King Kong (2005)

http://www.sneersnipe.co.uk/Bias/CGI.htm

Digital characters are often what prove to be the hardest of all CGI to create and hence are often what most puts an audience off. Not all digital characters are doomed to render a film a failure, though. As irritating as he is, Jar Jar Binks was not wholly (or even mainly) responsible for the Phantom Menace travesty, and look at the Lord of the Rings films
 
Apparently, King Kong is not doing that as well as expected at the box office in America as people expected. I'm shocked as this is the only film in a long time that I'm tempted to go and see.
 
Saw this yesterday afternoon, and it is a must see. Brilliant effects and the last 20 minutes are just brilliant. I loved every minute of this and recommend it to anyone.
 
At no point did anyone say "Blimey - Dinosaurs". Or "Blimey - a very big ape". Not suggesting these actual lines you understand, but there is so much gentle comic potential there. It was all a bit too furrowed-brow for that though.

This is one of those films with which I'm becoming a bit more disatisfied with the more I think about it. It IS a very good film, but not a truly great film. It's just froth, really. I know I'll get howls of derison for saying this, but Narnia had a good deal more substance behind it.

King Kong is the legend that it is because of movie history. In 1933, no-one had seen anything like it. It was fast and breezy, and had incredible effects. And it was seen in an age when... well, maybe there was an uncharted island with a lost world in it. It captured the imagination, just as Jurassic Park did 60 years later in 1993. You know, maybe they COULD clone dinosaurs from fossilised DNA?!

When you think about it, there is little really to hold onto here in 2005. Primarily, Jackson's King Kong is a movie lovers movie. But the greatest films are about more universal things than movies. And attempts to make Kong deeper are technically very impressive, but remain pretty shallow.

Narnia may be a fairytale, but its core themes of love, forgiveness and redemption I think touch people more deeply than any amount of Beauty / Beast gazing. In the end, I guess I wanted a Kong that was a bit happier to celebrate its sheer entertainment value. At its best - the dino stampede, the vines - it combines action with comedy. The final scenes in the theatre and on the Empire State Building are superb. But if people are wondering why Kong is no Titanic in terms of global phenomenon... well, it just doesn't matter very much. IMHO.
 
I have to say I did not find any part of this movie silly. It certainly wasn't played silly. They made both Kong himself and the dinos believable as animals (with a tad of artistic license thrown in) - I like that they didn't just make this into a monster movie. They tried to keep it as plausible as you can when you're talking about a 25 foot ape :D



No, it's not a flop at all and it surprises me that people keep suggesting it is. It's actually doing very well. After just 20 days on release (some of which were xmas and new year) it has made getting on for $400 million world wide. It's got strong competition in the US from Narnia (whose suggestion of religious subtext is undoubtedly helping it because it certainly isn't THAT good a film!). Add to that total the unexpected success of video game - which by all accounts has made bucket loaRAB - and reasonably good sales of the Production Diaries dvd, and I think it's safe to say that by the time the film itself is released on dvd it'll have made a substantial sum of cash. Hopefully enough to convince Universal to let PJ make that extend edition dvd he so desperately wants to do! :D
 
Well to me, that's just one of those things that work immediately for me. Maybe you're thinking too hard about it thinking that it's a riddle, or a puzzle.

Kong was previously surviving in a harsh dangerous habitat, where it was survival of the fittest. He had to be tough to survive against predators trying to eat each other on a day to day basis.

Then he falls in love.
Love weakens him...makes him soft.
His instincts are impaired, he is weak.
Falling in love with the girl ultimatately kills him in the end.

I suppose it's a bit similar to comparing it to how with some wild animals that are captured, once they've been domesticated they can't be released back into the wild because they haven't got the survival skills needed to just survive in the wild anymore, because they've become soft.

It's just that in this case it's the love for a human woman that has had this sort of weakening effect on Kong.

..and obviously it's a metaphor for life in general.

Love weakens us, takes us over, and consumes us to the detriment of everything else if we're not careful.
And obviously many people can relate to relationships that they've had that were doomed to fail, yet still got hurt by them.

I don't think there's meant to be a clever reason for it's meaning,...I think it is meant as literally as it is said, and as simple as it sounRAB.


I think the meaning "No...it was beauty killed the beast" is as simple as that.

I actually saw the original 1933 'King Kong' film on TV the other day. And when I heard that line again, it just hit me how effective that line actually is.
That was probably one of the best ending lines to any film...ever. And that ending line was probably one of the elements that propelled 'King Kong' to classic status.

:)
 
i blame it on 4 moments in the film

1.when the ship was squeezing through the rocks
especially the bit up in the crows nest
2.when kong leaps and runs with ann at 150 mph
3.when kong, ann and the t-rexs were falling
through the gorge entangled by the vines
and everyone was swinging backwarRAB and forwarRAB
4.and finally when he had the tiniest of grip on top of
the empire state building, jumping to catch planes

i'm shaking as i type this :D

ps just remembered...
i was sitting in the middle of the 2nd row
in front of a high resolution screen..
which had the same effect as an imax
plus i broke my normal specs and had
to watch with polarised sunglasses
which resulted in more vibrant colours
 
All three of my children seen it today and both girls said they cried their eyes out. My son said the effects were brilliant. Shows the difference in the emotions here ;)

Anyway, I can't wait to drag hubby along to see it now. :)
 
I went to see King Kong last night and was amazing and one of the best films I have seen this year!
The acting was great from everybody in the film especially Naomi Watts and the special effects were amazing. The first hour was slow but it helped to build the anticipation of what is coming!
King Kong only took
 
OMG! I went to see King Kong the other day, i loved it, was it really three hours long cuz i didn't notice as during a lot of movies i've sneaked out for a quick ciggie :o but i didn't with this one. I really enjoyed it , it kinda made me laugh, made me cry *i'm not ashamed to admit as i go through more tissues with movies than with anything else* and after a slow start it kept my attention the whole way through............i would definately say go and see it :)
 
I've got one.
Why, as someone whose tears are easily jerked, did I not cry at the end? I barely had a lump in my throat.
I think because I was overwhelmed by the magnificent cinematography and (very) underwhelmed by the emotional story.
 
Okaaay.
I don't have any phobias (that I know of, anyway) so I can't really empathise, sorry. I will say though, that Kong is the only movie I can think of that made me feel I'd had a physical experience as well as a visual one.

Your comments about polarised sunglasses and imax have me completely baffled.. :o ....can we get back to anthropomorphism and the meaning of love...?
 
The first 45 minutes is the back story and character development. It makes a pleasant change from so many films where there is no characterisation and the people are all so 2-dimensional.
 
I thought I was the only one to comment on the vertigo side effects - I was feeling physically sick and had to avert my eyes many times during the last sequence.
 
Back
Top