Peter Jackson's King Kong - Anderton Prime's Review

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anderton Prime
  • 94 comments
  • 2,518 views
If he couldnt have done it convincingly with current technology (which i seriously doubt anyway), he should have found some other way of doing that scene. When something looks so blantantly green screened it dosent have any impact. It was very impressive to watch, but not impressive enough for the most expensive film ever made, it should well and truely blow me away for (suposedly) $200mil & it didnt.

I love dumb action movies, i am the easiest person in the world to entertain! name any "bad" action movie i usually like it. Resident Evil 1 & 2, Tomb Raider 1 & 2, Waterworld, Pearl Harbour, the list is endless. I understand films are a means to entertain more than probably anyone!!

And i didnt say i didnt like it (i gave it 6/10, thats not bad), i just said it was a major dissapointment and was ruined by bad green screen/cgi & the fact that every character was so lucky (or always saved by something) really got to me, its a pet peave of mine in films (the end of Mummy Returns always springs to mind).
 
555
& the fact that every character was so lucky (or always saved by something) really got to me,
Click to expand...
Huh? Seventeen people died on the island. In the canyon with the bugs only like four people got out alive.

You saw the main characters get saved but if we focused on a handful of people and then they suddenly are killed while some red shirt gets away it would totally draw you out of the story because suddenly you don't have any association with the remaining characters.

The only way to have main characters die without taking the audience out of the story is to kill them in the end.

What exactly were you looking for here? I mean if Ann Darrow dies it is pointless to continue. If Jack or Carl died you lose your hero and your antagonist. At that point the only other people who were saved were Jimmy and Carl's assistant.

My brother had the exact opposite complaint. He thinks it was unrealistic that 17 people died to save one woman.
 
FoolKiller
My brother had the exact opposite complaint. He thinks it was unrealistic that 17 people died to save one woman.
Click to expand...

Well, if it was me on that crew, I honestly don't know what I would do. One girl versus the ENTIRE crew's life. That's a very hard decision. I know tha tnot the entire crew died, but 17 on a boat that small is still a lot.

But as far as it being realistic, I don't look for movies to be realistic. I look for them to portray realism. Meaning that it's believable but not always the norm. EVERY movie is like that to some degree(minus documentaries). :sly:
 
Swift
Well, if it was me on that crew, I honestly don't know what I would do. One girl versus the ENTIRE crew's life. That's a very hard decision. I know tha tnot the entire crew died, but 17 on a boat that small is still a lot.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you the same thing that I told my brother; they did not die for a girl but for one man's greed. A charismatic man convinced them they were saving the girl but he just wanted his movie. If there hadn't been money for him in the end Carl would have turned back after the first man died and convinced everyone but Jack and Jimmy to do the same.

Much of the movie is representative of the destructive power that one man's greed can have.
 
FoolKiller
I'll tell you the same thing that I told my brother; they did not die for a girl but for one man's greed. A charismatic man convinced them they were saving the girl but he just wanted his movie. If there hadn't been money for him in the end Carl would have turned back after the first man died and convinced everyone but Jack and Jimmy to do the same.

Much of the movie is representative of the destructive power that one man's greed can have.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was a pretty greedy fool, no doubt about that.
 
Swift
Yeah, he was a pretty greedy fool, no doubt about that.
Click to expand...
Jack even summarizes what I was trying to say when he says, "Never underestimate Carl's ability to destroy the things he loves."

Or something along those lines. I am sure I messed it up but the meaning is still there.
 
Jack played Carl to a tee, he was just the man for the role.
 
SS69
is it wrong that i think the 1976 version is the best?
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding.

Just saw it again on TBS (I think) a couple of weeks ago. Unbelievably wretched. My son and I howled through it from start to finish.

They couldn't even be bothered with having Kong walked quadripedally, as all gorillas do. Even that was beyond them. Instead, they stood him up and had him stroll around on two feet like any proper man-in-an-ape suit would do.

Not even a very young Jessica Lange could save that turkey.
 
Ok, I saw this movie after reading reviews that claimed it was THE movie to see. What a letdown!! I think I would have enjoyed the movie if it hadn't been as hyped as it was. I was expecting nothing short of a miracle on film, and what I got was a decent flick, but not one I even care to own.

My issues with the movie:

Where's the plot? Where's the dialogue? Where's the point?? The movie consists of dozens of people chasing after one lost girl who they have no reason to think is still alive, and lots of chasing and running and beating up and shooting and gross stuff.

I didn't care about the girl. I didn't care about her father, or her career. I didn't care about Jack black, or anyone on the ship... I didn't even really care about Kong. Why did I not care about these people? Because I'm a cold uncaring evil person? No. I didn't care about them because they weren't interesting and likeable in the film. I probably cared about jack black's character more than anyone else... but his character had a major flaw that kept me from getting attached.

What the movie is supposed to be is a tragedy. What is actually is is a chase scene from the moment they step foot on the island to the end. I actually started laughing at part of the chase scene on the island where the TRex is trying to eat the girl - it was that ludicrous... and why would a massive dino be interested in a girl who was nothing more than skin and bones (don't get me wrong, I liked the size).

Like I said, perhaps I'd have liked the movie if I hadn't been expecting much. But then again, I wouldn't have gone to see it if I hadn't heard that it was better than sliced bread (which is really good).

Edit: And what was the deal with that horrible horrible last line of dialogue in the movie?
 
I dont think you can complain about the dialogue, there was an hour of the stuff before anything happened!

But its nice to see some people (well 2, danoff & Zardoz) finally realising that its not the masterpiece people are making out. Not liking it for different reasons to me, but still.

Am i the only one that did find the green screen that bad?? knowone else seems to have mentioned it.

Yes 17 people may have died to save one girl (a little silly anyway), but 17 people should have died in that stampeed, they were all lucky enough (bar 4) to be running in the exact right palce at the right time. I understand they needed to make a film entertaining, but its just stupid that they lived through that.

They didnt have to kill the main characters, just kill off a hell of alot more than 4, when you have dinosaurs running around, your going to get flattened!

Yes in the cannion 4 people survived........... By luck! if the others hadnt come back to save them, they'd be dead. Im sorry but i hate that kind of thing. you obviously dont, so fair enough, but its one of my pet-hates in films. I want people to save themselves not get saved.
 
555
Am i the only one that did find the green screen that bad?? knowone else seems to have mentioned it.
Click to expand...
Only at one part did I think that it didn't look right, and I saw it twoice, but the shot quickly changed so I couldn't use a couple of seconds to judge the whole movie.
They didnt have to kill the main characters, just kill off a hell of alot more than 4, when you have dinosaurs running around, your going to get flattened!
Click to expand...
I can agree with this, but I think the idea of numerous red shirts getting it would have been bad too.
Yes in the cannion 4 people survived........... By luck! if the others hadnt come back to save them, they'd be dead. Im sorry but i hate that kind of thing. you obviously dont, so fair enough, but its one of my pet-hates in films. I want people to save themselves not get saved.
Click to expand...
I think that running and fighting their way out would have seemed too much like a Starship Troopers scenario and he already pushed Jurassic Park too close. Besides, it showed that Baxter wasn't an all around chicken. He had a little hero in him. That scene served more of a purpose than just getting them out alive.
 
FoolKiller
Only at one part did I think that it didn't look right, and I saw it twoice, but the shot quickly changed so I couldn't use a couple of seconds to judge the whole movie.

I can agree with this, but I think the idea of numerous red shirts getting it would have been bad too.

I think that running and fighting their way out would have seemed too much like a Starship Troopers scenario and he already pushed Jurassic Park too close. Besides, it showed that Baxter wasn't an all around chicken. He had a little hero in him. That scene served more of a purpose than just getting them out alive.
Click to expand...

I agree on all points.

As far as the bad superimposed shots. Every single movie that uses a green screen has one or two. Oh well, I don't hinks it's enough to offset the incridble CG of Kong and the Trex's
 
555
I dont think you can complain about the dialogue, there was an hour of the stuff before anything happened!
Click to expand...

Yea... and it sucked. That's my point. Then, when things got rolling there was no plot at all.

The movie was not plot-driven, it was action driven. That can make for an entertaining movie, but it doesn't make for a GREAT movie.
 
555
...But its nice to see some people (well 2, danoff & Zardoz) finally realising that its not the masterpiece people are making out. Not liking it for different reasons to me, but still...
Click to expand...

Huh? When did I say I didn't like it? Like everybody else, I feel it needed about 20 minutes of further cutting, but other than that, it worked for me, big time.

(You do realize that in this post I was talking about the pitiful 1976 movie, right?)
 
danoff
The movie was not plot-driven, it was action driven. That can make for an entertaining movie, but it doesn't make for a GREAT movie.
Click to expand...

That gives me an idea for a cool thread! 💡
 
Sorry, my bad Zardoz!

In its epic 3 hour running time, theres easily just as much chatter as there is crash bang wallop. ts just a shame that neither bits were particularly good IMO.

But i wouldnt say the dialogue sucked.

1 word Peter Jackson EDIT!

Has anyone read the "review" of King Kong in "Total Film"?? they give it 5 stars (which to me means its perfect) And they go threw most things that i said was wrong with it & yet they give it 5/5! that makes sense.
 
Well I enjoyed the whole film, I liked the old fashioned style of the filming, the acting, the action, I liked it all, but I can see your point about a reviewer saying bad things about it and giving it 5/5 stars, however 5 starts does not mean the film is perfect, just top class. Nothing is perfect so having a rating for such is pointless because it will never be used.
 
555
...Has anyone read the "review" of King Kong in "Total Film"?? they give it 5 stars (which to me means its perfect) And they go threw most things that i said was wrong with it & yet they give it 5/5! that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I guess it means that in spite of its flaws, it worked anyway. Seems that the vast majority of the reviewers (including us) felt the same way.
 
I know what you & they are saying, but if it has floors then it shouldnt be 5/5 really should it!?
Thats just my view anyway.

I always disagree with the masses, thats just me! :sly:
 
But every film has flaws, theres no perfect film. If you can't call a film great because it's got flaws you can't call any film great, ever.
 
But this film wasn't just not perfect, it wasn't even much better than average. Honestly I'd never think about this movie again if it weren't for people bringing it up all the time.
 
Your entitled to not like, I just loved it. I was making a point regarding perfect film rating, and not calling a film great because it has flaws, every film has flaws. I thought King Kong was brilliant.
 
danoff
Edit: And what was the deal with that horrible horrible last line of dialogue in the movie?
Click to expand...

"'Twas beauty killed the beast."

This line of dialogue? Two things were "with" this appropriate appropriate last line of dialogue.

1. It's the same last line as the original.

2. Denham is a director. His mind, as we have seen for the past three hours, is obsessed with the world of movies, to the point of obsession. He gets into this distant, dreamy tone of voice a few times in the film, like when he realizes that if Jack (Adrien Brody) can manage to rescue Ann from Kong and run back to the valley, he might be able to capture the ape. He says something like "They'll come running, and the ape'll be hot on their heels." Therefore, when Denham sees the giant ape lying in a heap on the road, his mind sees the entire scene as though it were one from a movie. That's why he uses that grandiose, cheesy movie-quality line, because he's a movie director, and that's how he thinks, perceives the world around him, and ultimately talks.

And how can you say this is not a tragedy? Kong and Ann are kindred spirits, if not from the same species. This movie teaches us the truth about human nature, which is personified by Carl Denham here. We destroy everything that is pure and good, either for money or fame, or both. dozens of people were weeping when Kong slips off the building and falls at the end, all three times I saw it.
 
Anderton Prime
"'Twas beauty killed the beast."

This line of dialogue? Two things were "with" this appropriate appropriate last line of dialogue.

1. It's the same last line as the original.

2. Denham is a director. His mind, as we have seen for the past three hours, is obsessed with the world of movies, to the point of obsession. He gets into this distant, dreamy tone of voice a few times in the film, like when he realizes that if Jack (Adrien Brody) can manage to rescue Ann from Kong and run back to the valley, he might be able to capture the ape. He says something like "They'll come running, and the ape'll be hot on their heels." Therefore, when Denham sees the giant ape lying in a heap on the road, his mind sees the entire scene as though it were one from a movie. That's why he uses that grandiose, cheesy movie-quality line, because he's a movie director, and that's how he thinks, perceives the world around him, and ultimately talks.
Click to expand...

Beauty didn't kill the beast, he did.

And how can you say this is not a tragedy? Kong and Ann are kindred spirits, if not from the same species. This movie teaches us the truth about human nature, which is personified by Carl Denham here. We destroy everything that is pure and good, either for money or fame, or both. dozens of people were weeping when Kong slips off the building and falls at the end, all three times I saw it.
Click to expand...

Kong and Ann are NOT kindred spirits. She likes Kong because he protected her on the island and knows that he's a nice monkey. He likes her because she's pretty and does goofy tricks. That's it, that's the romance.

Man does not destroy everything good. Man is the only thing that is good. You can only be good through choice, and only man (and maybe Kong) has choice. A lion is not evil or good when he kills an injured animal for food. The lion is neutral - incapable of acting otherwise.

This movie might have been tragic if Kong had been motivated more. We don't see Kong do much other than protect the pretty girl and kill people/animals in the process. We know he killed other girls who were offered to him, so we know he's not all heart. I don't know, I just didn't get all that attached to Kong. Maybe if I'd seen something more human in him. Maybe if he'd saved more people than just Ann...
 
Anderton Prime
...And how can you say this is not a tragedy? Kong and Ann are kindred spirits, if not from the same species...
Click to expand...

The portrayal of the bond between them was remarkable. It was very easy to buy into it completely. From the time he yanked her off the sacrificial altar until he slid away from her at the end, it was totally believable.

I was amazed at how well the finale in the sky was done. I don't see how it could've been done better.

Danoff, I almost wonder if you saw the same movie we did...



.
 
Surely a "bond" between a monkey & Naomi Watts is illegal!??

I think Danoff saw the same film i did, nice to know someone else can be different & not go with the flow. Not that im saying your wrong, but its our opions that we didnt like it & its yours that you did. But by no means was this a techinally "good" movie. IMO.

Actually it wasnt Carl that killed the beast, it was the bullets & that blumin great fall, which i am very dissapointed to not have actually seen. It would've been great to see a giant CGI Monkey plumet into concreet, but of course like every other time someone falls off a building in a film, we only see them fall, we never see the splat.
 
555
It would've been great to see a giant CGI Monkey plumet into concreet, but of course like every other time someone falls off a building in a film, we only see them fall, we never see the splat.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud. Go watch some suicide videos at consumptionjunction.com if that's what you want to see. This is a film, not Faces of Death!

danoff
Beauty didn't kill the beast, he did.
Click to expand...

Who "killed Kong" is irrelevant to understanding the point of this line of dialogue. I'm trying to explain to you why Carl says this, and why he says it the way he says it. He's already thinking about how this would make a great movie, or perhaps how closely the most recent events of his life mirror the plot of a movie...
 
Who "killed Kong" is irrelevant to understanding the point of this line of dialogue. I'm trying to explain to you why Carl says this, and why he says it the way he says it. He's already thinking about how this would make a great movie, or perhaps how closely the most recent events of his life mirror the plot of a movie...
Click to expand...

I see. So the lesson here is that Carl hasn't learned anything... and that's supposed to make Kong's death and his relationship with Ann more tragic, because Carl blames Ann when it was his fault all along.

But upon further reflection, Carl actually has a point. If Kong hadn't been so attached to Ann and had just killed her from the beginning, none of this would have happened to him. It was his attachment to Ann that got him in the mess in the first place, so perhaps Ann is to blame... nah we can't blame Ann, it was Carl's choice.

Ok, I think you cleared up the last line for me.
 
Oh come on, you tellin me seeing a giant CGI monkey falling from (however tall that building is) wouldnt be a good shot!? Like you keep preaching., its a film, its entertainment, not real.
 

Latest Posts

Back