BS: Kong roars again!

Subject: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:28 PM

The Big Guy is returning! AWWRIGHT!!! I been waitin' a long time for the horrible memories of the ridiculous 1976 remake of this classic 1933 story to be forever erased from my memory. I hope Peter Jackson can do it, and I think he can. Lord of the Rings was great. This oughta be great too. After all, it IS the greatest ape story of all time, and Ronald Reagan ain't there no more to screw it up like he did for Bonzo.

Thank God Peter Jackson has had the sense to put the story back in the 1930's where it belongs, when a giant ape still had a fightin' chance in a scrap with humanity.

I love the scenery back then. Even the Empire State Building looked cooler than it does now.

Every friggin' primate in the country is gonna be lined up for this one on opening night. You better believe it. I am all hyped up here. I'm climbin' the walls.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 05:49 PM

I'm looking forward to this. When I was in Wellington earleir this year I saw the tramp steamer he had bought and refitted just for the scenes at sea where KK is being towed to the States.

Chongo will have a bigger rival. Hahaha

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 06:50 PM

I'm glad that they didn't update the story. It still takes place in the 30's.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 11 Dec 05 - 10:10 PM

Just a few days now, folks. This'll be the spectacle of the season. Hell, of the decade. Of the century. Be there on opening night.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 02:19 AM

Why do they keep remaking this stinker?

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 12:08 PM

You've done it now, Cluin...

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 02:24 AM

I watched the original tonight on TCM. Yep. Just as lame a concept as I remembered. Dumbest line: "Say... I guess I love you". Still the previews look interesting for the new one. But I can wait for the DVD release.

If they're going to set the new one in the 30s, maybe they could use that authentic Hollywood 1930s dialogue... lots of "say, whattaya take me for?"s and a bunch of "Why I oughta"s.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 07:26 AM

The 1976 remake had its moments, er, Jessica Lange, who was very beautiful.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 12:55 PM

I disagree. The 70's one was a very embarrassing abberation. It oughta never have been released. The original was darned good for the time, although some of the dialogue was terrible....specially the "Say...I guess I love you." line. WAUGH! That was BAD.

Faw Wray also screamed about 59 and a half times too many for one movie, in my opinion. If I was Kong, I woulda shut her UP! Any way possible. Maybe hold her under the water for a bit or just shake it outa her. Of course, that could have made for a real short movie...

I hope the new one is fulla 30's jargon.

"Whaddya take me for...a sap?" "Lissen...I ain't no flim-flam artist!" Stuff like that. Love it.

I figger this new one is gonna be the best of all.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 12:59 PM

WOOT!!!

I can't wait! 3 hours long! It's gotten alot of good reviews so far. Drudgereport had an article predicting Titanic size numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Dec 05 - 06:01 AM

Anyone else amazed at how much weight Peter Jackson has lost?
If he was in Hollywood, someone would be ghosting a diet book for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 05:08 PM

We went to see it today. Really well done.   It is very respectful of the original but expands the stories and characters. The effects were amazing, but still paid homage to the original vision.

Jack Black is wonderful! He is not everyones cup of tea, but he always makes me laugh. In this film he plays an over-the-top director without going over-the-top as an actor. Quite an accomplishment!

The visuals are stunning. I was amazed that Jackson never set foot in NYC. He could not recreate 1930's New York City in the exisiting city, so he built some incredible sets. The film maintains the aura of the 1930's but with all the possibilities of 2005 technology.

My one complaint - the character of Ann becomes very attached to Kong, unlike the Fay Wray version.   Fay Wray could feel for the beast, but she did not wish to spend more time with Kong than she had to.

Get a bucket of popcorn - but maybe you might think twice about the soda. At three hours, you do not want to have too many bathroom breaks!

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:18 PM

Chongo is in ecstasy! He's going wild. Hooting and beating his chest. Climbing the walls. He's seen it 4 times already. I have yet to see it, but will soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: InOBU
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 06:55 PM

BIG TUB OF POPCORN... BIG SODA... should have brought a few hankys, middle seat in the front third of a HUGE screan theater, second showing of the first day... a seat set off by itself... heaven... ah the poor cruther, what a great film, I'm going to see it several more times... pan hoots allround, bring bananas to hand out to strangers, it's great.
chears
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 07:02 PM

This could be the realization of a dream. It certainly was for Chongo.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 10:49 PM

Just came back from seeing it. It is a wonderful film. The effects were astounding. I hate to disagree with Ron, but I thought Jack Black was as weak as he could be in this film. It was the only disappointment for me. The person that did Kong did an amazing job. The Times Square set, and the shots on top of the Empire State Building, especially the backgrounds, were astounding. I will see it again.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:11 PM

We will disagree on Jack Black,Mick.   I guess he reminded me of many of the producers I've known in my life. I did not think his performance was weak at all, but we all have our own opinions. I respect yours. He is not everyones cup of tea.

As for the person that "did" Kong, it was mostly CGI, but Andy Serkis (who also played Lumpy the Cook)created the movements that the technicians turned into the CGI character (just like he did for Gollum in LOTR).

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:18 PM

An amazing performance then, by Mr. Serkis. I thought the film, overall, deserves all the acclaim it can get.

And I have great respect for your views, as well, Ron. I just found him lukewarm in a redhot film. Different strokes, as they say.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 05 - 11:21 PM

The problem with Jack Black, for many, may be that we know him too well AS Jack Black already.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,frustrated Art Thieme
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 01:33 AM

I loved this film!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I took an hour to write a long review of it---and hit enter or something by mistake----and lost the whole damn thing. I am really quite angry. It was a brilliant polemic.

And I ended it by sending a special note to Martin Gibson: "M.G.--- I know you'll always say that the Kingston Trio would've made a more influential version of it than Jackson"----------but, what the hell------I lost it!! It's gone and there is not a thing I can do about it!

As I said, it's a wonder!!! It is better than Lord Of The Rings---as good as that was...

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 01:31 PM

Gawd...Art. I have had that happen more times than I would like to say. It's infuriating. And I still don't know how it happens, either!   Maddening. One gets quite paranoid after awhile. I have also hit "submit" on a few occasions, and had my post disappear forever into some black hole in cyberspace. My advice is...always "edit", "select all", and "edit" & "copy" first...if it's a long post...then try sending it. If it gets lost, you've still got it in the buffer.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 02:12 PM

Just hit the return arrow on your browser. Takes you back to the page you "submitted". Then try again.

Sometimes you're trying to post at the same time as someone else and it gets lost. Strange. It's as if when the 3 Stooges get stuck in the doorway, one will suddenly wink out of existence.

Of course, that's what happened to Shemp.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 02:26 PM

I hope that the success of the film persuades the publishers to reprint a splendid children's picture book, originally published in 1978, which takes the story and gives it a different spin - "The Great Ape being the true version of the famous saga of adventure and friendship newly discovered by Fernando Krahn". All ends happily, with Kong on his island.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 02:38 PM

I read a pretty good short story by Philip Jose Farmer, "After King Kong Fell" which tells the story as if it were a real event being remembered by an old man and told to his grandson.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 03:14 PM

It's tomorrow and I'm less upset--but still put off about it.

One of the things I said was that I liked the episodic floiw of it all---one after another---that truly unbelievable but wonderful stampede of the brontosauruses in that rather confined canyon mountainous terrain. What an accomplishment. Nobody could've lived through that. But they did---some of 'em anyhow. And the segments taken from what are now cliche scenes from the old flick. Tat toppled tree bridging the chasem that the humans use to cross over. The exquisite detail Jackson got his didital gurus to make showed that he had learned a big lesson from L.O.T.Rings in that the digitized armies in the first movie LOOKED too digital.--- Each of the hundred thousand orcs looked like very far away digital clones of the others. BUT in Kong he brought us CLOSER to the agction---with wondrous graphic detail. It reminded me of some of the really good art done by Hildebrand for his early Lord Of The Rings calendars back in the 1970s.

And Ann Darrow was completely real for me. (Just one guy's opinion.) I liked the fact that Kong evolved (as we watched) from being the brutal boyfriend to a rather smitten stalker/protector for her. And she evolved from total fear and screaming all the time into a somewhat sympathetic lady who recognized her small frailty on that island, and learned to trust Kong's affections enough to use his proffered massive shelter. Kong came to know, on some bizarre level, that she, too, had softened some in her appreciation for him---even if it was on a necessarilly pragmatic safety level!

A question though: Was the who played the head man, Carl Denham(?), the same guy who was in that pretty wonderful film with John Cusack about 3 friends who had a used LP record store in Chicago??? I liked him in that older film. But I thought he was too young to be Denham in this Kong movie. Maybe if he'l lost 20 or 30 pounds for this role he would've been more credible...

That's just a few of the things I wrote last night. I had time to do it now because the Bears don't play until seven tonight. But Carol wants to watch a PBS detective thing we got from Netflix tonight. This must be that old "life of quiet desperation" that Thoreau talked about! Either that, or the "winter of my discontent!" ------- And the Atlanta theater chain that just bought the theaters at our mall instituted a great new policy that let's us in wheelchairs to get in free! Sometimes there are perks to having MS! ;-)

That's just two sides to the same old proverbial coin; yin and yang; good and bad; light and dark sides! Life is a gas. Whatever!!!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Art again
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 03:19 PM

SO SORRY for not reading through this for grammatical errors and/or spell checking the thing.   I just wanted to write it as quickly as possible, post it, and forget about it! So I did that---with embarrassing results...

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 03:25 PM

i considered going, but its 3 hours long - a bum number if there ever was.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 07:34 PM

Is "3" a supersitious thing? I figure a story takes as long as it needs to in order to be told properly. This film tells a great story.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:00 PM

The three hours is no problem at all. Any really BIG story ought to be 3 hours long, in my opinion...and that IS the length of the standard East Indian movie. The Indians and Pakistanis seem to think that's fine. Do they have a longer attention span? Or more respect? Or is it just an accident of culture?

Nice that he managed to get 3 of the 6 planes. Humanity, as usual, showed themselves for what they collectively are: the most dangerous, self-important, and deluded creatures on Earth. Their saving grace is that some of them have real character.

One thing that seemed odd to me. Almost no blood. In the original film you can see that Kong's throat and chest become wet with blood as the machine gun bullets keep hitting him. He dabs at it forlornly, realizing that he is weakening and dying. That was very heartbreaking. In this color film you would have expected to see a whole lot of blood all over Kong, and on the top of the building, gallons of it....but nope, no blood. Very odd. Did they figure that it would lose them a "PG" rating or something?

I think it's a darned good movie. Worth an "A". I'm not as impressed as Chongo, and I won't see it four times, but it's good.

Chongo was expressing regrets that Kong didn't land right on top of Carl Denham when he plummeted to the pavement. Denham and his showbiz cronies are the crux of what makes America ugly. They are the real "beast" in the story, and the cops and military are the unfortunate robots who must do their dirty work for them when things go wrong. You could see the sorrow and pity in the face of one airplane pilot when they were lining up their final attack runs. He realized if only for a moment that he was participating in a great tragedy.

Anne Darrow was played wonderfully by Naomi Watts. She and Kong were the stars, no doubt about that, and that makes the movie work.

The real King Kong, by the way, is Mother Nature. Humanity has no weapon strong enough to kill her. Hope she does not get too angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 10:38 PM

I also would have shown a little more footage of the 3 stricken airplanes crashing to their doom in the streets below...but everything costs money. I guess they couldn't do it all. These were the best animated dinosaurs ever.

An oddity of the original film was that every single dinosaur (including a plant-eating brontosaurus) attacked and ate the crew members relentlessly! In this movie, the plant eating dinosaurs did not do that. They acted normal. We've come a long way in realism since 1933. ;-)

The acting in general was very good. The German freighter captain was a much more convincing and interesting character than his counterpart in the 1933 film. I did not find the lengthy first act any problem at all. It was totally appropriate.

I would not mind a 6-hour movie on a good subject. Just see it in 2 different sections, that's all.   Make it into 2 movies. Lord of the Rings was about a 9 hour movie all told, wasn't it? (shown in 3 sections)

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 11:21 PM

KREE-GAH! OOOOK! OOOOOK! OOOOOK!

Man, am I pumped! Woooh! This IS the movie.

Okay, some little flaws. Like Hawk says, there oughta have been a lotta blood. They must've tried to aim for a younger audience rating by leavin' it out...but that's crazy. Kids love blood in movies. At least little boys do anyway. The more blood the better. Trust me on this. Kids are bloodthirsty. (except for the really young ones)

I think takin' on 3 T-rexes at one time might be overdoin' it. I woulda gone for just one, and made it a real good fight. I don't picture T-rexes as workin' together in packs somehow, though I s'pose you mighta had a husband and wife pair workin' together. Maybe.

The bats were pretty cool.

A lotta people hate the bugs. I like 'em. Nice touch.

The King has never looked better. Never. This movie makes clear the total perfidy that man has wreaked upon ape and monkey. People are rotten...for the most part. The dame, though, she was great. I would go a long way for a dame like that, just like Kong did. Man, I was so sad...I just busted out bawlin' right there in the theatre. So did these gorillas a couple rows back, and the bonobos in the front row. We all went out and got drunk afterward and cried on each other's shoulders. I have never felt closer to gorillas. This movie could end up creatin' real solidarity with primates right across this society. We have gotta stop fightin' each other and recognize who the REAL enemy is! Do I gotta tell you? Rich human bastards in suits! Like that prick Denham! And their rotten cops, and lawyers, and politicians, and soldiers. That's who the enemy is. To hell with 'em all, I say! We are gonna see that Kong did not die in vain. We are gonna fight the rampant discrimination in this society until an ape can date a snazzy lookin' dame and go for a walk downtown and not get shot at by hired killers in uniform. Yeah.

By golly, I am charged up. RAAAAK! BUNDOLO TARMANGANI! EEEEEE-AAAAA-EEEEEE-YAAAAGHHHH!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Kong roars again!
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 11:25 AM

Art, the man who played Denham was Jack Black. He is the actor that I referenced above as the weakest link in the film. I didn't think he was terrible, just a poor casting choice. And in the main, this is one of the best movies ever, I agree with every comment to that effect above. I just think he was wrong for the part. The reasons you gave put a little finer nib on it for me.

Mick