King Kong Franchise (Jackson/Vogt-Roberts, 2005/2017)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

DVDTimes reviews the new Extended Edition, here.

[Barmy]

When monkey die, everybody cry®.

Life is too short to read that interminable review, let alone watch that film again. Ever.

[life_boy]

Visually the film is quite stunning, combining Jackson's eye for the grandiose with wide angle vistas showing some awe inspiring visual effects which recreate 1930s New York with nostalgia so obvious in every graphic artist's mouse finger.

Wow...what a bad sentance.

[bjeggert82]

Visually the film is quite stunning, combining Jackson's eye for the grandiose with wide angle vistas showing some awe inspiring visual effects which recreate 1930s New York with nostalgia so obvious in every graphic artist's mouse finger.

Wow...what a bad sentance.

You spelled "sentence" incorrectly.

[dx23]

From blu-ray.com:

King Kong Announced for Blu-ray
Posted November 11, 2008 03:24 PM by Josh Dreuth

Universal Studios Home Entertainment has announced that they will bring Peter Jackson's remake of 'King Kong' to Blu-ray on January 20th. The film will be presented in both theatrical and extended versions in 2.35:1 1080p video accompanied by a 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack.

Special features for this release include:
Original Version
U Control: The Art Galleries
My Scenes
BD Live Features: My Scenes Sharing
Extended Version
U Control: Picture in Picture
U Control: The Art Galleries
My Scenes
BD Live Features: My Scenes Sharing
Feature Commentary with Writer / Director Peter Jackson and with Co-Writer / Producer Philipa Boyen

[perkizitore]

So,it seems that the rip-off tactics with the extras on DVD,wil continue on Blu-Ray {|=
I am still undecided if i should give 5£ for the extended set

[Barmy]

This movie has been cast into the dustbin of history. I can't think of anything more pathetic than actually wanting to use those bonus "features".

[domino harvey]

Old news but man is this film a disaster. At three hours and twenty minutes it is long, but a good movie could be that length. This one can't sustain it, though, and so we get really three different movies here based on the acts. There's not a moment of fat in a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark and as a result it can keep its furious pacing and non-stop action because the novelty of its execution never dulls. But a movie like this, that lulls its audience to sleep at the beginning with a punishing seventy or so minutes worth of ineffectual characterization and some of the worst expository dialog ever written, is not able to contain itself as it delivers what the audience wants, or thinks it wants, with a series of alternating, never-ending calamities and fights with the island inhabitants. Again, could have worked on paper, but in execution these scenes are all pretty much the same, and the film is really a Jurassic Park sequel for most of its second act. What's most frustrating is the lack of wonder or interest or even consciousness by any of our explorers as they encounter dinos and monsters and giant insects, &c &c &c. The film's most convoluted actionsequence involving a stampede of Brachiosaurs is like watching a screensaver, as the actors run between CGI legs, dodging giant dinos and also T-Rex-ish smaller dinos. It's exhausting but not exciting. In the film's defense, it does have one totally bonkers action sequence wherein Naomi Watts, King Kong, and two T-Rexes are trapped in swinging vines in-between two cliffs, and it's such a wonderfully weird and vibrant action set-up that one wishes all the time and energy spent on the same-ol same-ol were redirected for more of this. But alas by the time we see a shot of a giant bat and instead of excitement there is only the sad realization we're about to see another goddamn action sequence figuring the bat, the film has proven it can be awful in a faster-paced way to compliment the earlier glacial nature.

I didn't buy most of the motivation offered for any of the characters, though there's some decent actors stranded here-- Watts does what she can with an awful role that not unlike the original just calls for a blonde beauty in distress, Jack Black's schtick wears thin almost immediately, and while Kyle Chandler as the non-threatening male lead actor in the film within a film is great casting, he subsequently isn't given much to do (neither is Adrien Brody as the love interest who shares more sexual chemistry with co-star Colin Hanks than Watts). The original King Kong isn't a particularly great film so updating it to be a big budget special effects spectacular is hardly sacrilege (though we are forced to suffer from a barrage of tone-deaf references to the original both narrative and name-checked), but the end result here is not only unnecessary, but uncomfortably expensive looking despite doing nothing with that money up on the screen to justify the cost (or watching).

[FrauBlucher]

Agreed. This film had so much potential going in and it laid a giant dinosaur egg. The set-up was too long and nonsensical. Jack Black was awful and clearly a choice to take advantage of his, at the time, marketability, which wasn't necessary for this film. And the action scenes in the jungle seemed like the battle for Middle Earth. To me, a lot of the action was forced (the bugs) just so they can have these over the top CGI sequences.

This film needed to be somewhere in between the 1933 version and what Jackson gave us here.

[repeat]

It's been there already!

[FrauBlucher]

I should probably give it another go. Haven't seen it since 76.

[repeat]

You definitely should, it's a great film, and certainly much better than it's been made out to be. Sure, some of the opticals have dated and the miniature work in the final section could've been better in the first place, but who the hell cares? Brilliant performances from everyone (Charles Grodin!), suitably cynical script from Semple, and expectedly solid direction from John Guillermin.

Is this film still underrated? There's a good deal of writing to be found on it - AV Club has another mostly good reappraisal; and there's a long, interesting chapter in Ray Morton's King Kong: The History of a Movie Icon that covers aspects of the production not touched upon in the official versions (such as Guillermin banning de Laurentiis from the set, etc.).

[barryconvex]

I'll second the love for the '76 version. that's the one Jackson should've tried to emulate. The stuff with the oil company (they financed the trip to the island to find oil-not KK) and Bridges proto tree hugger would've played well for a latter day audience. Jax could've then set it in present day and saved the production about a billion dollars in CGI costs...

[ando]

It's been there already!

Thank You! I was hoping this thread would make a reference to the '76 version. I just finished watching the two hour interview with Semple (according to his estimation he was fired from every film that turned out to have any stature), on YT and was motivated to rewatch his take on Kong again.

[Numero Trois]

I'm more lukewarm on the 1976 version, though no doubt it's far better than the Jackson's film. The puppet work in the former is surprisingly good though. Especially the beast's facial expressions. And Jessica Lange certainly showed plenty of promise in that thankless role.

[ando]

You've hit it right on the head. Also, the blue screen and matte painting work are fairly transparent in the high def version. The sound is incredibly over-the-top, sometimes laughably excessive. As for Lange; who'd have thought to see the same actress in this throwaway performance take on Mary Tyrone in O'Neill's Long Day's Journey Into Night this spring in New York - to great expectation? Speaking of which - I don't remember wanting the production to get back to New York as fervently as I did last night. The movie was never great fun for me til Kong started sniffing New Yorkers and tossing 'em aside like 2 day old fish.

[Numero Trois]

The movie was never great fun for me til Kong started sniffing New Yorkers and tossing 'em aside like 2 day old fish.

I love the scene where Kong is walking down the street (or was it sidewalk?) and about to cross an intersection. All of a sudden the helicopter gunship starts firing and he pulls back behind the building out of harm's way. King Kong is streetwise!

[Roger Ryan]

During production of the '76 film, De Laurentiis did a lot of publicity touting the use a a full-size mechanized Kong for many of the scenes. The failure of this approach is confirmed by the fact that only two brief shots in the film feature the complete mechanized creature (and they're not very convincing). Rick Baker did wonders in the ape suit, but by avoiding stop-motion animation, the film was unable to recreate much of the Skull Island set-pieces from the original. As I recall, Kong briefly fights a giant python and that's about it for that section of the film. The performances and updated storyline are decent, but it offered no competition to the original film in terms of inspiring the imagination.

[Robin Davies]

I'm amazed that anyone has a good word to say about the 1976 version. I suppose it's possible it's better than I remember it but it seemed to me to be a cheap, crassly cynical insult to the original.
“What do you think did that, a man in a monkey suit?” Laugh? - I nearly did.
Peter Jackson's version certainly has its faults but for all its dubious casting and CGI-bloat it's way better than the 1976 version.
Of course the original still rules.

[captveg]

I'm amazed that anyone has a good word to say about the 1976 version. I suppose it's possible it's better than I remember it but it seemed to me to be a cheap, crassly cynical insult to the original.
“What do you think did that, a man in a monkey suit?” Laugh? - I nearly did.
Peter Jackson's version certainly has its faults but for all its dubious casting and CGI-bloat it's way better than the 1976 version.
Of course the original still rules.

This is essentially my view as well.

The original film still packs thrills, excitement and bold filmmaking into its slick runtime. Amazing film.

The 1976 film is too hokey for me, and the idea to set it in contemporary times rather than the less technologically savvy 1930s removes my suspension of disbelief.

The middle act of Jackson's film is over-indulgence as Jackson tends to do, but at least I find it visually compelling over-indulgence. But I feel he nails the first act (even though its pacing is too slow for some) and third act. In particular, practically every moment between Kong and Ann is remarkable drama despite the on-the-surface absurdity of the premise.

I'm looking forward to Kong: Skull Island next year. Does anyone know if it's set in the past, or is it present day explorers returning to the island, perhaps after being quarantined for 80 years? EDIT: IMDB had the answer - set in 1971, and technically not a sequel to Jackson's film, though I suspect it'll incorporate the idea that the general events of the 1933 / 2005 film are historical. (But maybe not). Of course, it is 100% in continuity with the 2014 Godzilla, as they will eventually do the vs. film.

[FrauBlucher]

Kong: Skull Island Trailer shown at Comic Con

[Altair]

Kong: Skull Island Trailer shown at Comic Con

Kong: Apocalypse Now more like.

[Roger Ryan]

Kong: Skull Island Trailer shown at Comic Con

Kong: Apocalypse Now more like.

Now we know why the story is set during the Vietnam war era - someone really wanted to emulate the look of Coppola's film! It's being called an origin story, not for the Kong who died in 1933 in New York but for the one who will eventually battle Godzilla.

I'm far more excited for the "Skull Island: Reign of Kong" ride at the Universal Orlando theme park which actually is designed to take place in the early 30s.

[matrixschmatrix]

Huh, that looks better than I expected, though one of the cast members who most interests me- Marc Evan Jackson- is barely featured in the trailer. Interesting choice to make Kong so much bigger; presumably that's to keep him in scale with Godzilla? Unless Skull Island is commensurately bigger it seems like you'd be able to see him sticking up from a mile off.

[barryconvex]

and so long gareth edwards, thanks for the memories...with four of the same producers on this project you'd think they'd want him back as aside from familiarity this seems to be right in his wheelhouse....ah but a quick glance at imdb reveals he directed the new star wars movie. greener pastures i guess...