Well -

Peter Jackson's "King Kong" remake opens Dec 14th and I thought it might be interesting to see if you all think this remake is gonna suck or do you think that with such a highly skilled and accomplished director like Peter Jackson at the helm, it will be spectacular. Francis 8 - I'm sure I know your thoughts already ;)

This is one remake I feel will blow the previous one (the one with Jessica Lange) out of the water, and may show once and for all that remakes of classic films can be great, so long as they are handled by true professionals who take great care in preserving the fun and excitement that the classic originals were all about in the first place!

Say what you will about Peter Jackson, I think he is one of the world's most talented directors and from the recent interviews I've read of him talking lovingly about the original "King Kong' film, I know this remake will be a hit and an incredible cinematic experience!!!

I am greatly anticipating how this film will be received by the general movie going public, as I can only compare what's going on with Jackson's "King Kong" now, to what MAY BE when Bryan Singer starts upon his "Logan's Run" remake project after completing Superman!!! Bryan is another great and accomplished filmmaker who holds 'Logan's Run' in such high regard, as Jackson does with "Kong". I think this comparison shows us more of what we might expect to see when Singer's "Logan's Run" finally gets released!

Thank God Skip Woods is out of the picture!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thoughts.......

Logan 5 -

You read my mind, didn't you? :lol: Honestly, with the way the remakes are going these days, it wouldn't surprise me if this one got mixed reviews, let alone flopped at the box office. Peter Jackson should have picked something else after the success of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. However, I never did see the original King Kong or the 1976 Dino De Laurentis version, so I really can't comment on how this one will turn out. :dunno: I just have a hunch that it won't be successful. But, I could be wrong. You just never know when it comes to movies and its successes or failures.

All I can say is this. Sooner or later, the movie going public will tire of these remakes, and the industry will be getting the message about the need for originality the hard way(i.e. people will just stop going to the local cinema). Sometimes, big box office backlashes and bombs get the point across. :guns:

I could watch the original 1933 version of "King Kong" with Fay Wray over and over again and never tire of it! It has the most perfect blend of adventure, horror, romance and thriller than any other film I can think of, and this sucker was made in 1933!! As a kid, I was totally captivated by it when I first saw it on Channel 11 TV out of New York. I remember being absolutely terrified when the guy in the tree was getting eaten up by that one dinosuar and when Kong was throwing the men off of the log over that deep canyon, as they then fell to their deaths below. "King Kong" is a masterpiece of early American cinema! If you're into these types of films, I strongly encourage you to see the original 1933 version, as unbelievably as it sounds, for a 1933 movie - it still holds up as good today as it ever did back then!!

The 1976 remake was fun to watch as a kid, but now as an adult - I see it's flaws and haven't revisited it for quite some time, and probably wouldn't watch it again from start to finish in the future. The ape looks sooooooooooo fake in the 70's version; especially the scene where he's in the cage outside in New York and breaks free - he looks like a bad version of Johnny Socko's 1970's mechanical robot with fur -- awful!!

I also saw the god-awful "Godzilla" remake in the theaters a few years ago. What a piece of crap that turned out to be!! However, I do believe that with Peter Jackson at the helm of "Kong", it should remain much more faithful to the original 'King Kong" than Roland Emmerich did with Godzilla.

I too am looking forward to the relaese of Peter Jackson's King Kong. I did enjoy the original and also thought the 70's version was quite well done also. The 1933 Speciel addition DVD in the metal case has just been released and I have to buy it for my collection, I hope it has some cool special features. I agree with Francis 8, alot of the recent re-makes have been shit, but with a film maker as talented as Jackson its unlikely that this one will dissappoint....P.S. am I the only person on the planet that liked the Godzilla re-make ?... :unsure:

One of the best Special Features the new King Kong DVD has on it is a Peter Jackson 're-imagining' of the infamous deleted Spider Pit sequence!

Looking at the only photos known to exist of the deleted scene as well as going back to the original script and stop-animation processes that were used previsouly, Peter re-filmed this 'forver-lost' sequence of Giant spiders and lizards attacking and eating those people who Kong had thrown off of the log over the pit. IMO, Jackson does an incredible job as the sequence looks as though it could indeed be the actual missing footage.

Regarding this footage however, I am glad that the original 'Kong' 1933 director removed it, as in my opinion - it would have slowed the film down a bit, as it's not really needed. I don't truly believe that those men could have survived the fall off the log into the pit below - only to meet another kind of terror and doom at the bottom of the pit. I'll just always remember them plummeting to their deaths instead.

Anyway - it's still great to see how it might have looked if it were never cut from the film in the first place!

Enjoy.......

My fellow Domed City-zens, it's 3:41 a.m., & I just got back from the local midnight opening-night screening of the new KING KONG.

The verdict: "Run, Runner!", don't walk, to see it.

The multiple-T-Rex-attack/ravine-vines-fight is incomparable; indeed, the special effects throughout are astounding. But more importantly, so is the emotional whallop the film delivers.

The cast does a fine job all around, the film is beautifully designed & shot, and at 3-hours-plus it does NOT seem long.

What I admire most is the thought -- and the heart -- that went into establishing and developing the relationship between Ann Darrow and Kong. In this version, they have a "history" together -- they share the inherent humor in falling down; they establish a gesture for "beautiful" -- which makes for some incredibly rich, poignant moments down the home stretch.

The ice rink scene is simply lovely.

My only criticisms, and they are minor: 1) I wish Ann and Kong had a bit more time together on the island; 2) Kong, being a curious anthropoid (& clearly smitten), really ought to strip Ann at some point, as he did in both previous versions; and 3) Peter Jackson's action sequences, though fantastic, lean too heavily on swooping, soaring, barreling cameras, which is certainly an impressive technique but can get a bit redundant.

Let us hope this kind of care & attention goes into the new LOGAN'S RUN!

I give it three and a half stars out of four. :clap:

P.S. to my KONG review:

I strongly suggest you sit toward the back of the theater. Many of the action sequences are filmed in such a fast, furious way (w/ moving camera, zoomed in tight) that it's hard to see what's happening if you're too close to the screen. Get some distance on the image, & you'll be able to take it all in just fine.

I'm planning on going this weekend, Paulx! Will report on it soon....

I saw King Kong over the weekend, and although I enjoyed it somewhat, I was left feeling that I saw way too much than I needed to - in other words, I think Peter Jackson overdid it when he really didn't have to.

The basic story is essentially just about Ann Darrow, Jack, Denham and King Kong. Yet Jackson thought we had to know about every single crew member too. This dragged the movie a bit in the beginning, at least for me it did.

I also thought that the movie had TOO MANY creatures in it. There were simply too many monsters on the island, and I didn't feel any of them were 'real'. To me, the sheer number of them just made them look all the more fake, especially during the stampede scene. CGI New York City was fantastic as was the attack by the natives on Skull Island!!

As I stated above, overall I still enjoyed the movie, but it didn't really hit me emotionally as I thought it would have. The only person I really cared about was the Ann Darrow character (played superbly by Naomi Watts). I didn't care at all for her love interest Jack (Adriene Brody), and I thought that Jack Black's Denham character could have been better portrayed. And as for Kong, I did enjoy his relationship with Ann alot in this version, however, surprisingly, I wasn't that emotionally attached to him by the end of the film. I'm not exactly sure why. Believe it or not, I was more emotionally attached to the CGI 'Lion' from Narnia than I was with 'CGI-Kong', although the Ice 'Skating' scene between Kong and Ann Darrow was very nicely done - it's just a shame that there wasn't more of that sort of thing between the two of them.

All in all, I would rate this movie **1/2 out of ****.

I think that if Peter Jackson would have trimmed about 40 minutes off of the film, it would have been a much better movie.

as is with most 'blockbuster' pictures, it could use a trim, but while kong left me with saddle sores, i was glad i stayed for the show.

whatya mean its a romance????
:D

She wanted Kong and you know it!! :wub: :wub: :wub: It's nothing more than another version of :gossip: "Beauty and the Beast"! .... but at a cost of $200 million!!!

Anyway, it was enjoyable for what it was.... just too dang long for no other reason than to just show off some more, fancy CGI effects. What Jackson needs to do is release a director's cut DVD of this movie that TRIMS about 45 mintues off the film and then he'll have his King Kong masterpiece.