Page 1 of 1

King Kong (2005)

Posted: August 20th, 2020, 1:42 pm
by VideoGameCritic
So I was digging deep into my DVD collection and pulled out Peter Jackson's King Kong. This is a pretty entertaining flick, although kind of long. The scenes of 1933 New York look amazing and are probably my favorite part.

In terms of computer effects, Kong look convincing enough but not so much the toothy dinosaurs. It makes me wonder how a decade after Jurassic Park perfected the art of rendering dinosaurs they could look so fake in a 2005 movie. I wonder if it's the same reason that the CGI effects in the Hobbit trilogy look worse that those in Lord of the Rings.

Thoughts?

Re: King Kong (2005)

Posted: August 21st, 2020, 7:29 am
by BlasteroidAli
Agreed. Kong's effects went a bit overboard. The more physical ones worked better.

Re: King Kong (2005)

Posted: August 21st, 2020, 5:42 pm
by matmico399
Simple answer Spielberg was not involved.

Re: King Kong (2005)

Posted: September 26th, 2020, 11:49 pm
by Shapur
I’ll take the 1933 version. Jackson is ok but he draws things out too much, and un constrained by directors go a little over the top.

As to Jurassic Park they very wisely did not use very much CGI at all and the movie holds up better than any of its sequels because of its targeted use. To its credit the movie only has about 6 minutes of CGI Dinosaurs

Re: King Kong (2005)

Posted: September 27th, 2020, 11:38 am
by Cafeman
My biggest problem with the film is that it is too long. 3 hours for King Kong movie!

It is very well done however. I agree that the dinosaurs CGI wasn't the greatest. They were too animated or rubbery or something. But it doesn't ruin the movie for me. There are some beautiful shots, the actress was great, and there are some tense sequences as well especially the bugs scene.

The Xbox and Xbox 360 King Kong games were really good, too. I especially liked squaring off against one and even two huge T-Rexes in the game.