Post by TF Admin on Dec 15, 2005 12:34:38 GMT -6
Last night, BSI Grimreaper, myself, and my wife met at the Malco in Tupelo for the epic 3 hour tale.
First, let me give you the overall impression.... This is a technologically marvelous picture. It has some of the best special effects you have ever seen bar none! There are a couple of scenes that somewhat look fake but 95% of this film is simply breathtaking.
The scenes of 1930's New York are just scrumptious. The place looks like it has been lived in, even though you know, in your mind, that a computer is painting the scene. Simply amazing detailed artistry.
Kong, and the other "creatures" look so real. Kong in particular had the most realistic look, and mannerisms. I know the actor that played Kong was Andy Serkis who also played Gollum in Lord of the Rings, and his work is A-1 caliber perfect. I never once thought that Kong was CGI. He looked real. The closeups on his face and body were so intricately detailed that you would swear this "IS" a 25 foot Gorrilla on the screen.
The Dinosaurs also blew me away. They were more detailed than even Jurassic Park. You would swear these things are real. Granted, some of the scenes with the Dino's were WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY over the top, but this film was not shooting for total reality, just good campy, popcorn action and fun.
Every actor was great except the actor playing "The Kid". Every time he was on screen, I felt it took the movie down a couple of notches. His delivery, his movement, all just took me out of the film.
Then there was Jack Black. This is an example of casting brilliance. He made me a believer in his flawed character. When he realizes just how bad he has screwed up by "Showcasing" Kong in New York, I generally felt bad for him. There was definitely themes borrowed from "Jurrassic Park:Lost Wprld" near the end of the film, and I must say this film punches you in the gut where as "Lost World" just gave you a little peck.
I have seen the Original "King Kong" so many times growing up, that I pretty well know it by heart. It is one of those pictures that made so many people fall in love with movies. This version has "a great deal" of that magical wonder, but it also has one real problem.
The real problem with this movie is most scenes are too long. The "Dinosaur Stampede" scene...about 3 minutes too long. The "Multi-T-Rex" fight scenes.... about 4 minutes too long. The first "Ann and Kong" scene...about 5 minutes too long. The entire First Act, about 10 minutes too long. The "Spider Pit" scene (that was originally cut from the original) about 5 minutes too long. Plus the entire subplot about "the kid" probably around 10 minutes worth of film, could have been discarded and no one would have noticed.
This is an epic tale, and it still could be with about a 2.5 hour running time, instead of the 3+ in its current form. There is no doubt in my mind that Peter Jackson set out to make the best damn King Kong movie he could. And there is no doubt, he succeeded. And no doubt he wants to deliver epics similar to Lord of the Rings, but there are parts of this film that feel very similar to his last epic, and this was not the right story for that type of telling.
King Kong is big, it is an epic, but it's not that type of fantasy like LOTR. It's more of a Fantasy version of a "Gone with the Wind" type epic. The two tales are different mind you, but the epic nature of both films are very similar.
In the end, I hope Peter will tighten it up for the DVD because I know he will have a version that will have even more. I think he should have two director's cuts of the film. One that is a lot "cleaner" and one that has every frame of celluloid that they originally filmed. I'd watch both, but for this film I would gravitate toward a version that is a bit shorter.
Go see it, I plan to go for a matinee showing later on and I might update here if anything changes after seeing it again.
TFADMIN
First, let me give you the overall impression.... This is a technologically marvelous picture. It has some of the best special effects you have ever seen bar none! There are a couple of scenes that somewhat look fake but 95% of this film is simply breathtaking.
The scenes of 1930's New York are just scrumptious. The place looks like it has been lived in, even though you know, in your mind, that a computer is painting the scene. Simply amazing detailed artistry.
Kong, and the other "creatures" look so real. Kong in particular had the most realistic look, and mannerisms. I know the actor that played Kong was Andy Serkis who also played Gollum in Lord of the Rings, and his work is A-1 caliber perfect. I never once thought that Kong was CGI. He looked real. The closeups on his face and body were so intricately detailed that you would swear this "IS" a 25 foot Gorrilla on the screen.
The Dinosaurs also blew me away. They were more detailed than even Jurassic Park. You would swear these things are real. Granted, some of the scenes with the Dino's were WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY over the top, but this film was not shooting for total reality, just good campy, popcorn action and fun.
Every actor was great except the actor playing "The Kid". Every time he was on screen, I felt it took the movie down a couple of notches. His delivery, his movement, all just took me out of the film.
Then there was Jack Black. This is an example of casting brilliance. He made me a believer in his flawed character. When he realizes just how bad he has screwed up by "Showcasing" Kong in New York, I generally felt bad for him. There was definitely themes borrowed from "Jurrassic Park:Lost Wprld" near the end of the film, and I must say this film punches you in the gut where as "Lost World" just gave you a little peck.
I have seen the Original "King Kong" so many times growing up, that I pretty well know it by heart. It is one of those pictures that made so many people fall in love with movies. This version has "a great deal" of that magical wonder, but it also has one real problem.
The real problem with this movie is most scenes are too long. The "Dinosaur Stampede" scene...about 3 minutes too long. The "Multi-T-Rex" fight scenes.... about 4 minutes too long. The first "Ann and Kong" scene...about 5 minutes too long. The entire First Act, about 10 minutes too long. The "Spider Pit" scene (that was originally cut from the original) about 5 minutes too long. Plus the entire subplot about "the kid" probably around 10 minutes worth of film, could have been discarded and no one would have noticed.
This is an epic tale, and it still could be with about a 2.5 hour running time, instead of the 3+ in its current form. There is no doubt in my mind that Peter Jackson set out to make the best damn King Kong movie he could. And there is no doubt, he succeeded. And no doubt he wants to deliver epics similar to Lord of the Rings, but there are parts of this film that feel very similar to his last epic, and this was not the right story for that type of telling.
King Kong is big, it is an epic, but it's not that type of fantasy like LOTR. It's more of a Fantasy version of a "Gone with the Wind" type epic. The two tales are different mind you, but the epic nature of both films are very similar.
In the end, I hope Peter will tighten it up for the DVD because I know he will have a version that will have even more. I think he should have two director's cuts of the film. One that is a lot "cleaner" and one that has every frame of celluloid that they originally filmed. I'd watch both, but for this film I would gravitate toward a version that is a bit shorter.
Go see it, I plan to go for a matinee showing later on and I might update here if anything changes after seeing it again.
TFADMIN
;D
