King Kong (2005)
- Thread starter Ginger A
- Start date
Yeah, I like The Frightners too - must get that new DVD at some point. And (of course) LOTR. Heavenly Creatures was an amazing film - do want to see that again, even if it is all a bit traumatic. I'm hoping he'll do a major DVD on that at some point - will take this over Kong!
Perhaps I am being a bit hard on Kong. It was good, and I was never actually bored. I can't quite face sitting through it all again though...
Perhaps I am being a bit hard on Kong. It was good, and I was never actually bored. I can't quite face sitting through it all again though...
GRIMREAPER75
New member
you'll be delighted then 
that ~
forrest gump won 6 oscars including best picture and
pulp fiction won 1 oscar for best writing, screenplay directly for the screen
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/awarRAB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/awarRAB
that ~forrest gump won 6 oscars including best picture and
pulp fiction won 1 oscar for best writing, screenplay directly for the screen
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/awarRAB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/awarRAB
miss.barboza
New member
Nice one, well spotted 
I'll have to look out for that when I see it again.
Does Peter Jackson have any cameo in the film? He seems to appear in most of his films, certainly he was in The Frighteners and (I think) all three Lord of the Rings films. I read he's in one of the planes but I can't spot him.
I'll have to look out for that when I see it again.Does Peter Jackson have any cameo in the film? He seems to appear in most of his films, certainly he was in The Frighteners and (I think) all three Lord of the Rings films. I read he's in one of the planes but I can't spot him.
flightfan411
New member
Noiseboy and claire2281: when I was reading your posts I found myself getting rather despondent about the comparisons between Kong and Narnia. It seems pretty obvious that the only point of comparison for these two films is money: how much they cost and how much they'll make. I find that a bit depressing, to be honest.
But I suppose I am being naive: they're not supposed to be works of art, they're just 'blockbuster movies'. Although it would be silly to compare Peter Jackson to Tarkovsky (hee hee) or Tilda Swinton to Vanessa Redgrave (mmhh.....) it still seems to me that a film deserves to be judged on its intrinsic merits rather than its commercial power. (Not saying that's necessarily what you were doing, just making a general point...)
Re: Narnia and it being a children's film. This is a subject close to my heart, although related to books more than film. I understand that from a commercial point of view why childrens films 'need' to appeal to adults. Money, again.
To a lesser extent it is the same with books, particularly since Harry Potter. I absolutely loathe books or films that are aimed at children but pander to adults. It is rare that a children's author / film-maker can get away with it. Roald Dahl, for example, always speaks directly to the child, there is never ever any acknowledgment of an adult audience. JK Rowling too (although there was a nasty cringing moment in one of the HP books). Enid Blyton - much maligned but basically a true children's author in this sense. Apart from Rowling I can think of no current children's author that does not pander to an unacceptable degree. 'The Impossibles' is a good example of a supposedly children's film that is basically aimed at adults. I don't know any child that loved it - enjoyed it, yes, but loved it, no.
I loved Narnia (the film) because it faithfully created the world that I loved as a child. It almost hurt it was so accurate. At one point I wondered if they had digitally created Edmund from my own imagination, he was so perfect. So obviously there is no way I can be objective about the merits of this film. It is inevitably tied to some of my deepest and most treasured childhood memories. Just like so many others (adults!).
Somehow I seriously doubt that the film will inspire children to read the whole book series. I don't care what noise the Christian lobby makes - it won't happen. It's too dated.
We need some new stuff!! Enough re-makes and 'films of the book! We need something new and fresh, that isn't smart-arse and self-conscious or driven by nostalgia...don't we? Not to to mention something something that itsn't driven by some agenda, commercial or religious or political. Well, maybe political.....
I've really enjoyed this discussion. As mentioned, it is really nice to hold a proper conversation on here without bitchiness and, probably most importantly, the thread not disappearing like yesterday's news after 24 hours.
I would really like to see your film, Noiseboy, but I have absolutely no idea how to go about organising that. But I will find out!
But I suppose I am being naive: they're not supposed to be works of art, they're just 'blockbuster movies'. Although it would be silly to compare Peter Jackson to Tarkovsky (hee hee) or Tilda Swinton to Vanessa Redgrave (mmhh.....) it still seems to me that a film deserves to be judged on its intrinsic merits rather than its commercial power. (Not saying that's necessarily what you were doing, just making a general point...)
Re: Narnia and it being a children's film. This is a subject close to my heart, although related to books more than film. I understand that from a commercial point of view why childrens films 'need' to appeal to adults. Money, again.
To a lesser extent it is the same with books, particularly since Harry Potter. I absolutely loathe books or films that are aimed at children but pander to adults. It is rare that a children's author / film-maker can get away with it. Roald Dahl, for example, always speaks directly to the child, there is never ever any acknowledgment of an adult audience. JK Rowling too (although there was a nasty cringing moment in one of the HP books). Enid Blyton - much maligned but basically a true children's author in this sense. Apart from Rowling I can think of no current children's author that does not pander to an unacceptable degree. 'The Impossibles' is a good example of a supposedly children's film that is basically aimed at adults. I don't know any child that loved it - enjoyed it, yes, but loved it, no.
I loved Narnia (the film) because it faithfully created the world that I loved as a child. It almost hurt it was so accurate. At one point I wondered if they had digitally created Edmund from my own imagination, he was so perfect. So obviously there is no way I can be objective about the merits of this film. It is inevitably tied to some of my deepest and most treasured childhood memories. Just like so many others (adults!).
Somehow I seriously doubt that the film will inspire children to read the whole book series. I don't care what noise the Christian lobby makes - it won't happen. It's too dated.
We need some new stuff!! Enough re-makes and 'films of the book! We need something new and fresh, that isn't smart-arse and self-conscious or driven by nostalgia...don't we? Not to to mention something something that itsn't driven by some agenda, commercial or religious or political. Well, maybe political.....
I've really enjoyed this discussion. As mentioned, it is really nice to hold a proper conversation on here without bitchiness and, probably most importantly, the thread not disappearing like yesterday's news after 24 hours.
I would really like to see your film, Noiseboy, but I have absolutely no idea how to go about organising that. But I will find out!
I thought it was an excellent film. The end suffered from the usual Peter jackson trait of going on a bit too long and there were one or two other sequences which I think should have been trimmed a bt (eg the dino chase sequence).
However, I thoroughly enjoyed it and it really didn't feel like three hours.
I suffer a bit from vertigo and found the ending very uncomfortable to watch!
However, I thoroughly enjoyed it and it really didn't feel like three hours.
I suffer a bit from vertigo and found the ending very uncomfortable to watch!
Twilight Lover Forever!
New member
I didn't find those sections silly. Silly to me seems to imply something to ridicule about them - yes, they obviously went well into the suspension of disbelief, but they were exciting and entertaining moments and I'd find it hard to ridicule that. In my mind silly is something so stupid you can't enjoy it so no, I couldn't call those moments silly.
True, but it is very telling to note though that whereas most films make the majority of their money in the so called overseas market Narnia has made most of its in the US. 60% of its takings in fact This is quite a rare occurance and suggests that there is something about it that appeals to the American audience - the suggestion is the playing up of the religious themes/family values angle has boosted its box office there whereas it has done reasonably elsewhere.
See this is where I'm obviously biased because although I adored the books and BBC series, I thought Narnia was quite average. It seemed to me very family fantasy film by numbers. It was quite clinical in its presentation, it lacked any real sense of peril (not once did I believe the children were truely in danger), the final climatic battle was anything but climatic and relied too much on it's good vs evil basics. There were no shades of grey. It just came off as though they were trying to make LOTR lite.
On the other hand Kong surprised me with how much depth there was under the big ape, dinos and CGI. There were some very interesting characters there whose actions and plots I found intriguing. My main complaint about the film is not seeing any more of the Venture crew once they'd caught Kong - I wanted to know more about Jimmy and where he'd come from!
True, but it is very telling to note though that whereas most films make the majority of their money in the so called overseas market Narnia has made most of its in the US. 60% of its takings in fact This is quite a rare occurance and suggests that there is something about it that appeals to the American audience - the suggestion is the playing up of the religious themes/family values angle has boosted its box office there whereas it has done reasonably elsewhere.
See this is where I'm obviously biased because although I adored the books and BBC series, I thought Narnia was quite average. It seemed to me very family fantasy film by numbers. It was quite clinical in its presentation, it lacked any real sense of peril (not once did I believe the children were truely in danger), the final climatic battle was anything but climatic and relied too much on it's good vs evil basics. There were no shades of grey. It just came off as though they were trying to make LOTR lite.
On the other hand Kong surprised me with how much depth there was under the big ape, dinos and CGI. There were some very interesting characters there whose actions and plots I found intriguing. My main complaint about the film is not seeing any more of the Venture crew once they'd caught Kong - I wanted to know more about Jimmy and where he'd come from!
I don't follow the technical aspects, to be honest. But if someone made a significant contribution to the film it would seem fair to share.....
Did Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker get awarRAB for their roles, by the way? Even though the film was shite? Seriously, is that how it works? The film was complete bollocks but the special effects were....state of the art and.....you played a part in that..?
But that's a digression - obviously if the film had state of the art special effects and it was the film of a really famous book then obviously it must, by default, be absolutely brilliant. One can only discuss levels of brilliance.
And the prize for the most vile Ork goes to......
me, of course.
Did Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker get awarRAB for their roles, by the way? Even though the film was shite? Seriously, is that how it works? The film was complete bollocks but the special effects were....state of the art and.....you played a part in that..?
But that's a digression - obviously if the film had state of the art special effects and it was the film of a really famous book then obviously it must, by default, be absolutely brilliant. One can only discuss levels of brilliance.
And the prize for the most vile Ork goes to......
me, of course.
I saw it last night and I have to say I thought it was brilliant. The 3 hours passed very quickly, and you saw so much, but it didn't seem like you were sitting there for 3 hours.
Effects were brilliant and although the start is slow, it does help to build the anticipation... Effects were excellent, and the final 20 or so minutes of the film are amazing.
Of course, I'm not complaining about seeing it as my friend and I got in for free, (the benefit of having relatives working in your local cinema!), but even for a late showing, there still were asshole kiRAB shouting and screaming which sort of ruined the night for me. Still, brilliant film, definetly one for DVD purchase when it comes out. Go see it!
Paddy
Effects were brilliant and although the start is slow, it does help to build the anticipation... Effects were excellent, and the final 20 or so minutes of the film are amazing.
Of course, I'm not complaining about seeing it as my friend and I got in for free, (the benefit of having relatives working in your local cinema!), but even for a late showing, there still were asshole kiRAB shouting and screaming which sort of ruined the night for me. Still, brilliant film, definetly one for DVD purchase when it comes out. Go see it!
Paddy
OH GOD OH GOD!!!Why are people praising this film??!!! It did have it's good points (like special effects, mise-en-scene and performances) but also many bad ones. It had a weak plot and the script was just awful, they over-emphasised everything (the monkey loves the girl-we get it!!!), and the action scenes, while amazing to look at, dragged on so long that i lost interest.
I can only give it a 5 out of 10, very disappointed. I did like that bit on the ice though, that was lovely.
I can only give it a 5 out of 10, very disappointed. I did like that bit on the ice though, that was lovely.
*Isabella*
New member
Indeedy, it's not doing too well at the box office. It's the most expensive film ever made - production budget of $207m.
I enjoyed it, but I thought it was too long, and some of the special effects looked shakey.
I enjoyed it, but I thought it was too long, and some of the special effects looked shakey.
metric bike man
New member
With respect you seem to have missed something here...The great ape didn't love the girl so much as grow to see her as one of his own. He has been alone for a great deal of time. He wanted to protect Ann because as a silver back that is his role (protect his group) and he wanted to be with her because they are gregarious, social animals who do not do well on their own. They had to emphasise Ann's relationship with Kong because of that's emotional heart of the film - through Ann's eyes we begin to see depth in this 'monster' that you wouldn't have expected and so we begin to care about him.
You and I are obviously going to have to disagree about this because I went in expecting to see a straight monster movie and got a lot more depth, plot and emotion than I would have expected.
I'd be interested to see what you thought was particularly weak about the plot as a whole because to me the story was one of the strongest elements.
You and I are obviously going to have to disagree about this because I went in expecting to see a straight monster movie and got a lot more depth, plot and emotion than I would have expected.
I'd be interested to see what you thought was particularly weak about the plot as a whole because to me the story was one of the strongest elements.
wylieredneck69
New member
It is a great movie, but I didn't like Jack Black. He's a very typical ott comedy actor - which he does well, but I didn't find him right for this role.
I thought the effects were good, but not outstanding. Some of the scenes with Naomi being held by Kong were shakey, but the overall emotion of the film allowed you to forget that.
There were some very cheesey moments from some of the crew on the boat too.
However, the final moments of the movie were very moving, and quite sad. I think this is a harmless movie for all family and is suitable for Christmas. I can see it being a grower, with more people opting to see it over the spare afternoons between christmas and New Year.
oh and the first part is a little slow, but you certainly don't notice 3 hours.
I thought the effects were good, but not outstanding. Some of the scenes with Naomi being held by Kong were shakey, but the overall emotion of the film allowed you to forget that.
There were some very cheesey moments from some of the crew on the boat too.
However, the final moments of the movie were very moving, and quite sad. I think this is a harmless movie for all family and is suitable for Christmas. I can see it being a grower, with more people opting to see it over the spare afternoons between christmas and New Year.
oh and the first part is a little slow, but you certainly don't notice 3 hours.
xprincessx
New member
Magwitch, loaRAB of great stuff in your last I agree with nearly all of it! Including the Narnia / Kong comparisons being pointless. And to contradict myself one last time, perhaps we are comparing them because they are both in their own way GOOD, unlike almost every other blockbuster last year!
Nice to end the year on a high.
Impossibles (I guess you mean Incredibles!) - but there again I did love this but I am all gown up (kinda). I'd be surprised if you didn't find older kiRAB that loved it though, especially boys 10+. My two kiRAB are 4 and 6 though, so it isn't really for them. Finding Nemo is a stunning kiRAB film that works for adults too - in another thread I have this as a film I could rewatch endlessly. I think (and this is true for adult film too) that most of the best films have simple stories, but can often deal with emotional depth. I hate plotty films usually. Memento was very very clever, but I was just exhausted at the end of it. And for why? Left me emotionally totally uninvolved.
My own dear movie (Sam Jackson's Secret Video Diary) may be at another festival or two in this country this year (it premiered at London's Raindance festival last October). But anyone can always PM me if they are really keen.
Nice to end the year on a high.
Impossibles (I guess you mean Incredibles!) - but there again I did love this but I am all gown up (kinda). I'd be surprised if you didn't find older kiRAB that loved it though, especially boys 10+. My two kiRAB are 4 and 6 though, so it isn't really for them. Finding Nemo is a stunning kiRAB film that works for adults too - in another thread I have this as a film I could rewatch endlessly. I think (and this is true for adult film too) that most of the best films have simple stories, but can often deal with emotional depth. I hate plotty films usually. Memento was very very clever, but I was just exhausted at the end of it. And for why? Left me emotionally totally uninvolved.
My own dear movie (Sam Jackson's Secret Video Diary) may be at another festival or two in this country this year (it premiered at London's Raindance festival last October). But anyone can always PM me if they are really keen.
Went to see this film Friday, and was pretty impressed with it. While I agree that there were some parts of the films that could be "chopped", overall it was a great film, with some awesome effects and some great set pieces. As for the story, it was King Kong! The story follows almost every other version of the film, and thank God for that!
I'll give it 8/10.
Mark
I'll give it 8/10.
Marklight headed
New member
Noiseboy: you are too kind! I can't believe I said 'The Impossibles' 
I have to blame the buy-one-get-one-free Rioja.....
Yes, you're right that they were both good films and that warrants comparison. I agree about Finding Nemo, too. All the Pixar films are great (well, except for Monsters Inc, imo). Both the Toy Story films are ones I can watch over and over and still laugh out loud. I can't imagine saying the same for Kong. My son is very keen to see it again but I don't think I could manage it....
I have to blame the buy-one-get-one-free Rioja.....Yes, you're right that they were both good films and that warrants comparison. I agree about Finding Nemo, too. All the Pixar films are great (well, except for Monsters Inc, imo). Both the Toy Story films are ones I can watch over and over and still laugh out loud. I can't imagine saying the same for Kong. My son is very keen to see it again but I don't think I could manage it....
Yeah I noticed that some scenes from the trailer weren't included and found that a bit strange. You decide to see the film on the basis of the trailer and then don't see what you expected.
Also, I know someone previously mentioned Jimmy (the cabin boy on the ship). Did he feature in the original film? I was interested to find out more about him and was disappointed that the film never really explored this (although I suppose the film was long as it was without including more footage - maybe something from PJ to explore in his extended edition dvd?)
Also, I know someone previously mentioned Jimmy (the cabin boy on the ship). Did he feature in the original film? I was interested to find out more about him and was disappointed that the film never really explored this (although I suppose the film was long as it was without including more footage - maybe something from PJ to explore in his extended edition dvd?)