King Kong Reviews

Vokes

IGN Review


Saw Peter Jackson on the telly yesterday....my God :eek: he mustve lost something like 70/80 lbs, hardly recognised him.

aidan_walsh

SofaKing wrote:

Saw Peter Jackson on the telly yesterday....my God :eek: he mustve lost something like 70/80 lbs, hardly recognised him.

*pop*

*pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff*

Kingp35

SofaKing wrote:

IGN Review

So the first slightly negative review. I must say that that article has touched on both the points that I was worried about, how PJ managed to turn a 1hr 40min film into an over 3hr epic and alos the casting decision of Jack Black.

When I heard the run time I hoped that PJ didnt change teh story too much but it seems that he has added in too much at the start that isnt needed. Also that review says that Jack Black is badly cast which I thought might be the case.

Im not going to pay too much heed to the review until I see the movie its just strange that both things that I thought could turn out bad, according to that article, have turned out bad

Tusky

Sangre wrote:

Is there a difference?

I think so. I might really enjoy a big, loud, cgi laden action movie alot but that doesnt mean its a great film.

segadreamcast

maquiladora wrote:

Dear oh dear, you seem to be in a habit of getting your facts wrong.
The first press screening was held last Wednesday in New York where over 100 reporters and critics were invited :



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133477415685&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630

... I didn't say the first press screening, I said press screenings as in, yuh know, in general? Maybe read my messages :eek: ?!?

Incidentally, get off your fan horse... I never said the movie was bad, I just hate blind fanboyism... hence me telling you not to, you know, build the movie up too much. By all accounts, I hope the movie is great - because 2005 needs a great blockbuster.

anthonymcg

SofaKing wrote:

IGN Review


Saw Peter Jackson on the telly yesterday....my God :eek: he mustve lost something like 70/80 lbs, hardly recognised him.

Yeah I know. He doesn't look right

johnny_ultimate

Holey Moley Peter Jacksons thinned out! Where's that lovable, slightly tubby rouge we all knew and loved?

johnny_ultimate

It could have been Jackson’s folly. Instead it’s a triumph, the kind of romantic action spectacle that makes the big screen silver and provides box-office gold. Puts the prime in primate.

Empire review : 5 stars, for what it's worth. Must admit I'm still an avid buyer of their magazine, simply because they seem to be the least critical. As has been said they base reviews on how much you're likely to enjoy the film for what it is. Although they can often be a bit over generous....

Winning Hand

Given up on empire a few months ago when I realised that everything is good to them. Tend to agree more often than not with the Ign reviews (notable exception being the assasination of richard nixon) so will be a little bit cautious going into this movie

Goodshape

Saw Peter Jackson on the telly yesterday....my God he mustve lost something like 70/80 lbs, hardly recognised him.

Doesn't look healthy tbh.

I'm actually looking forward to this now.. I wasn't really until these reviews started coming in. I like a nice long film and this looks like it will - at least - be an enjoyable spectical.

I've also never actually seen King Kong before, so any 'changes' made won't be noticable to me. And although this comic (Penny Arcade // possible spoiler if your clueless asto the original movie) makes the good point that I should have known all about it... I had forgotten that I knew and was slightly annoyed to read it

segadreamcast

Saw it today. I'm gonna be brief - don't wanna give anything away.

Good: Most things. It's funny. It's exciting. It's visually startling at times. It's...dare I say it... a little scary at times? It ticks all the 'good blockbuster' boxes.

Bad: Some attempts at humour flopped, with only execs at the back laughing. It is too long, given the nature of the story (nothing wrong with long movies, as long as you're fitting something into them... this could've easily had 30 minutes lopped off). Some of the casting is very questionable - though I loved Kyle Chandler (also know as the guy from Early Edition).

8/10. As far as blockbusters go, this ticks all the boxes. Not a classic, but definitely the best blockbuster of '05.

Elessar

I was also at the showing today in Dublin.

I must say this is a thoroughly entertaining film. Cinema doing what cinema does best. The first half is very slow and there are far too many lingering close-ups with under developed and unexplained character relationships and poor jokes, but once we get to skull island, the film truely shines.

The CGI is quite literally the best ever produced and there are many jaw-dropping fight scenes with Kong (I wont spoil them). Kudos too to the sound designers, the sound throughout was fantastic. Jackson really does get you to care for Kong and the final scenes are well done emotionally and amazing to watch.

Absolutely Recommended. 9/10. See this film.

TerrorFirmer

I can't wait to see this movie. I know, hardly a valuable input into the thread. But I really can't wait!!

And wow, he lost a hell of alot of weight. That said though he got fat in a relatively short period of time, nice to see hes back on the healthy trail.

Ever seen him in Braindead or Bad Taste? He's pretty slim in those movies, although they are old enough now I suppose.

Peteee

Cant wait to see the movie.

Currently tracking @ 95% on rotten tomatoes, which is worse then The two towers (98%), Same as ROTK, and better then fellowship (93%)

MisterAnarchy

I hope the scale of Kong is consistent in the film.
From the clips I've seen Kong seems to be his proper size of 25ft in some scenes and almost 100ft in others.
In the original King Kong's height is different in different parts of the movie. He appears to be 18 feet tall on the island, 24 feet on stage in New York and 50 feet on the Empire State Building.
Should be good.

maquiladora

Yes, its true, Jackson lost a hell of a lot of weight, plus his glasses. Also, he seemingly lost his beard too for his obligatory cameo in this, but I don't think anyone knows what that is yet.

Stompbox

The Sunday Times gave it 5 out of 5.

Necronomicon

Definately looking forward to this, although I'm always cautiously optomistic when anticipating these blockbusters. I have a good feeling I won't be let down by this though, the clips look very impressive.

maquiladora

Sweet wrote:

The Sunday Times gave it 5 out of 5.

Indeed, and here is their blurb :

It's been a long time since a blockbuster has delivered as much excitement and emotion as Peter Jackson's King Kong. His remake of the 1933 classic boasts of having it all - adventure, romance, action - and believe me it does. And then some. So roll over George Lucas, and tell Steven Spielberg the news: the bar on what we call the great blockbuster has just been raised.

:thumbs up:

CyberGhost

maquiladora wrote:

Yes, its true, Jackson lost a hell of a lot of weight, plus his glasses. Also, he seemingly lost his beard too for his obligatory cameo in this

He didn't lose his virginity did he?

maquiladora

CyberGhost wrote:

He didn't lose his virginity did he?

He lost that quite a while ago. He's married with two children.

MisterAnarchy

The Sunday Times gave it 5 out of 5.

I wouldnt give too much credence to their film critic.
His postive choices lately have been very poor .
He tends to blow against the wind :rolleyes:

ixoy

Interestingly, the Box Office Mojo review is pretty harsh [WARNING: Apparently there's big spoilers in the review...]:

This extravaganza is moviemaking at its lowest: small ideas amplified and anthropomorphized with a big budget.

It's not kind to the movie at all.

As for the Sunday Times, I've found I rarely agree with their opinion on movies, particularly old Cosmo. I'll wait to see what Michael Dwyer or Donald Clarke have to say as they're normally quite close to my tastes (particularly Clarke).

Kingp35

Thats one seriously harsh review but to be honest its the only one that I have read. You are always going to get one who doesnt like a movie so im not going to read too much into this. He seems to have a problem that this movie follows the same story as the origninal, but someone should explain to him that if the original had such a poor story then why is it still hugely popular today.

Still I never really care what reviewers say, ill make up my own mind when I see it

fitz

ixoy wrote:

Interestingly, the Box Office Mojo review is pretty harsh:

It's not kind to the movie at all.

As for the Sunday Times, I've found I rarely agree with their opinion on movies, particularly old Cosmo. I'll wait to see what Michael Dwyer or Donald Clarke have to say as they're normally quite close to my tastes (particularly Clarke).

For christ sake man, you could have a least warned of spoilers in the review.
Thanks a bunch.

Would have expected more from you tbh. :mad:

CyberGhost

fitz wrote:

For christ sake man, you could have a least warned of spoilers in the review.
Thanks a bunch.

Would have expected more from you tbh. :mad:

Dude, it's a remake

and what spoilers could there be a freggin movie with an ape in it? don't you know what to expect in it?

RuggieBear

He doesn't die does he??????

fitz

CyberGhost wrote:

Dude, it's a remake

and what spoilers could there be a freggin movie with an ape in it? don't you know what to expect in it?

If you read the review, which I advise you not to do, it tells you something that they've changed.
Something I'd have much rather seen un-knowing of what was going to happen.

The more I think about it, the more I'm pissed off.

Kingp35

fitz wrote:

If you read the review, which I advise you not to do, it tells you something that they've changed.
Something I'd have much rather seen un-knowing of what was going to happen.

The more I think about it, the more I'm pissed off.

I kinda agree with fitz on this one. Review did contain quite a big spoiler that I definitely would have prefered not to know about

RuggieBear

Tbh, i try to avoid reading reviews as you will alway's get some dumbass mofo who'll ruin suprises for others through his incompetent writing.

Hard luck fitz. If the review does really have some major spoilers that ****ing sucks.:(