King Kong

[biological warrior]

Ok fella's just wanted to know if anyone has seen the King Kong movie.
Are there any reviews? Im thinking of seeing it tonite but wanted to know what people thought about the movie before going.

[jeff061]

Every review I've seen has been very positive.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Every review I've seen has been very positive.

Go figure.

Apparently this monstrosity (pun intended) of CGI overload (for a period piece?!?!?) is doing "poorly" at the box-office so far, at least from news reports.

[jeff061]

Yeah, only 9 million Wednesday. It may end up being the only movie all year I check out in the theater.

[Bad-example]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

The SF Chronicle hated it.

There's a dinosaur stampede, several giant spider invasions and an attack by creatures that look like angry penises with teeth. The audience is invited to witness peril and mourn the deaths of characters no one cares about. I didn't clock it, but at least an hour is spent on the island, and it's the same action repeated over and over: There's a monster, certain doom, a surprising escape. At one point, King Kong fights off three T-Rexes with one hand, while holding Ann in his other like an ice cream cone. Even that goes on too long.

[biological warrior]

I guess as long as its faithful and, historically accurate to the real event then Im sold.

[oliegirl]

I wanted to see this, but now I am wondering if it's one of those movies that the critics love for whatever reason, but has no real appeal to mass audiences. I'll probably end up seeing it anyway, but I have lowered my standards and expectations since hearing "man on the street" reviews.

[jeff061]

Old faithful:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I wanted to see this, but now I am wondering if it's one of those movies that the critics love for whatever reason, but has no real appeal to mass audiences. I'll probably end up seeing it anyway, but I have lowered my standards and expectations since hearing "man on the street" reviews.

Wow, that's hilarious that good reviews had made you reconsider initially.

[TargetPractice6]

I saw it with a group of about eight people and we all loved it.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Wow, that's hilarious that good reviews had made you reconsider initially.

Maybe I mispoke, I wanted to see it based on all the great "buzz" it was getting before it was released...the press loved it. But I haven't heard many good things about it from people that have seen it. I think this weekend is a do-or-die for the movie...it cost over $200 million to make, it has a lot of tickets to sell before it's in the black

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Maybe I mispoke, I wanted to see it based on all the great "buzz" it was getting before it was released...the press loved it. But I haven't heard many good things about it from people that have seen it. I think this weekend is a do-or-die for the movie...it cost over $200 million to make, it has a lot of tickets to sell before it's in the black

It'll be fine. Even it it only makes 100 million in the US, it'll make a killing internationally and on DVD. I guarantee no one is sweating the box office numbers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

It'll be fine. Even it it only makes 100 million in the US, it'll make a killing internationally and on DVD. I guarantee no one is sweating the box office numbers.

It will easily make 100 million. While the 9 million opening on Wednesday is lower than other event pictures, it's still a pretty good draw. It will still have a pretty big weekend and I'd expect it to actually increase next weekend when the holiday movie season really starts. I'd say it's definitely headed to over $200 million domestically. But you're definitely right, I think this will easily clear $1 billion overseas.

[WrongWay]

Looking at the Rotten Tomatoes site:

Funny I can not find a negative review about the movie's acting, writing, producing, directing, or special effects. I do see negative reviews about movies over 3 hours though.

[biological warrior]

Just got back from seeing it! It seemed like a movie made by a guy ''who loved movies.'' It was pretty faithful to the original and, historically accurate. The movie also added new questions and, depth to the movie (old map...clues to ''other'' Kongs et. ala). Really brought up some questions regarding love, colonialism and, taking opportunity out of danger. The scene with that native girl is freeky. Well Im not going to ruin the rest of the movie.

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by biological warrior

Just got back from seeing it! It seemed like a movie made by a guy ''who loved movies.'' It was pretty faithful to the original and, historically accurate. The movie also added new questions and, depth to the movie (old map...clues to ''other'' Kongs et. ala). Really brought up some questions regarding love, colonialism and, taking opportunity out of danger. The scene with that native girl is freeky. Well Im not going to ruin the rest of the movie.

So where is your opinion about the movie?

Loved it? hated it? On a scale of 1 to 10?

Come on Spock tell us how you feel.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It will easily make 100 million. While the 9 million opening on Wednesday is lower than other event pictures, it's still a pretty good draw. It will still have a pretty big weekend and I'd expect it to actually increase next weekend when the holiday movie season really starts. I'd say it's definitely headed to over $200 million domestically. But you're definitely right, I think this will easily clear $1 billion overseas.

You're high. The film might make 100 million domestically, but since it cost nearly TWICE that to make, it'll be considered a flop.

Personally, I'm not gonna see it, nor will I pay for the DVD. Jackson doesn't understand the meaning of the word "edit" as shown by this film and by the Bore of the Rings trilogy. He got my money a couple of times with those films. Not this time. This will show Jackson to be the hack he is, and not worthy of the Oscars he got a few years ago.

[WrongWay]

And, I say you are completely wrong and it has a bigger opening weekend than another 3+hr movie Titanic.


Edit: Titanic had a $28.6 million opening weekend

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

You're high. The film might make 100 million domestically, but since it cost nearly TWICE that to make, it'll be considered a flop.

Personally, I'm not gonna see it, nor will I pay for the DVD. Jackson doesn't understand the meaning of the word "edit" as shown by this film and by the Bore of the Rings trilogy. He got my money a couple of times with those films. Not this time. This will show Jackson to be the hack he is, and not worthy of the Oscars he got a few years ago.

Actually, I prefer someone like Jackson who "doesn't know the meaning of the word edit" in an era when most action movies are made by ADD Music video directors who cut every 5 seconds.

By the way, Jackson proved himself as a filmmaker well before Lord of the Rings. Heavenly Creatures was an incredible film, one of my favorites of the 90s. He also made a name for himself with low budget horror prior to that, particularly Dead Alive. He made a very creative "documentary" called Forgotten Silver which fooled most of New Zealand. I also think The Frighteners was highly underrated,

I can understand people not liking Kong or LOTR. But you're being a little overzealous, for some reason, with your hatred towards Jackson. He's definitely not a hack. And you've allowed your hatred to cloud your judgement with the box office numbers. Kong will probably end up with $40 million this weekend (that might be low). It will be over $100 million as early as next weekend.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I loved Lord of the Rings. All three films are triumphs of filmmaking. Pure genius. It's the art of filmmaking at its very finest.

That said, while the movie looks amazing and I am sure it's exceptionally well-crafted, I have no real interest in "King Kong" and I am not surprised it's not doing well. I've seen the original. I've seen the 70's/80's re-make of it. It's fine, but the story just doesn't do it all for me.

A giant ape? Eh. Give me Godzilla.

That, and I know how it ends. It's depressing.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

You're high. The film might make 100 million domestically, but since it cost nearly TWICE that to make, it'll be considered a flop.

I think it'll clear over 100 million. Most of the "industry analysts" are saying it will likely have staying power. The fact it's PG-13 cut into some of the numbers (considering it went up against a more kid friendly strong film in Narnia), plus a lot of the east coast had bad weather on opening day. This weekend's numbers should be interesting though.

I'm sure the 3+ hours will keep it from putting up Star Wars type numbers, but I have to imagine it will do very well overseas and eventually on DVD. Plus with a weak field this year, if it gets Oscar buzz it will kick up again around the time of the academy awards.

Anyways, flop is probably in the eyes of the beholder but I think the studios will still make a nice return on this picture.

[Buccaneer]

Here the boxofficemojo review

It took director Peter Jackson with a multi-million dollar budget to remake King Kong as an epic, and what a monstrosity he has made. Sparing no expense, to paraphrase the huckster in Jurassic Park, Jackson takes nearly three hours to render a big dose of pretentious glop.

The latest Kong remake is a debacle from every angle. Opening in a zoo, Jackson depicts Depression-era New York City through flashes of pretty girls doing Vaudeville for a bite to eat and people in poverty—like old postcards in frantic, perpetual motion. The Mad Hatter pace pauses for a hokey hookup between a big-eyed blonde (Naomi Watts) and a bug-eyed movie producer (Jack Black). She's hungry and desperate, and he's looking for an actress in his expensive movie, which has lost its backing.

Meanwhile, King Kong has already lost its bearings, and, while it's clear that everyone's heading to an island to make a movie, it's equally clear that it's not going to work. The remake copies the original's basic plot: a boat trip with the ringmaster, the starlet and the hero (Adrien Brody's screenwriter, improbably) sailing to an exotic place where they'll find dinosaurs and a gigantic ape. Jackson adds chloroform, a shady captain and a kid named Jimmy. Ship's ahoy and breathlessly pleading for attention.
On board, Watts and Brody lock lips, Black's greedy producer schemes and several shipmates—notably Kyle Chandler as a vain movie star—establish a marginal sense of order. Fog sets in and, suddenly, the ship's being tossed about in a violent storm. Welcome to Skull Island—where the second act is a doozy.

Encountering strange, mystical rocks, Black's cast and crew—not the brightest bunch—follow him blindly to land, where snarling super-savages attack, vault themselves onto the ship, kidnap Watts and offer her as a sacrifice for an enlarged silverback gorilla, which bounds into the proceedings noisily and with obvious benefit of computers. Kong grabs the girl, she screams, and so begins the most ridiculous action since Godzilla took Manhattan.

It's hard to say where King Kong goes completely bananas—it's between the polite dialog while running in a dinosaur stampede and Watts doing her stage routine for Kong—but the island scenes are excruciatingly long and poorly conceived. Brody's writer risks his life after a brief spell with Watts, who's doing something like the can-can to keep Kong entertained, while the big lug's recovering from a bout with not one—not two—but three Tyrannosaurus Rexes, at the same time. Jackson shows no restraint, piling on spiders, lizards and bats, while Kong apparently is the only species to go it alone.

Kong's computer-generated expressions look realistic, if gorillas were half-human, and the effects allow Jackson to tout primitivism over civilization and, using Watts, who plays the pretty lady slipping on a banana peel, to make fun of people. Kong—presented as superior to man—is captured for show and tell and profit.

Back in New York and starring in Black's circus show, King Kong unfurls its lame message. Knocking wealthy New Yorkers—only the rich pay to see Kong in this version—and the military in the grand finale, Jackson has the Watts character choose to go down with the ape, though not before she gets a terrific view from the Empire State Building. This extravaganza is moviemaking at its lowest: small ideas amplified and anthropomorphized with a big budget.

[larrymcg421]

It's hard to say where King Kong goes completely bananas

Yeah, maybe they should just stick to analyzing the numbers.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Here the boxofficemojo review

Ack, well maybe I take back my comments about it having legs.

Still most of the "real people" I've talked to who went to see it have said good things so far.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Ack, well maybe I take back my comments about it having legs.

Still most of the "real people" I've talked to who went to see it have said good things so far.

Most movie critics who went to see it have said good tings too so far. According to rottentomatoes.com 82% of critics gave it a positive review.

Bucc's just sour on the movie so he picked a bad review.

[Buccaneer]

It wasn't so much picking a bad review but checking boxofficemojo as I do everyday and simply posting their own review.

[mgadfly]

I saw it last night with my wife and another couple. The other guy "loved it" and both wives gave it a thumbs up, even though neither are big action/adventure movie fans.

I thought the movie was missing something but I still enjoyed it enough so that I didn't feel ripped off. The boxofficemojo review is pretty much right on, but I've seen far worse pretensious glop do just fine with special effects and a high body count. The graphics are stunning even though you know they HAVE to be computer generated. The centipedes and penis with teeth made me shiver, and the scenes from the top of the building at the end actually made me feel afraid of heights just by watching the scene.

I didn't like that I knew the ending, that there were no major twists, and that from time to time the scene seemed forced or too improbable (I know that is going to happen in a movie with dinosaurs and a giant ape, but there were times when even suspending reality I can't believe a person would be so lucky--like the "bat scene").

But, as I said, it was a fun film that was worth the time and cash, even if flawed.

[JeeberD]

Off topic, but I think biological warrior and Chemical Soldier should hook up. They would make one badass tag-team...

[biological warrior]

Originally Posted by WrongWay

So where is your opinion about the movie?

Loved it? hated it? On a scale of 1 to 10?

Come on Spock tell us how you feel.

A solid movie with lots of twists and turns, some parts should have been cut out though and unneccesary, but still felt I got more than my money's worth.

[biological warrior]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I saw it last night with my wife and another couple. The other guy "loved it" and both wives gave it a thumbs up, even though neither are big action/adventure movie fans.

I thought the movie was missing something but I still enjoyed it enough so that I didn't feel ripped off. The boxofficemojo review is pretty much right on, but I've seen far worse pretensious glop do just fine with special effects and a high body count. The graphics are stunning even though you know they HAVE to be computer generated. The centipedes and penis with teeth made me shiver, and the scenes from the top of the building at the end actually made me feel afraid of heights just by watching the scene.

I didn't like that I knew the ending, that there were no major twists, and that from time to time the scene seemed forced or too improbable (I know that is going to happen in a movie with dinosaurs and a giant ape, but there were times when even suspending reality I can't believe a person would be so lucky--like the "bat scene").

But, as I said, it was a fun film that was worth the time and cash, even if flawed.

Those bat things looked just like BAT BOY from Weekly World News.

[Senator]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Jackson has the Watts character choose to go down with the ape

Is this true?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And you've allowed your hatred to cloud your judgement with the box office numbers. Kong will probably end up with $40 million this weekend (that might be low). It will be over $100 million as early as next weekend.

For a film costing over $200 million, a $40 million opening weekend is a disaster.

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

For a film costing over $200 million, a $40 million opening weekend is a disaster.

So you think Titanic was a flop because it had an opening weekend of $28.6 million?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by WrongWay

So you think Titanic was a flop because it had an opening weekend of $28.6 million?

Another stupid thing to say. Titantic was a movie that had more legs than any other in recent memory, solely because it appealed to many females without the males and kids feeling uncomfortable. Kong is just a summer-type popcorn movie which depends upon a strong opening because of competition with upcoming holiday and Oscar-type movies.

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Another stupid thing to say. Titantic was a movie that had more legs than any other in recent memory, solely because it appealed to many females without the males and kids feeling uncomfortable. Kong is just a summer-type popcorn movie which depends upon a strong opening because of competition with upcoming holiday and Oscar-type movies.

Name these holiday movies you are talking about.


I say King Kong stays at #1 slot for the rest of the year.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WrongWay

And, I say you are completely wrong and it has a bigger opening weekend than another 3+hr movie Titanic.


Edit: Titanic had a $28.6 million opening weekend

Sure it will. Titanic was a rule breaker movie. It made more money as it went on than it did in the first couple of weeks. Are you suggesting this movie will make as much money as Titanic? If you are, you are on crack.

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Sure it will. Titanic was a rule breaker movie. It made more money as it went on than it did in the first couple of weeks. Are you suggesting this movie will make as much money as Titanic? If you are, you are on crack.

I wouldn't got hat far, but I do think there is a chance that Kong will make more money in it's second and maybe it's 3rd weekend than it does in it's opening weekend because of the Holidays. With both Christmas Day and New Years Day falling on a Sunday you should see good Movie numbers for both Saturday & Sunday the next 2 weeks.


Unless, that crazy Buccaneer guy is right and Cheaper by the Dozen 2 bumps King Kong out of Theaters.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WrongWay

I wouldn't got hat far, but I do think there is a chance that Kong will make more money in it's second and maybe it's 3rd weekend than it does in it's opening weekend because of the Holidays. With both Christmas Day and New Years Day falling on a Sunday you should see good Movie numbers for both Saturday & Sunday the next 2 weeks.


Unless, that crazy Buccaneer guy is right and Cheaper by the Dozen 2 bumps King Kong out of Theaters.

Cheaper by the Dozen 2 just might. Don't under-estimate a corny family flick opening Christmas weekend.

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Cheaper by the Dozen 2 just might. Don't under-estimate a corny family flick opening Christmas weekend.

That is why I love the fact that King Kong is rated PG-13.

[Dutch]

Just got back with the kids and we liked it very much. It was a bit darker than I had expected for my kids, but that just made the movie a must have for my collection.

[Godzilla Blitz]

Saw it last night at 8:30PM in a theater that of about 300 seats that was 1/3 full.

Pros: Some spectacular action. Tells the story well. Impressive Kong. A handful of truly amazing scenes.

Cons: Too long. Not in a sense of "I don't like 3-hour movies," but more in that there were 30-40 minutes of unnecessary footage in the movie. This isn't from extraneous scenes so much as that they'd stick with one scene or event for too long. Quite often I felt myself thinking, "Ok, I got it. We can move on now..." But they would hang around, showing/doing the same thing with that scene for another minute or more.

Overall: 4 stars out of 5. Could have been a 5-star perfect with more aggressive editing to get it down to a two-and-a-half-hour movie.

[IMetTrentGreen]

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

this sums up jackson perfectly. he was in his element before he hit it big. the third lotr movie was just a b movie. hacky and corny at every turn. king kong was ok in parts, but mostly more of the same

[Dutch]

Good lord, it was King fucking Kong, people, not Schindler's List. Live a little!

[MikeVic]

Just saw it, and aside from the fairly boring beginning, it was awesome. Once they got to Kong, I loved every minute.

Having seen the original recently, I think Jackson really did a good job with his vision of the movie.

[ThunderingHERD]

WrongWay is like the guy who loses $100 a weekend gambling, then brags about the one game he got right cause he just knew it was gonna happen. Well, he'd be like that guy if only he'd gotten anything right yet.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

For a film costing over $200 million, a $40 million opening weekend is a disaster.

Trust me, it really doesn't matter. It's only a matter of how much money they are going to make on this film. They'll either make a decent amount or a boatload. I think it'll have 2-3 strong weekends, and make a total killing overseas and on DVD>

[WrongWay]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

WrongWay is like the guy who loses $100 a weekend gambling, then brags about the one game he got right cause he just knew it was gonna happen. Well, he'd be like that guy if only he'd gotten anything right yet.

Herd you are such a Loser. Remember as long as you have your Food stamps and can say "Do you want that Super Sized" you should be alright.

And, why are you MIA in the FOFC BBCF league?


About the only thing ThunderingHerd is willing to take a stance on is who is going to win the 2002 Super Bowl game on ESPN Classic.

[Logan]

Just got back from a 10:30 showing. Overall, I was disappointed. The movie itself as a whole was okay, but there were just too many pieces of it that bothered me. Without going too much into the plot, it seemed like a mix between Raiders of the Lost Ark, Titanic, Jurassic Park, and Harry and the Hendersons. And it was definitely too long. I don't have a problem with 3 hour movies...I have a problem with movies that are unnecessarily 3 hours. And there was no reason for this movie to be over 2:15.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

For a film costing over $200 million, a $40 million opening weekend is a disaster.

So Titanic had a disastrous opening weekend?

Actually my prediction was extremely low anyways. It has aleady made $30 million through Friday.

[WrongWay]

Here are some Opening Weekend numbers to run up the flag pole.


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kingkong05.htm

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $66,200,000 45.3%
+ Overseas: $80,000,000 54.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $146,200,000

And for just Fri, Sat, and Sun

DOMESTIC SUMMARY
Opening Weekend: $50,148,000
(3,568 theaters, $14,054 average)
% of Total Gross: 75.8%

These numbers look pretty good to me.