Kong Flops?

[The STE]

Originally posted by Zero
agreed - though i still check it religiously -- i just noticed the new yorker also didn't like King Kong - thought it was too pushy and overly dramatic

How overtly did they say that? Was it an inferrence by the tone of the review and the overall attitude towards the movie, or did they actually out and out say that?

If it's the latter, then you can more or less translate that to "I just wanted to see the cool action stuff, why did they have to have boring character development?!"

[Marroe]

Originally posted by Marroe
I just called my friend and he was at the theater waiting for it to start...the Friday after it opens and he said there were 10 people there besides him. Sounds exciting.

hahaha...he's so bored watching it he's texting me

[Marroe]

Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
If we listened to critics and people who have no imagination, the theaters would be empty and Hollywood would be broker than it is.

People go see it, ya might be surprised. If not, give it a shot on video when the time comes.

I agree, I just thougt that was kinda funny. I go see a lot of movies that get bad reviews. I generally go against them, and RARELY do I think a movie is as bad as everyone says. I just love movies...even a lot of the ones everyone else likes to say suck so much. I'll be seeing Kong on Sunday I do believe.

[pinkfloyd45769]

I watched the old black and white one and then the remake just the other night for the first time. I liked the remake better, the old one didn't look"real" enough! I think it is kinda boring at first, i'm not mucj into that sorta thing. I say give it a chance, you never know!!! :)

[filmmaker2]

Originally posted by The STE
How overtly did they say that? Was it an inferrence by the tone of the review and the overall attitude towards the movie, or did they actually out and out say that?

Well, I thought it was pushy firstly because I thought the romance between Ann Darrow and Jack Driscoll was badly drawn; I felt a romance was being forced on the audience very quickly--a romance that was prefabricated in the sense that Ann was already starry-eyed over screenwriter Driscoll before she'd met him. I didn't personally feel a sense of attraction between them. It was more like, "Here's your lovers, folks, they'll be kissing in a minute, there's sure to be some jealous rivalry once they get to that island with the big ape." I have nothing against drama, but I like it to be well designed.

Exposition in New York was choppy and didn't flow. Jack Black a talented performer but miscast, and not a likeable character...Robert Armstrong's 1933 Carl Denham was much more likeable, which I preferred. Both risked the lives of their crew, but the newly-rewritten character seemed much colder and exploitative, a real Hollywood jerk, whereas the original character was a friendly but reckless adventurer.

I did however feel that they delivered the effects in spades, and generally the effects were remarkable. The production is gorgeous. Kong the animal/character was beautifully realized and worth the price of admission. If you wanna see some cool shit, I say grab yourself a ticket and some popcorn and see it. I realize my review sounds split, and maybe it is. At about the 1/3 mark, I recall thinking that "this looks great but doesn't replace the original film in any way." Peter Jackson is tremendously talented himself but considering that he respects the original film, and displays more than a little humble reverence for it on the 1933 film's DVD supplements, I believe he presents this new King Kong as a reimagining, not as a replacement.

[Zero]

Originally posted by The STE
How overtly did they say that? Was it an inferrence by the tone of the review and the overall attitude towards the movie, or did they actually out and out say that?

If it's the latter, then you can more or less translate that to "I just wanted to see the cool action stuff, why did they have to have boring character development?!"

well, the new yorker guy clearly wasn't looking for more action but, to give it to you straight, david denby said: "This Kong is high-powered entertainment, but Jackson pushes too hard and loses momentum over the more than three hours of the movie. The story was always a goofy fable - that was its charm - and a well-told fable knows when to stop." (p. 102)

[newb]

My daughter saw it last night and loved it...said it was a bit drawn out in spots but overall was satisfied.
I personally loved the LOTR movies and thought it was the best use of C.G.I. yet.If he can do the same for Kong...it can't be too bad.

[Zero]

Originally posted by newb
My daughter saw it last night and loved it...said it was a bit drawn out in spots but overall was satisfied.
I personally loved the LOTR movies and thought it was the best use of C.G.I. yet.If he can do the same for Kong...it can't be too bad.

i also loved LOTR (thought RoTK was a bit long) - i'm just afraid that jackson will fall too much in love with himself . . but i'll still go see it this week

[slasherman]

Originally posted by Zero
RoTK

explain

[The_Return]

Originally posted by slasherman
explain

Return of the King, 3rd Lord of the Rings movie.