Planning on seeing it. I haven't found a bad review for it yet, except from some snotty teenagers who think that they hold the secrets to what makes a film great and also think that the Kurt Cobain movie was a theatrical masterpiece.

I also plan on seeing it, it being the second remake of the classic film. It looks stunning and indeed flawless. When I can, I'll see it. ^^

Good...good...

Seeing it tomorrow. AND THE MONKEYZZZ !!!

Or Ape. Whichever you wanna call it.

How on Earth do they stretch "People go to island. Find big monkey. Take him to civillisation. Monkey escapes. Man kills monkey" into 3 hours?!

Meh, I'll see it if only for the fact it's the Jurrassic Park of the new millenium.

I'll get around to seeing it. I always did have high hopes when Peter Jackson directed it.
~Neo

SPOILARS

They do it very well, Craig. They really flesh out a lot of the characters, and the scenes are much better.

How on Earth do they stretch "People go to island. Find big monkey. Take him to civillisation. Monkey escapes. Man kills monkey" into 3 hours?!

Meh, I'll see it if only for the fact it's the Jurrassic Park of the new millenium.

From the reviews I have read, Peter Jackson add a scene or two that was suppose to be seen in the original but not filmed because of: 1) pacing problems and 2) budget/detail. Also Jackson fleshed out the characters and relationships from King Kong to Jack Black's character (didn't make Blacks character sympathetic but you will like him because of it if you believe that) that was missing in the original.

I'm going to see it this weekend because of the buzz. I haven't heard such buzz for a movie in a while and all this for a remake no less.

All the over-hype has really ruined any chance of me going to see this movie in theaters.

I'll just illegally downlo-- ...Er, of course I mean 'wait for it to come out on DVD'. Eheheh...

King Kong was great. I watched it before it was released officially here, at a movie premiere that my friend got two tickets to. :3

It was three hours long, but the instant I saw those guns, I went "O_O GUN GUN GUN OMG GUN". XD

Apart from that, the animation was EXCELLENT. VERY, very, good. ^^

Watch it.

Just got back from seeing it...

Woah. No other way of putting it. My god, that was a great movie! Defintely worth the $8.50. They only had it on one screen down here, but the room was packed, and the audience was great, too. That's always an important factor in enjoying a movie, I think.

Oh, yeah. I'm going to see this one again.

I'm hoping to see it when my christmas break starts. Those who I know who've seen it say it's one of the years best goodies. ^_^

~T2K

Quote:

---

It was three hours long, but the instant I saw those guns, I went "O_O GUN GUN GUN OMG GUN". XD

---

What do you mean?

Spoilers (Select To Read): In spoiler tags, if need be.

Turtle Guy....

Spoilers (Select To Read): The Venture has loads and loads and LOOOOOOADS of guns, mainly because it is a crew specializing in animal capture. You see this implied at the beginning of the movie, when Driscoll is led to the hull, but the fact that the crew has so many guns also shows that they are not exactly a docile group.

I never really see anything in theates, but maybe I'll see it. When I first heard about it I thought, "Yay, yet another remake." But my views have changed.

T'was alreete.

Best part: The crate marked "Danger, Sumatrian Rat Monkey"

HOLY CRAP.

Kong was awesome. The bugs were creepy. The three T-rexes fighting Kong was an absolute blast. Kong getting shot down was sad. Kong looks more real than Gollum.

And Craig, Jurrasic Park has nothing on King Kong.

...Ultra..you speak lies >>

Right?

Don't tell me my favoritest movie of all time is now dated ;_; I'll cry. Alot. Under your pillow I will.

What do you mean DL? You mean spoilers?

I had meant you were not serious when you said Kong was on a higher pinnacle than Jp :O. But then Im biased.

No Spoilers necessary, I saw it finally. Yeah. Awesome. Its teh JP for teh Noughts >>

I am serious. Jurassic Park is good...but after seeing the awesomeness of King Kong, I'm sorry. No contest.

It looks.... ok. I'm not convinced by the Hollywood crapness of dinosaurs v. giant apes, but the savages look vaguley amusing.... I actually saw a fragment of horror showing there.
I'll see it, but I don't have huge expectations. It's almost impossible for Hollywood to make films I think are any good, these days....

Am I the only one who thought the camerawork was awful?

I mean, it shook, the camera wobbled all over the place, I actually felt ill at times. Yes, it killed the movie for me.

Sadly, Cy, that's actually a rather wide-spread gimmick in movies these days- It supposedly helps create 'excitement' but really, what are we supposed to be excited about if the cameraman is jerking the camera around like he's drunk and on ecstasy and crack?

Anyway, I've finally seen the movie, and I must say I'm terribly disappointed, even after my low expectations for the hype. The special effects were jaw-droppingly AWESOME, but that didn't make up for the rigid characters and a plot no deeper than a puddle. I really didn't feel for any of the haracters and didn't care if anyone died or not.

Sorry, Peter Jackson. It's definitely not another Lord of the Rings, buddy.

There were a few wishes I had, but for the most part I disagree with the naysayers. Jackson actually managed to mix the style of the old movie where it counted and added the newage special effects/ass kicking sections in between them.

I was much more impressed than I expected. Again I expected crap like most movies anymore. Granted it "wasn't lord of the rings" but its not supposed to be. It's not a nerd's fanatasy, its a bigass monkey with the hots for a sexy chic.

It's an old styled movie that Jackson remade but tried to leave in some of the things that made old movie stand out. Maybe thats why some people don't like it, it had slow points and screenplay that were modeled off the original. Some people don't like old movies. I do. From a writer's standpoint there was some very throughout imagery that I wasn't expecting.

My aunt, an aging fan of the original movie said this apon getting out of the movie, "I think she did a better job of being Fay Raye than Fay Raye did."

Sidebote: I'm hoping to go see this Narnia movie Thursday, hope its just as good.

~Rico

That was one point I really could have done without. I know WHAT they were trying to do, and it did it, but its just not my thing. Of course some people bounce around constantly in FPS's, I assume to excite themselves, thats not my thing either. Steady hand and steady gun is all it takes to off the counterstrike jumping beans.

~Rico

Add to Sidenote: Narnia is ridiculously good.

People jump a lot in FPS games because they don't want their feet to touch the spikes. Even if there are none there. After all, it's something that they've learned ever since Sonic the Hedgehog came out.

And also Rico, Narnia is also good. Go now.

Wray, Rico. Fay Wray. :p

Ultra, people jump around in Counter-Strike so that they're not standing targets - or that their paths are a lot more difficult for the snipers to guess. Also, as a little carry-over from Quake (where it was just a glitch), jumping actually serves to let you move faster. Does it make them look like idiots? Yes. But apparently it's effective, otherwise people wouldn't be doing it.

Cooki, come on. It's obviously

WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Jamie said the book sucked.

~Rico

Its not effective in the least in BF2. With almost any gun the shots kick up in that game. Jumping only serves to make the shots more accurate.

~Rico

Sorry, I'm not an expert on old time actors.

Having seen it...
Better than I thought it might be.
Yes, the plot is a fundamentally bad one, stinks of hollywood crap, and only one of the characters is even vaguely interesting.
However, it's so well-made it actually proves quite good.
You see: important difference between it and jurassic park: Jackson, unlike Spielburg, can direct.

It's a decent movie, although I think I may be a bit tainted after Jackson's LOTR outings. I loved the books and the movies were such perfect adaptations that I don't know if I'll ever be able to accept his other works and let him lives those down. Still, the movie is pretty good and Jackson has definitely proved that he has what it takes to be a direct that sticks around for some time. I'm not sure if it's just that the movie is so faithful to the old version, which quite frankly was pretty crappy from what I've seen, but the plot really isn't that intriguing. I mean, sure, everything's big and realistic and exciting, what with all the great new technology used to make this movie, but the story seems to build up to an ending that just isn't fantastic. And it's very hard to take Jack Black seriously at all.

Yay, I saw it. It was.....interesting. My favorite part was the T-rex trapese act. I was cracking up through that whole scene. XD

Ans worms are scary. x_x;;

I finally saw it. And yes, it was impressive. And a lot of stuff was very Lord-of-the-Rings-ish, especially with the types of shots he used and whatnot.

But honestly, it was far too long. Peter Jackson could have shaved 45 minutes off that film and it would have been just as good if not better. But obviously, he didn't want to. He's Peter Jackson, for crying out loud. After the success of LotR, nobody's going to tell him how to make a movie. And he likes to make movies very, very long.

The monster isn't Kong. And it's not man in general. It's Peter Jackson, because he's now going to allowed to make movies however long he wants and they'll still make a ton of money because of his name.

Honestly I didn't find it that pointlessly lengthy. I loved it. Not sure why I got teary-eyed at some parts...must've been the humidity in the theater. >_> Anyway, this I must get on Dvd. I might go see it again once it comes to the local $1.50. lol

Oh yes, this means the Halo movie will be 12 hours long.
Yippee.

Also, there is no way I can accept that Monkey > Dinosaur.

I can suspend my disbelief long enough to believe for a fleeting moment that MAYBE an ape of that size could possibly exist, but when he takes on a gang of the most deadly killers in the history of Earth (Oh, and Pete? T-Rexes didn't hunt in packs. They don't roll like that.)
and WINS, it blows the whole fantasy right out of the water for me.

It's sort of like how people said that King Kong beat Godzilla. It's impossible, especially after Godzilla levelled an entire city numerous times and all Kong could do was kidnap some chick, wreck up the Empire State Building a little, and then get killed by a BIPLANE. Yes, an ordinary Biplane shooting a 1930s machine gun. Sure, the bullets shouldn't have had the force to punch through Kong's skin at all, let alone his bones, but what are you going to do? Peter Jackson doesn't feel he has to make sense in HIS movies.

Pfft.

Peter Jackson's only Executive Producer.

Quote:

---

I can suspend my disbelief long enough to believe for a fleeting moment that MAYBE an ape of that size could possibly exist, but when he takes on a gang of the most deadly killers in the history of Earth (Oh, and Pete? T-Rexes didn't hunt in packs. They don't roll like that.)
and WINS, it blows the whole fantasy right out of the water for me.

---

Completely overlooking the theory that t-rexes were primarily carrion-feeders, then...
And having arms is quite an advantage. Besides, do you know how strong chimps are? It's quite frighteneing...

I've actually seen this movie twice, now. I just love how Peter Jackson, fleshed out the characters and improved the plot.

Seen it.

Loved it but it was too friggin' long. 😛

Quote:

---

Also, there is no way I can accept that Monkey > Dinosaur.

I can suspend my disbelief long enough to believe for a fleeting moment that MAYBE an ape of that size could possibly exist, but when he takes on a gang of the most deadly killers in the history of Earth (Oh, and Pete? T-Rexes didn't hunt in packs. They don't roll like that.)
and WINS, it blows the whole fantasy right out of the water for me.

---

According to these real-life scientists, Kong would win.

T-Rex hunting patterns are kind of a moot point, seing as the dinosaur was a not a tyrannosaurus rex but a vastatosaurus rex, a fictitious beast. But in my opinion, what the scientists said should still stand for the reaosns they supply. Not that I'm an expert.

My personal belief on that fight was that Kong has probably fought T-rexes and just about everything else on the island at least once before. (look at the scars.)

so maybe he just KNOWS how to fight them.