King Kong

Whats next..? ..me..haha juss kiddin

Im actually surprised a little that it flopped becuase it was really all over TV and websites and stuff...but it looks like people just arent going out to the movies anymore...kinda sucks...well im not surprised..cuz i dont go that often anymore...i only go see movies like maybe once every 2 months.
But I kno that Munich is gonna be a good film. I smell Oscar on that...and its not out yet..atleast i dont think..hm..

well..theres a lesson for Hollywood...dont make the star of a movie a CGI Character....unless you work on a kids movie; then its safe.

:)
 
alot of the people i have talked to didnt like it at all. said the cg kong was amazing, but other then that it just wasnt that great a movie...who knows...im going to see it at some point...
 
just saw it this afternoon. The cg deserves applauds, but the movie tried to please a teen audience, and in doing so made a kinda cheesy film.

The quality of the film would have been much better if they had made a rated R drama. But what they did was try to pay homage to the film and insert some juraissic park. The juraissic part stuff was too much. It dragged on.

In my opinion, the film could benefit from a new cut.

Also the chemistry between the actors was lacking. I think more could have been done between Brody and Watts. and that Black (last name) guy i don't think was well cast.

Also the relationship between the to crew members (from the ship) didn't contribute to the film at all.

Too bad, there was a chance to make an incredible incredible film, a real epic.

But instead they tried to go way too commercial and reach a broad audience that they made a cheesy film on that lacked class (which in my opinion a film like King Kong deserves).
 
some people blame it on people talking on cell phones to the reason it flopped and there are people that want to block cell phone signals in theatres...
 
Okay.. just so I don't sound insane in my above post... the thread originally called "Kong takes a dive" was merged with this one.

Carry on.

...oh -- what really got me was the delivery of the "beauty killed the beast" line. As the film went on I kept thinking "surely they can't entrust Jack Black to deliver that line!" Alas... they trusted him... and the film ended in what seemed an abrupt couple of shots for such a loooong movie.

Also, as someone said previously, it was wondering how on earth they were gonna get Kong ont he boat... but that's the one place Jackson actually decides to cut! The fast-forward to NYC didn't do it for me. I was so interested in how they were going to lure him onto the boat or hoist him on board. Oh well.
 
Though my second thought was "Okay okay FINE -- Empire State Building HERE WE COME!!!"
 
All I have to say is this: Well done Peter Jackson! One of the most incredible cinematic experiences I have ever had! I cried four times! Incredible!
 
They can start talking about it being a flop if it drops much this coming weekend. Until then it's doing just fine for a 3 hour movie that does not have a following of LOTR.

Rich, Horse, you gotta see this in the theater. It's got to be one of the... oh, hell, I'll just quote briceman... "most incredible cinematic experiences I have ever had!" Seriously, this one had everything and even more in it. I could barely walk on the way out and I hardly said a word for quite some time after it ended - that's how powerful it was. Sure, it had flaws, but it's no surprise for such a huge scale production considering the speed it was going at (you know, if you watched kongisking.net diaries). But it deserves to be seen in a theater with the largest screen and best sound. Do it, you won't regret... John *tsk* back me up a bit here
 
No no no

Don;t even think about waiting for Home Viewing

The Ape is quite the spectacle. You were turned on by the REX in Jurassic? You aint seen nothing yet.
 
About King Kong.

Before you read this, there are a couple of presuppositions that are built into the foundation of this ‘essay/email/whatever’ that, while you don’t necessarily have to agree with them, it would probably be beneficial to be aware of them, so as not to dismiss the following conversation which is infused with a heavy belief of them. Without this basic understanding you will be tempted to dismiss much of this as ‘intellectual snobbery’ or maybe even ‘insanity’ or ‘paranoia’.

We all acknowledge the ability of art to convey a message, intentionally, by its creator. We grow up on such stories, we’re used to the idea of morals. It’s not a huge stretch to say that “A History of Violence” is a conscious attempt on behalf of Cronenberg to open a dialogue about whether one can abandon the violence of their past, or that “War of the Worlds” is a conscious attempt by Spielberg to talk, not about alien invasion and abductions, but the fractured American family.

Without going into too much detail, there is an implicit belief in this essay that art can also convey a message from various other sources, including, but not limited to:

1. Subconscious beliefs/feelings of the creator(s)
2. Beliefs of the person watching/partaking in the art.
3. Beliefs/Feelings of the culture that has spawned the artist/beholder.

In example-talk, it would look like this:
1. As a child, my family took me to the beach and I was bitten by a shark and felt betrayed. As an adult I make a movie about a kid being taken to the circus and getting kidnapped. I never consciously make the connection with my earlier experience.
2. I’m making a movie about sharks attacking at the beach. You just got mugged at a daycare. You decide that the movie is about being attacked in places that seem safe.
3. I live in a society that has a large number of movies about father issues. Then I, having grown up watching those movies, make a movie that, without my conscious intent, is also filled with father issues. (like every single movie ever made in America)

The fact that these influences are not under the conscious control of the artist(s) or the beholder(s) does in –no- way make them less valid, or powerful.
 
The discussion about this movie, as of late, has left me a little cold. I agree with a lot of it, of course. Yes, the battle with the T-Rexes is stunning. Yes, the ‘life-like’ aspect of Kong is amazing. Yes, I bet those little sucker things at the bottom of the ravine would hurt like a ***** if they latched onto you. But that seems to be the extent of the positive commentary and it seems to me that there’s a lot more to be said.

Now, I know I’m not the only one that had a high-school teacher beat the symbolism of the conch into my head. To this day, I can’t even look at a conch shell without fighting the urge to grab it, hoist it above my head and demand that people listen to me, and kill piggy. I also know that I’m not the only one to then go to college and ditch a good majority of that knowledge, and the way that knowledge was attained, only to resurrect it when seeing the Matrix for the first time and remembering some hint of a story some greek guy, and some cave, and some lights, and how that it was his reality, being yanked out and shown the –real- reality, and subsequently thinking “Whoa.”

So we have that much in common, I’m fairly sure of it.

So if that’s the case why did we disregard our common…upbringing/education, when we went to see King Kong? Was it because it’s “just a movie about an ape?” Or was it just because it was a $200Million blockbuster, or was it because we wanted more hobbits? Or was it because of the obnoxious f@#king kid in front of us talking through the whole movie? I don’t know.

I say we, not only to consciously counterbalance a “holier-than-thou” vibe in this post, but also as a confession. For the first part of this movie, I too was stumbling along, bored out of my pants, waiting for the big simian to show up and start throwin’ s@#t around. “Any second now,” I said to myself “Kong is going to show up and this s@#t's going to get good.”

Someone once said something along the lines of Spielberg helping usher in the era of special effects porn. We watch the boring character development just waiting for the money shot. Sure there’s some story or another going on, something about a TV repair guy at the wrong apartment or a team of scientists working with DNA, but really when is the Alien/Dinosaur/Giant monkey going to show up and do something fun/cool/expensive?

It was at this point something happened. I’m not sure what it was exactly.
Maybe someone on the screen said something.
Or maybe it was one of those characters waving around Heart of Darkness that reminded me of a painful (but ultimately, it seems, useful) English Lit. discussion section.

I don't know what it was, but something on the screen told me that I should look a little further past the obvious series of events, and when I did the whole movie just... clicked.

I can’t describe it any better than that, but it clicked, and what started out as a boring, bloated 3 hour F/X movie turned into a two and a half hour dissertation about love, male/female relationships, imperialism, and the inherent problems of society. It was gripping. It was intense. And the monkey tore some s@#t up too. It was the best of all worlds.

If you haven’t seen this movie, hopefully these posts will give you something to think about as you watch it, so maybe you can see it with the eyes you –used- to have before being desensitized to the idea of quality -- in part by the astounding, nearly universal lack of it at the current cinemaplex.

And if you have seen this movie, hopefully I will defend my superstitions and beliefs with enough accuracy to make you think (at best) “Well he’s not just making this up. Maybe I should give this movie another try.” and at least "That's a valid perspective. I hadn't looked at it that way."

At the very least, just try to read it with an open mind. If someone took the time to write all this stuff down, he must have some reason. And have a little faith in the writing team behind King Kong. If they can adapt three of the most dearly loved, yet complicated and rich books of all time, what makes you think they can’t knock a movie about a giant ape out of the f@#king park?*

*(A: They can, and did.)
 
Rather than –just- be a complete blow-hard and preach to you and tell you what this scene may have meant and that scene might have meant, I’m also going to just ask you questions that I asked myself, that led me to wonder certain things. Maybe you have answers that I don’t.

I’ll start at the beginning (it’s a very good place to start), but it’ll be impossible to discuss the beginning without discussing the end. Luckily we all know how king kong ends so it won’t be that big of a deal.

1. American Imperialism.

(Yeah I know, bear with me.)

The movie starts off with images of The Great Depression. Human society at its worst (and at it’s inevitable endpoint, some might say). Jackson presents us with people starving and unable to work, in the most successful city, in the most successful nation of the world. That’s how his movie starts. Then it ends with a monkey, climbing to the top of the empire state building, and falling to its death.

Again, this might seem really obvious, but doesn’t this seem like a pretty solid statement to make in the middle of a “Hollywood” blockbuster? To suggest that rampant imperialist growth and expansion not only risks but demands an impoverished lower class (and it makes sense that it’d be difficult to have one extreme without the other) is pretty heavy stuff for just “a movie.” Again, I repeat, the movie ends with a Monkey/Ape/Simian climbing to the very top of the (then) tallest building of an empire, and then falling to its death.

The internet dictionary defines imperialism as “extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or indirect methods of exerting control over the politics and/or the economy of other countries.”

America isn’t exactly building an empire the way that certain other countries have in the past, via physical conquering. It sure is doing its best bet with cultural penetration (man that sounds so sexual), and in a weird bit of irony, it’s fun to watch this somewhat anti-imperialist movie have its success measured by both domestic and international box office

But what were some of those other great imperialist nations? Oh right. England. Did anyone ever write a book about it? Oh yeah. Joseph Conrad did. What was that book called? “Heart of Darkness” Didn’t that book pop up left and right in this movie? Must’ve just been coincidence. And if you’re too lazy to re-read (or just read) the book, skim the cliff notes. Here.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/heart/themes.html

And if you think that this first point is still a stretch, let me remind you of two of the last lines in the movie. Again, paraphrased from a week-old viewing.

“Why did he climb up so high. He must’ve known what was going to happen?” – Onlooker 1.

“He didn’t know. He’s a stupid animal.” – Onlooker 2.

Am I the only one that thinks that this is just really great? You think these lines are just random bulls@#t to kill time? The movie is three hours and seven minutes long. There aren’t lines in this movie just to kill time. Especially at the end. If you are Peter Jackson, and you have a 187 minute movie, you make sure the end means –something-

You know what else makes these two lines great, above and beyond the fact that they are primates dismissing another primate as being just a stupid animal? Even in dismissing it as being just a stupid animal, they are using “He” to refer to it. Personifying the thing that they want to write off. I promise you, this is good stuff. Maybe one guy said it, and the other said He, again, I don’t really remember, but check it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top