Nothing getting APE over with

Nictoe · The Wise One Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 7590

I've just seen the previews of the latest remake of 'KING KONG' and I think it just simply plain SUCKS Rolling Eyes

Jaded · Forum Guru Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 696

Definitely not on my "must see" list. I'll probably wait to see it on DVD.

Evil Ash · Forum Guru Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 429

It looks like mindless fun so I'll definitly be seeing it in the theaters. You have to except some movies for what they are and just enjoy them. Take for example all three of the new Star Wars films. They sucked so bad but we all saw them. Three was really good but after seeing it on DVD with out the audience element it loses its appeal. I always love seeing films in theater for the ambiance.
_________________
There are no mistakes made on the way to the inevitable - Me

Bobby's Girl · Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject:

I can't wait to see the new King Kong movie. It looks fantastic. I've been seeing previews and making of video clips on the Kong site and elsewhere for months and it's going to be spectacular. Peter Jackson has been a Kong fan since he was nine. In fact, seeing King Kong (the 1933 version) when he was nine was the reason he wanted to become a filmmaker.

Just really looking forward to this.
_________________
Bobby's Girl

Nictoe · The Wise One Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 7590

I still say GRAPES OF WRATH was the BEST movie I ever saw. Wink

bestsynd · Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:21 pm Post subject: Peter Jackson's King Kong

Peter Jackson once more brings a classic into modern mainstream movie theatres, only this time in place of small hairy-footed creatures carrying precious antique jewelry, we have one giant hairy ape carrying a kicking and screaming Anne Darrow. However, unlike Jackson's previous film success (mainly, the final installation to the Lord of the Rings trilogy), the three hours of cinematic art passes by seamlessly and pleasantly. So pleasantly, in fact, that I almost felt as though the credits rolled a moment too soon.

In this brilliantly crafted remake of the 1933 King Kong, modern technology and more patient audiences provide a valuable base for exploring deeper emotions and finer details in the intense relationship between Anne and Kong. Not only is the relation explored deeper, but altered to make it more meaningful and realistic. Gone is the constantly frightened Anne, and present is an Anne who, by the end of the film, comes to understand her hairy love interest and, perhaps, even love him in return.

The directorial execution of the film isn't the only aspect that makes this worth your ten bucks. The acting made me take a step back and re-evaluate my opinions on certain actors. First and foremost, who knew that Jack Black could act? It's been difficult to separate any Jack Black character from the hilarious lead in the band Tenacious D, but here he takes a dramatic leap from the comic relief and becomes the Carl Denham I had always hoped to see.

Another stunning acting talent that emerged victoriously in this film is Colin Hanks, the son of Tom Hanks, who had previously co-starred with Jack Black in the low rated 2002 film, Orange County. Though only a supporting role in King Kong, Colin proves that he has talent in his own right and that he is more than just his famous last name.

From a subtle glance to a frantic wave of his arms, Colin is convincing and absolutely solid in his acting ability. This film is well worth the cost of a movie ticket. Seldom is a remake worthy of even a C rating, but this one surpasses even more original movies that have been released this year. I give it a B+.

Peter Jackson King Kong Movie Review - Simply Brilliantly Crafted

By Stephanie Wilson
Freelance Writer

steandric · Guest

if you were on acting of this film, how could you have omitted naomi watts (ann darrow) who gave the best of all, an oscar-worthy performance as so many critics and viewers said.

BubbleBrain · Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:49 pm Post subject:

MY REVIEWS FROM WRONGWOODCalif.com FORUM

Posted: December/16/2005 at 1:05am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tonight we went and saw King Kong.

At 3 hours and 22 minutes it was a bit too long, but we dug it anyway.

A little light on the fake realism....

People too clean, cars too spiffy, dumb spots in the story line.

Way too real: The bugs. I ain't sayin' more on THAT.

Just take a can of Raid with you to the theater!!!

Ebert and Roeper questioned the casting choices of Jack Black and Adrian Brody, but I thought they did just fine.

Tank and I go to see movies purely for entertainment.

If we feel we were well entertained, we give a movie a higher rating.

We are NOT any kind of "PURISTS" or afficionados!!!

That said, I give the new KING KONG a B+. We enjoyed it.

*****************************************************

Posted: December/16/2005 at 1:50pm | IP 71.116.194.225

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "STARS": Naomi Watts. Adrian Brody. Jack Black.

Adrian Brody (Academy Award Winner for The Pianist) is....

Okay, let's just say it like it is and blurt out... He's kinda goofy looking. He is the leading man / love interest in King Kong.

Jack Black has cultivated the look of an insanely enthusiastic gnome during his career. Although he did not have what is his "normal" bowling ball waistline on view, he did have a lot of his usual maniac eyebrow twitching and leering smile going on. He was one of the three stars of this film.

Naomi Watts was luminous and an obvious, expected choice.

Ebert and Roeper question the casting choices of Brody and Black because they were not stereotypical Indiana Jones handsome movie mega stars.

Frankly, I enjoyed this offbeat odd-man-out guy next door casting.

Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford-type leading men would have really been yucky and uninteresting.

I think Ebert and Roeper musta missed something in their critique of these unusual and risky casting choices: I thought they worked.

I would never give this movie FIVE ***** STARS or an A... But it was fun.

Some of MY FIVE ***** STAR A-LIST ACTION / ADVENTURE FILMS:

All three of the older Star Wars, but ESPECIALLY the very first one.

Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Romancing the Stone.

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head right now.

I save my A's and FIVE STARS for something extra, EXTRAORDINARY!

King Kong is a solid B+ for me, but not an A. Solly, hunneeee.

(HUBBY GAVE IT A 5 STAR A REVIEW)
_________________
NEED MORE FORUM? Come Visit ME At MINE:

WWWatchdog, Wrightwood, SoCal. High Desert, WORLD

400 GAMES, ON-LINE MUSIC, LOCAL NEWS & PIX

Come Visit Me At: http://WRONGWOOD.com/forum

Once WWRat * Now LasPulgas, Bubblebrain and WWWatchdog

Interested in Most All and Always a Rabble-Rouser: Get Thee to WRONGWOOD!

GOODave · -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09

WarPigH8er · Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject:

I haven't seen the film yet, but I will. I got a free ticket when I bought a new package of Jurassic Park DVD (3 disc set).
_________________
Repent and eat your vegetables.