A few initial thoughts... There's a lot I will eventually say, but aside from too much in certain departments, I think the picture is very good--not great. While the three hours length didn't bother me overall, there are certainly portions which could use some editing down. Jackson is indugent occassionally and it drags the story, threatening to stop it at some points. I'm wondering if I will get the impulse to see it again. The CGI looks a lot better on the big screen than on segments I've seen on television, and the finale--considering we all know what the ending is going to be--is much more emotionally effective than I expected. It's a million times better than the 1976 remake. No surprise there. But the original has not been challenged in the charm department nor the stop-motion fantasy look of Kong. Jack Black was fine, something I didn't expect to say. As has been mentioned in articles about the film, he is clearly patterned after and resembles the young Orson Welles. Naomi Watts is quite effective and believeable for the most part, although Jackson has her do a few things which boarder on the ridiculous. Adrien Brody has been panned by some critics as being "miscast," but I think it's more the refashioning of the Jack Driscoll character in this movie which may be bothering them, not really Brody. All these types of pictures nowadays tend to contain a moralizing, intellectual type in them. Think of Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park. A few of the island set pieces go over-the-top in that there are far too many creatures lurking around. A brontosaurus stampede doesn't work at all, and the insect infestation in the pit is too overwhelming for its own good. I would definately recommend it to anyone on the fence about seeing it. It is vastly superior to almost all big monster pictures, and I'm sure is a great deal better than if the likes of Spielberg had made it.
It was very good. Of course a lot of the stuff with the monsters was improbable, but it was really exciting. I don't have any problem with the actors, but maybe a little with some of the dialogue. But there's not a lot to complain about here. Go see it already!
The film industry is soo overflooded with special effects, and high-tech cinematography, that Peter Jackson suddenly expects people to identify with the emotions of a computer generated image? Obviously no-one expects Jackson to go to Skull Island and net himself an oversized ape, so instead of having dragged out love scenes (which bordered on the utterly insane) why not just deliver where it counts: i.e. savage rampages but without the slow-motion dramatic cheese that matches Lord of the Rings a little too well. All in all its an entertaining flick with amazing scenery and good build up (for ex. the mini-dialougue exchanges in the boat leading up to the arrival on the island.
Enjoyed it. The best moments of the movie were on Skull Island. It was pure spectacle. Ridiculous, silly, scary, gross, all of that. It was when it went back to civilization in New York where it ran out of steam. Overall, a definite must-see for fans of big adventure/spectacle entertainment. Weird thing is, upon walking out of the theater, it was the Miami Vice and MI3 trailers that were on my mind.
Maybe the reason that there's so few reviews so far is that no one is going to see it. Apparently, it took in only $9.7 million opening day, the 21st highest ranked Wednesday opening ever.We'll see howitdoesthis weekend, but if these numbers hold, there'll be studio execs jumping out of windows Monday morning.
9 million, huh. Looks like Petey's in for a rough ride. I read the movie cost way past the 200 million mark. He better hope world wide grosses break even.
According to the BBC: Peter Jackson's version of King Kong took $18m worldwide in its first day on release but looks unlikely to set a US record haul. The remake, one of the biggest launches in U.S. film history, took $9.8m in one day in the US and Canada. Spider-Man took $114.8m in its opening weekend in 2002 while Revenge of the Sith, the final Star Wars film, took $158.5m in four days this year. U.S. box office experts said some factors worked against the $200m film, including children still being in school and the fact that it is not a sequel to a blockbuster like the later Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies.
I'd agree with that, but I didn't like Skull Island very much. Same guy played Kong who played Gollum, and that's the problem. Kong's way too bouncy. I've watched an awful lot of gorilla videotape (Daine Fosse was a good friend of a good friend) and gorillas just don't move like Cerkis plays them. Kong moves more like a giant howler monkee than a gorilla. Naomi Watts is very good.
Watched it earlier today.. I didnt mind the 3 hour part which was something I was worried about. I think parts were a bit unrealistic, and too far fetched. (brontosauras stampede and the other various dinosaur attacks.) I loved the TREX fight though. I would definitely recommend it to everyone.
Production Budget: $207 million Est. Marketing Costs: $50 million Domestic Total as of Dec. 15, 2005: $16 million Sounds like a huge box office bomb to me.
If this doesn't improve, this could be big. Not Ishtar big. That's run-of-the-mill turkey territory. This could be freaking Heaven's Gate big. How long before people start comparing the two? Two talented directors, coming off Oscar, wins decide to go out and spend obscenely on monuments totheir own egos that ultiamtely bomb and maybe (hopefully?) take an era of filmmaking with them. Michael Cimino, meet Peter Jackson. Sit back and enjoy. This happens once every 25 years.
I'm not an expert on the Box office, so how much should a movie like this make (200mil+ movie) to be considered succesfull?
It'll recoup at least its budget through the world market and DVD sales. Also, this is actually a good movie which will live on (compared to the two flops previously mentionned). I smirked when Andy Serkis's cook character said "precious" at a certain point in the movie. Overall I liked it, was rather convinced by the CGI (ala Jurassic Park) and found it to be a bit too long.
When you're comparing first day take, compare apples to apples, not oranges. Wednesday isn't Friday. Rumors of the financial death of this film are greatly exagerrated. The movie met my expectations - it's good, maybe even very good, but hardly great. Any time a 3+ hour film never drags is a near miracle. In every respect but freshness, this is better than the '33 version, which is a classic. Everyone will have his or her pet quibbles (I though Jack Black was too over the top) but on the whole this will be a well thought of and financially successful movie. Of course it's not The Lord of the Rings.
Great movie, and Skull Island was one of the coolest acts in any movie I've ever seen. The movie was a bit long, but I was never bored. The scenes between the black guy and Tommy were completely unnecessary. During one of their exchanges I said to my girlfriend "Ever seen a grown man naked Tommy?".
Box office receipts are split 50/50 btw studio and cinema owner. However, box office recepits make up only 40% of total revenues. DVD sales, PPV, international box office, merchandising all bring in additional money. I'd say that KK would have to gross $350 million in the US to turn a profit.
Fronm the New York Post: The gargantuan $207 million "King Kong" has climbed its way to the top of the box office. Director Peter Jackson's remake of the 1933 classic took in an estimated $14.2 million in 3,568 theaters in the United States and Canada Friday. That's well ahead of "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which pulled in $8.9 million in 3,680 theaters. "Kong" opened Wednesday at $9.7 million — ranking it 21st on the all-time Wednesday opening list, despite heavy promotion and positive reviews. In its first three days on the big screen, "King Kong" rebounded to take in just over $30 million. It's expected to finish the weekend between $50 million and $80 million.
It's taken $150 million worldwide in it's first week. This won't be a flop and it will continue to pull in the crowds for the time being and remain number one. Great movie. It got better on the SECOND viewing for me. Kong is the greatest special effect there has EVER been on screen. Nothing comes close. Jackson's best film by far.
Good gosh. You sat through a second viewing? i woudl give it a very mild thumbs up, but I would never want to do it again.
I'm going to see it a third time. Film of the year for me. You miss out too much on 1 viewing. To be honest, I was disappointed first time. Loved it second.
Given the paucity of decent films on the horizon, I expect that this will continue to get people into theatres and become moderately successful financially, although not a huge money maker.