Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:45 am
Jim wrote:Hauntingly great movie. Jackson did the original proud. Also, Andy Serkis proves their is life after gollum. May well be the best character actor in the world today.
Favourite bit : The light fading in Kongs eyes. I thought that was inspired.
Ohh, the guy who wouldn't open his right eye! I thought he seemed familiar, but I had no idea where from.
It truly was a fantastic movie.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:31 am
St Nick wrote:Jim wrote:Hauntingly great movie. Jackson did the original proud. Also, Andy Serkis proves their is life after gollum. May well be the best character actor in the world today.
Favourite bit : The light fading in Kongs eyes. I thought that was inspired.
Ohh, the guy who wouldn't open his right eye! I thought he seemed familiar, but I had no idea where from.
It truly was a fantastic movie.
He also played Kong. Hard to believe all that movement wasnt just CGI, but there you go.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:49 am
Jim wrote:St Nick wrote:Jim wrote:Hauntingly great movie. Jackson did the original proud. Also, Andy Serkis proves their is life after gollum. May well be the best character actor in the world today.
Favourite bit : The light fading in Kongs eyes. I thought that was inspired.
Ohh, the guy who wouldn't open his right eye! I thought he seemed familiar, but I had no idea where from.
It truly was a fantastic movie.
He also played Kong. Hard to believe all that movement wasnt just CGI, but there you go.
He did a lot of studying for the role, and wore a "gorilla" type body suit while doing it, to help with the movement. Still, incredibly impessive performance and portrayl of movement.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:37 am
It's kinda nice to see that over all the forums I browse it's about 70-90% 'Yay' for King Kong.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:14 pm
Jim wrote:St Nick wrote:Jim wrote:Hauntingly great movie. Jackson did the original proud. Also, Andy Serkis proves their is life after gollum. May well be the best character actor in the world today.
Favourite bit : The light fading in Kongs eyes. I thought that was inspired.
Ohh, the guy who wouldn't open his right eye! I thought he seemed familiar, but I had no idea where from.
It truly was a fantastic movie.
He also played Kong. Hard to believe all that movement wasnt just CGI, but there you go.
If they were selling you in a supermarket, you'd be in the same section as the out of date jellied eels.
Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:50 pm
Christopher wrote:It's kinda nice to see that over all the forums I browse it's about 70-90% 'Yay' for King Kong.
Well I guess I'm in the 10-20%
I found it really boring but I'm not really a film kinda guy and don't look for the important things in films...
Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:56 pm
I saw Kong last week...and I thought it was very well done and the graphics were excellent. On the scale from 1-10 I'll give it a 8, and the reason I say 8 is because of the natives. I'm sorry but that witch lady was getting on my nerves there was a point where I didn't even want to look at her anymore.
The bug part was very good and scary I might add. And 4 T-Rex, hmm...well I personally think that Kong wouldn't have survived after the second one. I felt that the boat ride was a wee bit too long. It sort of dragged and I was getting bored...but they made up with it when they got on the island. So, over all I really liked it. But, the original is still the best.
The bug part was very good and scary I might add. And 4 T-Rex, hmm...well I personally think that Kong wouldn't have survived after the second one. I felt that the boat ride was a wee bit too long. It sort of dragged and I was getting bored...but they made up with it when they got on the island. So, over all I really liked it. But, the original is still the best.
Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:06 am
Scythemantis wrote:All they really need are lungs, a circulatory systems, an internal supporting structure, and actual skin/flesh beneath the exoskeleton. It isn't too far-fetched that they might eventually evolve these things. In some of my own creative works insects evolved a sophisticated variation of crustacean booklungs while their original trachea became a thick, basket-like "pseudo-skeleton".
There used to be huge insect like creatures on earth, but that was when the oxygen level could support such animals.
Sat Dec 31, 2005 7:54 pm
I just saw this movie, and I loved it. It was beautifully done; I honestly almost balled when King Kong died.
The T-Rex fight was awesome, and I can see how people thought it was unrealistic but then again, a giant ape isn't exactly realistic anyway.
The thing which creeped me out to the extent where I lifted my legs were the insects scene. Especially when the girl was in the log and those two long worm thingies were there, I freaked out. I hate bugs with a passion, it was disgusting.
All in all, this movie was awesome and anyone who hasn't seen it, should see it immediately.
The T-Rex fight was awesome, and I can see how people thought it was unrealistic but then again, a giant ape isn't exactly realistic anyway.
The thing which creeped me out to the extent where I lifted my legs were the insects scene. Especially when the girl was in the log and those two long worm thingies were there, I freaked out. I hate bugs with a passion, it was disgusting.
All in all, this movie was awesome and anyone who hasn't seen it, should see it immediately.
Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:46 am
I'm really not getting the whole 'Too long' thing. It was 187 mins.
The Two Towers was 178 (223 for EE), and the theatre release of The Return of the King was 201 mins (251 for EE) which is 14 mins longer. Either way King Kong is only a mere 20-40 mins longer than the typical movie =/
The Two Towers was 178 (223 for EE), and the theatre release of The Return of the King was 201 mins (251 for EE) which is 14 mins longer. Either way King Kong is only a mere 20-40 mins longer than the typical movie =/
Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:19 am
SpiraLethe wrote:Scythemantis wrote:All they really need are lungs, a circulatory systems, an internal supporting structure, and actual skin/flesh beneath the exoskeleton. It isn't too far-fetched that they might eventually evolve these things. In some of my own creative works insects evolved a sophisticated variation of crustacean booklungs while their original trachea became a thick, basket-like "pseudo-skeleton".
There used to be huge insect like creatures on earth, but that was when the oxygen level could support such animals.
Nope, somthing about the design of Exoskeletons prevents such animals from existing on earth.
I forget why mindyou...
And they were Veranosaurus Rexen.
Tyranosaurus was an Absurd Chicken/Chokobo thing.
Gives me giggles everytime i see tha tpic
Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:00 am
Setekh wrote:SpiraLethe wrote:Scythemantis wrote:All they really need are lungs, a circulatory systems, an internal supporting structure, and actual skin/flesh beneath the exoskeleton. It isn't too far-fetched that they might eventually evolve these things. In some of my own creative works insects evolved a sophisticated variation of crustacean booklungs while their original trachea became a thick, basket-like "pseudo-skeleton".
There used to be huge insect like creatures on earth, but that was when the oxygen level could support such animals.
Nope, somthing about the design of Exoskeletons prevents such animals from existing on earth.
I forget why mindyou...
And they were Veranosaurus Rexen.
Tyranosaurus was an Absurd Chicken/Chokobo thing.
Gives me giggles everytime i see tha tpic
The largest insect known, was a prehistoric dragonfly, Meganeura monyi, which lived about 280,000,000 years ago, and had a wingspan of up to 70 cm.
Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:26 am
It WAS too long though, most movies are about 90-120 minutes in length. (I only saw a few long movies, this, Titanic, ROTK-even though we own all of the LOTR movies, and some of Aviator)
It was worth it though. I haven't seen Naomi Watts in many movies, just The Ring and The Ring 2, but I kept thinking she was Nicole Kidman. The actors/actresses were all right for the job. I didn't think Jack Black could play serious. Like I said, too much closeups of faces though. I can't think of how to describe this without repeating what anyone else here has said so I'll just say that it was a good movie and if you haven't seen it already, SEE IT NOW!
It was worth it though. I haven't seen Naomi Watts in many movies, just The Ring and The Ring 2, but I kept thinking she was Nicole Kidman. The actors/actresses were all right for the job. I didn't think Jack Black could play serious. Like I said, too much closeups of faces though. I can't think of how to describe this without repeating what anyone else here has said so I'll just say that it was a good movie and if you haven't seen it already, SEE IT NOW!
Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:58 am
Fiddelysquat wrote:And as for the whole T-Rex vs Kong scene, I could care less about how anatomically accurate it was. It was awesome.
I don't know, but I found one particular aspect of those anatomical inaccuracies fairly distracting from the film. Without getting into details, I was just curious if this was going to be the LAST generation of dinosaurs and giant gorillas.
Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:28 am
ahoteinrun wrote:The largest insect known, was a prehistoric dragonfly, Meganeura monyi, which lived about 280,000,000 years ago, and had a wingspan of up to 70 cm.
As Inrun said, large insects did exist. However, most insects can't get too large since their bodily structures are they way they are because they're small.
coming2atvnearu wrote:Fiddelysquat wrote:And as for the whole T-Rex vs Kong scene, I could care less about how anatomically accurate it was. It was awesome.
I don't know, but I found one particular aspect of those anatomical inaccuracies fairly distracting from the film. Without getting into details, I was just curious if this was going to be the LAST generation of dinosaurs and giant gorillas.
Good point. This is why Disney films bother me too (not that I dislike Disney films).