Watched Jackson's Kong last night.

Yeah, it could'a been shorter, but I think it was spectacular. Even Mary said it was very much in the spirit of the original, which, when you get down to basics, was made to show off new special effects and wow audiences.

I loved the little tributes to the original, both in dialog and in recreated shots, peppered through the film.

The V-Rex fight was definitely over the top. But what the hell, it was still fun.

And I gotta say that Naomi Watts was absolutley the perfect choice for Ann Darrow, with the same wide-eyed, luminous beauty that Fay Wray evoked 65 years ago.

The only distracting thing that niggled at my mind is something that only I'd think of. The relationship between Ann and Kong reminded me a little of the relationship between the heroine and Kong in the campy Japanese film "King Kong Escapes." I kept hearing that redhead's voice in my head yelling "Put me dowwwwn, Kong!" :lol:

I loved the little tributes to the original, both in dialog and in recreated shots, peppered through the film.

"Fay is a size 4, right?" "Yes, but she's shooting a picture with RKO."

:D

I do so love Naomi Watts. She really does put the role across earnestly. I liked the movie very much too but wish they would put out a DVD "Director's Cut" that's about 40 minutes shorter.

The only distracting thing that niggled at my mind is something that only I'd think of. The relationship between Ann and Kong reminded me a little of the relationship between the heroine and Kong in the campy Japanese film "King Kong Escapes." I kept hearing that redhead's voice in my head yelling "Put me dowwwwn, Kong!" :lol:

I thought the movie was very entertaining as well. There were two things I couldn't accept either. One is that a 25 ft. gorilla could jump around the buildings like he did. A little too light on his feet to be believable. I also had problems accepting that the men could survive a 10 story fall when Kong rolled the tree stump only to be eaten by bugs. I don't think most men could survive a fall where you can't even see the bottom. I'd like to know how they got Kong back to the mainland. I don't think that boat they had could lift or carry him for the number of days required to take him back.

The movie sucked! When my friend and I saw it in the theater, the first third of the movie put both of us to sleep. After that it was so so, that we did not care. As for the DVD, why waste my money.I will stick with the colorized original.

I will stick with the colorized original.

:freak:


I still think its the best movie I've ever seen. For a lot of reasons.

Say whatever you like about the new Kong, but if you can actually tolerate, let alone enjoy, the desecration of the original by being colorized, then all I can say is we're from different planets!

"Colorized Original" - a real contadiction in terms. I can think of few movies where the Black & White palette was more artfully employed than in KING KONG.

"Colorized Original" - a real contadiction in terms. I can think of few movies where the Black & White palette was more artfully employed than in KING KONG.

I once saw "The Longest Day" colorized on TNT. For some reason, I definitely preferred it in it's original B&W format.

We just saw Kong tonight and we thought it was a really good film. Yes, it was a tad too long but it was fun and well done and we didn't feel like we wasted part of our lives afterwards.

Just watched King Kong tonight. Agreed, a bit long but still a really good, entertaining film. What more could you ask for? The level of craftsmanship alone was quite an accomplishment. There were some sequences that were so breathtakingly creepy that I wanted to step outside afterward and unwind with a cigarette. And I don't even smoke!

Say whatever you like about the new Kong, but if you can actually tolerate, let alone enjoy, the desecration of the original by being colorized, then all I can say is we're from different planets!

"Colorized Original" - a real contadiction in terms. I can think of few movies where the Black & White palette was more artfully employed than in KING KONG.

Whenever I think about the colorization of B&W movies, I think of an old In Living Color skit, where Jim Carrey parodied Ted Turner by telling the audience that they can stick it. At the end he used filmstrip as floss. That joke encapsulated what a bastardization the whole colorizing movies initiative was. It's one of those, just-because-we-can-do-it-doesn't-mean-we-should type of thing.

José

How could anyone not like the new King Kong?? That Jessica Lange sure is something!

We just saw Kong tonight and we thought it was a really good film. Yes, it was a tad too long but it was fun and well done and we didn't feel like we wasted part of our lives afterwards.

I remember "in the old days" that long movies had intermissions. Won't see that today.

"Colorized Original" - a real contadiction in terms. I can think of few movies where the Black & White palette was more artfully employed than in KING KONG.

That may be true of the pristine copy currently on dvd ( haven't seen it myself ) but, personally, I have a great appreciation for the colorized version of the original Kong, too. With the B&W version I have on tape, it is difficult to distinguish the separation of the various matte shots. The gray tones of the Dinosaurs blend into the jungle and etc... The colorized version is a lot easier on my eyes - plus, the muted, pastel colors enhance the 'fairytale' quality of the movie for me.

I can't say that about all colorized movies, however.

- GJS

In that case, you really do need to see the current b&w KK dvd asap. It has never, never looked so lush.

The extras are excellent as well. I picked up the big set with tin, Son of, and Mighty Joe Young.

Peter Jackson owes me my money back.
his Kong is bad, bad, bad.
Kong looks severely overweight, the story has mega-holes and i could not buy Ann and Jack at the top of the empire state building and NOT FREEZING!!
there is snow on the ground so it's winter and Ann is up there in a dress!

that tells me all i need to know about the film.

Oh, picky, picky, picky! We're talking about a FANTASY, remember?

Anyway, Jackson's Kong is supposed to be an old gorilla, the last of his kind. Elderly gorillas do tend to be a bit paunchy.

Besides, would you rather see Naomi Watts in a long overcoat and mittens?

just mittens :thumbsup:
hb

i liked the 1976 Kong way better!
i did cry when Kong died! sniff, sniff!!

"When big monkey die, everybody cry!"

i liked the 1976 Kong way better!

:freak: :freak: :freak:

My ONLY big issue with the DVD Set (and it's really not that big a deal) Is that this "Special Features Disc" is made up of ALL the "Kong Is King.Org" Website Diaries,Well the Trouble with this is (FOR ME anyway) is Although, You guys will probly say "How Much More Could You Want?!" But I feel since the Behind the Scenes stuff was made During the Filming and BEFORE the Theater Release,Well I feel like we were only shown Teases of Certin Scenes instead of Detailed Info. An Exsample of THE PERFECT Documentry on the Making of a Film is the DVD of the Goldblum "Fly" or Disc 2 in the Burton/Keaton "Batman" film. In the case of Batman you got everything from Production Design Sketches to Jack discussing the Joker! Great stuff! Seem's that with Mr. Jackson's Kong Bonus Disc We get alot of footage of the Director Laying on a Couch! lol And I wouldn't have minded a Commentary Lastly,If you bought the 1933 Special Edition DVD I'd I feel that the Section called "Movie Making 101 RKO" (iirc) Anyhoo,That was More like I was looking for as far as the Bonus Stuff goes. That Disc Really goes deep into ALL the aspects of the Matteshots,the Process of Combining Stop Motion with the Live Action,Etc. There's a great Piece on The 33 Kong DVD about Peter Jackson having to take one of the Original Stop Motion Dino's to be X-rayed So they could see how the Metal Armateur had been Constructed originally. To be fair the New Kong Disc does have a little piece with Bob Burns and The Original Kong Armateur in his collection,But for me that is the best part I'd have to give the Special Features Disc on the NEW Kong a B- The Actual Film is an A- Only an A - Cause I DO NOT like the Relationship that develops between Ann & Kong and I'm Sorry but in some of those scenes when KK is Slinging Ann over his back or Dribbling her around like a Harlem Globetrotter My wife noticed how many times Ann would have Certinly suffered a Broken Neck! lol (Some Cracked Ribs at the very least! jeez) Anyhoo. I did Score a Huge Foamboard Poster of Kong holding Ann in his Paw while sitting (It reminds me of a Sketch I'd seen from the original) That's pretty Cool but Still I just wasn't happy with the later half of the Film. Sorry Still A- ain't that bad lol

John/Lonfan

Anyway, Jackson's Kong is supposed to be an old gorilla, the last of his kind. Elderly gorillas do tend to be a bit paunchy.

Some humans tend to do that too... :jest:

José

Peter Jackson owes me my money back.Let us know how it goes if you attempt to collect.

We'll wait.

:tongue:

Seems to me that a movie is, in many ways, the same sort of deal as Jerry Seinfeld says applies to fruit: "Fruit is a gamble. I know that going in."

Qapla'

SSB

i'm working on it right now!

i want my 9.50!!!!!!!!!

AND I WONT STOP UNTIL I GET IT!!!!!!!!!!

I want my money back from Jackson too, I plunked down $8.50 for Lord of the Rings thinking it was that 70's classic Henry "Fonzie" Winkler wrestling movie. It wasn't, and there wasn't any Kim Darby either!

The guy's obviously just a hack.

yeah! you said it Phil!!!!!!

I do so love Naomi Watts. She really does put the role across earnestly. I liked the movie very much too but wish they would put out a DVD "Director's Cut" that's about 40 minutes shorter.

Zor, you are mistaken, the director's cut will be like 30 minutes longer... You are looking for the Studio Cut to come in at 2hrs 15 minutes. Jackson's first cut was 5 hours of film.

:)

Travis

I thought the movie was very entertaining as well. There were two things I couldn't accept either. One is that a 25 ft. gorilla could jump around the buildings like he did. A little too light on his feet to be believable. I also had problems accepting that the men could survive a 10 story fall when Kong rolled the tree stump only to be eaten by bugs. I don't think most men could survive a fall where you can't even see the bottom. I'd like to know how they got Kong back to the mainland. I don't think that boat they had could lift or carry him for the number of days required to take him back.

Old MAC, you should watch some old footage of Diane Fosse's Mountain Gorillas. They are fast and VERY nimble. They can jump and run better then us.

The way the men survived the fall was explained. As the log fell it never gained much speed, dragging along the walls of the reveen(sp?) as it fell it was also slowed down by the thick vines the stretched across. The sailors fell maybe 10 feet from the log to the ground. it was believeable that they survived the fall.

Every time they did a wide angle shot of the Venture there was that HUGE section that was tarped... I'm assuming they laid him there... They never showed how Denhem got KK33 back to NYC either, it was left up to us... Jackson wanted to pay homage to that famous wipe to Kong's name in lights... Why pick at that?

Travis

The movie sucked! When my friend and I saw it in the theater, the first third of the movie put both of us to sleep. After that it was so so, that we did not care. As for the DVD, why waste my money.I will stick with the colorized original.

I have nothing to say to this crappy review, you can't argue stupidity :freak: :freak: :freak:

Zor, you are mistaken, the director's cut will be like 30 minutes longer... You are looking for the Studio Cut to come in at 2hrs 15 minutes. Jackson's first cut was 5 hours of film.

:)

Travis

Maybe the "Editor Who Can See The Forest For The Trees Edition" then.;)
Aw, hell, I'll probably pick it up this weekend.

Peter Jackson owes me my money back.
his Kong is bad, bad, bad.
Kong looks severely overweight, the story has mega-holes and i could not buy Ann and Jack at the top of the empire state building and NOT FREEZING!!
there is snow on the ground so it's winter and Ann is up there in a dress!

that tells me all i need to know about the film.

And your ignorance shows me all I need to know about you and your review...

Kong in NO WAY is overweight, he built like a brick sh**house... All Silverbacks are built the same way. I would love to hear these "mega holes" you speak of... after reading your 3 posts I only know of ONE MEGA HOLE! :)

Yes, two people not turning into icicles at the top of a building is very hard to wrap your little mind around, no wonder you couldn't wrap you mind around a 25 ft Gorilla fighting extinct dinosaurs :freak: :freak:

Travis

Old MAC, you should watch some old footage of Diane Fosse's Mountain Gorillas. They are fast and VERY nimble. They can jump and run better then us. . . Jackson wanted to pay homage to that famous wipe to Kong's name in lights... Why pick at that?Her last name was spelled "Fossey." Maybe you're thinking of Bob Fosse. Did he ever choreograph a dancing gorilla number?

And it wasn't a wipe, it was a fade-out/fade-in. Okay, now I'm being picky.

i liked the 1976 Kong way better!
i did cry when Kong died! sniff, sniff!!

DUDE!!!!
How do you expect to get any credibility other then the credibility of being a master-baiter... You may just be trying to get others goat by saying a stupid comment like the above. KK76 was a fun movie but in NO WAY even compares to KK05. KK76 holds a special place in my heart b/c I am 31 and it was my kong growing up. Until my dad showed me KK33 then I realized that I was worshipping a false god, KK33 was the god and KK76 was just a campy, 70's debacle but I still loved it like a redheaded step child.

PJKong at it's worst was 10 times better the KK76!!! and that's a fact!

Travis

Maybe the "Editor Who Can See The Forest For The Trees Edition" then.;)
Aw, hell, I'll probably pick it up this weekend.

Zorro, that's the beauty of the DVD, with chapter search you can watch whatever version you want... The night I bought it I watched the condensed version then later watched the theatrical release.

Travis

Her last name was spelled "Fossey." Maybe you're thinking of Bob Fosse. Did he ever choreograph a dancing gorilla number?

And it wasn't a wipe, it was a fade-out/fade-in. Okay, now I'm being picky.

ROTFLMAO!!! :p

Yeah that's her, I guessed on the spelling :) Dancing gorillas :)
it was kinda a fade wipe... They fade to the marque and then a downward wipe to show the theater entrance... Sorry I didn't use the right jargan :)
I'm a film watcher not a film student LOL!

Travis

I want my money back from Jackson too, I plunked down $8.50 for Lord of the Rings thinking it was that 70's classic Henry "Fonzie" Winkler wrestling movie. It wasn't, and there wasn't any Kim Darby either!

The guy's obviously just a hack.

Don't forget to add the price of pop corn, soda and Milk Duds to the amount he needs to refund you. Too bad it's not me, 'cuz I would've multiplied my hourly rate times the length of the movie (including travel time, of course) to come up with the ultimate amount. You need to be reimbursed for your time too, right?

Oh yeah, the Federal mileage rate is $0.445 per mile, so include that too.

José

ROTFLMAO!!! :p

Yeah that's her, I guessed on the spelling :) Dancing gorillas :)
it was kinda a fade wipe... They fade to the marque and then a downward wipe to show the theater entrance... Sorry I didn't use the right jargan :)
I'm a film watcher not a film student LOL!

Travis

A downward (or upward) camera move is called a "tilt." A "wipe" is when a new scene replaces the previous scene by a dividing line that "wipes" across the screen (in any direction). A wipe is a transition, a tilt is a camera move. What you describe is a fade-in followed by a tilt down.

A side-to-side camera move is a "pan."
A forward or backward camera move is a "dolly."
Changing the focal length of the lens is a "zoom."

What do you call a camera move where they use a lens to zero in on the character in the middle of the frame but the background somehow shifts backwards and away? They tend to use that to emphasize a surprise to the character or when a character is faced iwth a tough decision.

I only ask because that type of filming bugs me and I want to sound intelligent when I rant. :)

José

What do you call a camera move where they use a lens to zero in on the character in the middle of the frame but the background somehow shifts backwards and away? They tend to use that to emphasize a surprise to the character or when a character is faced iwth a tough decision.

I only ask because that type of filming bugs me and I want to sound intelligent when I rant. :)

José


Don't know the term for it but that effect is accomplished by zooming the lense in while the camera is trucked backward. You don't see it used much these days but it is a startling effect.

What do you call a camera move where they use a lens to zero in on the character in the middle of the frame but the background somehow shifts backwards and away?
I think I know the shot you're describing and it's simultaneous camera dolly while the lens is zoomed;
not surprisingly wikipedia calls it a "dolly zoom"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom

I think I know the shot you're describing and it's simultaneous camera dolly while the lens is zoomed;
not surprisingly wikipedia calls it a "dolly zoom"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom

Dolly Zoom would be a great porno name, right up there with George's Buck Nekkid.

I've seen that move done both ways - zoom in/dolly out and zoom out/dolly in. Either way, it's something that has to be used sparingly...too much and the audience starts to get vertigo.

I believe I've heard it called a "rack-zoom." I usually refer to it (affectionately) as "Spielberging."

Qapla'

SSB

Spielberg is supposedly credited with originating it on Jaws, on the shot where Brody is sitting on the beach and he realizes there's a shark out there.

B5 used it in Severed Dreams when Sheridan realizes there's no way out of Civil War. I think Janet Greek directed that episode.

Spielberg is supposedly credited with originating it on Jaws

That would be news to Alfred Hitchcock, who made famous use of this technique in Vertigo, among other films.

B5 used it in Severed Dreams when Sheridan realizes there's no way out of Civil War. I think Janet Greek directed that episode.

B5 used it a couple of other times after Severed Dreams. That's how I got tired of that technique. The first time was effective. The other times struck me as superfluous.

José

TRAVIS, MY MAN!!

dont blow a gasket!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's just a movie!!!

still sucks but it's just a movie!!

wanna hear my opinion on the LOTR's ???? HEH! HEH! HEH!

and yes, Kong is overwieght, when he sits his big 'ol belly fills the screen!
he looked more like a torso with little legs!

dont yell at me for this. blame Mr. Jackson, it's his flim that he botched!

and yes, Kong is overwieght, when he sits his big 'ol belly fills the screen!
he looked more like a torso with little legs!

dont yell at me for this. blame Mr. Jackson, it's his flim that he botched!
Yeah. How dare Jackson make Kong look like a giant gorilla.