I saw Kong on Friday night...
Wow. That's some big-time filmmaking! The setpieces were amazing--- very exciting and full of danger. This is a 'B' movie to end all 'B' movies. The cast is all quite good, although Black didn't quite fully win me over. (Nothing against Black; his casting was just kinda left field-ish).
I did love the film overall, but at the same time it's true that it's overindulgent and bloated. It felt more like a two-night miniseries version, and on DVD that's likely how I'll watch it. But it's done so well otherwise that much is forgivable.
After watching the film, I felt a sense of exhaustion, just because it was such a thrill ride.
Peter Jackson's King Kong
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25339
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
When I said "Your thoughts?", I was actually joking on Jim Hill's usual "catchphrases". But, this IS the Kong thread, so what you said was valid anyway!
I've actually watched the Production Diaries twice through! I wasn't going to watch it all in one go, but as soon as I put it on the first night I got it, I got hooked (not having seen any but the first online) and went through the whole lot. Then Jen came in and, since she had wanted to watch these with me, we started again over the next few nights and took them in again so she could see. And they were just as good! Never before have I actually felt like I was on the set thanks to DVD extras. We've had cool docs and video diaries before, but the nature of these really do put you there, very much helped by the fact that each one represents a day's shoot and they update every day or two ot three, so there's very good coverage.
Plus Jackson is the most infectious filmmaker out there at the moment, and despite all the hype, you do feel that he knows its all marketing stuff and what is important is his "little film".
As for the movie itself - I'm seeing tonight - but I agree with Rand on Jack Black's "left field casting". I'm not a Black fan by any means, though I have been impressed with the bits I have seen of him in clips.
And why can't these kind of films be 3 hours long? Whoever said that these kind of lengths should be reserved for lavish dramatic biographies or "message films"? Frankly, I like the fact that a film should take its time to set things up, create a world, and allow a properly constructed pay off at the end, especially on a movie where the two leads are different species and we still have to buy it.
My only hope is that it sustains the length and that there is a valid reason for it. True, the original was under 2 hours, but audiences are more sophisticated and despite the '33 Kong being nigh on perfect FOR THE TIME, we must be thankful that Jackson didn't do a Psycho and just re-shoot that script, as it simply wouldn't have washed.
Call me suckered in, but Jackson has not let down before, and this is his passion.
I've actually watched the Production Diaries twice through! I wasn't going to watch it all in one go, but as soon as I put it on the first night I got it, I got hooked (not having seen any but the first online) and went through the whole lot. Then Jen came in and, since she had wanted to watch these with me, we started again over the next few nights and took them in again so she could see. And they were just as good! Never before have I actually felt like I was on the set thanks to DVD extras. We've had cool docs and video diaries before, but the nature of these really do put you there, very much helped by the fact that each one represents a day's shoot and they update every day or two ot three, so there's very good coverage.
Plus Jackson is the most infectious filmmaker out there at the moment, and despite all the hype, you do feel that he knows its all marketing stuff and what is important is his "little film".
As for the movie itself - I'm seeing tonight - but I agree with Rand on Jack Black's "left field casting". I'm not a Black fan by any means, though I have been impressed with the bits I have seen of him in clips.
And why can't these kind of films be 3 hours long? Whoever said that these kind of lengths should be reserved for lavish dramatic biographies or "message films"? Frankly, I like the fact that a film should take its time to set things up, create a world, and allow a properly constructed pay off at the end, especially on a movie where the two leads are different species and we still have to buy it.
My only hope is that it sustains the length and that there is a valid reason for it. True, the original was under 2 hours, but audiences are more sophisticated and despite the '33 Kong being nigh on perfect FOR THE TIME, we must be thankful that Jackson didn't do a Psycho and just re-shoot that script, as it simply wouldn't have washed.
Call me suckered in, but Jackson has not let down before, and this is his passion.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: October 23rd, 2004
- Location: SaskaTOON, Canada
I didn't mind the long set-up in Jackson's Kong, but once you see it I think you may see what everyone's saying about how it could have used a slightly tighter edit. A few scenes, like the finale, just seem to go on a bit longer than necessary. Like I said, though, it's all so good you don't mind too much. It would be like carrying off a treasure chest, then stopping to pick out which goldpieces weren't shiny enough.
A three-hour version would be fine. It was the 3 hour, seven minute version that was a *tiny bit* too long. The long prologue to the action was fine, and I wouldn't cut a second of that 20-minute T-rex battle!!! The action, once it comes, is just unreal. In case I wasn't clear enough, I did love this film.
A three-hour version would be fine. It was the 3 hour, seven minute version that was a *tiny bit* too long.
The long prologue to the action was fine, and I wouldn't cut a second of that 20-minute T-rex battle!!! The action, once it comes, is just unreal. In case I wasn't clear enough, I did love this film.-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6638
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25339
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Well, just got back and...WOW!
Loved it. Loved the opening "Sitting On Top Of The World". Loved finding Ann Darrow and the 1933 in-jokes. Loved the journery to Skull Island (possibly one of the things that could have been tightend). Loved Kong (my God, he was real in most places), the T-Rexes (though the framing seemed tight and I'd have liked to see a few wides of what was going on) and loved the way it faded out, like a real intermission, at the half way point. Loved New York, and Kong's reaction to "Ann" on stage. Loved the ending, the frozen lake (perfectly judged and just the right touch of magic for a "Christmas movie") and the ladder (edge of my seat!) and the planes looked so much better on film than they do in clips on the TV. Loved Kong's eye's dimming (though the fall couldn't top 1933) - loved it, loved it, LOVED IT.
The downside: two dodgy cuts between CG and reality, and three not-quite-there shot moments (and one wasn't a Kong shot), but that's not bad in a three-hour flick, and the set extensions were just awesome.
Great, old fashioned movie making which, along with the underrated Zorro this summer, are the two best films of the year. This HAS to win Visual Effects over the impassionate money grabbing crap that was Episode III.
Loved it. Loved the opening "Sitting On Top Of The World". Loved finding Ann Darrow and the 1933 in-jokes. Loved the journery to Skull Island (possibly one of the things that could have been tightend). Loved Kong (my God, he was real in most places), the T-Rexes (though the framing seemed tight and I'd have liked to see a few wides of what was going on) and loved the way it faded out, like a real intermission, at the half way point. Loved New York, and Kong's reaction to "Ann" on stage. Loved the ending, the frozen lake (perfectly judged and just the right touch of magic for a "Christmas movie") and the ladder (edge of my seat!) and the planes looked so much better on film than they do in clips on the TV. Loved Kong's eye's dimming (though the fall couldn't top 1933) - loved it, loved it, LOVED IT.
The downside: two dodgy cuts between CG and reality, and three not-quite-there shot moments (and one wasn't a Kong shot), but that's not bad in a three-hour flick, and the set extensions were just awesome.
Great, old fashioned movie making which, along with the underrated Zorro this summer, are the two best films of the year. This HAS to win Visual Effects over the impassionate money grabbing crap that was Episode III.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25339
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Yeah, I'm thinking of going again, but have heard whispers of an industry screening that I may be able to get into, so I'll wait and see.
Watched the '76 Kong again yesterday (it was free on TV!) and it wasn't so bad up until Kong comes on. The only thing that really makes it naff is that it LOOKS like a guy in a gorilla suit - Rick Baker is a wonderful effects make-up man, but he can't really act, and all it really took was for him to crouch down and be more apre like. He just walks about like a guy in a gorilla suit!
The effects were not as bad as I remember them - pretty standard mattes for the mid-70s - but it was John Barry's score more than anything that just seemd so dour and depressing that finally made the film seem so slow in the second half. Funny how he scored several of the biggest bombs of the 1970s, including Kong, The Black Hole (which is actually a great score) and Raise The Titanic.
I love the end credit that gives full kudos to Carlo Rombaldi for "creating Kong", the 40-foot robot that is only seen once in the shot when the giant ape is revealed to the crowd in Noo Yoik. Apart from that, the rest is Rick Baker, here given "special contributions" credit!
Not so bad, for the 1970s, but needed a big injection of humor and a smile on its face in the second half - Barry's score certainly is the thing that really sent it over the edge and makes the film more drab than it already is.
Watched the '76 Kong again yesterday (it was free on TV!) and it wasn't so bad up until Kong comes on. The only thing that really makes it naff is that it LOOKS like a guy in a gorilla suit - Rick Baker is a wonderful effects make-up man, but he can't really act, and all it really took was for him to crouch down and be more apre like. He just walks about like a guy in a gorilla suit!
The effects were not as bad as I remember them - pretty standard mattes for the mid-70s - but it was John Barry's score more than anything that just seemd so dour and depressing that finally made the film seem so slow in the second half. Funny how he scored several of the biggest bombs of the 1970s, including Kong, The Black Hole (which is actually a great score) and Raise The Titanic.
I love the end credit that gives full kudos to Carlo Rombaldi for "creating Kong", the 40-foot robot that is only seen once in the shot when the giant ape is revealed to the crowd in Noo Yoik. Apart from that, the rest is Rick Baker, here given "special contributions" credit!
Not so bad, for the 1970s, but needed a big injection of humor and a smile on its face in the second half - Barry's score certainly is the thing that really sent it over the edge and makes the film more drab than it already is.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: May 31st, 2005
- Location: Maryland
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
I know what you mean. When watching the film, I just pretend that Kong is half-evolved into a man, and suddenly, the movie seems a lot better - and much more intriguing.Ben wrote:...'76 Kong...wasn't so bad up until Kong comes on. The only thing that really makes it naff is that it LOOKS like a guy in a gorilla suit - Rick Baker is a wonderful effects make-up man, but he can't really act, and all it really took was for him to crouch down and be more apre like. He just walks about like a guy in a gorilla suit!
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25339
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
But that score still bigs it down! 
BTW, on the original Kong, which I just watched on DVD... anyone actually a little disappointed at the transfer?
Grain I can take and prefer that they leave it on, but the gate weave on the first two reels and the continuing exposure contrasts between frames were off putting (and no, that's not just on the effects shots).
You'd think that by the time they got the restoration to this stage (which is very good those things apart), that they could have then done simple steadying and brightness techniques to even the image out fully.
Also a shame at how much was lost on the sides - check out the strangley better condition trailer for the big Kong sign on the theater in New York and at how much extra we get on either sides of the letters.
It's good, but for all the hype, I can't help but think we'll see an even "better" transfer come to HD disc, and it didn't look all that much better than the old BBC print they ran here a couple of days ago.
BTW, on the original Kong, which I just watched on DVD... anyone actually a little disappointed at the transfer?
Grain I can take and prefer that they leave it on, but the gate weave on the first two reels and the continuing exposure contrasts between frames were off putting (and no, that's not just on the effects shots).
You'd think that by the time they got the restoration to this stage (which is very good those things apart), that they could have then done simple steadying and brightness techniques to even the image out fully.
Also a shame at how much was lost on the sides - check out the strangley better condition trailer for the big Kong sign on the theater in New York and at how much extra we get on either sides of the letters.
It's good, but for all the hype, I can't help but think we'll see an even "better" transfer come to HD disc, and it didn't look all that much better than the old BBC print they ran here a couple of days ago.