King Kong 2005 Peter Jackson

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

I saw the "King Kong" remake earlier today at a theater in Berkeley, CA.

 

I liked the film very much.

 

Later I might decide there are aspects of it I don't like, but for now my emotional reaction is very positive.

 

The film contains several moments which I felt were quite moving: Naomi Watts "connecting" with the Kong character; thanks I'm sure to Andy Serkis, Director Peter Jackson, and the director's skilled CG minions.

 

The film seemed much shorter than its 3-hour running time. I would have been happy to spend more time with the big ape in his island world.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing it again sometime soon.

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

Edited December 18, 2005 by Peter DeCrescenzo

[Matthew Parnell]

Saw the film, extremely dissapointed. The whole film seemed to be a bit of a rush job. It appeared to me that Universal gave Jackson far too much leighway in the cutting room (unlike what ive heard about New Line with LOTR, though admitedly he had a year to cut each LOTR film) and the result is what i found to be a exceptionally poorly paced film, interupted by too many subplots, backstory and far to many supporting characters to allow them to develop properly. Cut between an 20 mins and an hour from it and it would have been much more enjoyable.

[Bob Hayes]

Saw King Kong yesterday. I really enjoyed all the aspects of it. Jack Black and Naomi Watts were perfectly cast as was Kong. It was exciting and filled with adventure. It even pulled my heart sting a couple of times. That said I think the effects driven scenes were way to long. Also some of the effects were sub par. When the Venture leaves New York there are huge registration problems for example. But all and all I loved it.

[David Sweetman]

I thought the movie was incredible. This was no doubt influenced by the proximity in which I saw it to Chronicles of Narnia, which I absolutely hated. Kong got the shots that needed to be gotten. Narnia just flat-out didn't. People rationalize the lack of three-dimensional conflict in Narnia by calling it a "kids movie." Kong nailed the conflict and the characters. I did find the heavy cg distracting, particularly during the "bug" sequence, although the Kong vs. T-rex scene was sweet. Loved the last scene, and I thought Naiomi Watts did a great job of emotionally interacting with the cg Kong.

[Tim Tyler]

The whole film seemed to be a bit of a rush job.

Cut between an 20 mins and an hour from it and it would have been much more enjoyable.

 

That's how I felt. Some of CG shots looked really bad, particularly the wide shots of the row boats to and from Skull Island. Most of the movie looked great. I was kind of preocupied with light reflections is actors eyes during the first 45 minutes or so... trying to figure out the lighting setups Lesnie used for Naomi other principles.

 

I almost tried going to the 12:01 AM first show of opening day, but ended up going to a matinee that afternoon. I was really surpised that the theater was barely 20% occupied. I thought for sure it would be packed like openig day for a Star Wars picture.

[benspo111]

I thought it was an outstanding movie, most of the kong shots were amazing and looked so real, however there were a few as stated that were not so good. But all in all the Cinematography were good. I as well was confused to as why there were not many people in the theatre.

[Max Jacoby]

I as well was confused to as why there were not many people in the theatre.

The film is not doing too well at the box office, it looks like it'll have a hard time getting over 200M in the US.

[Trevor Greenfield]

I saw it yesterday, my first show since moving up here. The facilities weren't what Im used to at say an AMC.. imagine an 80's cinema or something.

 

 

Anyway, I thought overall it was great. It was long. Too long? As a filmmaker I hate saying anything is too long, but could some stuff have been trimmed or cut? Sure. The creatures - all of the CGI IMHO - was terrific. The sets were great, I totally felt the emotion from Kong and Ann. The ice scene was a beautiful moment. There were brief tears I fought back a couple of times. Kong vs the TRexes was awesome. Overall it was epic.

 

But sure the pacing seemed kind of strange. No doubt PJ is the king of action and mixing CGI with live action as well. But dramatic live action especially in the beginning seemed a little off pace, and odd. Also, although I respect Black as an actor, I dont think he ultimately delivered. I think his character at times seemed a little lost. IMHO Denim needed to be a fast talking filmmaker, a guy who is overly confident and smooth wording. He ultimately is so slick - he leads the story along... fake out the producers, arrange for the early departure, get the boat to go unbeknownest to the crew to SI, film the whole thing, bring kong back etc etc. I just felt like it wasnt hit just perfect.

 

So I dunno, to me I overlook that and say that the film was incredible overall. It was epic. PJ nailed so much. Objectively though it was in some small shape odd... pacing? JB? Im not 100% sure.

 

Also, I was definitely caught looking at the light reflections in the CU eyes trying to figure out the setup used. But thats my problem in stopping to learn.

[Riku Naskali]

I also enjoyed the film quite a lot. I really didn't care for LOTR's that much, but Kong did it for me. It didn't even feel that long.

 

I too noticed the eye reflections, almost every shot had them.

[Abel Klainbaum]

I was kind of preocupied with light reflections is actors eyes during the first 45 minutes or so...

 

How does a film this bad ever get made?

 

The reflections definitely were glaring, even if you're not looking for them. And I agree the pacing was slow and could have used major subtractions. Plus there was nothing spectacular about the sound, so you can't justify the admission price for that.

 

I really liked the classic opening title, but unfortunately it was all downhill from there.

[Patrick Neary]

I too noticed the eye reflections, almost every shot had them.

 

that's because 80% of the film is tight close-ups. Is the editor working off a 9-inch monitor, or did they even shoot wide or medium shots for this film???

[Louis]

I think my biggest problem with the movie was the length. There was about an hour's worth of good stuff in there, but in a three hour movie that's just not enough. This story was told several times before, and in 1933 it was only an hour and a half long, and it didn't really feel like it was missing anything, so why add several hours of new material? Also, the CG was simply embarassing at times.

[Jason Maeda]

ummm....so what i've learned is that a bunch of dp's think george bush sucks and the film was edited too long.

 

o.k., anyone have a comment on the cinematography? i do: it was good. the catchlights in the eyes were fine in my opinion, i mean, 90% of the films that made us want to shoot in the first place had completely unmotivated lighting. the aspect ratio was used nicely, and i thought the shot selection, while not ground breaking, worked. case in point: i got a real sense of vertigo during the kong action scenes including, of course, the empire state building scene. a lot of that is editing, but you can't edit together what you didn't get, and i feel that they got it.

 

sorry to hijack the thread.

 

jk :ph34r:

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Interesting thread, I just re-read the whole thing. Now, about Kong.

 

I also thought that it was too long, perhaps about 20 - 30 minutes too long overall. The beginning was very well shot and I'm fine with proper backstory and introductions, but the pacing was a bit slow and we found out way too much about characters that later disappeared? I did feel the colors and lighting and textures were great, but it didn't seem real to me, it felt more like a fake set, almost plastic. Not sure if anyone else felt the same way, but that's just a personal reaction of mine.

 

The middle of the movie where we start moving with some momentum towards the climax is where I felt the movie actually could have started, but I think PJ is too accustomed to having these long drawn out films. I also felt Jack Black was not the best choice and his portrayal was a bit weak, but then again Naomi Watts was so good everyone looked weak next to her. Though the vaudeville to tame the mighty beast I have an issue with, that I won't get in to here. Suffice to say, it was highly improbably and unbelievable for me.

 

I loved the Kong CGI, but the Dinosaurs CGI did not stand out against Jurassic Park in any way, and lots of effects seemed unfinished to me. Also, why was the story really that long? And with 2 prior versions why not be I dunno "original" and try to tell a better story, not just have great visuals that while better than the other 2, aren't quite all there?

 

Yeah the KONG / T-Rex was great, but story? KONG / Naomi in the ice park was fine but obvious and intended to be the poignant tug on peoples heart strings, soo predictable. Where's the story? There were so many loose ends, it like I could have a KONG sized ball to play with.

 

There are many things to enjoy and appreciate in this movie but all in all it is not epic and not that great. It is a good movie but 200M and 2 years? I expected a lot more, a lot more.

 

Just my opinion, :-)

[Andy O'Neil]

WARNING: SPOILER

 

 

...the vaudeville to tame the mighty beast I have an issue with...It was highly improbable and unbelievable for me.

 

While I could think of a myriad of more improbable elements in "King Kong" (i.e., a 50-foot-tall ape), I threw plausibility out the window on my way to the theatre. Having said that, I left the film convinced of Ann Darrow's love and compassion for Lumpy, the 5 story ape. There was something a little more settling about a huge ape falling for a woman because of her sense of humor rather than her other "assets." Kong's acceptance and reception towards Darrow was a perfect connection for the two considering the setup the story had to work with.

 

Every scene between Darrow and Kong was a delight. Those scenes alone blew me away. My favorite shot: A dead, beaten Kong slipping off of a 102-story art deco building. Marvelous.

[Chris Keth]

Every scene between Darrow and Kong was a delight. Those scenes alone blew me away. My favorite shot: A dead, beaten Kong slipping off of a 102-story art deco building. Marvelous.

 

 

Very true. I will admit my eyes were a tad moist about that time.

 

I think my favorite shot would be a gorgeous close-up of Ann Darrow backstage when they're still making it appear that she is in the Kong vaudeville show. She is facing a bit screen left and the background-the bright curtains, lights, etc- are out of focus and make a very beautiful mackdrop for her.

[Jason Maeda]

The film is not doing too well at the box office, it looks like it'll have a hard time getting over 200M in the US.

 

check again

jk :)

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Of course a 5 story monkey with some bit of intellegence is a stretch but the premise of the story is that Kong exists, so that is fine.

 

The development of the characters who are human is not supposed to be implausible, they are supposed to mimic real people, tho with exaggerated characteristics.

 

To be clear, my issue with the vaudeville is much darker (you can look up the history of vaudeville and get a clue where I am coming from) and I won't really get into that, it's not the point of this thread. Suffice to say I will agree comedy taming the beast seems to be an easier sell than inter-species attraction, but everything is symbolic isn't it so why not use animal attraction? It is what seems to drive the two leads attraction to one another isn't it? I didn't see any wining and dining or even any significant conversation between Naomi and Adrien. Comedy also implies much more intelligence than I think KONG displayed.

 

The theme of what it means to be a man, well that was there, but wasn't well done in my opinion.

 

Again, just my opinion.

[Max Jacoby]

Yes, the film picked up it's pace again at the box office, due to the end of the year holidays. But in it's third week it got outgrossed by 'Narnia', which is in its fourth week already. Considering its 207M budget, 'King Kong' is not going to be a huge moneymaker for its studio, at least theatrically.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

Yes, the film picked up it's pace again at the box office, due to the end of the year holidays. But in it's third week it got outgrossed by 'Narnia', which is in its fourth week already. Considering its 207M budget, 'King Kong' is not going to be a huge moneymaker for its studio, at least theatrically.

Could be because "Kong" isn't benefitting from "free" promotion by the Christian right in the US the way "Narnia" is? Who knows? Anyway, what's your point? Since when is box office performance an accurate measure of anything other than -- maybe -- ticket sales?

 

I enjoyed "Kong" and plan to see it again in a theater soon, and I'm looking forward to the inevitable DVD release(s). Not because I think it's the best film ever made, but because there are may reasons why I enjoyed it.

 

It's fine with me if you didn't enjoy it as much as I did, but pointing out box office statistics as a primary talking point in a cinematography forum seems a bit odd to me.

 

Happy & healthy New Years everyone!

[Max Jacoby]

It's fine with me if you didn't enjoy it as much as I did, but pointing out box office statistics as a primary talking point in a cinematography forum seems a bit odd to me.

Just so you know, I'm not one of those people who judge a film by how much it makes at the box office. I merely mentioned the stats after people asked how it succesful it was.

[Dickson Sorensen]

King Kong: Was I the only one wondering how Carl Denham planned on synchronizing the live sound he was recording on the boat with his hand crank Bell and Howell?