Kong: Skull Island | March 10, 2017 | Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman | Crosses 500M WW

[Joel M]

14 minutes ago, Celedhring said:

Meanwhile, the balance of character, story and action was great in the LOTR trilogy. 

 

 

I think King Kong is much closer quality-wise to LOTR than to the Hobbit trilogy and the dumbster fire that was Lovely Bones.

[Celedhring]

28 minutes ago, Joel M said:

 

I think King Kong is much closer quality-wise to LOTR than to the Hobbit trilogy and the dumbster fire that was Lovely Bones.

 

I'd put it as the half-point in a descending slope from LOTR towards the Hobbit, but that'd be arguing about the minutiae. It's much better than The Hobbit films, certainly, but IMHO several of the problems that plague the Hobbit trilogy started to manifest themselves in King Kong.

 

The least said about Lovely Bones, the better, yeah. On that one we can fully agree.

[Jake Gittes]

1 hour ago, Joel M said:

Jackson's King Kong was one of the best blockbusters of the 00s IMO. I hope this is at least half as good.

 

I'd go full fanboy and say one of the best ever. Epic in a way we haven't really seen since then, and almost certainly won't see here. Jackson had a sense of monumental scale and spectacle and build-up back then that these random indie directors thrown into the studio machine just don't have. Not that this is attempting to be the same kind of movie but the Marvel-style jokes and the casual, almost tossed-off shots of Kong aren't really winning me over. In the best case scenario I guess it'll be a fun B-movie on an A budget.

[Dementeleus]

KONG is a half of a good movie. The rest is pretty from a production & technical perspective, but it's pretty bad on every other level. 

[Elessar]

49 minutes ago, Nutella of Arabia said:

KONG is a half of a good movie. The rest is pretty from a production & technical perspective, but it's pretty bad on every other level. 

 

Yeah, not much of a fan of the '33 Kong either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CJohn]

52 minutes ago, Nutella of Arabia said:

KONG is a half of a good movie. The rest is pretty from a production & technical perspective, but it's pretty bad on every other level. 

It is bad... LIKE YOU NUTELLA, YOU AND YOUR LOVE FOR SKYBEAMS, CRAP CGI AND SHITTY VILLAINS.

[Krissykins]

Late to the party, but wow!

[Noctis]

Jackson's King Kong is a 10/10 two hour movie stretched into a 7.5/10 three hour movie.

[Ozymandias]

20 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

I'd go full fanboy and say one of the best ever. Epic in a way we haven't really seen since then, and almost certainly won't see here. Jackson had a sense of monumental scale and spectacle and build-up back then that these random indie directors thrown into the studio machine just don't have. Not that this is attempting to be the same kind of movie but the Marvel-style jokes and the casual, almost tossed-off shots of Kong aren't really winning me over. In the best case scenario I guess it'll be a fun B-movie on an A budget.

 

I'd have to watch Jackson's King Kong again, I haven't seen it in a long time.   But thats certainly true of LOTR, its still remarkable how he perfectly balanced the size and scope of that trilogy with so many characters.

[The Futurist]

When it comes to epic-ness in movies, I d rank like this :

 

1. James Cameron

2. Peter Jackson

3. Michael Bay

 

Number 2 & 3 were both influenced by Number 1.

[Goffe]

4 hours ago, Noctis said:

Jackson's King Kong is a 10/10 two hour movie stretched into a 7.5/10 three hour movie.

Even though I rate it a little higher, that's exactly how I feel about Jackson's Kong. Once we get to the city mayhem part I'm mostly burnt out.

 

Would still take it over all blockbusters released this year.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Goffe

[Noctis]

The boat ride was ludicrously long. 

[The Futurist]

13 minutes ago, Noctis said:

The boat ride was ludicrously long. 

 

Yup, sometimes, directors'  egos must be challenged and put in check by suits.

 

Peter Jackson s King Kong would be better regarded without that ludicrous and unnecessary act.

 

 

[Noctis]

10 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

Yup, sometimes, directors'  egos must be challenged and put in check by suits.

 

Peter Jackson s King Kong would be better regarded without that ludicrous and unnecessary act.

 

 

 

It was terrible. If he hadn't done the LoTR films, those scenes would have either been cut or heavily shortened. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Noctis

[Dementeleus]

Well, also in part because his KONG was an effort to LOTR-ize the story. 

[Ozymandias]

I love the giant bug scene in Jackson's Kong.  That was genuinely unsettling.

[Cmasterclay]

I didn't comment when it first dropped cuz I was busy with the campaign, but my god I haven't had my anticipation for a movie drop so quickly in years compared to how it just popped for this after the second trailer. The first trailer was my favorite blockbuster trailer of the year - dark, terrifying, and lucid. It was a scary Vietnam movie mixed with a King Kong flick. Apocalypse Now meets Kong. But this new trailer? Trash. No sense of scope or style and a bunch of tossed off jokes. It could still be a fun action movie, but damn, I was hoping for something more. For what it's worth, I also LOVED Godzilla and thought it could have been a blockbuster classic with a better cast. ATJ and Olsen ruined it but I loved the buildup and the style and the mood. I also think the first Rogue One trailer was better than the cheesy ass "Save the dream!!" trailers that people are going nuts over, so maybe I'm just clued into that particular style Edwards went for on Godzilla and it looked like, at first, they were going for here. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Cmasterclay

[The Futurist]

"Marvel jokes" is a thing now.

 

This is breaking news.

 

[Jake Gittes]

51 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

I love the giant bug scene in Jackson's Kong.  That was genuinely unsettling.

 

That giant worm slo-o-owly consuming Andy Serkis is forever burned into my brain. I physically can't bring myself to watch that shit again, and I'll watch just about any hard-R gorefest you'll throw at me. 

 

Also, seems pretty random today that Kyle Chandler of all people comes to their rescue. Back then dude was just another character actor. 

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

That giant worm slo-o-owly consuming Andy Serkis is forever burned into my brain. I physically can't bring myself to watch that shit again, and I'll watch just about any hard-R gorefest you'll throw at me. 

 

Also, seems pretty random today that Kyle Chandler of all people comes to their rescue. Back then dude was just another character actor. 

 

Peter Jackon got his groove with trashy horror films that were amazingly disgusting.