King Kong (2005)

I don't suffer from vertigo but even I found one particular shot (the "looking straight down - rotating" one) very disorienting.

I enjoyed it (as did my kiRAB) though I thought the effects were variable. It was almost as though PJ put some scruffy ones in (particularly the shot with the NY skyline when the boat's leaving) to highlight how good the "Kong" CGI was. (There was a similar moment in LOTR with some very dodgy 'green-screen' shots with Treebeard...)

K
 
Thanks for that! Actually, there's a 4th opportunity just around the time the guys get dropped off a log by Kong into a ravine. I don't particularly like to see spiders (real or images of), so will give this part of the film a miss! I used to be fine until 1974 when I saw 'Dr Who and the Planet of the Spiders' on TV. They may look pretty silly now, but they scared the living daylights out of me back then!
 
It's been interesting reading some of the things here....

Just thought I'd add that I don't think the film anthropomorphised Kong at all. That's how gorrillas are. One of the things I said when the film finished was how believable they had made him as a giant gorrilla. Anyone who has spent any amount of time looking at or studying these animals will recognise a lot of Kong's behaviour as that of an intelligent silver back. They are just fascinating creatures to study and the film got across incredibly well what it is like to really look at one.

He didn't kill Ann because he found her entertaining (by the looks of it, the others he just 'played with' and broke). He spent a lot of time displaying and trying to show her who's boss. He protects her, not because he loves her, but because she is his - part of his group and his job is to protect that. All the great apes are highly social animals and so when he finRAB this little thing who entertains him, he 'adopts' her as one of his own.

Jackson and co should be highly commended on the amount of research they obviously did for this film.
 
i went up a mountain in italy one weekend.. :D
my aunt picked a picturesque spot for our picnic
i got stuff from the car boot and she put down a rug
in that brief moment dozens of spiders appeared from
under all four sides of the rug and scuttled all over it :eek:
and the creepy crawlies in kong are as big as crocodiles ;)
 
watched this last night good movie but didn't see that it had added to the original film apart from the special effects another pointless remake
 
Quite true, but the crucial difference is that Jackson's character was quite different to the original's, so it is no longer appropriate. I didn't know this when I saw it, the line just seemed false and odd. But subsequently I read Harry Knowles' review at Aint It Cool News, which explained why.
 
Just got back from it and it was outstanding. The first hour was very slow moving but after that....WOW! It's amazingness made up for the plot holes, i was so engrossed by it. Made me jump, laugh and actually cry (sad, but oh well).
 
I had to read this a couple of times for it to make sense - a full stop and capital letter here and there can be quite useful.

I disagree about it being a pointless remake. True, it was the same basic story as the original (which is still an all-time classic) but for once, and admittedly this is rare for remakes, it is a good film in its own right and I'm glad it was made.
 
just got in from the bafta scotland screening of king kong
and i'm suffering motion sickness. i feel nauseous and giddy
so if you suffer from sea sickness, vertigo or have a phobia
be prepared..this film is the world's biggest rollercoaster
can understand why peter jackson was exhausted making it
i was drained when i came out..but i give it a mighty 10/10
 
Tonight I watched the original movie and realise that my contributions to the discussion here were just made in the dark, so to speak. That review you posted, Noiseboy, by 'Harry', the one that I found so interesting...well, it really makes sense now. I had been under the impression that Jackson had really just tweaked a few bits from the original and generally just enhanced the basic storyline along with the special effects.

But as Harry says:

Indeed it is and I understand now why it's hard not to weep at the original and why the tears just don't come so readily for the remake. In the original, Kong is completely alone and only us, the audience, can see his...(I nearly said 'humanity' there)....his pathos. It makes it so much more moving. What I find fascinating is that this pathos was so clear and yet it was so subtle. Whereas now we apparently need great huge big signposts to understand what we should feel (all those lingering shots of eye contact between Ann and Kong). Not to mention a major re-write.

I dunno. I still think it's a great film but....maybe the fact that my son is busy playing the PS2 game and the fact that I bought the DVD in ASDA for a fiver and it was chucked in with the broccoli and the three-for-the-price-of-one pizzas just makes me feel almost as sad as seeing Kong overcome by the gas......
 
I fully agree that Kong's representation in Jackson's film was utterly convincing, I really felt that I was watching a real silverback gorilla. But then again, I have only watched a few wildlife documentaries and couldn't possibly count myself an expert. I like your description of Kong protecting Ann because she has become his adopted young (and he 'broke' all his other children :( )
I do think, though, that attributing Kong with the ability to appreciate 'beauty' is definitely a clear case of anthropomorphism.
 
there are loaRAB of books that have never been made into films, there are loaRAB of people that have stories & ideas for films that never get made - yet a film studio can spend approx $207,000,00 on a "safe" remake, when income from film is declining due to less people going to the cinema and they wonder why, when there is little orginal content at the cinema (sorry about the previous lack of punctuation)
 
Back
Top