suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

KING KONG (2005) SCENES

Picture 760.gifavailable on ign.com. Still screen captures here but the scene videos are mesmerizing.

Peter Jackson has confirmed his place at the top of the filmmaking spire with KING KONG.

This is one cinema story remake that takes it’s place as superior: superior as remake, superior as filmmaking.

Official website, Peter Jackson’s KING KONG.

Picture 760.gif Update
Ultimate nonsense: “Is KING KONG racist?” Ultimate nonsense because it’s long past the time that we humans accept the fact that every one of us represents a racial type, possesses “race” and is characterised by a racial type or types. Because, these outcries as to “racism” have now become counter-productive: they’re the ultimate non-statement about the obvious and diminish concern about social errata, species-wide, that does merit focus instead. Taken to extremes, as these issue of “race” and “racism” are today, everything is “racist” if and when it involves human behaviors, given that there’s no escaping DNA if/when you are a human being, as with all living beings — even plants are included, because, “onions have more DNA than you do…what’s more, amoebas oozing along in shallow ponds boast a genome 200 times as large as those of Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.”

Share

12 C O M M E N T S

  1. justaguy says:

    I have an invitation to go see it tomorrow night…I dunno. From the clips that I’ve seen. There’s nothing in the film that hasn’t been done already in Jurassic Park, etc. I’m honestly not that interested in sitting in a theater for 3hrs watching a 5 story monkey toting Ms. Naomi Watts around in NY.

  2. -S- says:

    Yeah, the length of the film is to it’s detriment.

    However, from the clips I’ve seen, KING KONG surpasses the effects achievements of those from JURASSIC PARK. By far.

    This is one of those films that you either love as genre or you don’t. And KONG seems to be far more than “monkey” [sic] as to character in this version of the story.

    I’m very impressed with what’s been done, from what I’ve viewed (only these scenes, however, not the full film [yet]).

  3. -S- says:

    But, what the entertainment “press” and membership still find fascinating is homosexuals engaged in homosexual acts, and, calling that “love” — worse, calling that “romance,” per this:

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/13/D8EFDJ48A.html

    I don’t begrudge their freedom of opining, but the current ‘fav’ among the foreign press and mostly urban audiences in CA and NY — “Brokeback Mountain” — fails to represent either good filmmaking or popularly, consumer-supported fare. It’s not even good literature nor based upon it. It’s a title that rewards carnage and deceit and homosexuality, so it’s no wonder it’s a ‘fav’ among certain populated opining/voting groups.

    Some among those populations are enthusing over “Brokeback” moreso because they’re enthusing over the material and content as it is being offered up as neighborhood fare. The film does not deserve, not by a million miles, the bubbling among media that is underway — and, it reveals where the focus is among those bubbling: that the “big screen” is become adulated — the standard of pornography — as the “big message.” Unfortunately for the rest of us. Because, otherwise, the film on it’s own merits, nor the literature upon which it’s adapted, does not hold up as anything grand or of greatness and thus, I conclude it’s an event of social intrusion that’s being lauded and enthused about, the idea that the neighborhood cinema big screen could become the neighborhood sliding scale and be applauded for doing so.

    I hope this film does not spill over into actual neighborhoods. Not so much for what it contains but what it represents: hash, and rancid at that.

    I’m just very sorry that Heath Ledger’s involved. He’s quite a talented actor but his choices in material have been poor-to-terrible.

  4. justaguy says:

    I guess the thing about Kong is that it’s been done so many times (~ 5 to 6?)…I’ve grown kinda indifferent to it. I dunno…I’ll probably see it though. :)

    The press cracks me up. I saw one headline stating, “Brokeback breaks release records!” Of course the film has only opened in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. I’m not surprised that it’s doing great in those cities…now lets release it wide…see if it sinks or swims. :)

  5. -S- says:

    I wasn’t aware of the many remakes of the King Kong story, just the notorious Harryhausen-affects one of lore, “Mighty Joe Young” and then the KING KONG original by that title.

    And, I’m enthused about Peter Jackson’s KING KONG because Jackson seems to have (from my limited scene viewing, mind you, as I wrote, I have not yet seen the full film) triumphed over everyone else as to effects in a theatrical feature.

    I suppose it can be argued that Lucas tops that achievement but I regard the current strata by George Lucas as being a triumph of digital filmmaking, while…mumble, mumble…I can’t now draw a distinction between these two without more viewing of Jackson’s KING KONG. I wasn’t too keen on the fully-digital R2D2, despite his special and newly special abilities in the Episode III — I rather liked him tipsy and running into things with human error, rather liked the challenge of knowing it was a human, after all, inside a tin can but believing in the character anyway.

    From the scenes I viewed of KING KONG (link, here, this thread), I found the performances by Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody quite wonderful.

    However, there’s always this:

    “Spectacular, clumsy, hilariously self-indulgent, terrifying and far too long, Peter Jackson’s remake of the 1933 classic is a monster in every sense.” (Paul Arendt, BBC)

    He sounds a tad jealous. ~;-D

  6. -S- says:

    Yeah, BROKEBACK breakin’ records in all the limited, left places! It’s a landslide, it’s a blockbuster, it’s huuge, it’s North Beach behind a Green Door! Doesn’t mean, however, that it’s a good film, or worthwhile.

  7. -S- says:

    O/T: justaguy, this one’s for you…

    “(Quentin Tarantino is) a true below-the-ankle aficionado who has on more than one occasion splashed towering love notes to Uma Thurman’s perfect feet across multiplex screens…”

    What?

    Uma Thurman’s PERFECT FEET?!? Eeeww, not from what I remember seeing all across the screen.

  8. justaguy says:

    LOL @ Uma’s feet. :))))

  9. -S- says:

    Later…you are right, justaguy, in that your opinion seems to reflect that of many: people don’t want to see this film, at least this Season (understandable), what with the poor box office opening stats. “Lower than Pokimon” according to Drudge’s headline.

    I’m not in the mind/mood at the moment to see horror and/or disaster films, either, and I think what’s hurting KING KONG at the b.o. this week is almost certainly the time/Season of the year. People want funny and family-oriented happiness in films, along with Christian inspired titles, such as is CHRONICLES OF NARNIA.

    I noticed that CHRONICLES OF NARNIA is being shouted down by the profanity of BM.

  10. -S- says:

    Hey, epador, Merry Christmas! I was wondering where you were; nice to read you again.

    But, looks like **I** am the only one enthusiastic about KING KONG. justaguy’s opinion isn’t favorable…I just don’t think it’s a great film for children, has a lot of mega-violence in it (Kong, the huge T-Rex’s, gigantic lizards and other monstrous dinosaurs).

    There is a lot of high drama involved, what with the characters, and Kong actually is the most sensitive and heroic of the lot. I found it a fascinating adventure film but knowing the fateful conclusion made it difficult to wait through the full three hours of the film.

    Thus, children of younger ages probably will be both frightened and bored all at the same time, ha.

    Yeah, I want to go see WALLACE AND GROMIT, too. I truly love them.

  11. epador says:

    While I won’t make much comment on the art of commenting on movies one hasn’t seen (lol, reminds me of guys talking amongst themselves before their dates about their dates…), I’m paying 3 buck to see Wallace and Gromit and then 8 to see King Kong this weekend. Somehow I think the three dollars will be better spent than the 8, but if -S- and justa are hyping it, it must be worth seeing. :-)

  12. epador says:

    Well, W&G turned out to be a hoot. I went to see it at the Columbia Theater here, which is a laid back place with a bar in the balcony, and if you get there early enough, you can grab one of the two Lazy Boy recliners (regreably in the non-drinking section) in the front row or any of a number of divans or plush chairs scattered amongst the regular seating. The allusions to a number of horror films were fun, and King Kong had more than a few references, so it makes the comparison between the two even more fun. Most of the violence was against vegetables, so this is a movie for the whole family.