King Kong (2005)'s effects are constantly argued about, some claiming they look terrible, some claiming they are close t
-
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(August 21, 2021 09:16 PM)
I'd rather watch the magic of the 1933 original.
Jackson went way overboard, it was over-indulgent in many areas, especially the runtime, and it played out like a cartoon.
With the exception of Naomi Watts, the casting of Jack Black and Adrien Brody was poor decision making too, as I don't like either and find them both unappealing to watch.
The film wasn't quite the hit anticipated and perhaps rightly so.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
atomicgirl — 4 years ago(August 23, 2021 02:11 AM)
The special effects are the worst thing about the movie and why Jackson's remake will always get a big fat goose egg from me. They are so bad that I'd rather see 100 hours of Rick Baker in a gorilla suit than see one second of CGI from the movie.
-
MissMargoChanning — 3 years ago(August 06, 2022 08:04 PM)
I think the CGI was terrific! Very realistic.
I still love the original 1930s film. It frightened me as a child. I still see the shear horror when Beauty gets her first look at the Beast!
I still admire what went into the special effects at that time.
As for the 1970s version???
I am a fan of Peter Jackson's film.
BEAUTIFUL….
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night!
!