Just back from King Kong 2005

Yes he did. I think you mean Throne of Blood. It had some ghosts in it. Ran is actually my favourite Kurosawa movie of all time. Better than Seven Samurai. It was just such great cinematorgraphy and the colours were awesome. Plus a good lesson about not listening to your wife all the time.
 
Kurosawa also had a ghost in Roshomon, sort of. The dead man speaks through his wife to tell his side of the story. Great film, Roshomon and Ikiru are my favorites of his. Definitely one of the best directors of all time!

-Bob
 
Just saw it last night. It opened last week here in the Philippines.

IMHO, to sum it up, it was UNFOCUSED. Granted it's just a sci-fi, popcorn flick, I have two things I wanna say to Peter Jackson: you can't generate "heat" on a movie based on special effects alone (there's also this thing called plot development, espcially critical if your movie is 3 three freakin' hours long!) and can't rest on your laurels (yes, LOTR is one of my all-time faves BUT this is a different movie!).

The only partially cool part I can say about it is the "Ape-kido" randori between Kong and those three t-rexes/allosauruses. I say partially because it was only cool when they were on level ground, but the scene where everthing was suspended on the vines---and the never-ending bugs, slugs, bats---was totally WTF?!?!!

It actually didn't shock me to find out it didn't generate that much buzz -

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20051218/113496768000.html

Wanna while away an idle 3 hrs. of your day? Go see it.
 
Good points not2sharp and others.

As a great fan of the original King Kong, allow me to add that in Peter Jackson's remake the Ann Darrow character seemed to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only romance in the movie was interspecies. I kept expecting her to take Kong over to Bloomingdale's to pick out china patterns. In the original, of course, Kong's love was unrequited - which not only made more sense, but didn't break the suspense as Jackson's version did in so many scenes.

Jackson also managed to spoil one of the great fight scenes in the history of cinema: Kong vs T-Rex. How much better it would have been to see an extended battle between Kong and a single adversary. Instead we get Kong in a quick cut, jerky sequence with three of the beasts. And fighting one-handed to boot while holding Ann Darrow in the other hand and shaking her like a paint mixer at the hardware store.

I guess the real problem with the movie is that Jackson used every piece of film that he shot. I didn't stay for the credits (the sun was coming up) but I'm sure "Editor" wasn't among them. Had there been one I'm sure we wouldn't have been subjected to the preposterous "ice skating and artillery" scene. By the time Kong finally reached the top of the Empire State Building - two and a half hours into the move - I was looking at my watch and thinking: "Where the hell are those airplanes?" Little did I know that Kong would take longer to die than "Camille".

The original King Kong was a tight, concise, beautifully told adventure in three coherent parts. Jackson's version tried to puff it up into an epic by adding plot lines that went nowhere (remember Jimmy?), extra characters, and superfluous backstory. In the end you had half the quality in twice the time.
 
My wife and I saw it yesterday, and we both enjoyed it thoroughly. I must admit I find very little to relate to in all the criticism. Although nominally a "long" movie, it sure didn't seem that way to me; always a sign that my interest level is high.
Oh sure, Jackson "indulged" himself a bit; some critics have said that the brontosaurus stampede scene went on a bit long....But it sure was well done.
He says upfront that this effort is his homage to the original.

Anne suffering from Stockholm syndrome? Hehe, an interesting take. I prefer to see it as latching on to Kong originally as the only thing that could protect her in that hellacious environment, then beginning to see the beast as the tragic figure he really was; the last of his line, old and doomed one way or another.

It's interesting to note the reactions on different bulletin boards. The Sci-Fi crowd is thoroughly "thumbs up", as is the rather skeptical bunch at the James Randi board. The sci-fi art site I visit a lot is just bowled over.
 
mwerner said:
....I must admit I find very little to relate to in all the criticism.....It's interesting to note the reactions on different bulletin boards. The Sci-Fi crowd is thoroughly "thumbs up", as is the rather skeptical bunch at the James Randi board.
I'm totally "thumbs-up" myself for the new Kong. And I'm a guy who loves the original, I have it here at home on DVD. This movie isn't perfect, but has a lot going for it and much to offer just about anyone who isn't determined to be mazimally cynical from the get-go. There's a sufficient amount of character development while the story is developing in New York and while they are on the boat en-route to the Island. Jackson included plenty of action, once the crew get to the Island and the special effects were well done overall IMO. There are a number of scenes that are intentionally laugh-out-loud funny and at least one of the characters is continually in comic-relief mode. The Island "witch-people" were a truly scary and creepy bunch. By the end of the movie I found myself very much liking Kong and rooting for him, even though I knew he was going to die. I felt heart-broken when he finally fell from the top of the ESB, like I would to see a dog dying from being car-hit.

Where he let me down was with the over done (as someone mentioned) giant insect scenes. A little bit of bug work in the movies goes a long way in my estimation and he just went over the top with it. And although I loved the Bronty chase, it could have been just a tad shorter. Also, I don't quite get the "Jimmy" character, either, what was he there for?

So, a few flaws in an otherwise very entertaining and memorable movie don't rate all the negative talk I've read so far. No one will win an Oscar, but it's one of only about four or five movies that were worth watching this year.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
"...a few flaws in an otherwise very entertaining and memorable movie don't rate all the negative talk I've read so far."
Click to expand...

If someone is going to plagiarize a classic, then at least have the decency to get it right. I hold remakes to a higher standard; since they have already been shown how to do it right. The new KK is a decent movie; but, it is amaturish and minor leagues when compared to the original. Film is a whole art medium; it is not just about computer generated graphics; the rest of the effort has to be equally interesting and seamless if you want to make it into a excellent film.

n2s
 
The best zombie movies I've ever seen:

Night of the Living Dead [original]
Dawn of the Dead [original]
Day of the Dead
Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things [Orville is the man :D ]

Haven't seen Land of the Dead yet, but i would expect it to be pretty decent at least.

No comment on the DOTD remake except to say I wouldn't recomend it to anyone. :(

Frank
 
not2sharp said:
If someone is going to plagiarize a classic, then at least have the decency to get it right. I hold remakes to a higher standard; since they have already been shown how to do it right. The new KK is a decent movie; but, it is amaturish and minor leagues when compared to the original. Film is a whole art medium; it is not just about computer generated graphics; the rest of the effort has to be equally interesting and seamless if you want to make it into a excellent film.

n2s
Click to expand...

:D :thumbup: :p :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top