Matrixman wrote:Heh, I do remember discussing the physics-defying stuff in Crouching Tiger, Star Wars and The Matrix. Yes, I easily accepted the crazy wire stunts in The Matrix, but I had a problem with the same thing being done in Crouching Tiger. With the Matrix, I could accept all kinds of lunacy happening because the "reality" that world expressed was an illusion after all. I had a harder time accepting the gravity-defying stuff in Crouching Tiger because that film seemed to take place in the "real" world, or so I had thought. Actually, I've gotten over that now, and realized that Crouching Tiger was never meant to be an accurate depiction of the real world, but instead a fantastical construct like any other make-believe world. Maybe not quite the elaborate conceit that the Matrix is, but still quite clever.
Yeah, I remember this conversation. I think it was when I said I didn't like the wire-stuff in Hero. CTHD, like Star Wars, posits things that exist in our "real" reality, which allow superhuman stuff. I can accept the premise. Hero, like Samurai Jack, seems to be saying that, if you exercise reeeeaaaaally hard, you can become superhuman. I can't accept that premise. Kong makes no attempt to explain Ann's superhuman toughness, or the ship's. I'd have no problem if either was laced with adamantium.
Matrixman wrote:All this says something about how we differ in the way we see things around us, eh, Fist? But what a movie review team we'd make! Move over, Ebert & Roeper! (Though they are pretty good, I have to say.)
Hmm... Fist & Matrix. It does have a certain ring, eh? I'm sure everyone would agree that it rolls off the tongue better than Matrix & Fist.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
Well, I saw it tonight, and I gotta say......I give it the thumbs down.
The good: It's a great story, and the story is told relatively well. Jack Black is hands-down the best thing inthe movie. His performance is nothing short of brilliant, and worth the price of admission by itself. The jungle scenes are pretty good too.
The bad: Ohhh, where to start? As someone said before though, it's choppy. The pacing is terrible, the film is at least 30-40 minutes too long. Peter Jackson is capable of telling a good story in 2 hours (The Frighteners), why all the wreched excess? And how is it that a barefooted Naomi Watts can outrun everything in the jungle, including Kong and the T-Rexs? Kong's scale is also screwy. He looks like he goes from 15 feet tall to 50 feet tall from scene to scene. That's just sloppy, and really yanked me out of the film several times. But that brings me to the film's CG. I'm not a fan of it, and it's movies like this that reinforce my dislike of it. The film's climax is all CG, and it looks it. It's like watching 150 minutes of real life (with the obligatory CG elements), then suddenly switching to a cartoon for the ending. And it's not a good cartoon either. The airplanes at the end are laughable, as is the NYC skyline.
Films like this, the Spiderman movies, and the LOTR films are why I don't like going to movies anymore. They've become showcases for technology and a big-name actor or two. What's really frustrating about this one is that there's such a good, touching story there, but it's ultimately lost in the ungodly runtime and the bad effects.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
I guess I've learned to accept CG effects in movies so that they don't intrude on my experience of the story (up to a point!), but you're right that some of today's CG stuff is still surprisingly bad, or amateurish. Kong didn't seem too bad to me, but I agree it's still obvious that you're looking at a CG creation jumping around on screen. My beef is that they still haven't figured out how to lend a sense of real weight to a computer-animated object when it falls and hits the ground. That was what bugged me about the Troll in Fellowship of the Ring: when the Troll got hit by Legolas's double arrows and fell back, the beast looked like it had been yanked back like a wimpy flimpsy doll, devoid of any sense of immense weight. This problem afflicts King Kong too, but maybe to a lesser degree. Or not.
But Spider-man...I know a fair number of Watchers love the movie, and I have absolutely nothing against Toby Maguire...but to my eyes this film was a big offender when it came to distractingly-lame CG visuals. Were they even trying? I thought they had a decent budget. Did they use bargain Pentium machines to render Spidey or what? Sure, maybe it's only as real as comic book stuff needs to be, but come on...
Better stop before I end up dumping on everything here, but King Kong is looking really lame to me now.
I was so unhappy with the first Spiderman's CG that I won't watch it again, and certainly won't buy it. (It doesn't help that I've always thought the Goblin was a stupid idea.) But I thought the second one was tons better.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
Call me old school, call me a snob, but I like good old-fashined effects. Miniatures, full-sized gags, forced perspective, makeup. CG, when used sparingly, is fantastic. But for crying out loud, the entire climax of Kong was created on a computer, with Naomi mugging in front of a green screen.
MM, you're absolutely right about the sense of weight. It's completely lost in CG.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
jeez guys! you lot remined me of the dwarves in the Last Battle.
do you go to the cinema with a notepad and pen? i think your being a tad analytical. i love arthouse films and, while i'm not much cop at it, would love to debate the finer points of some of them but this is an action film. suspend your disbelief. look if you didn't like it then fine-too long, stop start etc. thats ok but i simply cant have that the CG wasn't good enough or the action scenes weren't top notch. eh! i thought it was great anyway.
It'd take you a long time to blow up or shoot all the sheep in this country, but one diseased banana...could kill 'em all.
Since the hacker problem resulted in my post being lost I think I'd better get my 2 cents back in here. If I recall I said something like this.
I finally saw Kong and have read the posts in this thread and though I respect the opinions of my fellow movie going watchers I cannot disagree more strongly. (of course thats why the call them opinions <grins>) I am a long time fan of Kong. I was dazzled and captivated by the orginal film as a wee lad. At age 11 or so the 1976 version of the film was the first movie my parents let me see completely on my own. (I was thoroughly disappointed that Kong didn't reach out and crush a fighter plane like he did on the movie poster but what do you want from a kid that young, thoughful analysis? I just wanted to see a giant ape crush stuff and beat his chest. Even Kong 76 managed to do that.) This Kong had its flaws but it never interfered with my enjoyment of the film. I was engaged from the beginning and didn't notice the 3 hours until I looked at my watch leaving the theater. I guess movies affect different people different ways. I truly enjoyed the film, nuff said.
IMHO.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
Well, I finally got to see King Kong last night. My wife and I finally got a babysitter. Then we found what must be the last theatre in America still showing the movie.
It's an 8. I enjoyed the opening third, as I happen to like character development. I thought the part where the ship "discovered" land was well done. I thought the natives on the island were rather sketched. The rest of the island was fun. My wife doesn't like bugs, so we got through that. I thought the Empire State Building part needed more meat, but I cannot imagine how one could add some. And I enjoyed my Twizzlers.
There were quite a few parts where I just thought the odds were astronomically against what happened, or defined physics altogether. (Given a lot of willing suspension of disbelief in the first place.) Could someone really survive such a brontasaurus stampede for that long? Wouldn't Kong be a little squished laying on 2nd avenue (or whatever) at the end? Wouldn't Ann Darrow be a little cold at the top of the ESB on a frosty winter morning with nautht but a wispy dress on?
Jack Black made the movie. I thought Driscoll's character lacked anything substantial to do in the final third of the movie.
I basically agree with your review Wayfriend, but I'm a bit more merciless with my ratings, I'd give it a 6.5.
And I agree, Jack Black's performance was outstanding.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
Looking back, I wonder what seized me to spit out that lengthy essay of mine. Maybe I felt the movie deserved a King Kong-sized review...but next time I should try to be funnier and nastier, like Roger Ebert when he trashes a bad film. He's one of the best at it.
You two should get together and syndicate a review column. Or at least a thread. The Dan and The Man watch The Movies. MM could write an essay. And then Dan could give it a finger in a certain direction. I'd subscribe.
Interesting idea, Wayfriend, but no, I don't think I'd be able to keep up with dAN. If there's going to be any dynamic film review duo here, it has to be dANdeLION & aTOMiC.
Considering Tom and I have seen several movies together over the past 30 years, beginning with Tora, Tora, Tora & King Kong '75, mebbe we should do that.......
Dandelion don't tell no lies
Dandelion will make you wise
Tell me if she laughs or cries
Blow away dandelion
I'm afraid there's no denying
I'm just a dandelion
a fate I don't deserve.
Finally saw it tonight on dvd along with my younger son and husband. Now mind you, I did not see it on the big screen, and that can make a huge difference in big budget films stuffed with special effects.
We all enjoyed it. We all liked the opening sequences in New York, and all liked the action stuff on the island. We got a kick out of the bronto pileup, and likened it to bad traffic pileups on I-275 (a Detroit area freeway renowned for bumper to bumper traffic all going at at least 80MPH during rush hour). The one thing that bugged all three of us was summed up well by my son:
Mom, shouldn't that girl be covered with cuts and bruises and dirt by now Why isn't her hair even messed up
I think it's Peter Jackson simply being faithful to the glamourous cinematic style of the 1930's, in which all the star actresses always looked beautiful in their movies, no matter what was happening to them or around them. Have you ever seen Greta Garbo look less than divine in her films?
Fay Wray may have tolerated going through hell in the grip of Kong, but looking bad along the way was not an option (she would have given him hell if he had ever messed up her hair).
But what a movie review team we'd make! Move over, Ebert & Roeper! (Though they are pretty good, I have to say.)
* 
Interesting idea, Wayfriend, but no, I don't think I'd be able to keep up with dAN. If there's going to be any dynamic film review duo here, it has to be dANdeLION & aTOMiC.
Why isn't her hair even messed up 