Can we all agree that King Kong '05 is Peter Jackson's best modern film?

Can we all agree that King Kong '05 is Peter Jackson's best modern film?

>the bug pit scene

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4rxW6jCbhmA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Dredd is better.

>Dredd
>directed by Peter Jackson

anybody see the new trailer?

This movie and this Kong sucks, m8

KING KONG MOVIE WITHOUT A TOPLESS BLOND GIRL, IS NOT A KONG MOVIE

Care sharing more in depth on why you think so?

>>the bug pit scene
that shit gave me nightmares

BIG

>naomi watts runs barefoot through shit scene

GUY

GORILLA

>it's a Naomi Watts gets a BBC (Big Black Centipede) in her mouth scene

youtube.com/watch?v=4rxW6jCbhmA

That bug scene has inspired me to make a film about humanity's first expedition to an alien world.
The explorers end up trapped on a hellish, alien death world which is like a suped-up version of our ecosystem.
I've got some mild 'tism, so the ecosystem and the tech the humans use would be fleshed-out and as scientifically accurate as possible.
What does Sup Forums think?

Why is everyone so hot about the bug pit scene? I don't recall it being that good/shocking.

it's when the gollum guy gets sucked on and eaten by those worms

if bugs are drawn to warmth and shade just how many of them were trying to get in her cunny

This movie is everything one could ever want in a King Kong movie and I would say should be regarded as the definitive depiction of the story.

>what does Sup Forums think?

I think that 'tism is a little more severe than you're aware

Pretty bland as of now, do you have something else to share about it?

>mfw some fag tries to tell me the 1933 version is superior because it was original

It's almost flawless. The only problems is the CGI, which certain scenes have aged, and the stupid subplot between the black guy and the guy who went on to play The Thing. Other than that, this movie is fantastic.

No we cannot.

It's pretty grim and violent, and also would have a lot of practical effects (practical blood is a must) which I think is something that is sorely lacking in the films of today.
The creatures wouldn't resemble much of Earth's lifeforms at all, no reptile-like aliens, no spiders or crustaceans, just original and unuque creatures that have their own evolutionary history.
They (humans) decide to take a tour of what is essentially the Amazon Rainforest of that world and they, having no prior experience with alien life, drastically underestimate what they may encounter.
You could argue that human beings might be repulsive or inedible to an animal from such a foreign ecosystem, but they are compatible in the sense they are carbon-based and they are the product of Darwinian evolution, so familiar concepts like territory apply to the creatures there as well.

I agree with you guys. I love the original, I think it's great, but the 2005 version brings so much more depth to the story. The original Kong was just a monster, a bad guy. Here he's the most sympathetic character and his death is a tragedy. My only problem with the film is that it's a little too long for its own good, some scenes could be trimmed

LMAO are you fucking kidding me? This is Jackson's worst film by far, even worse than the Hobbit. This is pure garbage put on screen, how can anyone watch this and think it's okay?

Heavenly Creatures and Braindead are his best of the 90s anyway

MEATY

So will it just be one long Starship Troopers battle scene set in a jungle?

Its Hella fucking epic

The runtime doesn't bother me because it's well paced

CLAWS