f13.net

Saw it this afternoon and was pretty impressed.  I enjoyed it alot.

Okay.

I may check it out this week. Hell, it's King Kong. What could go wrong?

To agree with what Margalis said in the other thread though, I don't care about CGI, and I'm not sure what new things they'll offer here beside that....But I'll see it anyways. It's King Kong.

Also: Jessica Lange was incredibly hot in her day. It just wasn't right that a giant ape put his dirty mitts on her. Naomi Watts, on the other hand, is homely. I'm not sure if I'm against Kong here.

Why would you be against Kong? He's a poor, misunderstood, lovable brute!

I dunno...I'm sick of CGI dinos and shit like that. If I never see another computer generated dinosaur it will be too soon. It's really amazing to go back and watch movies where all the effects are done without computers, like Carpenter's The Thing remake. They are so much more alive and visceral. If The Thing came out this year it would deserve to sweep all FX rewards. Kind of sad really. CGI can do tons of stuff for relatively cheap, but just not all that well.

Just got back from Kong.  It was awesome.  As far as the CGI is concerned, it is near-flawless when the humans aren't in the scene; I truly believed Kong was a living animal within his world.  However, Weta might've needed more time to polish some areas where actors where involved in copious amounts of CGI, some of the dino scenes being particularly noticable.  The soundtrack started out bothering me, but by the end of the movie I have no doubts it will join my collection soon.

Jack Black was really quite good.  Adrien Brody didn't aggravate me like he usually does, and his nose kept in line as well.  The ship's crew were fantastic, and Colin Hanks showed lots of promise.  If were going to seriously criticize any aspect of the movie, it would be parts of the skull-island native section, such as the slo-mo camerawork and a certain goofy segment leading to Naomi Watts kidnapping.  Wasn't enough to keep me from giving the movie a rating of "Worth Seeing Now".

EDITED: Because Kenrick is being a smartass.

haha n00b.
 :wink:

Son, your Hot Barometer is broken. Jet Girl is teh hawtness.

Saaayy Whaaat?!?

That'd be good, if there wasn't a real actor in like 90% of the scenes with Kong. You know, Naomi Watts (who is VERY HOT btw) being in his hand and what not... CGI was a huge let down for me. I didn't expect to like the story and I didn't, but CGI sucking 90% of the time was too much. And Peter Jackson is a regular Tarkovski now. He takes his sweet time... 3. hours. I'm stfuing now 'cause I don't want to spoil it for people that want to go check it out.

ps: weeee finally found a reason to register :P

You know, there was a version made 43 years before the shitty Jessica Lange one that had someone named Fay Wray in it.

(http://www.imageraptor.com/galleries/omstars3/images/p-gh071_Fay_Wray.jpg)

Hawt.

Just woke up from a nap and I read misread that as "peewee finally found a reason to register."  For a split second, I actually thought we finally had Paul Ruebens.

Anyway, hi.

How do you know he isn't Paul Reubens?  It's rude to make assumptions like that.

I miss when Peter Jackson did movies about brains, zombies and manburgers... I know I'm going to see King Kong and chances are I will enjoy it, but for some reason I just cannot get myself psyched about it.

Also. Peter Jacksons King Kong, the official game of the movie. I hope whoever came up with that GREAT title ends up drowned in a small mudpuddle.

Wait, there was a version of kong besides the Fay Wray one?

I know about the Fay Wray one. I've seen it at least a dozen times, but it isn't my favorite. I like the 76 version. That's why I mentioned it.

[edit]

Also, I'm wondering if I'm supposed to argue whether Watts is hot or not. Is this supposed to be some kind of debate or something? :roll:

I thought that was the point of making his hostage a hot woman? We're supposed to be torn. Lovable brute? Yes. A fit mate for human females? No.

I'm holding out for King vs Donkey: Battle of the Kongs. Or maybe a remake of Godzilla vs. King Kong.

I didn't even know there was a 1976 version. That makes me care even less. Maybe I'll catch the next King Kong remake slated to come out in 2037.

Well, all I can say is give it a shot. I don't think it's some great piece of cinema, but it's worth watching. Besides, it's better to criticize a film after one has seen it rather than before.

It's got the Dude, Charles Grodin as the villian, and as I said, a young, hot Jessica Lange. It won it's share of fans, attention, and awards back then, so I'm surprised you've never heard it. It's not an obscure B film or anything like that.

It's more of a tragedy/drama though, so don't expect an adventure story like the first.

[edit]

"First off let me say, that no matter what anyone here says, on the Internet the 76 Kong will always be hated, and the 33 Kong will always be well liked and the 2005 Kong will be loved. It's like High School, it's all about rep."

Heh, from the IMDB, wherein some wise person points out a phenomenon I was unfamiliar with beforehand. If I knew this, then I would have never said anything.

Ok, I'm going to tell you everything you need to know about the 1976 version of King Kong (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0074751/). Ready?

Produced by
Dino De Laurentiis

Yes, he has produced a lot of crap, but hey, he also had the heart to cast Mickey Rourke in two films (Year of the Dragon and the Desperate Hours remake). That's enough to redeem him.

Hey, the first Conan was pretty good.

Crap, I didn't see that. Imho, it's better than pretty good. The credit is more to John Milus though, who was a fan of Howard's before the films.

I thought that De Laurentis was just associated with the second one....Which was terrible (and wasn't directed by Milus).

He also did King Kong 2 AKA King Kong Lives.

He's basically producer or exec producer on everything. His bio on IMDB says he was behind Blue Velvet but it isn't listed in his filmography.

And I'm going to give you everything you need to know about movies. Ready?

Producers almost always mean Nothing At All. Nothing. Now, on Spielberg/Lucas stuff, ya, Lucas has his hand in the cookie jar. But Laurentis? He's a signature on a check. You want to see the problem with the '76 King Kong? Look at the shitty director and an amateurish 30 year old Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. They were nothing at that age compared to Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Adrian Brody. Hell, comparatively they aren't even very good today.

That would be true except for De Laurentis. Whether Shock meant it or not, he's on to something. De Laurentis is one of the only producers in recent times that enforced a lot of creative control for himself on to projects. Directors working under him were not completely autonomous. Just read about the Lynch's Dune movie and you'll find out.

[edit]

ANYWAYS....

Listen. Everyone.

The 76 movie isn't that bad. Not enough to deserve this argument at least.

Maybe one out of every 10 movies. But seriously, he's had to have done near 200 movies. I mean just guessing, without looking at the list, at any given time he'd have to be in at least 3 places. Maybe he just funds wretched shit. That's much more likely.

Producers have control over movies, but usually that control is indirect. They can choose which movies they put money into, which directors and actors get hired, etc. It's quite common for producers to demand script changes and things like that as well.

Most producers have a lot more control than you might think. And the higher the profile the movie that more this is true.

I would just like to know in what bizarro world you live in where Naomi Watts is not considered teh hawtness. If you don't think she is, you should watch Mulholland Drive (preferably with the sound off so you don't try to be involved in the barely-there story and just watch the hot femme lesbian action).

Watching Mulholland just makes her less hot IMHO. Sitting her next to (or on top?) of Laura Harring in a scene just accentuates Laura, not Naomi.

The "story" is great btw. I was in tears at the end.


I don't know what to say about "Why" I don't think she's hot. Maybe because she resembles my friend's wife, who I don't get along with. Maybe because of this picture (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/lonestar627/Misc/naomi_watts.jpg). Maybe because....I just don't think she's that hot. I don't know.

She is a good actress though. How about that?

Son, your hawt meter is borken. But then I think Watts is hotter with black hair than blonde. And you liked the "story" in Mulholland Drive. I know believe you are smoking too much meth.

Heh, funny...That's exactly what I've been thinking about you  :-P.


As for Mulholland, I didn't mean it to come across like that. I don't know what the story was. I watched the whole thing wondering where it was going, and then at the end, that woman sings one of most beautiful songs I had ever heard.....But it turns out she was lip syncing. That it was fake.

I was in fucking tears. Just like Laura and Naomi. Crying my eyes out.

Then the movie ended.

It does sound like there were drugs involved in your viewing.

I'm typing with VERY cold hands atm. Cold. Things may not come out right.

I haven't done meth in years, by the way. It should be out of my system.

Now that I'm warmed up....For further clarification:

Mulholland Dr. provoked a powerful response from me at the end. Despite NONE of it making sense. And, as a bonus, it gave me a hard on.

Powerful response and hard on = Great story

There is nothing else. This is what makes a great film.

When did this site become a place to creep each other out? Is that a new thing?

Watts is Hotts, btw.

Laura Harring > Jessica Lange > Naomi Watts.  But they are all very pretty, so I don't think you can say anyone's hawt-o-meter is off for preferring one over another.  Acting wise, reverse that list (or, better yet, just take Harring off it).

The 76 Kong is one of the first movies I remember seeing in the theatre ( I R OLD). I didn't realize until many years later exactly how hot Jessica Lange was in it. I was probably too busy having the piss scared out of me by Kong and the giant snake.

It really is a damned good movie. Just saw it again a couple of months ago. Am eagerly looking forward to the Jackson version, but I am not sure I can sit through a 3 hour movie. The latest Harry Potter flick was long enough for me.

Wow, how old are you?   :wink:

Get off my lawn!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I don't know. You tell me? I merely stated my basic, personal rules for how I appreciate art. If a work manages to say just one profound thing, despite any other flaws, then I'll still think it's great. If it has a hot chick in it, then even better.

Yet, both you AND Paelos are creeped out. I don't see the big deal here, but maybe I should pat myself on the back anyways.

Signe will be so happy.

Saw Kong on friday.  It was too long.

Yes, there were women in the audience crying at the end, but all the guys I talked to were pretty much of the same opinion, too fucking long.  The death race 2000 with dinos that went on for 15 minutes pretty much ruined my enjoyment of the movie.  After that I was hoping it would just end quickly.

Oh, and what the fuck does everything on that island eat when it can't get white people?

Yes.

I think a better title for this movie would have been The Island of Giant Suicidal Animals.  Every single goddamned animal on that island had me wondering out loud why the fuck it was doing what it was doing.  Why is that T-Rex dropping a mouth ful of nice plump food so it can chase after some skinny white chick?  Okay, why are TWO OTHER T-REXES joining in the chase?  Okay, now why are all three of them FIGHTING a BIG ANGRY MONKEY that can obviously kick their asses?  How about eating one of those giant leeches instead?  They look pretty meaty and easy to catch.

The ending did make me sad, right on cue, but that's not a difficult feat to accomplish, so meh.  Basically it's a B-movie with a sad ending and a giant budget.  Oh, and Jack Black not being funny.  Bleh.

In the video games, the dinosaurs attack everything else and eat everything else WHILE whitey is fighting them. I fear that the game might be better than the movie. /sadf

The 76 version of Kong was the first movie I ever saw in a theater.   It scared the piss out of me and brought me to tears, both in equal doses.  The fact that I must have been...(does some quick arithmetic)...around 3 or 4 years old at the time probably explains my reaction.  But nevertheless, the movie is permanently burned into my memory as something grand and emotional, and I will always think of it as "great" even though it probably deserves much less.

If the new version manages to evoke even a shadow of my the response it did back in 76, I will be happy.

Anyway, who the fuck takes a 3 year old to see King Kong?  Even thinking about it now gets my heart racing (I haven't seen it since).

I saw it, and I hated it.

It was long and terribly boring even though they were trying to keep me on the edge of my seat. Oh look, we're running from <insert monster here>. Oh no, <random crew person> died. And now <new monster> is chasing us. How scary. Oh look, here's a giant monkey. How human he is, and yet violent. Awww, he makes funny faces. Now we're running again. For THREE HOURS.

The movie needed to have CCR's "Run through the Jungle" on the soundtrack. That might have saved it for me. Probably not though.

Saw it, liked it.  Didn't notice my ass falling asleep while watching the flick.  Passing the asleep-ass test in a three hour movie is pretty good testament to how entertaining I thought the flick was.

The teaching Kong sign language bit turned me off to the film. That and the cheesy looking special effects.

I did like the Ann and Kong bonding scenes, cheesy though they were (though the sign language was over the top, I agree).  Kong himself was actually somewhat sympathetic and believable as a character, especially for being a giant ape.  Unfortunately, that just threw the ridiculous one-dimensionality of everything else into sharper relief.

YES.  Completely agree.  Why the fuck should we care about the Jack/Ann romance at all?  I did like the relationship between the newbie crew member and the first mate, though.  Especially since they talked about Heart of Darkness.

A big problem, too, with modern cg special effects is their physics is all fucked up.  I mean....  a couple of tons of monster is NOT going to be as agile or manueverable as they make them.

Someone said it earlier, but, if Carpenter's "The Thing" was released today it would win all kinds of awards.  The purely physical special effects just look better.  Give the action a great sense of realism.

I think you have to give Jackson credit for being able to make a blockbuster that also is not a complete popcorn flick.  We have too many big-budget popcorn flicks with no redeeming qualities already.

I think that was me, but if not I agree. I saw Kong, the physics did look off. Especially when he was swinging his hand around with Ann inside of it, his arm was moving too fast and she was just jerking along slightly out of synch.

Overall the movie was what I thought it would be - way too much CGI monster movie. The scenes with the stampede and with the bugs could have been cut entirely. I wasn't bored but I wasn't excited either - I imagine I would be very bored with a repeat viewing though.

The head-sucking worms bit was the high point of the film =/

I enjoyed the movie and liked the empathy between Kong and Watts.