Since the last thread became a discussion about gorilla sex and Primate penis size this thread is just for member reviews... So movie goers can scroll through reviews without getting annoyed at penis references.

**** FOUR STARS, ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10, THIS ONE IS AN 11.

I saw the midnight show last night and I have to say I was blown away. I was speechless for a good hour afterwards. I couldn't sleep b/c I kept playing it over and over in my head. This film is just short of perfect... I have 6 minor problems(see below) with it but other then that, PERFECT.

First of all the first hour is definately needed and the movie wouldn't be as good without the character developement. They are on the boat within the first 25 minutes and all the boat stuff is good. Depression Era NYC looked like the old photos of that time, the city was alive and just amazingly done to the finest detail.

When they reach the fog make sure you eat your last bite and slurp your last sip b/c from here on out it is non-stop action and crazy FANTASTICAL situations. The first sight of the island is amazing and the trouble caused before they even come ashore is High tension stuff. The jagged rocks that pertrude from the ocean are dangerous... Take a close look, every rock has scary images carved into them. These are fair warning but the beaches decorated with impaled dead bodies and skulls would make the manly-est man turn back... But not Carl Dehnam, boy does his boyish smirk go away when they are finally greeted by the locals. These are not the natives that you remember and they are truely scary. Can you say voodoo zombies, yikes!

Kong's first appearance isn't as in your face as the original but there is definately some homage paid to the original when he appears. Kong is a mystical god to these people and it is handled that way. The place where Kong takes all of his brides is just an amazing scene and shows the ferosity of this beast... For the next hour we are treated tosome the greatest images ever put on film. At times it does go over the top but seeing as you are watching a fantasy film, it was all good. Dinos are 40 times better then anything done yet and Kong's animation is flawless. He shows so much emotion that you are hooked on him. The love story is believeable between Kong and Ann. You get to really know both of them during this time and it is well worth the wait. The V-Rex scene is absolutely GENIUS, purely Jackson and technology at their best. And when that fight is over you realize you just watched the most amazing piece of animation in a long time... I can imagine how those who saw the cutting edge of technology felt back in 1933. Jackson successfully gives that same awe in this scene. This film will inspire new film makers as the original did. The Spider pit scene, as crazy as it gets, is amazing and will make your skin crawl.

The last hour in NYC is AMAZING and very fast. You know what gonna happen but it seemed very fresh. Because of the time spent on all the characters you are so emotionally attached to everyone. You can't help but tear up b/c you realize the human being is just sinful when it comes to the natural world... What we don't understand we destroy. In this last hour there are the MOST homages paid to the 33 version. You are gonna just smile at the broadway show that Kong is a part of. Kong's destiny is heartwrenching and so well done that it will make grown men cry.

Watts is amazing and worthy of a statue, Black is everything you wanted in Denham plus some(Jackson managed to harness his talents) Brody is lost in the shuffle but very good, all the secondary characters are perfect and well developed. Hayes is great and Englehorn is like an unknown Liam Neison, solid performances across the board. Serkis as Lumpy was hilarious he shows his acting range outside of his Mo-Cap suit. Kong himself is truely the 8th Wonder and an amazing milestone in technology. He was more believable then most real actors in Hollywood and makes Gollem look like an old claymation creature.

I have to say that I most enjoyed all of the little nods, winks and straight out recreations of some of the most important and memorable scenes from the 33 version. If you know the original backwords and forwards like I do you will see them and love them. All in all it is an amzing time and is one of my favorite films of all time. I was ready to be critical but I just enjoyed it emensely.

My problems with it were understandable and most will feel the same way. See below v

**** MINOR SPOILER ALERT ****









#1. The Brontosaurus scene was way to much but just amazing to see and very well done but just way over the top.
#2. Jimmy shooting cat sized crickets off of Jack with a tommygun.
#3. Central Park lake scene was a bit cheesy
#4. The military shooting guns and rocket propelled bombs into buildings
#5. Kong hardly is bleeding after being shoot alot.
#6. The final lines in the movie sounded very cheese, could have handled them better.

It was very good. It has flaws, but it overcomes them and then some. Jack Black and Naomi Watts are superb. The supporting cast is also outstanding. The only weak link is Adrian Brody, but more so because of his character than anything else.
There are several scenes that gave me goosebumps, as well as the thrill of seeing the old scenes brought back to life on a grander scale. The climax of the V-rex fight had the audience gasping and cheering at 2:00 am!
I was going to the movie knowing full well that the outcome would be much more emotional due to the incredible effects work that was done for Kong. The damn thing looks real, is totally viscious and yet is transformed and redeemed by love in the end. I steeled myself to not get teary eyed because for me, Kong represents a period of my childhood where I believed in big apes and dinosaurs. It took everything I had but I did not cry. It's not that I'm proud of that, it's just quite a feat considering what an incredible film Peter Jackson has given us.

So, Xacto......did you like it? :jest:

3 1/2 stars. Too much to take in on the first viewing. Need to see again.

I just saw it again last night...

My father wanted to go see it with me and even though I saw the Midnight show earlier that day, I couldn't wait to see it again.

My dad got me hooked on Kong and Joe Young when I was a kid... I am 30 years old so of course I saw this movie for the first time in the 70's but to me it was awesome. I loved it and even loved the 76 version.

I feel I am returning the favor to my dad by turning him on to this version. He absolutely loved it. It was weird watching and listening to a 62 year old man turn into a 12 year old boy during a film. That's what it's all about. I am greatful I was able to do that with my father.

I have to say the ending hit me harder this time... I guess the second time around you stop going WOW I can't believe what I'm watching and start taking in ALL of the emotion that is laid on you.

Watts is just awesome and makes you feel every emotion she is feeling. The final image and moment between Ann and Kong just before he falls is just heartwrenching and beautiful at the same time. And his fall is so real that I am getting chocked up thinking about it.

As I watched it and noticed ALL of the outright remakes of shots from the original, Jackson's take on those scenes make you appreciate the original more. All the emotion you feel watching Jackson's Kong you can NOW feel while watching O'Brien's. Because the 33 version was a monster movie it was lacking the sadness, until the end. With 05 version you feel sorry for Kong way early in the film which is what was missing in the original.

Black's delivery of the last line was, I'll say, different then what you expected... That's why it didn't sound right but I believe it was right. Armstrong's delivery was consistant with his character, very nonchalont and exact. Black's delivery was more disbelief and disappointment in himself for all that was lost by his actions. As an actor myself I would say Black choice was more appropriate. Armstrongs was very appropriate for the 33 version as well. Black's character seem 10 times more fractured the Armstrong's... so I was cool with the last line.

I will be seeing this again and again and again... This is my Titanic.

Travis

I remember when Spiderman 1 came out, liked it so much, I saw it 7 times. I have yet to see this one. From the review, it sounds awesome. Great Review Xacto.

Saw it tonight on Naple's biggest screen. I'm pretty much in agreement with Xacto, it's a darn good movie. It's a shame it just misses being as much a classic as the original.

First of all the good: the CGI is just amazing, how anybody sane can look at shots like the Venture leaving New York, Kong watching his islands sunset, or just shaking snow from his fur, and not see the beauty of them just astounds me. Kong is by far the most convincing CGI creature onscreen to date (imho), only a tendency to look a little Yoda-ish when he gets mad keeps him from being perfect. I suspect many of the films naysayers have not seen the movie before passing judgement on it, this is an amazing looking and beautiful movie.

The acting is excellent, Watt's is superb. Adrien Brody's character is ill-concieved, but Brody rises above it. I in general liked Black, but did find his take on the last line lacking. But Kong is the real star of this show, and he definately delivers.

As far as the bad, I think the films principal fault is the length. Jackson could have completely lost the brontos, and the Mr Hayes and Jimmy show as far as I'm concerned. And a few of the Kong-Watts connecting together scenes drag a bit too, like Jackson was scared we wouldn't get they were attracted to each other. And instead of adding the actor/dolt Baxter to the mix, maybe his character should have been combined with Driscolls, seriously, if Adrian Brody disapeared from the movie after they capture Kong, I don't think anybody would have noticed.

Still, it's an amazing movie, and a major accomplishment. And definately don't wait for the DVD, see it on the big screen!

It's a beautiful movie. Kong himself is a wonder. I was extremely moved by the ending. No complaints at all.

Kidletts (10, 12) sat through all 3 hours mesmerized. they gave it 10/10. Me I didn't see perfection, but I was entertained.

Saw it again tonight. The key to not getting emotionally wrecked at the end of the film is to not look in Kong's eyes. A very beautiful film to be sure.

Liked the movie alot, but I'll probably have to watch it again on DVD, as I actually had a kid sitting behind me kicking the back on my seat and jabbering through most of the movie. :freak:

Saw it again tonight. The key to not getting emotionally wrecked at the end of the film is to not look in Kong's eyes. A very beautiful film to be sure.

I screwed up. I looked in his eyes. I blubbered like a baby.

Z, If you can believe it, it's worse the second time around!

I saw King Kong this afternoon. Suffice to say I enjoyed it immensely although not without quibbles. Now lets see if I can do this without any serious spoilers.

Firstly I'm not inclined to call this a remake. For me a remake implies a certain degree of reimagining. Rather I see this as an adaptation of the original film, and a generally faithful and loving adaptation at that. There are one or two things I wish Jackson had done differently, but overall I have few quibbles. What Jackson has done is essentially take the elements of the original work and flesh them out. He extrapolates on what was going on between the pivotal events of the first film and thus puts the major events in a greater context. Yes, he does deviate from the original insomuch that the film making resources of today allow him to do what was prohibitive seventy years ago, but his deviations are still well in synch with the original KK and he never loses sight of his story and what he is trying to convey.

There are times when I question whether some elements Jackson included were really necessary, but perhaps I've been partly conditioned by contemporary storytelling practices that attempt to gloss over story context. Jackson included things to lay the groundwork for what follows later, and the payoff is indeed worth it in terms of your emotional experience.

This is without question a spectacle in that you can easily see where the money was spent up on the screen. And the cost of this very capable cast could well have come in for the same if not less than what just one big name actor would have commanded. The result is a world you can easily believe in and a Kong that is fantastically credible and lifelike.

In my estimation Naomi Watts has made the character of Anne Darrow her own. She takes the character where Faye Wray never really went. And she is a wonderful complement to the hero of the film. Make no mistake that Kong is indeed the hero of the film. He is still a very big and very scary monster, but like the original and like the character of Boris Karloff's Frankenstein he is a monster with a soul, and a good one at that. We know Kong's fate is sealed and predetermined yet we cannot help but cheer him on anyway.

I must also applaud Jackson for making a film that is very gritty and yet not gratuitously graphic. He uses visuals to engage your own imagination and let that do the work for him. Suffice to say there are parts of this film that just creeped me right out. And the climax induced in me a very real sense of vertigo that made my palms sweat and my stomach flutter.

I will also say that this is generally a very well paced film. It sure as hell didn't feel like a three hour movie.

I may well go see this again as it deserves to be experienced on the big screen. And this is definately on my "must" list of dvd purchases when it's released.

Jackson's KK is different from the original in terms of scope and perspective, but it takes nothing away from the original. It also shines well on its own and deserves its accolades.

My one main little quibble comes at the end. We all know Kong takes a header off the Empire State Building. I would have liked a quick two or three second shot that evoked the long shot of Kong's fall as seen in the original film in additon to how Jackson shot the sequence. And who knows, perhaps such a shot may well be included in the dvd edition.

The only thing I DID NOT LIKE about this newest Kong is there seems to be this pattern in devloping (Begining with that Godawful 1976 version) in which the Ann Darrow character becomes more and more fond of this big beast. it was really worse in the 76' version with Jessica Lange. I mean who could forget "Put Me Down You Male Chuvanist Pig-Ape!" In this Newest I really could have done without the "Ann Doing Cart Wheels to Amuse Kong" Scene. And since you're probly gonna Ream me out about this anyway as the Mrs. Pointed out don't you think with all the "Harlem Globetrotter" Like moves Kong put poor Miss Darrow through,that She woulda had ALOT of broken Bones?! I mean come on OTHER than those two minor quibbles,I think Peter Jackson did an outstanding job

JOHN/LONFAN

You can actually see Ann develop a bond with Kong when he fights the last V-rex. It's a very cool scene and well done by Naomi Watts. The Ape kept her from being eaten by a lizard, I'd say, Friends for life!

Yeah - I'm hearing a lot of objections to the "bonding" between Ann and Kong, but that, clearly, is what this movie is all about - "King Kong" is Jackson's "Titanic" with a "love story" between Kong and Ann as it's thematic centerpiece. Ann started "bonding" with Kong only once she realized that he wanted to protect her from all the other threats on the island. At first, it was purely about survival for Ann. As time passed, it grew into something else. I felt her "motivation" was cleverly thought out and executed in this respect.

Well, today is my day off so, I went to see the 9:00am showing. From having seen all of the clips, trailers, stills, spoilers, reviews, etc... I was prepared to absolutely LOVE this movie.

I was actually a bit let down. I was very disappointed with Jackson's handling of most of the material - until they get on the other side of the wall. Then, it started getting better for me. I still had objections - or, maybe just a difference of opinion on how certain aspects should have been handled - but, it is still a very good film.

It wasn't until the final scenes - when they return to New York - that I was finally beginning to feel as if Jackson had any respect for the original film. The Times Square presentation at the Alhambra was a total joy! All of the New York stuff was really well done ( but the 'skating' in Central Park scene was bit too corny ).

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the movie as a whole. I especially loved the 'return to New York' scenes. But, it didn't impress me or blow me away like I expected it to.

- GJS

Just saw it too. Excellent. Nit picks: "Middle Section" on island too long. "End section" back in NY too short. "Driscol" actor poor choice. "Skating", as described perfectly above, a bit corny. All in all though, a top flick.

Why did Denhem say he's "sorry" when Driscol went off to get Ann back? That he wasn't going with him?

Damn Zor Same wavelength Again! The Wife even compared the Finale when Kong does his Dive as looking Very much like Jack Dawsons (in Titanic's) Last Scenes Where he's become an Icecube and "Rose" kind lets him Slip Peacefully Away. and being a Period piece I guess that's why the Whole Film had this certin Epic Look to it Like Titanic. Again I loved it BUT I just don't care for the "Bonding" we've mentioned. And ESPECIALLY that afore Mentioned "Sliding around on the Ice " Scene Uggh! But I loved that Multi-Toothed uh...Plant/Insect? Thing That was Brillant as was that whole "Pit Scene" and I really was sad for Carl when his film was Destroyed. btw the wife said she got some Gay vibe from the Relationship between Colin Hanks Character and Jack Black's Carl Denham Did anybody else get that? She said Not so much from Denham but it felt (to Her) as though Hank's was "Almost In Love With Denham" I dunno I didn't notice.

John/Lonfan

btw the wife said she got some Gay vibe from the Relationship between Colin Hanks Character and Jack Black's Carl Denham Did anybody else get that? She said Not so much from Denham but it felt (to Her) as though Hank's was "Almost In Love With Denham" I dunno I didn't notice.

John/Lonfan

I didn't get that, but after a while on the island, I half-expected Mr Hayes to ask Jimmy if he liked gladiator movies...........

The problem with Ann and Kong "bonding" is that Peter Jackson wants to have it both ways... he wants the audience to want Ann and Kong to be pals, but he also wants us to want Driscoll to rescue Ann. Kong of course wins our affections in the end (well before the end, actually), and as a result the Driscoll character is rendered impotent, metaphorically speaking.

As for the homoerotic subtext; hey, whaddaya want, they're a bunch of sailor boys on an long long voyage...

What was the deal with Lumpy and the Chinese dude? He was powerful sad!

Why did Denhem say he's "sorry" when Driscol went off to get Ann back? That he wasn't going with him?

Denhem's developement was well done. Some think that the choice to make him a dick was blasphamy but Armstrong's Denhem was kinda dicky just a 1933 dicky. Black's Denhem was way more driven and fractured and EVERYTHING he did for himself had a negative effect on others. He started to realize how responsible he was for everything. But he had a short term memory as well. Throughout the movie Dehnam gets hints of his responsibility for many bad things but he doesn't realize the gravety of his full selfishness until he sees Kong dead i the street. That's why his line sounds so much different the Armstrong's at the end. Armstrong's was very matter of fact, Black's was a realization that he brought all of this on by being Carl Denhem.

As for him saying sorry to Jack, I take it as it was Carl's fault that he pushed to get to the island, he caused Jack to be on the voyage, he discovered Ann and put her in danger and the wild goose chase was a result of all of that... OR you can say Carl knew that Jack would reach Ann but would he survive? He might have said sorry b/c he thought Jack would not live through this ordeal.

I think people that have a problem with the "bond" already have a bad taste from Kong 76, The fact is in the original there was many sexual undertones and it was more about rape then love. Beauty and the Beast is about finding love no matter what you look like. 2005 Ann doesn't fall in "love" with Kong as Dwan did in 76. Watts' love is strictly respectful and like the way we love a beautiful tragic misunderstood animal. She falls in love with what he is and what he represents. She was scared of him until she amused him, then didn't love him until he layed his life on the line for her. It was well done. At no point was there any sexual implications like in 76.

Yes the ice was a bit much, PJ should have had Kong walk on the ice and realize it was slippery, cradled her in mid spin and that's it. One spin and maybe a scoot then done. But still didn't take away.

Travis

Gay vibe from the Relationship between Colin Hanks Character and Jack Black's Carl Denham Did anybody else get that? She said Not so much from Denham but it felt (to Her) as though Hank's was "Almost In Love With Denham" I dunno I didn't notice.

I only felt that way when they exchanged a distant look in the lobby of the Theatre. I'm like wow that was gay... But then I quickly realized Hanks had a discontent for everything that happened leading up to that moment. Seeing Denham hamming it up with everyone discusted him. It was like "don't forget all that was lost so yu could be doing this.

Travis

What was the deal with Lumpy and the Chinese dude? He was powerful sad!

Not sure here... I know the Chinese guy was a representation of the cook in the 33 version... Lumpy is the new cook... ok that was a reach, sorry can't answer this one, lol.

Travis

When Black looked at Hanks, Hanks character was acknowledging that Denhams vision for success had been realized, albiet different than both men had anticipated, but as both men looked at each other, all the pain and loss came flooding back, the physical reminder was the scar on Hank's cheek, until the well wishers interrupted the moment. Never struck me as gay at all and my gaydar is strong! Lumpy, on the other hand....

I saw Kong last night. I thought it was a good movie that just misses greatness. It is almost too much of a good thing. Every shot is gorgeous and I think that is responsible for the major flaw in the movie, the editing. The movie is just too long. The first hour could be cut 30 minutes without harming the movie and another 30 minutes could be gained by judicious snipping elsewhere. Everything about the film is so well done that I can see why it ended up being so long. I wouldn't have wanted to make cuts either, but the movie would be better if the cuts were made.

There is also some of what I call "CGI Syndrome" also. The capabilities of CGI tend to overwhelm the story at times. If 1 dinosaur was cool in the original, let's put 12 in this version. If Kong battled 1 T-Rex in 1933, we will have him fight 3 now. Fortunately, this doesn't distract too much from the story, but it is still there. Again, minor nitpicks.

I agreee that the ice skating scene was silly. Maybe Tonya Harding should have come out and tried to kneecap Kong. There's a battle! I could have done without the digital juggling and tapdance also, but those are minor irritations in a very good film. I think that Jackson succeeded magnificently in honoring the spirit of the original movie while making his Kong a tragic character that stands on his own merits. Even though it isn't perfect, it is a great way to spend an evening.

If you have seen Tonya lately, you probably know it would be a hell of a battle!

When Black looked at Hanks, Hanks character was acknowledging that Denhams vision for success had been realized, albiet different than both men had anticipated, but as both men looked at each other, all the pain and loss came flooding back, the physical reminder was the scar on Hank's cheek, until the well wishers interrupted the moment. Never struck me as gay at all and my gaydar is strong! Lumpy, on the other hand....


It Doesn't matter Maybe she was talkin' about this "Lumpy" I'll have to ask or better She'll have to come over here and Write! lol



John/Lonfan

I agree about CGI Syndrome (good phrase). I haven't seen Kong yet, but it happenes in other films, where the CGI monster or stunt double just leaps and bounces around WAY too fast, is WAY too nimble, WAY too ignorant of gravity, etc.

I liked the little Nod to the Original when Denhem Sez "No Fay's Doing A Picture For RKO, Damn That Cooper!" or something to that effect. I love that kind of stuff So Xacto, Could ya' treat me to even ONE more Little "Easter Egg that Pays Homage to the Original? You mention there being a few.

John/Lonfan

Three I remember:

Ann asking "Is this the motion picture boat?", the first line of the original.

The scene Ann and the other actor are shooting on the ship is a scene from the original movie.

The "native Kong dance" in Denham's stage show is an exact reproduction of a scene from the original.

people who are so hung up on the 3 T-Rex thing

They were supposed to be there from the beginning.
PJ has three t-rexes in his 1996 script a fight with some velociraptors
There is a photo of PJ with a sculpture of Kong fighting 3 Rexes... That is from the 1996 pitch to Universal that was turned down due to the bomb called Godzilla and Disney's silent Joe Young.

Here is a 10 year old drawing from PJ and the sculpture:
http://www.thecrawlingeye.com/pics/nieuws/kingkong.jpg[/IMG-LEFT] [IMG]http://www.channel4.com/film/media/film/4x/K/king_kong_2005_xl_01.jpg http://www.wetafx.co.nz/workshop/images/pplarge/kong_lrg.jpg

I agree about CGI Syndrome (good phrase). I haven't seen Kong yet, but it happenes in other films, where the CGI monster or stunt double just leaps and bounces around WAY too fast, is WAY too nimble, WAY too ignorant of gravity, etc.

Very little of that in "King Kong" - although there were a couple of shots of Kong leaping where he didn't seem to have quite enough weight. What I hate more is when a director decides that he will let CGI "do the work for him" in particularly complex action sequences. I watched a little bit of "I Robot" the other night on HBO - and there is a sequence where Will Smith is running from a giant robot who is destroying everything around him - and it was pretty much all CGI and all sustained shots from just one or two angles. The mere fact that the director could linger on a shot of the floor falling out from under Smith as he ran eliminated the inherent tension of the sequence - which otherwise could have been achieved by quicker cuts and more varied angles. Some directors - like Jackson - know how to use CGI as a tool - but too many hack directors use it as a crutch these days.

The rodeo riding of the last Vrex is almost shot for shot from the original, including the jawbreaking. It also seems like in the first few shots of NY, there's an elevated train (green) and the thing looks to be lifted from the original film. It's got an almost animated, jerky, colorized look to it!

BTW, the boat that Ann was first trying to get on, was that the Titanic?

Lonfan-
I have posted many nods that I've seen, to me there is more nods then we are seeing as well. I noticed many of the 1933 nods like

Opening Titles have the 1933 background

When he mentions Fay doing an RKO picture, you can hear the "Den, Den, Den, 33 Kong Music underneath it.

Misty, foggy "vasaline on the lense" look of the harbor and buildings near the Venture.

Ship going into the fog

I'm not gonna list them all b/c I saw ALOT but part of the fun was noticing them

My fav was the one on one fight between V-rex 3 and Kong, it was almost shot for shot the original fight in 1933. The only things missing that make the 33 version so memorable. The slither of the T-rex's tail during the fight and Kong throwing left hand jabs before throwing the BIG right. Biting the eyeball but he makes up for it buy the jaw break and Kong playing with the broken jaw.

Second fav was the wide angle shot of Kong being attacked by the flying Orcs and Ann/Jack decending the vine. Then his roar after they made it to the water. I also liked how they made it to the water... PJ was thinking the same thing I was when I saw the 1933 version... They would NOT have survived that fall, hitting that water from that height would have been like hitting concrete... not to mention the jagged shore.

Third fav is the whole Broadway show... Some had a problem with Jackson using all of that 1933 homage for the stage show but I just read in a magazine why he did that... The 33 version was accused of being racist and stereotypical with the whole island tribe thing. In 2005 his Skull island is inhabited by real vicious savages of indeterminant race, an ancient people. The tribe in Dehnam's mind is what is "always" in his films so he uses the tribe that he is famous for portraying in his moving pictures. It's a glorified, stereotypical version of a "real" tribe in Dehnam's showman mind.

I love this film as much as I love the original and I LOVE the original.

Travis

There is a photo of PJ with a sculpture of Kong fighting 3 Rexes... That is from the 1996 pitch to Universal that was turned down due to the bomb called Godzilla and Disney's silent Joe Young.

Your facts are a bit off.

I was working for Universal in 1996 when Jackson's "King Kong" had been given the green light for production. Following the commercial failure of "The Frighteners", and the subsequent firing of Universal's Production Prez Casey Silver, Jackson's "Kong" project was put into turnaround, where it died a quick death (the success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy brought it back to life).

BTW, the boat that Ann was first trying to get on, was that the Titanic?

I was just gonna type this...
Also in the interview I read there are a bunch of nods to many other great films of PJ's choice. Titanic is copied many time, Jimmy in the crow's nest is right out of Titanic instead he yells WALL instead of Iceberg right ahead!. All of that stuff along the rocks of Skull island is very remenisant of Titanic.

When, Bruce Baxter and Denham stumble upon the Bronos, Baxter takes his hat and sungasses off and rubs his eyes and goes to one knee, like Sam Neal did in Jurassic Park after seeing the Brontos.

The Bronto stampede is alot like the Galamymus stampede in JP. Kong chasing Jack was alot like the T-Rex chasing the Jeep in JP... I was waiting for Jack to say, "Must go fast, must go faster."

LoftR- The obvious Orc bats were a great nod at his own stuff. The little um girl that Denham trys to give a chocolate bar to, turns into Gollum-esque rage and starts one of the most tense scenes in the film.

Even bambi, with the Ice lake scene.

I need to see it again to find more... DAMN too bad for me :)

Travis

Your facts are a bit off.

I was working for Universal in 1996 when Jackson's "King Kong" had been given the green light for production. Following the commercial failure of "The Frighteners", and the subsequent firing of Universal's Production Prez Casey Silver, Jackson's "Kong" project was put into turnaround, where it died a quick death (the success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy brought it back to life).

I heard that... yeah he pitched it and he was given abit of money(couple million) to start pre-pre-production. He assembled his team, built a few models and although some of the stuff look good, Universal was hesitant to invest their trust and cash in an "unknown director" that hasn't really proved himself able to handle a film like Kong. Also the upcoming release of Godzilla and Joe Young made Universal wait to see how those films do. They waited, those films were disappointing at the Box so they killed the Kong project... PJ went on with all the same crew and signed with New Line to make "THE TRILOGY" Does that sound better or am I still off :)

I'm glad that all happened b/c we have the LotR and he sat down and re wrote the Kong script... Thank God b/c the 96 script was chock full of cliche, hoke, cheese and awful displays of heroism... I'll give you a hint and you all can draw you conclusions of how the end went... In the 96 script Jack Driscoll was a BiPlane fighter pilot in WWI...

Travis

I think one way to approach the two movies is to look at the '33 version as a docudrama based on Denham's account. He of course was careful not to make himself look too bad. He fed into the public's preconceptions of savage natives and damsels in distress. It even incorporated elements from his ill-fated stage show.

I think some of the Homage scenarios here go a bit far, I mean, you could dissect every scene and say it was homage to something or another. I think some people would use any excuse to watch this a few more times:D . I've spoken to a few other people who say the Bronto run seemed a bit unrealistic, as in, no one would have gotten out of that alive, but I think a little bit of artistic license makes for a more exciting picture.

Does any one know what PJ is planning to do next? Is this considered a success at the box office? He would have to have the pick of anything he wanted after these last 4 masterpieces.

Is this considered a success at the box office?

So far, it's not doing quite the "Blockbuster" numbers the studio was hoping for. Around 66 million so far and that's a week in. Hollywood ticket sales have been trending downward across the board, and the movie's 3 hour run-time has got to be a factor too.

So, I wonder if it's overall take will eclipse any of the LOTR films?

As of today, almost 82 million domestically and around 162 mil worldwide. It's gonna need Batman Begins legs to come close to the Rings stuff.

The LotR crowd is finally done finals and Christmas week is coming up... A good sign for Kong is that this weekend isn't a big premiere weekend. The Producers doesn't compete with Kong, two different crowds. I wouldn't be surprised if Kong does better this week then last. Just my opinion.

Travis

I think one way to approach the two movies is to look at the '33 version as a docudrama based on Denham's account. He of course was careful not to make himself look too bad. He fed into the public's preconceptions of savage natives and damsels in distress. It even incorporated elements from his ill-fated stage show.

Actually... this kind of works for me. I can sort of visualize Denham selling the rights of the story to RKO in hopes of generating enough money to repay all of the debt he incured as a result of Kong having wreaked havoc in New York.
He finally gets Fay Wray as his leading lady ( portraying Ann Darrow ) and selects the slimmer and just-a-bit-handsomer Robert Armstrong to portray himself. Merian C. Cooper and Willis O'Brien, who have been collaborating together on stop motion effects in a little film called CREATION, get the task of bringing the 8th wonder of the world to the big screen! Fortunately, they've just been filming THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, so they already have the jungle sets built and merely have to redress them.
Denham tells a sanitized version of what happened, and aside from a few instances of combining characters, the basic story is preserved on film. Even the 'Beauty and the Beast' angle - which occurs in PJ's movie as almost an afterthought - becomes a major theme of 1933's KING KONG feature!

Even though KING KONG is a monster hit with audiences, it's box office receipts don't quite cover Denham enough to keep him out of jail.... so, they quickly come up with a sequel; SON OF KONG, which is pretty much fabricated out of whole cloth, in order to generate the rest of their financial restitution.

Yeah, that kinda makes sense.... If Peter Jackson wanted to make a sequel, it just might work.

- GJS

I just have a problem with the logic, not ONE major role guy got crunched under all those bronto legs and even colliding brontos! I prefer the look of the 33 Kong ape/s more than the real zoo ape approach.

Os

Movie's doing poorly at the box office if you ask me for a major blockbuster. The dvd sales and rentals should fix that financially. Could be that Kong is'nt that well known to teens and 20 somethings who all went to Sith (along with a lot of older people).

Os

Os, How much Box Office do you think Kong has done so far? Worldwide?
My personal opinion is that Kong is a far better movie than Sith. Perhaps they should have taken Jack Blacks advice and called in King "Friggin" Kong!