?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'm assuming that all those people raving about King Kong haven't actually bothered to see it yet, right?

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
plumtreeblossom
Dec. 31st, 2005 12:22 pm (UTC)
I want to go see it on Sunday. I need me some Jack Black.
spwebdesign
Dec. 31st, 2005 05:00 pm (UTC)
And I needed some Naomi Watts, but I'm not sure it was worth the price of admission.
minkrose
Dec. 31st, 2005 01:31 pm (UTC)
huh?
I saw it, I loved it. Everyone else I know who raved to me about it had also seen it.

you didn't like it?
spwebdesign
Dec. 31st, 2005 05:06 pm (UTC)
Eh. The cgi in parts was really bad (e.g., the brontosaurus stampede). The acting was uneven. The story really dragged — there really was no reason this needed to be told in 3 hours instead of 1½. There were so many inconsistencies. And some of the filming effects were more distracting than effective. Kong was well done — I loved his eyes and facial expressions, and the scenes on the ice pond and up on his mountain were priceless — but that is not enough to sustain a movie.
surrealestate
Dec. 31st, 2005 07:31 pm (UTC)
I'm with you. I am a bit curious now to hear why exactly people thought it was a great movie. (Not a movie with some good bits, but an actual great movie.)
minkrose
Dec. 31st, 2005 08:46 pm (UTC)
Agreed - it was really bad on the part where they're running on the rocks. but d00d, DINOSAURS. I dunno, to me it was just awesome. It made me all starry eyed and bouncy. I didn't notice the inconsistencies, though. My family complained that he never finished some of the stories but I don't recall anyone complaining about inconsistencies.
I didn't really care that there was so much because I was having so much fun WATCHING it. I just... I dunno. It was supposed to be fun and it was, for me. Kong was incredible, Watts was incredible with him and I adored Brody. The dinosaurs were awesome. That was all I cared about.
It probably helped that I'd spent the day prior reading a very long article about the history of king kong and knew what this was coming from (I'd seen the end of the original but reading about it was different). I think Jackson took this pretty far in the right direction and has properly laid the story to rest. But really, that's just me.
...and all of my extended family.
sunstealer
Jan. 1st, 2006 12:12 am (UTC)
It was perfect as a Saturday afternoon monster movie, which is what Kong has always been about, not about trying to be "Great Cinema". So I'm totally with you that the dinosaurs and Kong were awesome and it was fun.
They should have started and finished the movie on the island though, or at least with the boat trip and minimal introduction. It was waaaaay too long, the opening segment in NY was boring (no dinosaurs after all!), not to mention that whole "heart of darkness" rambling nonsense with characters we started to like and then they "poof", disappear.
There's a World of Kong art book that came out with the cinematic release and it has really impressive paintings and illustrations, as in the style of naturalists who used to go with ships and draw all the things they saw. I bet it'll be on discount in about 6 months and it's well worth picking up.
Especially if you're an art book geek like me :)
minkrose
Jan. 1st, 2006 01:10 am (UTC)
(spoilers within)
Exactly - about an hour after I left that comment, I thought of a good comparison: a well-written romance novel (not that I know of any, actually). Most romance novels are trash - and they're funny or enjoyable because they're just so BAD but you expect that. KONG takes that same usually-disregarded type of genre and did something really great with it. But of course it's not going to be Incredible Cinema because of its roots. It's fantasy-escapist stuff and it's doing a great job in terms of that, I felt.
Yeah, the main complaint we had was the build-up with Heart of Darkness and then... huh? Too many quick deaths and we never see Jimmy again. I also agree that the set-up in NYC was a bit excessive but I thought showing her vaudeville roots was useful. Aside from that, most of the character exposition could have been shortened significantly (but I'm a sucker for Brody and Black, so I'm not going to complain much). I was disappointed with how Mr Hayes suddenly disappeared - why bother to have him be so interesting? Why not give some of those lines to the ship's captain, who at least lives? I don't even feel right complaining about the CGI in other places given how mindblowing Kong himself was. Basically, everything I could have complained about in terms of the film was something I didn't feel was worth being disatisfied with, so I disregarded it (the only exception being the lack of resolution with the ship characters).
But in the end, it didn't bother me that much. I want a movie that makes me FEEL something; Kong did that, I'm happy.

I'm not much of an art book geek but I am the kind of person who would get prints of certain things and put them up on my wall. I love covering my walls in pictures and posters (literally covering). I'll have to check that out at some point (if you get it, let me know?).
jwg
Dec. 31st, 2005 04:13 pm (UTC)
I remember watching a talk show on TV, which I rarely do, and everyone was discussing Kissenger's latest book. At some point the host asked "who has read this book?" and not one single person had read it.
dpolicar
Jan. 2nd, 2006 06:21 am (UTC)
I just saw it and thought it was pretty bad, myself.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2016
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner