It was good. All 3 hours of it.

Was it a pre-screening?

Yeah. A friend of mine gets to go a bunch of those because he works for Comcast.

I want to see this, even with all the pre-release hoopla, it looks good. Did the movies have good pacing for 3hrs?

A friend of the devil, eh?

It really did, I thought. I mean, 3 hours is 3 hours no matter what, and my friends said they felt that it moved a little slowly at first. I felt that it worked really well, though. It established all of the characters just enough and then moved along pretty rapidly.

three hours and no intermission?

nope.

Ha! I saw it too tonight, but in Balto at the Senator. It was simply amazing. Peter Jackson has probably topped LOTR. I liked this more than the 3 of them. A few items of note:

1. Everything you've read about the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow is true. Simply amazing, and yes, PJ was able to evoke quite an emotional response out of a CG character.

2. The first hour is probably going to make many people walk out. It starts out painfully slow, and tries to build some sembalance of characters. Unfortunately the characters never pan out and, let's face it, you want to see Kong. As soon as they get close to the island, time didn't matter.

3. This is a complete film. All emotions are expressed here.

4. New York looks beautiful.

5. Jack Black doesn't ruin the film. He has some genuinely great moments.

I thought it was great. No doubt its going to make heaps of dough, but it really deserves to, as the effects and story is great. I really want to see this on an IMAX screen, as some of the vertigo-inducing scenes would be great on a screen that size.

I really want to watch the 1933 version then go onto the 1977 remake here at home before seeing this in the theater...

Enough to give Serkis some Oscar cred?


Apparently, this guy is Jackson's secret weapon.

the fact that people are saying that it's better than LOTR makes me want to see it even more.

although i don't think it's possible.

Agreed on both points. I'm not sure it's even a fair comparison given that the scope and background of each project are so different.

Wait to see it til you say the scope is different.

With this, PJ didn't have to be loyal to any canon (although he is), so you don't feel like the story may have been hampered by silly plotlines just to make a fanboy happy. There was one gleaming plotline which was unneeded but I can see why it was left in.

I think this is better just because of the emotion and the adventure. The battle scenes in LOTR didn't have me going *holy crap* as much as they do in Kong. Its good...really good. Most of the hype is true.

I'm probably gonna see this anyway but the monkey looks really fake on the trailers and I was a little surprised by that because I thought Jackson did a good job in LOTR to make everything look as real as possible.

I was skeptical based on the trailers I saw, but on the big screen, Kong looked perfect. The movie was so huge and so packed full of effects that some parts just had to look a little less than perfect, and of course there were a few things here and there that could've used a little more work. Those were in the vast minority, though, and totally easy to ignore or forget. This movie looked like it took a decade to make.

I didn't wanna gush over it too much last night, but I really do think it's comparable to LOTR, and yes, possibly better. I mean, come on, there are no wizards, dwarfs, or gay hobbits in this one so it has quite a few advantages.

edit: And I think I'd have a heart attack if I saw this in Imax

on this weekend's to-do list.

since when have movies had intermissions???? boy, you must have lived under a rock for a long time....not just with music, but movies as well....

Unfortunately, I don't think it gets released until next week.

Narnia comes out this weekend, though, and I still want to see that, too. I don't expect it to even come close to King Kong even though I think the special effects in it were also created by WETA.

I won't

- 1 three-hour movie vs. 3 three-or-four-hour movies
- Defining monster movie of early (possibly all-time) cinema vs. Defining series of medieval fantasy

Both are huge, but they are different forms of huge. To me, that's a different scope. From my understanding, Peter Jackson stayed loyal to the source material as best he could in both projects. If that's true, what you're in essense doing is comparing a 1933 popular-and-universally-acclaimed movie to a mid-50s set of popular-and-not-as-acclaimed set of books, which is a bit apples-vs-oranges. From the sounds of it, you would favor the former and I the latter. That's cool, yo.

I'm sure Kong is an amazing film, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. I plan to be awed and amazed. That being said, I don't expect it to bump LOTR from my all-time top five.

When I saw the "Kong vs dinosaurs" scene online ( filmed from a TV screen, no less ) this flick went from the "Yeah, I'll see it on the big screen at some point" category to the "Fuck, I have to see this ASAP" one.

in theatres wednesday.

i can't wait for this one either.

Oh, I wasn't insinuating you wouldn't like it, I think you'll be amazed. My point is, just don't be surprised to see the lushness of the environments and details, that I thought overshadowed several LOTR films. I adored LOTR. As an amateur filmmaker its something I want to aspire to, but this just blew me away with the amount of detail, colors, etc.

I'm going to see it just because of Flying Rabbit's most excellent review.

Right on. Can't take much credit though, cause I figure you'd have seen it anyway. My friend and I were joking as we were leaving that this wasn't going to make any money, and people gave us strange looks. Money machine is what this film will be.