Kong Sad

"Calvin Rice" <oscwr DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143698543.808826.206680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> John Doe II wrote:
>> Naomi Watts is poorly cast as
>> Anne, though almost anyone from modern Hollywood is
>> going to play it way to modern.
>
> I think the most you could say was that she was poorly directed,
> though I wouldn't agree. Too modern or not, she always seemed
> to me to be relating to a giant ape, not to a greenscreen.
>
> But poorly cast? Not beautiful enough? Not blond enough?
> She's playing opposite Andy Serkis for God's sake, not Laurence
> Olivier.
>

Read the whole sentence. Meryl Streep, ten years younger, could do it sleep
walking.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

Thew dinasaur stampede scene was probably the worst 5 minutes of footage
Peter Jackson ever put out.
Didn't someone in the editing room realize how bad that looked?

"John Doe II" <firsTraveler RemoveThis @centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:MIednQbvz9A4-bbZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@centurytel.net...
> Kong isn't a King any more, just an oversized gorilla. No wonder the film
> stalled out short of $600 mil global box.
>
> The first 55 minutes are tedious at best. Naomi Watts is poorly cast as
> Anne, though almost anyone from modern Hollywood is going to play it way
> to modern. Once we get to the island the action is entertaining,
> particularly the dino stampede; the giant bugs could have been skipped.
> The chase seen in New York is a riot, having the streets icy was a great
> idea. And the finale air-assault should have won an Oscar.
>
> Of the three versions of King Kong, the original reins supreme.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

"Kyle Rodgers" <sdes.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:p2UWf.64700$dW3.38988@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Thew dinasaur stampede scene was probably the worst 5 minutes of footage
> Peter Jackson ever put out.
> Didn't someone in the editing room realize how bad that looked?
>

I thought it was hilarious, as was Kong sliding around on the ice.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

For some reason, not as
> many people as expected were as intrigued by the idea of the big gorilla
> and just didn't go.

I think the problem probably was a) the average moviegoing member of the
public wasn't really all that interested in another remake of KK-this
was PJ's pet project, there was never any real demand for it; and b) the
economy and soaring gas prices meant people had less money to spend on
liesure activities like paying $10 to see a movie. It'll probably do
well as a DVD rental, as a whole family can watch it for $3-$5.

Not sure how movies will do this year, but what with massive recent
layoffs and gas prices expected to skyrocket this summer, the days of
the huge $300 million-plus blockbusters might be over...
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:55:00 -0800, "John Doe II"
<firsTraveler RemoveThis @centurytel.net> wrote:

>Kong isn't a King any more, just an oversized gorilla. No wonder the film
>stalled out short of $600 mil global box.
>
>The first 55 minutes are tedious at best. Naomi Watts is poorly cast as
>Anne, though almost anyone from modern Hollywood is going to play it way to
>modern. Once we get to the island the action is entertaining, particularly
>the dino stampede; the giant bugs could have been skipped. The chase seen
>in New York is a riot, having the streets icy was a great idea. And the
>finale air-assault should have won an Oscar.
>
>Of the three versions of King Kong, the original reins supreme.
>

Interesting that in two different monkey movies (King Kong, 1979 and
King Kong, 2005) two gifted actresses came off poorly.
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

I paid for a ticket and thought it was worth it. Like everyone else I found
it overly long and rather tedious in some of the "exciting" parts. It was a
decent homage and update, but I would rather have seen some original story
with the same themes.... ie; beauty and the beast, human nature,
technology, greed, death

--
Tweek
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

Rich wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:55:00 -0800, "John Doe II"
> <firsTraveler RemoveThis @centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Kong isn't a King any more, just an oversized gorilla. No wonder the film
>>stalled out short of $600 mil global box.
>>
>>The first 55 minutes are tedious at best. Naomi Watts is poorly cast as
>>Anne, though almost anyone from modern Hollywood is going to play it way to
>>modern. Once we get to the island the action is entertaining, particularly
>>the dino stampede; the giant bugs could have been skipped. The chase seen
>>in New York is a riot, having the streets icy was a great idea. And the
>>finale air-assault should have won an Oscar.
>>
>>Of the three versions of King Kong, the original reins supreme.
>>
>
>
> Interesting that in two different monkey movies (King Kong, 1979 and
> King Kong, 2005) two gifted actresses came off poorly.
> -Rich

And I thought just the opposite. I thought they both came off
wonderfully. In fact, Jessica Lange was the only good thing about the
1976 version.

--
Alric Knebel
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

Alric Knebel wrote:

> The truth is, the
> vast majority of people who saw it loved it. For some reason, not as
> many people as expected were as intrigued by the idea of the big gorilla
> and just didn't go.

I don't think this flick had the repeat-viewing draw the studio
expected, though. It was very good, but once of it was probably enough
for most folks. As well, its length/number-of-showings-per-day problem
cut into its boxoffice chances.

C.
**
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

Susan Bartholomew wrote:

> I think the problem probably was a) the average moviegoing member of the
> public wasn't really all that interested in another remake of KK-this
> was PJ's pet project, there was never any real demand for it; and b) the
> economy and soaring gas prices meant people had less money to spend on
> liesure activities like paying $10 to see a movie. It'll probably do
> well as a DVD rental, as a whole family can watch it for $3-$5.

KK didn't get the WOM it needed to be a must-see--and a
must-see-at-least-twice flick. And during the Christmas season--which is
already a nightmare of releases and
viewers-with-much-holiday-stuff-to-do--a film aiming for that kind of
success has to establish itself as a must-see.

C.
**
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad 

> And I thought just the opposite. I thought they both came off
> wonderfully. In fact, Jessica Lange was the only good thing about the
> 1976 version.
>
> --
> Alric Knebel

Jessica was HOT!
 >> Stay informed about: Kong Sad