Does exactly what it says on the tin. Some of the nonsense contained herein may be very loosely related to The Sisters of Mercy, but I wouldn't bet your PayPal account on it. In keeping with the internet's general theme nothing written here should be taken as Gospel: over three quarters of it is utter gibberish, and most of the forum's denizens haven't spoken to another human being face-to-face for decades. Don't worry your pretty little heads about it. Above all else, remember this: You don't have to stay forever. I will understand.
watched King Kong yesterday at the Premiere and I'm still ravished.
Besides all that dinosaur CGI-hullabaloo it's the greatest love story ever told. (< that comes from someone fundamentally unromantic)
not bothered about the love story element but every time i see a trailer for this i start jumping up and down like a six-year-old on tartrazine injections. as mrs rj will surely testify.
"contradictions are meaningless, there's nothing to betray"
I can't imagine anything coming close to the ambience of the B&W original, fancy modern visuals or not. So I'm still perplexed as to why such a keen and knowledgable student of film would want to even bother remaking it.
Planet Dave wrote:I can't imagine anything coming close to the ambience of the B&W original, fancy modern visuals or not. So I'm still perplexed as to why such a keen and knowledgable student of film would want to even bother remaking it.
Because he can He's still a big kid with the knowledje of making movies, so he just does it.
Since LotR, he cannot do a lot wrong in my opinion. He filmed it exactly as I saw it in my imagination (except for the lack of Tom Bombadil! Boooo ), and I will see this King Kong movie of his, and I'm eagerly awaiting 'The Hobbit'...
Planet Dave wrote:I can't imagine anything coming close to the ambience of the B&W original, fancy modern visuals or not. So I'm still perplexed as to why such a keen and knowledgable student of film would want to even bother remaking it.
Well, Peter Jackson bothered to make LOTR - a book thought to be unfilmable. And he triumphed widely.
His ape sets a new standard - mostly due to Andy Serkis performance who "played" already Gollum in LOTR.
Naomi Watts is not a Fay Wray though, I must admit. ... but Robert Armstrong was not at all a Jack Black.
As for the special effects: of course they're state of the art - breathtaking and all that. Which means that they're out-dated next year.
Put their heads on f*cking pikes in front of the venue for all I care.
So it's not just me then. CGIs just never look real to me, even when they're apparently at their best like in LoTR. They're fine in a computer game but I really don't like seeing an otherwise great film peppered with what looks, to my eyes, like speeded up cartoons. If anything, I actually prefer the hand puppets and cheesy effects of the olden days. The notable exception to this rule being the effects in Terminator II, which still stun me to this day.
i saw a trailer for this on the big screen the other week and it looks pretty damned impressive; although i doubt the plot is sufficient to make up for losing that visual grandeur when it goes to video...and i really hate the (no-smoking) cinema too much to spend three hours watching a love story.
Well I was handsome and I was strong
And I knew the words to every song.
"Did my singing please you?"
"No! The words you sang were wrong!"
I'm not really looking forward to it. You can't beat the old King Kong, even with lavish special effects and a modern Hollywood love story.
Right now I'll stick to the old RKO version with Fay Wray.
I'm also kinda pissed because I read in a couple of interviews that after releasing all three LOTR he was going to make another splatterfest, which King Kong obviously isn't.
He's still a big kid with the knowledje of making movies, so he just does it.
), and I will see this King Kong movie of his, and I'm eagerly awaiting 'The Hobbit'...
