~Shard~ said:Please tell me you know this is a joke. If not, well, I guess PT Barnum was right...
Youre lucky you were not standing in front of me when you made that comment,or you wouldnt be standing anymore.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
King Kong: The Movie
- Thread starter Blue Velvet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Youre lucky you were not standing in front of me when you made that comment,or you wouldnt be standing anymore.
I don't know why this movie is so highly regarded. I just saw it with my wife. First of all, some of the scenes, on in particular, was disgusting and added nothing. Actually, many of the scenes seemed to add nothing, which is hard to forgive in a movie that damn long. I have some other incoherent, random thoughts that will follow in white - highlight if if you would like to read and don't mind spoilers:
The love of Ann for the Kong was not believable. When Kong died, I was not moved - just glad it was over. I do wish Ann had jumped after him, and Jack had been left standing up there like a dumbass. Would have made for a much better ending. Also, maybe I've just gotten used to normal Hollywood, but too many good people died unnecessarily. Was also totally implausible how people kept sticking around trying to save the girl after all that they were seeing. I can understand how Jack would stay if he really loved her, but the rest of them would have been out of there.
Basically, I think that was a big waste.
The love of Ann for the Kong was not believable. When Kong died, I was not moved - just glad it was over. I do wish Ann had jumped after him, and Jack had been left standing up there like a dumbass. Would have made for a much better ending. Also, maybe I've just gotten used to normal Hollywood, but too many good people died unnecessarily. Was also totally implausible how people kept sticking around trying to save the girl after all that they were seeing. I can understand how Jack would stay if he really loved her, but the rest of them would have been out of there.
Basically, I think that was a big waste.
While in Breckenridge, Colorado for our ski trip last week the boys and I drove to Dillon's Skyline Cinema to see the movie. The theater that King Kong is showing in has a HUGE screen and a killer sound system. Great break from the organized chaos of our trip - and an awesome movie! The following day on the slopes looking down over the snow covered mountains my 15 year old looked at me and tapped his chest. Beautiful was his next word
Mac Kiwi said:
Why, because you can't take a simple little joke and would sick the Son of Kong after me? I hear he's making an appearance this summer, Jackson said so himself...
Seriously, if we can't all have a sense of humor about things, what fun is that? I'll assume your comment was made in good spirit and jest, just as mine was, otherwise I'd say you really need to relax!
Mac Kiwi said:
Chill pill.. peace and love it's the holiday season..
amin said:
Are you referencing a little part where a tongue goes flying? That made me cringe, but I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was in no way spectacular, but still very good I felt.
I thought it was a very self indulgent movie, the problem coming from the fact that Jackson wanted to make it since he was a kid.
It was way too long, and there were waaaaaay too many action sequences, many of which looked terrible. Almost every shot in the first half on the island looked too obviously like greenscreen.
It just went from CG dinosaur shot, to another dino shot, to bugs, to monsters....every time they got away from one thing they ran straight into another, and I can't handle that much CG.
The dinosaur stampede in particular looked laughable.
I found myslef looking forward to the quiet little moments between Watts & Kong, as the entire rest of the human cast were either dislikable or forgettable (I mean, what was all that crap about Heart of Darkness? I mean, lets not forget we're talking about a giant ape here)
I liked the bits with Kong a lot, especially in the second half, but found the film they built around him to be lacking in many areas.....
It was way too long, and there were waaaaaay too many action sequences, many of which looked terrible. Almost every shot in the first half on the island looked too obviously like greenscreen.
It just went from CG dinosaur shot, to another dino shot, to bugs, to monsters....every time they got away from one thing they ran straight into another, and I can't handle that much CG.
The dinosaur stampede in particular looked laughable.
I found myslef looking forward to the quiet little moments between Watts & Kong, as the entire rest of the human cast were either dislikable or forgettable (I mean, what was all that crap about Heart of Darkness? I mean, lets not forget we're talking about a giant ape here)
I liked the bits with Kong a lot, especially in the second half, but found the film they built around him to be lacking in many areas.....
And also....not wanting to bring up nitpicky points & logistics of a monster movie, but every time Watts was falling through the air & Kong swiped at her to snatch her up, that would have been like her being hit by a car....
And it would have seriously dislocated her shoulders/elbows/wrists when he just ripped her from her bindings on the posts she was tied to at the start of Skull Island......
And it would have seriously dislocated her shoulders/elbows/wrists when he just ripped her from her bindings on the posts she was tied to at the start of Skull Island......
I enjoyed the film. Kong was done very, very well and I really found myself liking him. My favorite part was him fighting the T-Rexes. I think the human actors (all with the exception of the captain and first mate) didn't do the film justice. The scene in Kong's home cave was nice as it gave a subtle idea of how lonely Kong was and helped flesh out his existence. Kong was just a big kid.
I thought it was too long. It had it's moments though. The T-rex fight was cool. But I thought every scene kept draggin' on. I liked the special effects they had, and all the CG. Time Square and the city looked amazing. The length killed it. And I defnintely didn't accept the love between kong and the girl, ridiculous.
There were also alot of things that were badly done, the brontasaurus stampede wasn't too believable, and when they fell in the river, and like 10 seconds later, they cut to them running through the jungle, totally dry. If you're gunna spend 3 hours on a movie, I think you can figure out a quick transition from water to land. And when they take Kong down with the grappling hooks was stupid. I mean come on, he was just fighting off 2 T-Rex's. 4 or 5 grappling hooks, and 20 humans don't equal 2 T-rex's. I know he got out of it after, but it was just ridiculous how he got brought down to the floor in the first place.
Ok, that's enough. Highlight above if you want to see my rant. Worth a rent.
There were also alot of things that were badly done, the brontasaurus stampede wasn't too believable, and when they fell in the river, and like 10 seconds later, they cut to them running through the jungle, totally dry. If you're gunna spend 3 hours on a movie, I think you can figure out a quick transition from water to land. And when they take Kong down with the grappling hooks was stupid. I mean come on, he was just fighting off 2 T-Rex's. 4 or 5 grappling hooks, and 20 humans don't equal 2 T-rex's. I know he got out of it after, but it was just ridiculous how he got brought down to the floor in the first place.
Ok, that's enough. Highlight above if you want to see my rant. Worth a rent.
Sogo said:
First of all, it was 1933 - a simple, quick search on Google or iMDB would have told you this. Second of all, even if it was 1916, what would that have to do with "9Z16"?
Wouldn't it make more sense to make it "I916", or <gasp> "1916" then? 
The original was inspired by the Land That Time Forgot, published in 1918, maybe that's what you had in mind? The number plates did show a 1932 registration date, and there was a brief mention of the original production though.Sogo said:
fa fa fa...
I liked the movie, but I do go to these things just to enjoy the preposterous stories and don't work myself up over the technical details. Okay, the endless succession of evil dinos and creepy crawlies did take a loooong time, but I thought the gag worked pretty well. It seemed to get enough laughs in the cinema where I saw it...
The only bit that kind of bugged me was the way the people living on the island simply vanished after they made their little offering. Those could have been some really interesting characters and they were kind of wasted.
I seen it the other night, and I really was not impressed. Some scenes seemed like they inserted just to make the movie longer
I quite enjoyed it. Possibly one of the best films of this year along with Munich.
I especially like the scene where Kong has captured Ann and carried her to his perch high on the mountain/temple platform. And the following scenes, especially the sunset, are crucial because they remove that almost creepy element that I always got in the earlier Kong movies (1933 and 1976). In essience, creating a wordless bond allowing her to trust Kong.
And in the earlier films, Kong was always misunderstood and no one ever cared about him. Here, we have someone who does understand.
Yes, we could do without a few of the monsters and overturned cars (despite the greedy 30 minutes of paid commercials audiences now have inflicted upon them). But it is so well done that are we not complaining, really, only about too much of a good thing.
I especially like the scene where Kong has captured Ann and carried her to his perch high on the mountain/temple platform. And the following scenes, especially the sunset, are crucial because they remove that almost creepy element that I always got in the earlier Kong movies (1933 and 1976). In essience, creating a wordless bond allowing her to trust Kong.
And in the earlier films, Kong was always misunderstood and no one ever cared about him. Here, we have someone who does understand.
Yes, we could do without a few of the monsters and overturned cars (despite the greedy 30 minutes of paid commercials audiences now have inflicted upon them). But it is so well done that are we not complaining, really, only about too much of a good thing.
It's best seeing it at midnight. I'm going to check my local listings. A movie like this does not deserve someone kicking you in the back of the chair, two horny teens making out in the corner, and know-it-all twenty-somethings spoiling the movie for the rest of us.mcarnes said:
Here's to the Crazy Ones ![]()
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
mcarnes said:
I'll agree with the piece part..
Edit is not a four letter word. Um... Well, it's a four letter word that Mr. Jackson needs to familiarize himself with. I enjoyed Kong, but it was just too long to bear repeated viewings once it's out on DVD. Fortunately, we'll be able to skip ahead and end up with the 90 minute movie this should have been.
Over the holidays I watched two David Lean films, Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia, and though both of those films are considered classics, they are LONG enough to wonder if there's a genetic connection between the two directors. At least Lean put intermissions in the middle!
A three hour movie can only be a masterpiece if it doesn't feel like 3 hours...
jayscheuerle said:I'll agree with the piece part..
Edit is not a four letter word. Um... Well, it's a four letter word that Mr. Jackson needs to familiarize himself with. I enjoyed Kong, but it was just too long to bear repeated viewings once it's out on DVD. Fortunately, we'll be able to skip ahead and end up with the 90 minute movie this should have been.
Over the holidays I watched two David Lean films, Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia, and though both of those films are considered classics, they are LONG enough to wonder if there's a genetic connection between the two directors. At least Lean put intermissions in the middle!
A three hour movie can only be a masterpiece if it doesn't feel like 3 hours...
You are far too negative. Most people have an attention span. This movie was fantastic, and easy to sit through. If you want quick movies, go rent a copy of fantastic 4 I'm sure it will have you on the edge of your seat.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
rickvanr said:
Yes, it WAS fantastic, but that's not to say it was a wonderful film. And it would only be easy to sit through if you generally spent hours of your life sitting on your arse in preparation.
This movie failed where The Grinch and Polar Express failed the source material was much briefer and did not warrant gratuitous packing.
It was a good 3 hr. movie, but could have been a GREAT 90 min. one.