I give this movie 5 THUMBS UP ... and all my toes too I went tonight. King Kong is one of the best movies I have seen in a really long time. Even more exciting than LOTR...sorry, but this baby will keep you on the edge for a long while 3 hours long, but it was a total absorption, and just seemed ot fly. It has it all ... a really great drama, action, love, tons of emotion. The scenes are spectacular...great use of the camera ... there are camera angles that you rarely if ever see in a movie...of course a lot is CG, which makes it a necessity for us to see. The emotion shown in kong is awesome ... the entire gorilla work is so fluid --- he seems to be real.... anyway, I don't want to give too much away ... and I would think there will be some Poser images soon , especially with the new Sixus1 gorilla and the DAZ beast .. AWESOME ... 5 thumbs up

I love King Kong movies. I have that on my list as a must see. I watched the original and the 1970's remake the otherday. Great stuff! Glad to hear the this latest is worthy. However, with Peter Jackson behind it, how could it be anything else. The man is a God when it comes to directing. I don't do well sitting in a movie theater. I just don't have the patience to sit that long and "watch", so I'll wait for it to come out on DVD and then watch it a million times, hehe

I saw it last night at the movies, it was absolutely brilliant. Such brilliant effects, and how they captured such emotion in Kong was totally amazing.

And just think, Mr. Jackson is overseeing Halo! Now if there was any way he'd direct a new Star Wars film...hope springs eternal.

Yep. Just scale up the DAZ gorilla -- or Sixus1's, if you prefer -- stick a blonde V3 in the scene.....and viola! You've got the mood down pat. Just make the gorilla's expression look sad to add some pathos.

Of course, the fact that real-life gorillas don't ever use any human-style facial expressions.....oh, well -- that's beside the point. If we can put human facial expressions on dogs & cats in the movies, then why not on gorillas too? Special-effects anthropomorphism makes animals more accessible to humans. It gives us the idea that animals think & feel just like we do.

BTW - to a gorilla, showing the teeth (as in a smile) is a display of aggression.

I'm sure that it's a great movie. It doesn't look like its going to be the same sort of mega-hit that the LOTR's movies were. Oh, well.....I might see it when the DVD comes out.

Back in the 20's & 30's, a number of now-forgotten movies were made which featured apes. The leading ape always seemed to have an insatiable lust for his nubile blonde co-star.

Sounds like a TOS violation to me.........

Message edited on: 12/17/2005 23:25

Excellent film. The thing to remember is that this is a monster movie. No one is going for Oscars for acting, and no one is looking for deep meanings (other than that people should look beyond the surface, etc and so on). A really nice touch is that Jackson, when he created the dinosaurs, gave them a retro look. They do not look like the dinosaurs you'd see in modern reconstructions or "Walking with Dinosaurs" and such. They look like what a 1930s filmmaker (with a little more knowledge about dinos than they had at the time, admittedly) would have created if he'd had access to modern CGI. So the sauropods look like people used to think of them: brontosaurs holding their necks up like swans. The tyrannosaurs are big, bulky things, not the lighter, faster model we have no days.

well, I have to disagree about the thinking and feeling part. I've had several dogs, and believe me , they think and feel... They show a lot of emotion. Our Great Dane knew when one of us was coming home, and I don't mean on a regular schedule so he had the pavlov thing ... he was sad, he was happy...he knew when we were pissed, and could tell if we were depressed ... Animals show love to their young much as we do. They feel towards their offspring ...maybe we could go as far as to say maybe they care more than we do, because humans obviously have some compassion lacking in there someplace.

I did 2 King Kong pictures last week. Re-textured and re-morphed the DAZ gorilla. Posted 2 messages on the Forum. I wish I could do a Peter Jackson Tyrannosaur, but there is only so much you can do with re-texturing and re-morphing existing models. I love his thinking about doing retro-thirties Tyrannosaurs with crocodile textures and ridges. Adding the ridges to the existing T-Rex models would be the tough part. Someone doing an Ann Darrow for Poser would be great. She looked better in the New York Scenes all dolled up, with the white dress and the marcelle wave. Trying to figure out what dress to use from the wardrobe of DAZ and 'Rosity stuff.

What I'd like to know is since these CGI effects are supposed to create impossible worlds, saving need for extravagant set building and thousands of extras, why are these CGI film budgets exploding beyond the $200 million mark? Not that it isn't up on the screen. The effects sequences were great except for one that looked like it was shot by the B team, for sure.

Above, my tribute to the director on a great effort with an effect shot that took me less than a minute and didn't cost a dime.

Message edited on: 12/18/2005 11:33

"Of course, the fact that real-life gorillas don't ever use any human-style facial expressions" Oh yeah? Where do you think the human smile comes from? It's pretty much universal across the primates. And before you get to telling me that a gorilla smile is not friendly, think on this... humour and the associated reactions are believed to be a modified fear response. :)

fear response ... kinda like you're around a group of people...you tell jokes to break the ice... but everyone is afraid of the alpha male ahole who holds the upper hand psychologically ... or whomever is perceived in the power position ... or ... you're in a very nervous situation and you laugh uncontrollable...but you're really scared out of your mind ... or ... someone is talkiong to you and they laugh after nearly every sentence, even though its not funny ... or isn't necessarily a funny topic ... yeah ...nervous laugh..I call it the , what the h--- is funny here, smile and laugh for nothing idiot...but at least they're smiling instead of grumping/ yeah, I can see that response being from fear :) and gorillas do have facial expressions ... some humans do too ...less and less with all the botox being injected.

You got it, Dave-so. Not so sure about the Botox, though. Maybe have to ask Cliff Richard. :D

Sorry -- showing the teeth among apes is an expression of aggressive intent. Fear & aggression are often associated with each other -- but neither is associated with any positive feelings or expressions. Whereas among humans, showing the teeth in a smile is normally a highly positive expression. Unless if the smile stems from motives like deliberate smirking or cruelty. In which case the expression is still a positive one -- for the person with the smile is actually enjoying something. From bad motives perhaps -- but it's still an expression of pleasure. Not a display of fear.

As far as nervous smiles & laughter go -- such expressions represent an attempt to deny or to cover up the reality of a bad situation with pretended good feelings. But only humans will do this. An ape isn't that subtle. He might show his teeth in an aggressive fear response -- but a fearful animal is even more dangerous than an animal that's simply being dominant. To an ape, there's nothing positive in any way, shape, or form to showing the teeth.

As for Great Danes and wagging tails -- sure, no one would ever deny that dogs (and cats) have feelings on a certain elemental level. Although I'd deny outright that they ever have "thoughts" in any form even approaching those of humans [[but if anyone wishes to discuss higher mathematics, or the political implications of the Iraq war with your dog -- or with a gorilla for that matter -- feel free to do so]].

Animal expressions in no way match those of humans. for example - whereas an angry human will normally lower his brows and narrow his eyes, an angry tiger will raise his brows and widen his eyes. A happy dog will wag his tail and pant with a "playing grin". But an aggressive dog sometimes does the same things.........shrug And I've yet to see a human wag his tail under any circumstances. But I don't know -- perhaps there are those that do.

A happy human will show his teeth. Perhaps a teeth-displaying gorilla is happy, too -- after all, he's thinking about how much fun he's going to have using that foolish human over there for a basketball..........

Message edited on: 12/18/2005 14:37

Granted, Kong is a monster-themed movie.

Nevertheless the gaping holes in logic just kept on pouring and pouring and pouring (I could have forgiven a half a dozen logic problems given the theme of the movie, really, but there just didn't seem to be an end to those - from the beginning right down to the closing). It began to bug me.

The movie is way too long in my opinion. There were some 10-minute shots left in the movie that had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. I don't know about the general movie-going public, but in my book whole scenes could have been edited out without any fear of the story losing impact.

I saw it from the biggest screen in Nordic countries - and it became crystal clear that the lip-sync was off! I don't know if it was a problem with movie itself or the equipment used to show it, but it bothered me quite a lot.

The movie has no social, political or economic meaning that gave the original King Kong movie much of it's success. This version is purely entertainment - use it and move on kind of thing. It is also trying to be politically correct which presents a major problem given the atmosphere and attitude of the time it is trying to represent - those are just thrown out of the window.

Soundtrack was utter crap. I at least expected to get music fitting for the epoch, but instead I was bombarded with epic philharmonic sound-barrier for over 2 hours! I mean I can take only so much violin in one sitting. The epic scenes were self-important and took away excitement from the other epic scenes (inflation of epicness if you will). Any movie director should know that making an epic movie does not equal making every single scene in the movie an epic chapter of unforeseen proportions. This very same thing was my major grape with another late blockbuster movie - Revenge of Sith by G.Lucas.

I liked the first part of the movie (the steady and brilliant development of the characters), but was very disappointed that many of the professionaly developed characters just ... well ... disappeared or started acting in a different manner. What's the point in developing complex characters and then not use them? Except for Mr.Preston who was not developed and remained bleak and dull - eventhough Preston was a supporting character to the main character.

The second episode of the film didn't quite add up. At times it was trying to be an adventure/catasrophe movie, then there were episodes that were pure fantasy/horror and then again we saw monster/action scenes. Not mention the puzzling jumps from comedy/farse to drama. I've nothing against humour myself and I laughed my ass off many times, but somehow the overall jumping from one style to another bothered me.

My assessment:
Digital Effects: 4/5 (excellent, but there were too much of it inflating it's effectiveness)
Cinematography: 4/5 (professional, but nothing extraordinary)
Plot development: 2/5 (nothing much to develop in the midst of fierce action scenes)
Coherency: 1/5 (HUGE gaping holes in logic from the beginning to the very end - I mean the sudden changes in conditions (night to day in 5 minutes etc), disappearance of the natives etc - things that deserved at least an explanation).
Soundtrack: 2/5 ('nuf said)
Acting: 3/5 (most were simply shadowed by Jack Black or showed a screen presence that seemed to conflict with the developed character they were playing)

Total: 3/5 - too long, badly edited, but yet an entertaining package of digital effects that doesn't want to to be anything else than that. Edited for typos.

Message edited on: 12/19/2005 03:07

Quote - Plot development: 2/5 (nothing much to develop in the midst of fierce action scenes)

It's King Kong; about a giant gorilla who falls in love with a beautiful girl, and is then captured and taken to New York. He escapes his bonds and ultimately goes on a rampage trying to save the girl that he loves. What more plot is there to develop?

While it is a "monster" movie, it's also a tragic love story.
It's possible that alot of your disappointment comes from the fact that more is not always better and sometimes, usually, it is distracting and takes away from the original. I'm a great fan of the 1930's version as hokey as it was. It's hard for me to imagine King Kong "modernized" through computers, but I'll see :) Message edited on: 12/19/2005 06:01

now I will have to go see it again...yes, there were a couple scenes that bothered me, especially the disappearance of the natives ... but weren't they a handsome lot ???? :) Overall, I kinda thought the movie was played out like an old movie somewhat...sort of cheesy , if you will ... The scene changes were abrupt in some cases, but I'm not sure it took away from the flow...it reminded me of someone changing their mind...there they were, then gone, then there they were... I'm still giving it 5/5 other than I thought the acting suffered a bit overall, but then again, perhaps it was more akin to the early 30s movie cheese.

It is King Kong. However, Jackson has put several sub-plots in there, but doesn't go anywhere with these. I fail to see why the original story needs to be expanded like this into a 3-hour giant spectacle show-off of what is possible with shitloads of money. If he only had sacrificed even one pointless CGI scene of fighting to explain many of the plot shortcomings, the movie would have been a lot better. I'm not disappointed with the movie's value as entertainment, but with the wasted possibilities sacrificed on the altar of technological marvel. It could have been so much more than a "monster, fight, run, weep" scenario that also happens to expand beyond 3 hours.

"... but weren't they a handsome lot ???? :)"

They were! Absolute marvellous acting and masking!
I thought the natives were much more scarier than the bugs and creey crawlies we were exposed later on. The finding of the Skull Island and the interaction with the natives were my personal favourites.

Message edited on: 12/19/2005 06:41

Quote - I fail to see why the original story needs to be expanded like this into a 3-hour giant spectacle show-off of what is possible with shitloads of money

Because it's what people want to see. Look at the box office sales for "low budget", low to moderate "high tech" movies vs those that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are filled with all kinds of special effects.

Unfortunately, most people want showy and flashy, even at the expense of the storyline.

In addition to that, there is technology available today that makes things that have been long thought impossible, now doable, and from a creative stand point, movie makers are wanting to try their hands at things that they only dreamed possible less than 20 years ago.

While some people go to the movies to see the storyline, it's the special effects that people leave talking about. Look at Star Wars. Does anyone even know what the storyline was about? Some maybe, but most just remember the bizarr looking creatures and the special effects. Message edited on: 12/19/2005 07:18

Maybe I'm just getting old then, but to me personally effects are supposed to be there to underline a point - not be the point.

I see ratings for different aspects of the movie but what about the most important aspect: Did you enjoy it? I'd give it a 5/5 on that. Yes, I saw technical and plot things that I questioned. Yes, I saw inconsistancies. But I (and my wife and daughter) had a great time watching it! We enjoyed it thoroughly!!!!!!!

Quote - the most important aspect: Did you enjoy it?

Exactly! > Quote - Maybe I'm just getting old then, but to me personally effects are supposed to be there to underline a point - not be the point.

Nah, not old. You just view movies in your own way. For me, I can't stand when there is so much happening on screen that I don't know what to look at. Because of that, for the most part, I don't care for huge epic style movies that have a gazillion things on the screen distracting from the story itself. Most of the time I don't even "see" the background scenery because I'm more interested in the dialogue taking place and the actors themselves. I find that too often the special effects of today's type of movie overshadow the actors who then become secondary. Given the choice of television/movies or live theater...give me live theater anytime, where the focus is the actors, and the background scenery and goings on are there to enhance, not be the focus.

I think the film succeeds simply because everyone is talking about how many special effects are too many, and is 3 hours too long, the human characters are under-developed etc. No one is saying "Gee, Kong himself was so fake, I couldn't get into the movie at all." Regarding Human/No-human expressions: Kong really doesn't take on humanistic expressions until quite late in the movie and it's indicated that he has the ability to learn the basics of Anne's behaviour. Most of the time he does that classic Gorilla thing of avoiding eye-contact when being non-agressive. Remember that an animal only needs to take on even the slightest semblance of a human-like expression for a person to lock onto it. You may think the animal is smiling, but it may just be straining to break wind. Cheers

"Did you enjoy it?" 3/5 worth. I don't regret seeing it. I think it was a nice, but flawed remake. A mediocre action flick with stunning F/X. I mostly enjoyed it. However, the problems of it got to me too much. Somehow I began thinking that the reason for putting so much action on the screen was to camouflage the lack of consistency, coherency and flaws in the script. Acadia said: "For me, I can't stand when there is so much happening on screen that I don't know what to look at" Same here. The pacing is also important. The viewer needs time to understand and absorb what he/she is seeing before he/she is blasted with yet another new way to shock. I began thinking how is this movie perceived in, say, 30 years from now. An average monster movie? A true classic de

That's interesting what ya'll are saying about "so much happening on the screen." Sometimes I will put together things with a whole lot going on - not to try to communicate specific details as much as to create a big impression. I'll try to elicit an almost "overwhelmed" emotion because in those instances the detail of what is being shown is less important than the fact that there is a lot of whatever I'm showing. It may be the evil influence of MTV. Of course, what I find in movies like this is that the large quantity of things going on keeps it fresh for repeated viewings. Each time you notice something you didn't see before.