British Expats - King Kong

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)

- USA (https://britishexpats.com/forum/usa-57/)

- - King Kong (https://britishexpats.com/forum/usa-57/king-kong-342470/)

Reviews seem to suggest we've got a winner here. Here's a link Rotten Tomatoes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba1

Reviews seem to suggest we've got a winner here. Here's a link Rotten Tomatoes

From what I've seen of the previews, it looks heavy on not very good CGI, I'll probably give it a go though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick

Rental!

LOL or 3 for $25 at Blockbuster :D

Loved LOTR triology, and I think Peter Jackson did a good job there. But, I wouldn't go and see King Kong regardless of who made it. It has to be the worst choice of film for him to make, let alone remake. In my opinion, I hasten to add. ;)

Haven't seen it, don't really care either way, though probably a rental as Patrick said...but at least he hasn't tried to modernise it :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmerLisa

I refuse to pass judgment until I've seen the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gruffbrown

From what I've seen of the previews, it looks heavy on not very good CGI, I'll probably give it a go though.

Actually, Kong and his buddies from Skull island don't appear until about 70 minutes into the film. But the footage of depression era Manhattan which is comprised of both miniatures and CGI is supposed to be astounding. The critics all seem to rave about Kong's famous climb to the top of the Empire State building and subsequent battle with the biplanes.

"Peter Jackson's King Kong is the most thrilling, soulful monster picture ever made. At last, it can be said without irony -- I laughed, I cried."
-- Jami Bernard, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba1

Actually, Kong and his buddies from Skull island don't appear until about 70 minutes into the film. But the footage of depression era Manhatten which is comprised of both miniatures and CGI is supposed to be astounding. The critics all seem to rave about Kong's famous climb to the top of the Empire State building and subsequent battle with the biplanes.

An hour and 10 minutes before I see a monkey, hmmmmm, I'll be nipping out for a Rothmans then :D

This is the third time this movie has been made. Three versions, Hollywood must be really running out of decent ideas/scripts. I understand Robocop will soon follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba1

Reviews seem to suggest we've got a winner here. Here's a link Rotten Tomatoes

Quote:

Originally Posted by veryfunny

This is the third time this movie has been made. Three versions, Hollywood must be really running out of decent ideas/scripts. I understand Robocop will soon follow.

Easy money, isnt it?!
Movies relying on CGI/special effects aren't my kind of movie so I won't be seeing it anytime soon.

Probably great for kids not familiar with the 1933 classic. Can't see the point of paying $10 to watch a third remake with better special effects that was done nearly 3/4 of a century ago, unless you have kids.
Don't even mention the 1976 effort in the same breath as the Fay Wray masterpiece, to me it's just like comparing the 1931 Dracula with the ridiculous 1992 Coppola nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veryfunny

This is the third time this movie has been made. Three versions, Hollywood must be really running out of decent ideas/scripts. I understand Robocop will soon follow.

The Dino De Laurentis remake from 1976 was a disasterous attempt to modernize a legerdary story. It saw it when it first came out, laughable from start to finnish. Kong was portrayed by a man in a gorilla costume, the FX technology simply did not exist to properly bring Kong back to the big screen. Many of the original film's key scenes were omitted due to lack of FX tehcnology needed to include them in the movie.

Kong's famous battle with the T-rex is nowhere to be found here. It was decided that having a human actor inside a gorilla suit battle a stop motion animated T-rex would look to fake and laughable. So, this scene as well as others had to be omitted.

There is, however, a scene in which Kong battles a ridiculously fake looking giant rubber snake. The scene were Kong breaks through the wall and battles the natives was also omitted. I'll never forget the scene from the original film in which Kong stomps one of the natives into the ground and places another between his teeth.

The 1976 version omits all of this. Instead, we're treated to scene of Kong falling into a trap imeadiatly after breaking through the wall.

The new film is not only set in the 1930's as it should be, but it doesn't leave out the best scenes from the original due to lack of technology to properly film them. Instead, it takes those original scenes like kong's T-rex battle and greatly expounds upon them with modern technological capability that is sadly lacking in the 1976 version. Kong must now fight 3 T-rex's instead of one.

Some might complain that the film is too long, but I like a good long movie when the story is good enough to carry it. What with the cost of going out to the cinema these days ($8.50, not incuding consessions) I like to think I'm getting my money's worth. With this new Kong film, I'm more than sure I will be. :beer:

Not sure if i'll go and see this one, I know it gor great reviews but the trailer looked like cheesy bollocks to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabba1

I remember Kenny Everrit's satire made by "Dino De Horrendous". Now that was class.