The Movie Review and Discussion Thread - Page 1198 - Blu-ray Forum

Al_The_Strange · 07-31-2011, 11:24 AM

“King Kong” 1933.

One of the most classic adventures ever made; this film truly captures the imagination as adventurers confront dinosaurs on a lost island and a giant monkey scales the Empire State Building. Somebody really flexed their imagination to realize these ambitious setpieces. The only thing that really stops this film from being 100% exciting is the occasional drag between the action scenes; necessary for the story perhaps, but the story and characters just aren’t as vivid as King Kong himself (and this is one other thing that I feel Peter Jackson’s remake improved upon).

The story is straightforward, if not outright formulaic. Chances are that, even if you’ve never seen this film before, you know what happens. Some might even say it has to happen this way. It is a well-connected story though, with a slight “beauty and the beast” parallel that adds minimal (perhaps obligatory) depth to it. I also feel that the characters are extremely one-dimensional; Ann Darrow does little more than scream for the whole picture, while Carl Denham and the rest of the cast deliver their lines and do their thing in a stiff and formulaic manner. The best that can be said is that the action is ambitious and the story is imaginative.

The film is of good quality though, with decent photography and editing. Special effects are most memorable; they are dated as hell, but still hold up and create a convincing illusion. Acting is fine and dandy; Fay Wray is quite the gal, even if her role consists solely of screaming and fleeing. Robert Armstrong is okay, Bruce Cabot is okay…hell, they’re all just okay. Writing is simple; there’s hardly any dialogue for at least half of the movie, but what few lines exist are fairly memorable. Production value shows okay sets, props, and costumes, but some things look laughably fake. Music is appropriately dramatic, but I’m not a fan of it.

This is a classic film, no doubt, but I find its story thin, and in this day and age it’s become so dated that it’s easy to make fun of it sometimes (can’t help but to quote the “Simpsons” King Kong episode when I was watching this

).

4/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5)

Recommendation: Yep.

This Blu-Ray looks swell; a little soft and heavily grainy, but details are pretty strong, the image is clean, and it shows decent contrast levels. Sound quality sounds clean and has parts that are deep and throbbing. Chances are that this is the best possible quality from a film this old.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5

Al_The_Strange · 07-31-2011, 11:44 AM

“King Kong” 2005.

So with today’s technology, techniques, and talent, a “King Kong” remake should be really something, right? With the folks who gave us the complete “The Lord of the Rings” on film, you betcha!

This version of “KK” starts off a little slow, with tons of backstory going into the characters. A good hour passes before they finally reach Skull Island. But even then, these scenes never really strike me as dull; they are all well-filmed and have a good amount of characterization to keep them lively and entertaining. Flashes of tension and mystery keep it from being overly dull.

After that first hour, the pacing really takes off and hardly lets up. It’s one massive action setpiece after another, starting off with Kong’s first appearance, and then showing multiple fights against dinosaurs (including the awesome and imaginative stampede sequence), fights with giant bugs, and an incredibly epic duel between Kong and not one, not two, but three T-Rexes! Not to mention the mass destruction Kong wreaks in New York! Every action scene here is big and awesome, with gorgeous special effects, and occasional bursts of humor and tension. It takes a lot of suspension of disbelief (these characters probably should have died the minute they got off the boat), but unless you nitpick over realism, it’s one of the biggest thrill rides ever! Even if it is a whopping three hours long, it never once bores me.

Even when the gargantuan beasts aren’t duking it out, the film excels at developing its story. It’s pretty much the same as the 1933 original, but with massive improvements on the story’s background, and characters. You really get to know all the characters much better than in the original, and there are more dynamic subtleties to the story than ever before. A few minor parts and details are included that probably could be cut out (especially the stuff regarding Mr Hayes and Jimmy; the best that can be said is that they introduce the “Heart of Darkness” parallel, but their inclusion in the story serves little purpose), but in the end, the story is substantially fuller, and I feel it’s a huge improvement over the original, which was far too simplistic for me. I must also give this remake huge props for effectively developing Kong himself as a character, full of rich emotion. Finally, he’s no longer just a big dumb ape; he becomes something of a misunderstood antihero that we (as well as Ann) can relate to. Finally, the “beauty and the beast” parallel makes sense, as the beast part of it is brought to life more effectively.

The film shows exceptional strength too, with awesome photography and editing. Special effects are truly a sight to behold; it might become dated in time, but it still looks great at the time of this writing. Acting is awesome; Jack Black puts on his most earnest performance, and gives better life to Carl Dunham; Naomi Watts is lovely and awesome in her role; it’s hard not to like Adrien Brody here; Andy Serkis brings Kong to life perfectly; and just about everybody else is smashing. Writing is awesome, featuring many of the same lines as the original film, plus plenty of good new dialogue. Production value features loads of top-notch and highly-detailed sets, props, costumes, and creatures. Music is pretty decent (gotta love the retro blues and jazz at times).

Given that the original is a classic, I believe Peter Jackson took that material and made it much better, adding more to the story, more to the adventure, and more importantly, added more heart to it.

4.5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4/5, film: 5/5)

Recommendation: Hell yeah!

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds like reference quality!

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5

Foggy · 07-31-2011, 12:51 PM

Diesel shall not be impressed

Diesel · 07-31-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

Eagle Eye

Yeah it's pretty entertaining popcorn thriller

Typically trying to make people paranoid of who is watching what they are doing, the film does a good job at trying to keep grounded in all it's insane stupidity (although, a pylon wire exploding and hitting someone I'm pretty sure can't be controlled by a computer, and exploding diamonds

)

I think my biggest complaint is that it's all just a bit too serious, there's nothing lighthearted to it which sort of kills the whole jaunty feel of an action film, the only real life in the film is Billy Bob Thornton, who is gosh darn awesome here

Plus it seems to continual avoid falling in to typical traps, but ends up not being able to dodge them last minute, like for once I thought a film wouldn't have a love interest story line introduced, but at the end it rears it's head slightly.

7.5/10

Like Al said...that's definitely a

There's a few others as well.

I think I gave it a 3.5/5. Entertaining, but not all that good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“King Kong” 2005.

[Show spoiler]So with today’s technology, techniques, and talent, a “King Kong” remake should be really something, right? With the folks who gave us the complete “The Lord of the Rings” on film, you betcha!

This version of “KK” starts off a little slow, with tons of backstory going into the characters. A good hour passes before they finally reach Skull Island. But even then, these scenes never really strike me as dull; they are all well-filmed and have a good amount of characterization to keep them lively and entertaining. Flashes of tension and mystery keep it from being overly dull.

After that first hour, the pacing really takes off and hardly lets up. It’s one massive action setpiece after another, starting off with Kong’s first appearance, and then showing multiple fights against dinosaurs (including the awesome and imaginative stampede sequence), fights with giant bugs, and an incredibly epic duel between Kong and not one, not two, but three T-Rexes! Not to mention the mass destruction Kong wreaks in New York! Every action scene here is big and awesome, with gorgeous special effects, and occasional bursts of humor and tension. It takes a lot of suspension of disbelief (these characters probably should have died the minute they got off the boat), but unless you nitpick over realism, it’s one of the biggest thrill rides ever! Even if it is a whopping three hours long, it never once bores me.

Even when the gargantuan beasts aren’t duking it out, the film excels at developing its story. It’s pretty much the same as the 1933 original, but with massive improvements on the story’s background, and characters. You really get to know all the characters much better than in the original, and there are more dynamic subtleties to the story than ever before. A few minor parts and details are included that probably could be cut out (especially the stuff regarding Mr Hayes and Jimmy; the best that can be said is that they introduce the “Heart of Darkness” parallel, but their inclusion in the story serves little purpose), but in the end, the story is substantially fuller, and I feel it’s a huge improvement over the original, which was far too simplistic for me. I must also give this remake huge props for effectively developing Kong himself as a character, full of rich emotion. Finally, he’s no longer just a big dumb ape; he becomes something of a misunderstood antihero that we (as well as Ann) can relate to. Finally, the “beauty and the beast” parallel makes sense, as the beast part of it is brought to life more effectively.

The film shows exceptional strength too, with awesome photography and editing. Special effects are truly a sight to behold; it might become dated in time, but it still looks great at the time of this writing. Acting is awesome; Jack Black puts on his most earnest performance, and gives better life to Carl Dunham; Naomi Watts is lovely and awesome in her role; it’s hard not to like Adrien Brody here; Andy Serkis brings Kong to life perfectly; and just about everybody else is smashing. Writing is awesome, featuring many of the same lines as the original film, plus plenty of good new dialogue. Production value features loads of top-notch and highly-detailed sets, props, costumes, and creatures. Music is pretty decent (gotta love the retro blues and jazz at times).

Given that the original is a classic, I believe Peter Jackson took that material and made it much better, adding more to the story, more to the adventure, and more importantly, added more heart to it.

4.5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4/5, film: 5/5)

Recommendation: Hell yeah!

This Blu-Ray looks and sounds like reference quality!

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

Diesel shall not be impressed

The Fogman is correct

[Show spoiler]

KilloWertz · 07-31-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

What a little brat. I don't quite think he understands the POINT to a superhero film, I'm going to guess that he adores Watchmen

Even though I love Watchmen (we can't agree on them all), I had to stop the video after he said that Thor almost made his list. That throws credibility right out the window for the kid.

Foggy · 07-31-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killowertz

Even though I love Watchmen (we can't agree on them all), I had to stop the video after he said that Thor almost made his list. That throws credibility right out the window for the kid.

I like Watchmen as well, but it has a lot of flaws

I went on the dudes website, (yeah he has a website) and this week he gave Cowboys and Aliens a D, while giving The Smurfs a B+, goddamn said it was the funniest film this year (Liar, Smurfs isn't funny, it's a serious social commentary on segregation and interracial relationships)

I also remeber him being the kid who pissed off everyone last summer for saying Inception isn't very good because no kid would understand it, and he believed few adults would either

Al_The_Strange · 07-31-2011, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

Diesel shall not be impressed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel

The Fogman is correct

[Show spoiler]

Whaaaaaat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

I like Watchmen as well, but it has a lot of flaws

I went on the dudes website, (yeah he has a website) and this week he gave Cowboys and Aliens a D, while giving The Smurfs a B+, goddamn said it was the funniest film this year (Liar, Smurfs isn't funny, it's a serious social commentary on segregation and interracial relationships)

I also remeber him being the kid who pissed off everyone last summer for saying Inception isn't very good because no kid would understand it, and he believed few adults would either

Wow, it's like he's still a kid or something, jeez. Much to learn the youngling has.

KilloWertz · 07-31-2011, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

I like Watchmen as well, but it has a lot of flaws

I went on the dudes website, (yeah he has a website) and this week he gave Cowboys and Aliens a D, while giving The Smurfs a B+, goddamn said it was the funniest film this year (Liar, Smurfs isn't funny, it's a serious social commentary on segregation and interracial relationships)

I also remeber him being the kid who pissed off everyone last summer for saying Inception isn't very good because no kid would understand it, and he believed few adults would either

I thought you didn't, but fair enough.

There has been a comedy released two weeks in a row (Friends with Benefits and Crazy, Stupid, Love), and both look far funnier than The Smurfs. Not to mention some other movies that have been released before them, but that's beside the point.

No comment on his opinion of Inception...

Foggy · 07-31-2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killowertz

I thought you didn't, but fair enough.

There has been a comedy released two weeks in a row (Friends with Benefits and Crazy, Stupid, Love), and both look far funnier than The Smurfs. Not to mention some other movies that have been released before them, but that's beside the point.

No comment on his opinion of Inception...

I have it in my collection

I think he only reviews Family films, since all his reviews are usually just relating to how violent a film is.

KilloWertz · 07-31-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

I have it in my collection

I think he only reviews Family films, since all his reviews are usually just relating to how violent a film is.

I didn't look at your collection before I posted. I try to keep collections out of my posts.

Not that I care about what critics have to say about movies, but I'll try to remember to avoid him for when he gets older and reviews everything.

SquidPuppet · 07-31-2011, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killowertz

I just watched this two days ago and loved it. I was really glad I chose this as one of first Criterion purchases recently.

Agreed about the movie feeling very real and the performances being very good. They had to be for the movie to work, and luckily they were.

Another great debut performance from a young actress, but I am surprised Katie Jarvis hasn't gotten any other roles over there given the acclaim Fish Tank got. Michael Fassbender was good as usual.

As for the aspect ratio, I am guessing it was chosen to give more of a "fish tank effect".

Also, I disagree to an extent about the audio. Any dialogue I had trouble understanding was mainly due to the accents, but it was never really much of an issue. As far as the music, that goes with the realism of the film. At least 90% of the music was played through Mia's old portable speakers, so it shouldn't sound as good as music that is just part of a movie's soundtrack.

Glad you liked it.

Audio example: When they were driving. The car sounds and the wind sounds and the dialogue were all in the center channel. I wasnt expecting a bombastic Transformers Mix, but please, dialogue ONLY from center channel. Separate the ambient sounds, like rain, from the dialogue.

Another. Remember when MOM (

) had the party and the music was pumping? Get that out of the center channel please.

It doesnt need to be AWESOME with killer panning effects, just move the tunes to the left and right.

SquidPuppet · 07-31-2011, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

This young "up & comer" in the world of Film Critics, has an interesting take on the 5 Worst movies of 2011 (thus far). I like what he has to say AFTER he talks about the worst film of the year.

http://www.ebertpresents.com/movies/...ern/videos/254

Someone needs to punch that kid hard enough to knock that accent out of him.

SquidPuppet · 07-31-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“King Kong” 1933.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“King Kong” 2005.

Both are good flicks.

iam1bearcat · 07-31-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

I have it in my collection

I think he only reviews Family films, since all his reviews are usually just relating to how violent a film is.

Well, how old is? 12? All he is allowed to see are family films

KilloWertz · 07-31-2011, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Glad you liked it.

Audio example: When they were driving. The car sounds and the wind sounds and the dialogue were all in the center channel. I wasnt expecting a bombastic Transformers Mix, but please, dialogue ONLY from center channel. Separate the ambient sounds, like rain, from the dialogue.

Another. Remember when MOM (

) had the party and the music was pumping? Get that out of the center channel please.

It doesnt need to be AWESOME with killer panning effects, just move the tunes to the left and right.

Thanks.

Fair enough. None of it really bothered me though. I'm guessing it has more to do with the source than anything, but oh well. Also, yes, I remember that scene.

There was directionality when people were talking off screen, which happened a decent amount in the house.

Al_The_Strange · 07-31-2011, 08:26 PM

Next greatest random selection: “Hot Shots!”

In the same vein of “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun,” this film is loaded up with zany slapstick comedy, visual gags, nonsensical craziness, and a whole bunch of parodies. You can expect to see some shamelessly-irrelevant references to “Rocky,” “Superman,” “Dances with Wolves,” and obviously, “Top Gun.” With so much funny dialogue and amusing scenes, “Hot Shots!” is quite funny at times. Unfortunately, it’s only at times, not all the time, the way “Airplane!” is. I feel some of “Hot Shots!’s” jokes fall a little flat, parts of it seem to drag, and the comedy just doesn’t come as fast as it should. I think part of the problem is the character drama, which is at odds with the silly and over-the-top nature of the movie.

The story for this is pretty dumb overall, offering little in the way of conflict or structure. It does focus a great deal on the main character’s father and how everybody hates him and blah blah blah…it tends to get in the way, when it should be driving the story. Still, it’s all a fine excuse to laugh at something.

The film is pretty cheap. Photography and editing are average for the most part. The production value shows some rather simple and dated sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Acting is fine for what it’s supposed to be, but I feel that the biggest stars (Charlie Sheen and Lloyd Bridges) are simply doing the same roles they’ve done in other movies. Writing is fun. Music is quite the mixed bag.

The credits for this movie are great. There’s a to-do list and a recipe for buns mixed in there, and one of the last lines says “If you had left this theater when these credits began, you’d be home now.”

3.5/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5)

Foggy · 07-31-2011, 08:37 PM

The Thing

Those Crazy Swedes...

The Thing is both a film that's silly and campy, while containing enough humanity and genuine character to keep it grounded. It has it's themes placed in the right places and tuned in to keep the film from loosing track and running away from it's own film. Sometimes it can feel like Carpenter is restraining himself, but ultimately it's him trying to define his films and his style.

If you look at it, it's him trying everything, making something he genuinely feels invested in. Does it always work, no, not necessary (I think it has the stupidest opening shot to any film ever) but it all adds up as a great attempt to make something unique and scary, while not loosing it's story. And when it all adds up, it becomes what I consider the greatest sci-fi horror of all time (and yes, I'm already having an argument with a friend over this, so bring it on!

)

The effects vary, some parts are phenomenal, some parts look a bit fake, but all in all, if the prequel was to opt for a cgi route, it would look a million times less interesting and scary than the things you see in this film. Luckily it isn't, which, at the moment, sort of feels like the only thing they've got going for it at the moment

The Thing is just one of those films, that regardless of it's flaws, you sort of wind up falling in love with it every time you play it, it memorable enough that you won't be forgetting parts and the story, but you just forget how effective the visuals and atmosphere is, you know it's scary as hell, but you don't really get that effect until you're halfway through the film and you're knee deep within the same shit the characters are. You've just got to sit the rest through because you're simply engrossed.

10/10

PQ - I wasn't expecting great things from this disc, but I was completely wrong, granted, a bit blurry from the age of the film, but I wouldn't believe it's nearly 30 years old

The opening shots (actual opening shots, not the stupid spaceship) are enough to make you think this is a brand new film. The film isn't visual mindblowing, but the image is sharp and details blossom on screen - 9/10

AQ - Nothing excellent, but well put together, with the ominous score coming from the back of the throat of the speeker, to the spitting of the flame thrower, it's an effective audio track

- 8.5/10

Al_The_Strange · 07-31-2011, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

The Thing

[Show spoiler]

The Thing is both a film that's silly and campy, while containing enough humanity and genuine character to keep it grounded.

[Show spoiler]It has it's themes placed in the right places and tuned in to keep the film from loosing track and running away from it's own film. Sometimes it can feel like Carpenter is restraining himself, but ultimately it's him trying to define his films and his style.

If you look at it, it's him trying everything, making something he genuinely feels invested in. Does it always work, no, not necessary (I think it has the stupidest opening shot to any film ever) but it all adds up as a great attempt to make something unique and scary, while not loosing it's story. And when it all adds up, it becomes what I consider the greatest sci-fi horror of all time (and yes, I'm already having an argument with a friend over this, so bring it on!

)

The effects vary, some parts are phenomenal, some parts look a bit fake, but all in all, if the prequel was to opt for a cgi route, it would look a million times less interesting and scary than the things you see in this film. Luckily it isn't, which, at the moment, sort of feels like the only thing they've got going for it at the moment

The Thing is just one of those films, that regardless of it's flaws, you sort of wind up falling in love with it every time you play it, it memorable enough that you won't be forgetting parts and the story, but you just forget how effective the visuals and atmosphere is, you know it's scary as hell, but you don't really get that effect until you're halfway through the film and you're knee deep within the same shit the characters are. You've just got to sit the rest through because you're simply engrossed.

10/10

PQ - I wasn't expecting great things from this disc, but I was completely wrong, granted, a bit blurry from the age of the film, but I wouldn't believe it's nearly 30 years old

The opening shots (actual opening shots, not the stupid spaceship) are enough to make you think this is a brand new film. The film isn't visual mindblowing, but the image is sharp and details blossom on screen - 9/10

AQ - Nothing excellent, but well put together, with the ominous score coming from the back of the throat of the speeker, to the spitting of the flame thrower, it's an effective audio track

- 8.5/10

Okay, it's been a while since I saw this all the way through. I remember it being atmospheric, dark, and scary as frakk. I don't think I ever once considered it campy or silly...

Those mutation scenes definitely freaked me out back in the day.

Good review.

Foggy · 07-31-2011, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Okay, it's been a while since I saw this all the way through. I remember it being atmospheric, dark, and scary as frakk. I don't think I ever once considered it campy or silly...

Those mutation scenes definitely freaked me out back in the day.

Good review.

I find the end monster to be a bit silly ("Yeah, **** you too!"

) and the stuff involving the spaceships, but for the most part really darn scary

Al_The_Strange · 07-31-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foggy

I find the end monster to be a bit silly ("Yeah, **** you too!"

) and the stuff involving the spaceships, but for the most part really darn scary

Ah yeah, I remember Kurt's line there.

07-31-2011, 08:37 PM	#23957
Foggy Blu-ray Grand Duke Top contributor Member since:Dec 2008 Location:UK 4K collection:30 Blu-ray collection:3613 DVD collection:47	The Thing Those Crazy Swedes... The Thing is both a film that's silly and campy, while containing enough humanity and genuine character to keep it grounded. It has it's themes placed in the right places and tuned in to keep the film from loosing track and running away from it's own film. Sometimes it can feel like Carpenter is restraining himself, but ultimately it's him trying to define his films and his style. If you look at it, it's him trying everything, making something he genuinely feels invested in. Does it always work, no, not necessary (I think it has the stupidest opening shot to any film ever) but it all adds up as a great attempt to make something unique and scary, while not loosing it's story. And when it all adds up, it becomes what I consider the greatest sci-fi horror of all time (and yes, I'm already having an argument with a friend over this, so bring it on!) The effects vary, some parts are phenomenal, some parts look a bit fake, but all in all, if the prequel was to opt for a cgi route, it would look a million times less interesting and scary than the things you see in this film. Luckily it isn't, which, at the moment, sort of feels like the only thing they've got going for it at the moment The Thing is just one of those films, that regardless of it's flaws, you sort of wind up falling in love with it every time you play it, it memorable enough that you won't be forgetting parts and the story, but you just forget how effective the visuals and atmosphere is, you know it's scary as hell, but you don't really get that effect until you're halfway through the film and you're knee deep within the same shit the characters are. You've just got to sit the rest through because you're simply engrossed. 10/10 PQ - I wasn't expecting great things from this disc, but I was completely wrong, granted, a bit blurry from the age of the film, but I wouldn't believe it's nearly 30 years old The opening shots (actual opening shots, not the stupid spaceship) are enough to make you think this is a brand new film. The film isn't visual mindblowing, but the image is sharp and details blossom on screen - 9/10 AQ - Nothing excellent, but well put together, with the ominous score coming from the back of the throat of the speeker, to the spitting of the flame thrower, it's an effective audio track - 8.5/10

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
What movie have you watched the most ???	Movies	BLUE MYSTIC RAIN	822	02-04-2023 01:21 PM
The Most Boring Movie You Ever Watched	Movies	Blu Man	3990	10-11-2022 10:18 AM
What Blu-ray Are You Watching Or Just Watched? Give a Mini Review	Blu-ray Movies - North America	slick1ru2	30	01-24-2010 07:09 PM
Official Rate The Last Movie You've Seen Thread	Movies	_Bolt_	10	11-29-2008 03:28 AM
User Review Rate Down Trolls	Feedback Forum	Grant Matrix	1	10-30-2008 04:34 PM

07-31-2011, 11:24 AM	#23941
Al_The_Strange Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Apr 2009 Location:Out there...past them trees... Home Theater Gallery:126 4K collection:1153 Blu-ray collection:4976 DVD collection:530 Digital collection:1013 Blu-ray reviews: 132 Trading Score:32	“King Kong” 1933. One of the most classic adventures ever made; this film truly captures the imagination as adventurers confront dinosaurs on a lost island and a giant monkey scales the Empire State Building. Somebody really flexed their imagination to realize these ambitious setpieces. The only thing that really stops this film from being 100% exciting is the occasional drag between the action scenes; necessary for the story perhaps, but the story and characters just aren’t as vivid as King Kong himself (and this is one other thing that I feel Peter Jackson’s remake improved upon). The story is straightforward, if not outright formulaic. Chances are that, even if you’ve never seen this film before, you know what happens. Some might even say it has to happen this way. It is a well-connected story though, with a slight “beauty and the beast” parallel that adds minimal (perhaps obligatory) depth to it. I also feel that the characters are extremely one-dimensional; Ann Darrow does little more than scream for the whole picture, while Carl Denham and the rest of the cast deliver their lines and do their thing in a stiff and formulaic manner. The best that can be said is that the action is ambitious and the story is imaginative. The film is of good quality though, with decent photography and editing. Special effects are most memorable; they are dated as hell, but still hold up and create a convincing illusion. Acting is fine and dandy; Fay Wray is quite the gal, even if her role consists solely of screaming and fleeing. Robert Armstrong is okay, Bruce Cabot is okay…hell, they’re all just okay. Writing is simple; there’s hardly any dialogue for at least half of the movie, but what few lines exist are fairly memorable. Production value shows okay sets, props, and costumes, but some things look laughably fake. Music is appropriately dramatic, but I’m not a fan of it. This is a classic film, no doubt, but I find its story thin, and in this day and age it’s become so dated that it’s easy to make fun of it sometimes (can’t help but to quote the “Simpsons” King Kong episode when I was watching this ). 4/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4/5) Recommendation: Yep. This Blu-Ray looks swell; a little soft and heavily grainy, but details are pretty strong, the image is clean, and it shows decent contrast levels. Sound quality sounds clean and has parts that are deep and throbbing. Chances are that this is the best possible quality from a film this old. PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5

07-31-2011, 11:44 AM	#23942
Al_The_Strange Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Apr 2009 Location:Out there...past them trees... Home Theater Gallery:126 4K collection:1153 Blu-ray collection:4976 DVD collection:530 Digital collection:1013 Blu-ray reviews: 132 Trading Score:32	“King Kong” 2005. So with today’s technology, techniques, and talent, a “King Kong” remake should be really something, right? With the folks who gave us the complete “The Lord of the Rings” on film, you betcha! This version of “KK” starts off a little slow, with tons of backstory going into the characters. A good hour passes before they finally reach Skull Island. But even then, these scenes never really strike me as dull; they are all well-filmed and have a good amount of characterization to keep them lively and entertaining. Flashes of tension and mystery keep it from being overly dull. After that first hour, the pacing really takes off and hardly lets up. It’s one massive action setpiece after another, starting off with Kong’s first appearance, and then showing multiple fights against dinosaurs (including the awesome and imaginative stampede sequence), fights with giant bugs, and an incredibly epic duel between Kong and not one, not two, but three T-Rexes! Not to mention the mass destruction Kong wreaks in New York! Every action scene here is big and awesome, with gorgeous special effects, and occasional bursts of humor and tension. It takes a lot of suspension of disbelief (these characters probably should have died the minute they got off the boat), but unless you nitpick over realism, it’s one of the biggest thrill rides ever! Even if it is a whopping three hours long, it never once bores me. Even when the gargantuan beasts aren’t duking it out, the film excels at developing its story. It’s pretty much the same as the 1933 original, but with massive improvements on the story’s background, and characters. You really get to know all the characters much better than in the original, and there are more dynamic subtleties to the story than ever before. A few minor parts and details are included that probably could be cut out (especially the stuff regarding Mr Hayes and Jimmy; the best that can be said is that they introduce the “Heart of Darkness” parallel, but their inclusion in the story serves little purpose), but in the end, the story is substantially fuller, and I feel it’s a huge improvement over the original, which was far too simplistic for me. I must also give this remake huge props for effectively developing Kong himself as a character, full of rich emotion. Finally, he’s no longer just a big dumb ape; he becomes something of a misunderstood antihero that we (as well as Ann) can relate to. Finally, the “beauty and the beast” parallel makes sense, as the beast part of it is brought to life more effectively. The film shows exceptional strength too, with awesome photography and editing. Special effects are truly a sight to behold; it might become dated in time, but it still looks great at the time of this writing. Acting is awesome; Jack Black puts on his most earnest performance, and gives better life to Carl Dunham; Naomi Watts is lovely and awesome in her role; it’s hard not to like Adrien Brody here; Andy Serkis brings Kong to life perfectly; and just about everybody else is smashing. Writing is awesome, featuring many of the same lines as the original film, plus plenty of good new dialogue. Production value features loads of top-notch and highly-detailed sets, props, costumes, and creatures. Music is pretty decent (gotta love the retro blues and jazz at times). Given that the original is a classic, I believe Peter Jackson took that material and made it much better, adding more to the story, more to the adventure, and more importantly, added more heart to it. 4.5/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4/5, film: 5/5) Recommendation: Hell yeah! This Blu-Ray looks and sounds like reference quality! PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5

07-31-2011, 12:51 PM	#23943
Foggy Blu-ray Grand Duke Top contributor Member since:Dec 2008 Location:UK 4K collection:30 Blu-ray collection:3613 DVD collection:47	Diesel shall not be impressed

07-31-2011, 08:26 PM	#23956
Al_The_Strange Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Apr 2009 Location:Out there...past them trees... Home Theater Gallery:126 4K collection:1153 Blu-ray collection:4976 DVD collection:530 Digital collection:1013 Blu-ray reviews: 132 Trading Score:32	Next greatest random selection: “Hot Shots!” In the same vein of “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun,” this film is loaded up with zany slapstick comedy, visual gags, nonsensical craziness, and a whole bunch of parodies. You can expect to see some shamelessly-irrelevant references to “Rocky,” “Superman,” “Dances with Wolves,” and obviously, “Top Gun.” With so much funny dialogue and amusing scenes, “Hot Shots!” is quite funny at times. Unfortunately, it’s only at times, not all the time, the way “Airplane!” is. I feel some of “Hot Shots!’s” jokes fall a little flat, parts of it seem to drag, and the comedy just doesn’t come as fast as it should. I think part of the problem is the character drama, which is at odds with the silly and over-the-top nature of the movie. The story for this is pretty dumb overall, offering little in the way of conflict or structure. It does focus a great deal on the main character’s father and how everybody hates him and blah blah blah…it tends to get in the way, when it should be driving the story. Still, it’s all a fine excuse to laugh at something. The film is pretty cheap. Photography and editing are average for the most part. The production value shows some rather simple and dated sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Acting is fine for what it’s supposed to be, but I feel that the biggest stars (Charlie Sheen and Lloyd Bridges) are simply doing the same roles they’ve done in other movies. Writing is fun. Music is quite the mixed bag. The credits for this movie are great. There’s a to-do list and a recipe for buns mixed in there, and one of the last lines says “If you had left this theater when these credits began, you’d be home now.” 3.5/5 (entertainment: 3.5/5, story: 3/5, film: 3.5/5)

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals