrown into the water trying to escape, the next cut they are bone dry. All that is splitting hairs though... my biggest issue is that Peter Jackson LOVED the original as a young boy but the film he made is far too intense for many 9 year olds. Like I said, it is good, not great. I think people fail to realize that the reason Jurassic Park looked so good is that it was 80% real animatronics and 20% CGI.... ash =o)