PDA

View Full Version : Kong!!!!!!!!



PressCoverage
12-14-2005, 04:36 AM
ok... just got back from the midnight showing....:jt0323:

and, despite a few over-the-top scenes, i must declare in my best Chris Farley voice from Tommy Boy:

"i've seen some crazy stuff in my time... but ... that... was .... AWESOME!!!"

:rocker:

best action movie since Raiders... there... i said it... sorry...

enjoy... but if you don't like bugs, you'll have issues sitting still...

*** SPOILERS MAY FOLLOW ... APOLOGIES ***

PressCoverage
12-14-2005, 04:37 AM
p.s.: Peter Jackson is lord...

ih8brady
12-14-2005, 04:56 AM
I definitely want to see this, this weekend. Did it work as a period piece(believable as 1930's setting)?

PressCoverage
12-14-2005, 05:03 AM
very much so... and Naomi Watts... *makes Homerish drool sound*

ABrownLamp
12-14-2005, 10:05 AM
Its getting good reviews from all the film critics

wpgfishfan
12-14-2005, 11:33 AM
Can I bring my 6 year old???

dominizzo
12-14-2005, 12:03 PM
Can I bring my 6 year old???

sure y not?

mor911
12-14-2005, 12:17 PM
The Mor was a unsure if the Kong remake was a good idea at first. But those new trailers really captivated The Mor. The Mor may have to go check that out this weekend.

ih8brady
12-14-2005, 12:42 PM
very much so... and Naomi Watts... *makes Homerish drool sound*


great because I hate when epics arent believable in their setting(ie people in American Revoltuion saying OK and talking like Valley girls)


Its getting good reviews from all the film critics

yeah, Ebert said it was one of the best from this year(but is that saying a lot).

wpgfishfan
12-14-2005, 12:43 PM
sure y not?

Have you seen it?? I wonder if it will be too scary for a 6 year old?

I guess it can't be worse then her watching the Dolphins when Wanny was in charge:dolphins:

Megatron
12-14-2005, 12:43 PM
My eyes were a little foggy there I thought the thread title said BONG!!!!!

ILPhinFan88
12-14-2005, 12:45 PM
ok... just got back from the midnight showing....:jt0323:

and, despite a few over-the-top scenes, i must declare in my best Chris Farley voice from Tommy Boy:

"i've seen some crazy stuff in my time... but ... that... was .... AWESOME!!!"

:rocker:

best action movie since Raiders... there... i said it... sorry...

enjoy... but if you don't like bugs, you'll have issues sitting still...




How was the scene with the spider pit, I was reading online about this scene.

mor911
12-14-2005, 12:45 PM
Have you seen it?? I wonder if it will be too scary for a 6 year old?

I guess it can't be worse then her watching the Dolphins when Wanny was in charge:dolphins:
:lol: Yeah, that some seriously terrifying stuff.

Mephistopheles
12-14-2005, 12:46 PM
My eyes were a little foggy there I thought the thread title said BONG!!!!!
:lol: :lol:
I could use some weed now. :)

Megatron
12-14-2005, 12:48 PM
:lol: :lol:
I could use some weed now. :)That's what my roomates would scream so the house knew it was 4:20.:lol:

ABrownLamp
12-14-2005, 01:17 PM
yeah, Ebert said it was one of the best from this year(but is that saying a lot).

really. i don't trust anything that douche has to say.
he gives thumbs up to everything. frikkin 2 thumbs up for The Devils Rejects. Possibly the worst movie ever made...EVER.

PressCoverage
12-14-2005, 03:55 PM
i would NOT bring a 6 year old to this... but that's just me...

there's a LOT of blood and horrific deaths... and the insect scene? i'm not easy stirred by movies, but bugs? it was very hard to sit still... i would think it would profoundly effect a 6 yearold.... and not in a good way....

Roman529
12-14-2005, 04:54 PM
Isn't the movie over three hours long? I will go if Fay Wray gets naked in it.
:lol:

PressCoverage
12-14-2005, 05:41 PM
it is every bit of 3 hours long.... yes... pee ahead of time...

Buddwalk
12-14-2005, 05:44 PM
wow awesome im hoping to go see it before the end of the week :D

ohall
12-14-2005, 11:42 PM
Have you seen it?? I wonder if it will be too scary for a 6 year old?

I guess it can't be worse then her watching the Dolphins when Wanny was in charge:dolphins:


There's only one scene that I would be concerned about for a 6-year old, or at least that I can remember right now. I'm not giving anything away, but when Kong gets through the wall he bites or rather crushes a persons head in his mouth. I'm not sure if he bit the head off of the guy or not, for sure anyway. Otuside of that Popeye cartoons are more violent.

Also I thought the movie was good, I would give it a 7 overall out of a scale of 10. The acting and script were excellent, but some points in the movie did drag quite a bit. The action scenes were right up there with LOTR #3. A movie like this is why God created computer generated speical effects! :lol:

PressCoverage
12-14-2005, 11:53 PM
you don't think giant bug larvae eating a man is tramatic to a 6-year-old?

or are you just forgetting that scene? ... :goof:

tucker
12-15-2005, 12:33 AM
bring a 6 yr old to a pg-13 movie? ummmm. no...isnt that where common sense comes in?

but i've seen the older 2 movies so i dont know if its worth seeing since it obvious what happens to the ape...whats so good about the movie?

tucker
12-15-2005, 12:34 AM
really. i don't trust anything that douche has to say.
he gives thumbs up to everything. frikkin 2 thumbs up for The Devils Rejects. Possibly the worst movie ever made...EVER.HA! i just watched that again last nite..what a dumb movie

SCall13
12-15-2005, 12:38 AM
YESSS...go see KONG!! I just got back and am psyched. I'm going again on Saturday. For anyone who is considering seeing it, you will NOT be disappointed. It is everything and MUCH MORE you could want in a movie. Awesome.

ih8brady
12-15-2005, 12:39 AM
really. i don't trust anything that douche has to say.
he gives thumbs up to everything. frikkin 2 thumbs up for The Devils Rejects. Possibly the worst movie ever made...EVER.

He also gave three stars to the two triplex movies----Wtf? typically, I like to hear what he thinks on movies tho

tucker
12-15-2005, 12:41 AM
he was gave thumbs up to that 50 cent movie

ih8brady
12-15-2005, 12:43 AM
he was gave thumbs up to that 50 cent movie

I bet every critic has some ridiculously bad movies they once recommended. Kind of like a "draft expert" who said "Pick Leaf over Manning!"

ih8brady
12-15-2005, 12:45 AM
YESSS...go see KONG!! I just got back and am psyched. I'm going again on Saturday. For anyone who is considering seeing it, you will NOT be disappointed. It is everything and MUCH MORE you could want in a movie. Awesome.

Hey, is it safe to say you're a fan of the original? If so, have you ever seen "The Most Dangerous Game"? It's a short, adventure flick filmed on the set of King Kong the year before it came out with a few of the same stars. It's based on the famous short story of the same name. I just saw it the other day and really liked it.

PressCoverage
12-15-2005, 02:04 AM
someone asked why it's good? a handful of reasons i guess...

it's good because the CGI is almost seemless now... even better than LoTR that way...
it's good because Peter Jackson doesn't fluff up violent battles...
it's good because i've been in love with Naomi Watts since the Ring, and there's a LOT of her and her legs in this....
it's good because Jack Black is just so goofy, he's entertaining...
it's good because they really make the natives spooky...
it's good because he fights two T-Rex's
it's good because it's a classic story from the early era of film, but modernized with better special effects and better acting...

it's bad because of the endless stampede scene where the main characters run under the dinosaur's legs without getting stepped on for five minutes... if i had to knitpick...

i loved the original... i even loved the 70s version with Jeff Bridges... but this was just much more fun ...

d-day
12-15-2005, 02:11 AM
i loved the original... i even loved the 70s version with Jeff Bridges... but this was just much more fun ...

i thought i was the only one - although it's hard to not like jessica lange in that film - she was such a hottie back then...

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

SCall13
12-15-2005, 07:32 AM
Hey, is it safe to say you're a fan of the original? If so, have you ever seen "The Most Dangerous Game"? It's a short, adventure flick filmed on the set of King Kong the year before it came out with a few of the same stars. It's based on the famous short story of the same name. I just saw it the other day and really liked it.



Yeah I did see it. I liked it as well.

Firesole
12-15-2005, 04:02 PM
someone asked why it's good? a handful of reasons i guess...

it's good because the CGI is almost seemless now... even better than LoTR that way...
it's good because Peter Jackson doesn't fluff up violent battles...
it's good because i've been in love with Naomi Watts since the Ring, and there's a LOT of her and her legs in this....
it's good because Jack Black is just so goofy, he's entertaining...
it's good because they really make the natives spooky...
it's good because he fights two T-Rex's
it's good because it's a classic story from the early era of film, but modernized with better special effects and better acting...

it's bad because of the endless stampede scene where the main characters run under the dinosaur's legs without getting stepped on for five minutes... if i had to knitpick...

i loved the original... i even loved the 70s version with Jeff Bridges... but this was just much more fun ...

The natives alone make it worthwhile to see. The special effects makeup was outstanding. I would be scared sh!+less if was on that island!

The CGI definitely is the best I've see so far. I left the theater thinking, "I can't believe I felt bad for this computer program that looks like a gorilla!".

The 2 negatives I have are:

Jack Black. I just can't see him in a serious role. It took over half the movie for me to not think of him as some goofball based on his previous movies.

Some action scenes are just way to overboard. I loved the fights, and the stampede scenes, but to think a woman could hold on to vines or an ape the whole time during fights just made me shake my head. Especially the way he runs with her in hand. Her head would rip off faster than Dale Earnhardt's the way he shook her back and forth so violently.

PressCoverage
12-15-2005, 04:27 PM
Especially the way he runs with her in hand. Her head would rip off faster than Dale Earnhardt's the way he shook her back and forth so violently.

yes, this was a serious issue i had as well.. he shook her around a lot in the beginning... she would have snapped her spine, or at the least, her inner organs scrambled... i'm suprised they didn't recognize that in the editing process...

i also thought they really cut from "capturing" him to "suddenly we're in new york" awfully fast... the 70s version did this better... showing Kong in the bowels of the ship a few times...

but this is knitpicking i suppose... overall it was quite good... and Jack Black is great... he has a wildman look in his eyes that just makes all his characters work... to me, anyway....

Nublar7
12-17-2005, 01:55 AM
Just got back from seeing King Kong. Only one word describes it. WOW!


This movie was amazing. The story, the acting, and the CGI were all great. I definitely recommend this movie to everyone. One of the best movies that will ever be put on the big screen.

dominizzo
12-17-2005, 04:08 AM
Just got back from seeing King Kong. Only one word describes it. WOW!


This movie was amazing. The story, the acting, and the CGI were all great. I definitely recommend this movie to everyone. One of the best movies that will ever be put on the big screen.

i hope you are right im going tomm nite to see it

SuavePhin
12-17-2005, 12:58 PM
wow, that movie was flat out AWESOME, the natives and bug scene freaked the hell outta me!! I think Kong could win a best picture award imo, its that good

RunningBackGuru
12-17-2005, 12:59 PM
Cool. I think im going to see it next weekend.

Caps
12-17-2005, 01:00 PM
yes, this was a serious issue i had as well.. he shook her around a lot in the beginning... she would have snapped her spine, or at the least, her inner organs scrambled... i'm suprised they didn't recognize that in the editing process...

i also thought they really cut from "capturing" him to "suddenly we're in new york" awfully fast... the 70s version did this better... showing Kong in the bowels of the ship a few times...

but this is knitpicking i suppose... overall it was quite good... and Jack Black is great... he has a wildman look in his eyes that just makes all his characters work... to me, anyway....

I don't know about you guys, but after what seemed like an hour of, "We're on the ship, we don't know where we're going, maybe we will find an island with a giant gorilla on it" I didn't need anymore ship scenes. I really liked the movie, maybe Jack Black can use this movie to start to get more serious roles.

Roman529
12-17-2005, 01:45 PM
I can't picture Jack Black playing a serious role....just like when Jim Carrey tries to be serious, but I think I will check it out....does Fay Wray show her hooters?
:lol:

dominizzo
12-18-2005, 03:59 AM
wow, that movie was flat out AWESOME, the natives and bug scene freaked the hell outta me!! I think Kong could win a best picture award imo, its that good

this movie will win BEst Pic and Sound effects BTW congrats on 1k:dolphins:

BAMAPHIN 22
12-18-2005, 09:54 PM
'Kong' Grabs Unremarkable $50M in Debut "King Kong" was less of a box-office brute than Hollywood expected, taking in $50.15 million in its first weekend, a sturdy start but unremarkable by Hollywood blockbuster standards.

Universal Pictures' action spectacle about a giant ape took over the top box-office spot from Disney's "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which slipped to second place with $31.2 million and lifted its 10-day total to $112.5 million, according to studio estimates released Sunday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_en_mo/box_office;_ylt=AqZIocu_yb9ShdMEGQvPlv.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

dominizzo
12-19-2005, 02:05 AM
'Kong' Grabs Unremarkable $50M in Debut "King Kong" was less of a box-office brute than Hollywood expected, taking in $50.15 million in its first weekend, a sturdy start but unremarkable by Hollywood blockbuster standards.

Universal Pictures' action spectacle about a giant ape took over the top box-office spot from Disney's "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which slipped to second place with $31.2 million and lifted its 10-day total to $112.5 million, according to studio estimates released Sunday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_en_mo/box_office;_ylt=AqZIocu_yb9ShdMEGQvPlv.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

I heard it took 300 million to make this Film i wonder If peter JAckson will make money on it

DonShula84
12-19-2005, 04:35 AM
this movie will win BEst Pic and Sound effects BTW congrats on 1k:dolphins:

It wont win best pic, or even be nominated. It isnt the type of movie that wins awards like that sorry. I thought it was good, I think it could have been a little shorter, thought parts dragged, but I saw a late showing so that didnt help. I also didnt care for the CGI in a couple early scenes (mainly when Kong was holding Watts) but overall the CGI was really good. And I dont think Id take a 6 year old to see it, a few scenes might be a bit much.

HysterikiLL
12-19-2005, 07:54 AM
It wont win best pic, or even be nominated. It isnt the type of movie that wins awards like that sorry. I thought it was good, I think it could have been a little shorter, thought parts dragged, but I saw a late showing so that didnt help. I also didnt care for the CGI in a couple early scenes (mainly when Kong was holding Watts) but overall the CGI was really good. And I dont think Id take a 6 year old to see it, a few scenes might be a bit much.

Actually it's already nominated for 2 Golden Globes.

DonShula84
12-19-2005, 05:45 PM
Actually it's already nominated for 2 Golden Globes.

yeah....and it wasnt nominated for best picture which is what I was refering to

Predaphin
12-19-2005, 05:52 PM
Saw this movie on Saturday....


GREAT GREAT MOVIE!!! A MUST SEE

Pagan
12-19-2005, 07:58 PM
does Fay Wray show her hooters?
:lol:
If she does they'll be awfully rotted and dusty since she's been dead for some time. ;)

SCall13
12-19-2005, 08:35 PM
I heard it took 300 million to make this Film i wonder If peter JAckson will make money on it


$207 million

SCall13
12-19-2005, 08:45 PM
OK, I saw this movie a second time. It was better the second time around. I noticed alot more things the second time around. The movie was fantastic. It should get strong consideration for best picture. The story was really good, the effects were the best I've ever seen. It's really REALLY easy to forget that Kong is totally CGI. The acting was good all the way around. Jack Black really surprised me. I was little worried about him when I first heard he was cast as Carl Denham. But he delivered. Naomi Watts was excellent. She is a great actress and I have to give her some serious kudos for her job in this movie. Her emotions, without words, were delivered perfect. Andy Serkis, who did all the movements and sounds for Kong was even better than he was for Gollum in Lord of the Rings. This guy should seriously get Oscar consideration for bringing Kong to life and giving him a personality. TO me, his role is no different than a person wearing make up. The only difference is that Serkis is wearing computer pixels. I think he and Peter Jackson will end up being known as the pioneers for a new award category that has to do with what Serkis is doing in acting out CGI characters. It breaks tradition, but it's incredible acting nonetheless. Just my opinion about it.

GO SEE KING KONG. You'll be glad you did!

SCall13
12-19-2005, 08:46 PM
If she does they'll be awfully rotted and dusty since she's been dead for some time. ;)


LMAO!! If she were still alive, they STILL would probably be rotted and dusty! :lol: :eek:

dominizzo
12-19-2005, 08:52 PM
$207 million

you think hr willmake lots of profit

SCall13
12-19-2005, 09:15 PM
you think hr willmake lots of profit


I think so. THe film will do well domestically and do great in overseas markets. They are saying this will be one of those "word of mouth" movies much like Titanic. Titanic, if I'm not mistaken, made only $25 million it's first weekend but from then on, word of mouth kept it consistently raking in about $25 mill a weekend for MONTHS. SO it wasn't a couple of big weekends that made Titanic king of the box office, it was consistent word of mouth over a long period of time that did it. King may well end up being the same way, but however it happens, Kong will make some big bucks.

Dolfan5000
12-19-2005, 09:32 PM
That movie was one that was actually worth the ticket price for once in a LONG time. And NO, do not take your 6 year old to it.

RWhitney014
12-20-2005, 01:29 AM
I thought it was too long and dragged at points it didn't have to. I thought there was a little too much gore and guts at points that was unnecessary to get the point across. All of my friends were commenting afterwards that some of the scenery was convincingly unrealistic, and we were cracking jokes throughout the whole movie to pass the time. Is it worth a looksee? Yes. Was it memorable? No.

Oh, and Jack Black was the wrong guy.

SCall13
12-20-2005, 04:49 AM
I thought it was too long and dragged at points it didn't have to. I thought there was a little too much gore and guts at points that was unnecessary to get the point across. All of my friends were commenting afterwards that some of the scenery was convincingly unrealistic, and we were cracking jokes throughout the whole movie to pass the time. Is it worth a looksee? Yes. Was it memorable? No.

Oh, and Jack Black was the wrong guy.







***SPOILERS***
Ahhhh differeing opinions. I don't remember that much gore. In fact, as far KOngs death, there was less blood than even the 1933 version and WAY WAY less than 1976. The insects in the pit were nasty but I'd hardly call it gorey. The only parts that could remotely be called gorey are the fight with the T-Rex's and the leeches (which also showed no blood) The spear through the one guy was shocking but there was little blood and guts. And the other guy the natives killed was implied. You didn't actually see it. Soooo it wasn't gorey IMO.

RWhitney014
12-20-2005, 07:24 PM
***SPOILERS***
Ahhhh differeing opinions. I don't remember that much gore. In fact, as far KOngs death, there was less blood than even the 1933 version and WAY WAY less than 1976. The insects in the pit were nasty but I'd hardly call it gorey. The only parts that could remotely be called gorey are the fight with the T-Rex's and the leeches (which also showed no blood) The spear through the one guy was shocking but there was little blood and guts. And the other guy the natives killed was implied. You didn't actually see it. Soooo it wasn't gorey IMO.

I was with 4 other people, and we were all groaning in that spider pit...gore doesn't have to be blood.

SCall13
12-20-2005, 08:34 PM
I was with 4 other people, and we were all groaning in that spider pit...gore doesn't have to be blood.


I've always considered gore to be blood and guts....something like Dawn of the Dead.

Fresh
12-20-2005, 10:41 PM
Kong was the ****...I thought it was gonna end like 3 times, but it continued, lol. Long *** movie, but well worth it!

mor911
12-20-2005, 10:42 PM
Teh Mor is watching it right now :evil:

PressCoverage
12-23-2005, 11:05 PM
boy are the pseudo intellectual elitists bashing Kong over on the Rottentomatoes.com forums... suggesting it's going to fall far short of breaking even, even... knitpicking every scene, etc.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/forumdisplay.php?f=101144008

they're even playing the race card, suggesting the natives were a tool for violence, and disappeared without a trace when they were of no use to the plot...

RWhitney014
12-24-2005, 12:59 AM
OK, I saw this movie a second time. It was better the second time around. I noticed alot more things the second time around. The movie was fantastic. It should get strong consideration for best picture. The story was really good, the effects were the best I've ever seen. It's really REALLY easy to forget that Kong is totally CGI. The acting was good all the way around. Jack Black really surprised me. I was little worried about him when I first heard he was cast as Carl Denham. But he delivered. Naomi Watts was excellent. She is a great actress and I have to give her some serious kudos for her job in this movie. Her emotions, without words, were delivered perfect. Andy Serkis, who did all the movements and sounds for Kong was even better than he was for Gollum in Lord of the Rings. This guy should seriously get Oscar consideration for bringing Kong to life and giving him a personality. TO me, his role is no different than a person wearing make up. The only difference is that Serkis is wearing computer pixels. I think he and Peter Jackson will end up being known as the pioneers for a new award category that has to do with what Serkis is doing in acting out CGI characters. It breaks tradition, but it's incredible acting nonetheless. Just my opinion about it.

GO SEE KING KONG. You'll be glad you did!

Just to play devil's advocate, especially since we've moved into awards...

1) This is NOT an original story. This is an adaptation of one with modern technology.
2) While Kong looked incredibly realistic, the surrounding scenery was overwhelmingly fake. I was especially unimpressed by the New York scenery.