King Kong

**Schrammbledeggs** · 11-22-2005, 09:40 AM

RE: King Kong

It's gonna be visually amazing and if they stick to the story of the original at least somewhat...it'll be a good movie. It's directed by Peter Jackson and runs over 3 hours long and had a budget of over 200 million dollars. It's gonna be a cinematic spectacular. I can't wait to see it.

**Tasselfoot** · 11-22-2005, 10:08 AM

RE: King Kong

Except... y'know... ITS BEEN DONE THREE TIMES BEFORE.

In the 30s, the 60s, and I believe in the 80s.

Honestly... we don't need the same movie re-made 4 times, even if it is a good story. Its bad enough Mel Brooks is remaking The Producers with NOTHING changed... the 60s movie is identical to the modern day musical which will be identical to the 2006 movie. So identical in fact that THE SAME ACTORS FROM THE MUSICAL ARE STARRING IN THE MOVIE. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick. I mean... they are amazing as their respective roles, but still. There is no point in remaking a movie when the musical is identical and running at the same time.

**esupin** · 11-23-2005, 10:47 AM

Re: RE: King Kong

Originally posted by Schrammbledeggs

a budget of over 200 million dollars.

I smell a bomb.

Anyways, hopefully it will be better than Godzilla starring Matthew Broderick

**Schrammbledeggs** · 11-23-2005, 01:25 PM

RE: Re: RE: King Kong

Godzilla starring Matthew Broderick was horrible...ALMOST as horrible as the Taco Bell commercials advertising it with that stupid dog.

**Tps222** · 11-26-2005, 12:38 PM

RE: Re: RE: King Kong

But, Jack Black will be in it, automatically getting it a "Must Watch from TPS".

**gowereinside** · 11-26-2005, 12:55 PM

Re: RE: Re: RE: King Kong

Originally posted by Tps222

But, Jack Black will be in it, automatically getting it a "Must Watch from TPS".

That is the reason I won't see it. I don't see how he can play a role in a movie that doesn't have him dancing around and make a joke here and there.

**MalReynolds** · 11-26-2005, 02:48 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: King Kong

Of course, Gowere. Not giving an actor a chance is a great reason not to see a movie.

I'm seeing it because I liked the original and want to see what they did with it.

I mean, I've never seen a movie where Adrian Brody wasn't a mental patient or a jew in a concentration camp, so I really shouldn't give him much credo as an actor.

Mal

**gowereinside** · 11-26-2005, 05:38 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: King Kong

Good point Mal,

I should of said It will be interesting to see Jack Black in a different role than he usally plays. My new reason of not seeing in theaters is I never did like re-makes of old movies, but I will rent it. I guess I didn't think it through.

**nickadeemus** · 12-15-2005, 02:59 AM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: King Kong

Holy crap, this movie was awesome. If you are deciding between Narnia and King Kong, choose this movie for the love of. . .well, movies.

The visuals were spectacular, and about 2.25 out of 3 hours were edge-of-your-seat action packed. The humor was funny, the fight scenes were well done and not so much of the annoying "shaky" camera angles that make me sick. I was sold that I was looking at a huge gorilla that could smash me to pieces, and not some CG piece of crap.

Jack Black did OK in the role he had, but I think there is a better fit out there. Naomi Watts, cute as hell, but she had the same damn facial expression the whole movie. Those are my only gripes about this movie, everything else was awesome.

Except for maybe *SPOILER* when they were running away from the long necks for like 5 minutes and no one got tired and so many people survived. I don't think anyone would be able to survive that, seriously. It was pretty funny when they started piling up into a brontoball though.*/SPOILER*

Go see this movie in the theater, but pee before you sit down.

**Bahamut-X** · 12-15-2005, 08:25 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: King Kong

The day before winter break, my house (how students are grouped at my school) is going to see this for a field trip. Nick's post made me just that more excited.

**Alter_Hero** · 12-16-2005, 01:16 PM

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: King Kong

I plan on seeing it tonight, cus i need to see for myself if its worth my time, .....using my moms money, woooo

**lord_carbo** · 12-16-2005, 05:32 PM

Re: RE: King Kong

Originally posted by Tasselfoot

Except... y'know... ITS BEEN DONE THREE TIMES BEFORE.

In the 30s, the 60s, and I believe in the 80s.

Oh, I was going to say 30's and 70's, I guess I was wrong.

I seriously felt like making an article about how Hollywood has become so unoriginal. Have you noticed so many movie remakes there have been, movies based off books or plays, or sequals? It's annoying as hell to try to find something original now a days. The last movies I saw were Corpse Bride and Wallace and Gromit, and from what I've seen, those will probably be the only movies I will see for a while until Cars comes out or maybe if I ever feel like seeing The Lion/Witch/Wardrobe (unfortunately, I'll have trouble finding anything better).

It's amazing that with all of the thousands of brains in Hollywood, all they can come up with are things that have already been done.

**gowereinside** · 12-16-2005, 05:57 PM

RE: Re: RE: King Kong

Wow, I saw the movie yesterday night and it was awesome. Peter Jackson did it again, but Jack Black was still Jack Black (not like something wrong with that). The graphics were amazing and had life-like features on Kong. I still need time to decide if it was better than the other two, but it was all good...except the dinosaur scene. (if you seen the movie you understand)

**Alter_Hero** · 12-16-2005, 06:23 PM

RE: Re: RE: King Kong

Jack Black rocks the space time continuim with tenacious DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

King Kong

King Kong

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment