King Kong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chux

You don't get out much do you.

I'm sure it's great, but seriously.

---

Whatever, I really enjoyed it. The only other movies this year that really stick out for me were Batman Begins, Episode III, Sin City, and Devil's Rejects.

And yeah, it was my fav.

By the way- I agree with everything G0Zen said, the good and the bad. Some of the CG DID look a little off but it was mostly problems with live actors interacting with a CG creature and there being noticeable issues with the contrast between the two. And there were some cheesy parts...like the S,K,U,L,L part. One thing I'll add to it is that there were too many quick shots. For example it would show someone look over and see some skulls and then it would follow that up with three or four quick shots showing the same skulls from different angles. 'We get it, skulls are a bad sign!'

And yeah, the 'someone saves the day' at the last minute thing was a little annoying, I was the first one to bitch about that.

BUT, with all of that said. I really loved the movie.

It's a great adventure movie and it completely pulled me into the universe that the story takes place in. 1920's New York was fantastic and really the most impressive element of the movie as far as the effects go.

I think I'm going to go see it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giga Power

One thing I'll add to it is that there were too many quick shots. For example it would show someone look over and see some skulls and then it would follow that up with three or four quick shots showing the same skulls from different angles. 'We get it, skulls are a bad sign!'

---

This is very trendy right now and it bugs me. I don't find it effective. I especially hate action sequences done with a lot of quick cuts. I really admire directors who are able to coordinate long sequences with minimal cuts. It's a much harder thing to do technically. Tarantino is pretty good at this, and Michel Gondry did some technically amazing stuff in Eternal Sunshine.

The sequences from Kill Bill were astonishing, considering he wasn't well versed with action shooting and had to pick everything up as he went along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

This is very trendy right now and it bugs me. I don't find it effective. I especially hate action sequences done with a lot of quick cuts. I really admire directors who are able to coordinate long sequences with minimal cuts. It's a much harder thing to do technically. Tarantino is pretty good at this, and Michel Gondry did some technically amazing stuff in Eternal Sunshine.

---

Well theres a lot of that in this movie, and most of it just leaves you wondering why they even decided to do it in the first place. Also with some of the action sequences things get pretty quick, but it's a decent balance, things never get 'Batman Begins' bad, and theres an equal amount of shots where you can take everything in.

Maybe quick action shots are too show just how fast the action is?

Wow a revelation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonas

Maybe quick action shots are too show just how fast the action is?

Wow a revelation!

---

Yeah that's the idea. However lately it seems that directors take it overboard to where you can't even make out what's going on in the scene. Thankfully theres not too much of that in KONG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

This is very trendy right now and it bugs me. I don't find it effective. I especially hate action sequences done with a lot of quick cuts. I really admire directors who are able to coordinate long sequences with minimal cuts. It's a much harder thing to do technically. Tarantino is pretty good at this, and Michel Gondry did some technically amazing stuff in Eternal Sunshine.

---

I agree 100%. It's like these fucks are getting paid by the edit or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

The 1976 Kong really was a bad movie, though.

---

No, the sequel King Kong Lives was REALLY bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonas

Maybe quick action shots are too show just how fast the action is?

Wow a revelation!

---

It's not just action sequences, though, and it's done tastelessly sometimes. Like... I know it's a shitty movie for unrelated reasons, but the action scenes in Bulletproof Monk are unwatchable because there's no continuity.

Aaaaanyhoo, I saw King Kong today. I love the original, and I think this is probably the best remake of a movie I've ever seen. It absolutely captures the essence of the original perfectly, and expands it nicely. It's effective in all the ways the original was effective, and even more potent.

Now for some nitpicky bitching: Why was some of Carl's original dialogue given almost word for word to random other members of the crew? They set it up so that Carl didn't really know about the beast Kong. THEN, they decided to not have anyone talk to the natives, and basically turned them into Orks, so there's no way Carl could have known he was called "Kong" but he magically knew anyway. That bugged me.

It also surprised me that they didn't politically correctify anything. Even the awful asian stereotype cook is still there. And, as I mentioned, the natives are even less human than in the 1933 version.

Oh, and regarding the effects, I think the CG was perfect, but the blue screening was shitty in places. The lighting was off and didn't integrate well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chux

Peter Jackson can't make a movie shorter than 3 hours.

---

A movie being long isn't inherently bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

I don't mean audiences in 1933. The movie's endured for generations, and even our generation was able to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it.

---

That's not a comparable issue, though. The issue is that the CG looks bad. It's not consistently bad, so this particular stampede scene sticks out and instead of enjoying the action you also start to think to yourself how bizarre the CG in the scene looks. That's not suspending belief, and we shouldn't have to suspend our belief because the rest of the movie itself doesn't require us to.

Also, this is a small issue. One scene with meh CG is not going to cripple a great movie for anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dolemite

I agree 100%. It's like these fucks are getting paid by the edit or something.

---

Honestly, the editor probably does have a lot to do with this. It's hip right now to over edit action sequences, and I doubt the editor for this flick wanted to pass up the opportunity to have one of these sequences in his portfolio, especially for such a high profile movie.