King Kong: The Big Soccer reviews thread [R]

Discussion in 'Movies, TV and Music' started by riverplate, Dec 14, 2005.

  1. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    CA River Plate
    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.
  2. scaryice

    scaryice Member

    Jan 25, 2001
    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!
  3. canzano55

    canzano55 Member+

    Jun 23, 2003
    AC Milan
    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.
  4. Soju Gorae

    Soju Gorae New Member

    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.
  5. Ghost

    Ghost Member+

    Sep 5, 2001
    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.
  6. Soju Gorae

    Soju Gorae New Member

    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.
  7. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    CA River Plate
    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.
  8. Val1

    Val1 Member+

    Mar 12, 2004
    MD's Eastern Shore
    Arsenal FC
    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.
  9. whirlwind

    whirlwind New Member

    Apr 4, 2000
    Plymouth, MI, USA

    The precious wants bananas!
  10. bostonsoccermdl

    bostonsoccermdl Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 3, 2002
    Denver, CO
    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.
  11. capitalist

    capitalist New Member

    Nov 13, 2004
    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.
  12. Ghost

    Ghost Member+

    Sep 5, 2001
    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.
  13. Belgian guy

    Belgian guy Member+

    Club Brugge
    Aug 19, 2002
    Club Brugge KV
    I'm not an expert on the Box office, so how much should a movie like this make (200mil+ movie) to be considered succesfull?
  14. Daniel from Montréal

    Aug 4, 2000
    Montreal Impact
    Nat'l Team:
    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.
  15. Pauncho

    Pauncho Member+

    Mar 2, 1999
    Bexley, Ohio
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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.
  16. Stogey23

    Stogey23 Member+

    Dec 12, 1998
    San Diego, CA
    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?".
  17. capitalist

    capitalist New Member

    Nov 13, 2004
    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.
  18. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    CA River Plate
    Yes, I thought the Joseph Conrad/Heart of Darkness stuff was a bit much.
  19. riverplate

    riverplate Member+

    Jan 1, 2003
    Corona, Queens
    CA River Plate
    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.
  20. KopThat!

    KopThat! Red Card

    Aug 16, 2004
    Isle of Wight, UK
    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.
  21. Ghost

    Ghost Member+

    Sep 5, 2001
    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.
  22. KopThat!

    KopThat! Red Card

    Aug 16, 2004
    Isle of Wight, UK
    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.
  23. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    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.
  24. Danks81

    Danks81 Member

    May 18, 2003
    Yeah, a 40 foot gorilla fighting T-Rex I can see. But monsters!!! Now they're just being silly.
  25. Danks81

    Danks81 Member

    May 18, 2003
    Step away from the 'Word of the Day' calendar, nice and slowly.

Share This Page