KING KONG '05 --What did you think ?

[ctc]

>I'd hardly say that she was employed during the Depression, not gainfully employed anyhow.

...but she was still a part of society. She had co-workers, associates and presumably friends. In the original she was a street kid; a literal castoff from society. And yeah; the original probably had friends and associates too, but you had more of a sense of her being alone 'cos we never really see her interact with anyone or being part of a group.

Not a HUGE dif; but it's one that irked me. Kinda like they figured nobody'd sympathise with a homeless person but EVERYBODY wants to win on American Idol....

Don C.

[namtab29]

i enjoyed it a lot...but--even though i tend to love long movies, i thought it was too long. i think it took waaaay too long to get to the Island, and then each successive set-piece after that just went on too long.

2 1/2 hrs woulda been a great run time. 3 hrs, just too much.

rob!

[cjefferys]

I have to admit, I liked it better than I thought I would, I guess lowered expectations help. It was longer than it could have been though, by about 30-40 minutes. The HD DVD looks absolutely stunning, so that probably helped my enjoyment of the film too.

[The Bat]

I LOVED it!! the CGI Kong really seemed like a live Gorilla...He was AMAZING!!! That said...I think the Movie was about 20 minutes too long. I would cut out the running "underneath" the Brontosaurus's Sceen...and the Bug Sceen...and the Movie would flow a bit better. But all, in all...a great labor of love for Jackson, and a fantastic homage to the Original.

[REMOVED]

I liked the special effects but i think Jack Black ruined it. He is one of the most irritating people on screen. bleh.

[darklord1967]

KING KONG (2005). A stunning achievement all around.

The film was a bit long and could have benefitted from some judicious cutting.

But the performances from the various actors (Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, etc.) were all very good.

The set pieces were brilliantly staged and executed, and the visual effects were top notch.

Parts of this film were downright beautiful in its visual poetry, and emotional sensitivity.

Also, this was the first time that I felt Kong was a carefully thought-out and performed character. Andy Serkin did an amazing job fleshing him out, while physically and emotionally transforming himself into the ancient huge gorilla with a full spectrum of emotions. That man is an astounding talent who doesn't get nearly enough accolades for his impressive abilities.

What I think is sad is that there are quite a few people who will see KING KONG for the first time at home on their small TV, and they will NEVER understand the real majesty and splendor of that film.

In order to truly appreciate the artist's (filmmaker's) intentions and aestetic choices, certain films absolutely MUST be viewed on a theatrical big screen, with impressive sound. The film should make the first time viewer feel small and insignificant compared to the bigger-than-life characters and situations featured in this stunning period piece.

The film should also be (first-time) viewed with an audience. The communal experience of film is so important for a film like this. A comedy is MUCH more fun when 200 other people are in a movie theater laughing along with you. A horror film or thriller is MUCH more gripping when 200 other people are screaming in fear right along with you.

I can't tell you how many people I run into who unfairly judge a really well-made and crafted film (like this one) after seeing it at home for the first time on a crappy bootleg DVD with poor sound and picture (illegally shot with a camcorder)!

And of course, at home, they usually have a billion and one distractions (phone, kids, doorbell, etc.). These people constantly get up to use the bathroom, fix a drink, grab a snack (or whatever), and they repeatedly destroy the continuity of the film... for themselves and others around them.

Naturally, when asked what they thought of the film, these people almost always respond with, "Uhh... it was okay. I didn't see what the big deal was, though."

Yeah. That's the point. You didn't see. You were too busy picking your nose, scratching your butt, and chatting on the phone.

Maybe my viewpoint is colored by the fact that I'm an eternal New Yorker, and a big movie fan. But I can tell you that in New York, big event movies are a very big deal. In this city, camping out to see the first showing of a big event film is pretty common. There is NOT a more enthusiastic audience anywhere than a New York audience. And I've travelled all over this country, and seen films in virtually every major city.

I'll never forget the cheering, shouting, and applause of 1,400 people at the Loews Orpheum in New York City on May 25th, 1983, the openning day of Return of the Jedi. There was just nothing like it.

Sadly, it's an experience that is gradually being fazed out of our culture.

Atttention spans are shrinking, and the specifics of being a good audience are being lost.

But I digress. I loved 2005 King Kong.

[Vortigern99]

>I'd hardly say that she was employed during the Depression, not gainfully employed anyhow.

...but she was still a part of society. She had co-workers, associates and presumably friends. In the original she was a street kid; a literal castoff from society. And yeah; the original probably had friends and associates too, but you had more of a sense of her being alone 'cos we never really see her interact with anyone or being part of a group.

Not a HUGE dif; but it's one that irked me. Kinda like they figured nobody'd sympathise with a homeless person but EVERYBODY wants to win on American Idol....

Don C.

What I think you may be missing is that the Jackson version provides Ann's backstory of how she became homeless and jobless. The Ann Darrow of the original is homeless and poverty-stricken, certainly, but how did she get that way? She wasn't born on the streets, that much is evident by her demeanor and the way she speaks. All Jackson & co. are doing is showing you, "Look, this is how she started out -- a stage actress, a comedienne, who lost her job and wound up on the street."

Also, I agree with everything 1967 said in the above post. *applause*

[ctc]

>What I think you may be missing is that the Jackson version provides Ann's backstory of how she became homeless and jobless.

Fair enough; but I don't think it's something that really NEEDED to be extrapolated on. A street kid during the Depression wouldn't be an unusual character so you wouldn't really need to explain to the audience where they came from. So yeah, it's nice that they thought to flesh her out a bit but it was unneccessary. And for me it detracted from the effect 'cos of what I mentioned before. Not to a huge degree, bit it was kinda wasteful.

...and I think that's what bugged me about the film; and a LOT of films nowadays... no sharpening. No focus. And a car chase wether the film needs it or not.

Don C.

[MIB41]

I have absolutely no problem saying I LOVE the '76 version. For those not yet concieved or too young to remember this period, Kong was very successful. Jaws had become the first film to pass $100 million the previous year and Kong passed $50 million the next. What gave the film some criticism was producer Dino Delaurentiis' early predictions that Kong would overtake Jaws as the top grossing film of all time. Clearly a dumb thing to say but also a very calculated statement to pull audiences in. Still the film did very well and reviews were very good. Kong even appeared on the cover of Time magazine instead of the presidential candidates for that year and the film garnered an Oscar for effects.
The purists from the '33 deplore this film because, "It doesn't have dinosaurs". God save us all. Some one go back to the mid-70's and tell me how a dinosaur was made (namely 'Land of the Lost') and I'll show you real cheese. I'm glad they left them out! This gave the movie time to finally develop a relationship between ape and girl (something the '33 never did and what Jackson borrowed for the new version).The other complaint is a "man in an ape suit"... Versus what at the time? Gumby with peach fuzz made 34 years earlier? Someone show me a really good ape mask prior to the '76 Kong and what do you have? Planet of the Apes. Rick Baker's mask DESTROYED the Planet of the Apes makeups in every conceivable way and went on to revolutionalize what Hollywood could do with masks thanks to those "special contributions" (as understated in the film's credits). Rick Baker became the authority on makeups from that film forward and no one ever saw apes the same way again. Check out his portfolio and that argument is laid to rest.

Now I love POTA and I appreciate the '33 Kong, but I don't need glasses to see they looked dated when the '76 Kong came out. And the 2005 Kong was visually incredible against this film made almost 30 years earlier...as it should. I guess the reason why I love the '76 version is because it was the first time I saw something on film that made me ask, "How did they do that?" That mask was incredible back then and I loved the mechanical hand. I always imagined what it would have been like to be on the sets for that film. Also consider that most critics of the day were led (by Dino's hype) to believe it was a robot doing those performances and the reviews indicate the hype fooled them! Most thought the performance was amazing especially since it "was a robot". Obviously by today's standards we know better, but not then. The actual robot had about 5 seconds screen time (5 seconds too long in my opinion) but Dino had to deliver since he said one was in there.

Finally I love the cast. In 2005, USA Today did a poll as to who was the best liked girl in Kong's hand and Jessica Lange won hand's down against both Fay and Naomi. Let's not forget she acted against both Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin, both of which delivered fine performances and went on to their own careers. Jeff Bridges is currently in the top grossing film right now... IRON MAN. So, yes, I'm a proud fan and one who doesn't mind defending it. Alot of talent was in that fim and alot of great careers were started because of it.

How can you say no to this?

[MIB41]

>would have been cooler if jackson had changed the ending...ape lives!!

They did that with the 70's version.... "King Kong Lives!"

Anyone remember THAT flick? Anyone? Anyone?

Don C.

Actually made in the late 80's... and not at all close to the '76 classic. Actually watching that one will quickly show you what crap is.

[mego73]

I have absolutely no problem saying I LOVE the '76 version. For those not yet concieved or too young to remember this period, Kong was very successful. Jaws had become the first film to pass $100 million the previous year and Kong passed $50 million the next. What gave the film some criticism was producer Dino Delaurentiis' early predictions that Kong would overtake Jaws as the top grossing film of all time. Clearly a dumb thing to say but also a very calculated statement to pull audiences in. Still the film did very well and reviews were very good. Kong even appeared on the cover of Time magazine instead of the presidential candidates for that year and the film garnered an Oscar for effects.
The purists from the '33 deplore this film because, "It doesn't have dinosaurs". God save us all. Some one go back to the mid-70's and tell me how a dinosaur was made (namely 'Land of the Lost') and I'll show you real cheese. I'm glad they left them out! This gave the movie time to finally develop a relationship between ape and girl (something the '33 never did and what Jackson borrowed for the new version).The other complaint is a "man in an ape suit"... Versus what at the time? Gumby with peach fuzz made 34 years earlier? Someone show me a really good ape mask prior to the '76 Kong and what do you have? Planet of the Apes. Rick Baker's mask DESTROYED the Planet of the Apes makeups in every conceivable way and went on to revolutionalize what Hollywood could do with masks thanks to those "special contributions" (as understated in the film's credits). Rick Baker became the authority on makeups from that film forward and no one ever saw apes the same way again. Check out his portfolio and that argument is laid to rest.

Now I love POTA and I appreciate the '33 Kong, but I don't need glasses to see they looked dated when the '76 Kong came out. And the 2005 Kong was visually incredible against this film made almost 30 years earlier...as it should. I guess the reason why I love the '76 version is because it was the first time I saw something on film that made me ask, "How did they do that?" That mask was incredible back then and I loved the mechanical hand. I always imagined what it would have been like to be on the sets for that film. Also consider that most critics of the day were led (by Dino's hype) to believe it was a robot doing those performances and the reviews indicate the hype fooled them! Most thought the performance was amazing especially since it "was a robot". Obviously by today's standards we know better, but not then. The actual robot had about 5 seconds screen time (5 seconds too long in my opinion) but Dino had to deliver since he said one was in there.

Finally I love the cast. In 2005, USA Today did a poll as to who was the best liked girl in Kong's hand and Jessica Lange won hand's down against both Fay and Naomi. Let's not forget she acted against both Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin, both of which delivered fine performances and went on to their own careers. Jeff Bridges is currently in the top grossing film right now... IRON MAN. So, yes, I'm a proud fan and one who doesn't mind defending it. Alot of talent was in that fim and alot of great careers were started because of it.

How can you say no to this?
http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/file...4/DwanKong.jpg

Like I said, I liked 76 on a camp and nostalgic level and the effects were, for the most part, good for the time.

What I remember people complaining about the most, besides the full size Kong that got almost no screen time are the blue screen shots. But until Star Wars most film blue screen shots were flawed with registration errors, blue fringing and matte lines.

Rick Baker's Kong suit rocked but I remember him saying that they forced him to perform Kong walking and standing upright (when he knew the way to do it was hunched over, like an Ape). Also, many shots were not filmed high speed to slow him down to give the illusion of larger mass.

[MIB41]

Rick Baker was put through the ringer during King Kong, but one of his biggest complaints was Carl Rambaldi. Rambaldi had seen Baker's initial ideas and tried to sale many of them as his own since he was competing with Baker for the task of creating the Kong suit. The final version however was Baker's prototype (with human qualities). Dino ended up having both parties work together which was not what either wanted. Rambaldi had actually considered making Kong more of an ape/man than straight gorilla and Baker actually quit the project, but Dino wooed him back. Contrary to popular belief Kong did have arm extensions when the cameras shot him at a distance, but the slightly upward stance was completely intentional. Both director and producer wanted a slightly human quality to Kong, so he wasn't quite ape or man, but something in between. Some mistaken this as a lack of artistic skill given to the intrepretation of Kong as a "man in a suit". That wasn't the case at all and even Baker defends that notion to this day. Ultimately Baker was unhappy with his experiecne on Kong because of the constant competition and deception by Rambaldi. If there's ever any question as to who was better, you need look no further than 1986's 'King Kong lives' for comparison. That was all Rambaldi's work. Compare '76 Kong to that and suddenly you see how much Rick Baker actually did, even though Rambaldi took the greatest credit. That's why Baker is so bitter. Rambaldi stole the lime light that should have been his in the remake.

[Vortigern99]

MIB41, I agree with just about everything you've posted about the '76 Kong. It's an extremely well-made and emotionally affecting film, with convincing performances and startlingly realistic prosthetic effects. What people tend to dislike about it is the dialogue, which is a bit "campy" in places, as written by the scripter of 1980's Flash Gordon and many of the Dozier Batman TV episodes. But those instances ("Here's to the big one!"; "I've snapped a few monkeys in my day, Fred," etc.) are few and far between, and for the most part the tone is gritty and real-world. The style of the filmmaking is not flashy or "stylish", but it is subtly crafty and extremely well put together in terms of editing -- choice of close-ups, medium shots etc. The cinematography is lush and luminous. However, there's a somber, "down" mood that sneaks into the movie after Kong's capture, and never relents for the remainder of the story -- possibly another reason why people dislike it: it's kind of a bummer. (As a child I cried my eyes out at Kong's death. My mother tells me I was "inconsolable".)

I too have read of Rambaldi's questionable ethics and Baker's struggles for just and fair recognition for his contributions to the suit and mask -- not to mention for actually playing the creature himself. (Yes, folks, Rick Baker IS King Kong... IN... King Kong! Rated PG.) In the opening credits, Rambaldi is said to have "created" King Kong, while Baker gets a "special contributions by" tag. The portion of input Baker had, and the work he did, was considerably greater than that credit he was given.

I recommend the journalistic paperback The Making of King Kong for the lowdown on all this. It's a fascinating story.

[apes3978]

KING KONG (2005). A stunning achievement all around. What I think is sad is that there are quite a few people who will see KING KONG for the first time at home on their small TV, and they will NEVER understand the real majesty and splendor of that film.

Oh, I agree with that statement all the way... When I seen it at the theater and even later on watching it on DVD, I always said that if there was ever a film made to be seen on the big screen, it's KING KONG (2005).