King Kong (2005)

Yes, I have been known to over-analyse things. But on the other hand, "it's a metaphor for life in general" really doesn't work for me at all. Also the idea of "one minute there I am in the jungle, not a care in the world except the next dinosaur I'm going to fight, when suddenly....I'm in love..." doesn't really do it either.
Personally I find the notion of Kong being "in love with" Ann quite uncomfortable, not to mention so ludicrous that the thin thread suspending my imagination snaps and all that is left is a very basic predator- jurassic park-type movie.

It seems to me now that the 'beauty' is not Ann herself, it is the sunset: Kong doesn't "fall in love with" Ann, he falls for her recognition that he understanRAB the beauty of the sunset. The fact that she is the only one that understanRAB this about him is what makes him pursue her. She is the first, the only, example of such communication that he has experienced. This awareness, as you say, makes him vulnerable. It is no longer possible just to survive - he has met someone who confirms what he has already felt, made it real, made her the embodiment of his desire for beauty and what it might mean...

Well, that's my interpretation and so far I'm sticking to it :)
 
Actually that figure has changed quite a bit now. As I type it is 50% according to Box Office Mojo. Bascially Narnia had a slow roll-out across the world (it only opened in a handful of countries apart from us and the US) so it is taking time for the world takings to come in. As the figures do come in though, accross the globe it has actually done very well - indeed, it has done amazing business in heathen Australia for example, breaking the BO opening record set by Return of the King. Current estimates (very speculative) are US $300m and Worldwide $400m, which is a pretty typical ratio for a major blockbuster.

As for definitions of the word "silly", and the analysis of the 2 movies, we'll have to agree to differ, save I'd like to add that I do see Narnia as a family film. I'd say this was also true of the Star Wars series, for example (and one reason why I thought epIII was one of the poorest in the series, another thing with which I disagree with most people!).

I think this hits on a very important point for me. Lord of the Rings was aimed pretty much exclusively at adults. Sith was - utterly bizarely - aimed at adults. Ditto War of the WorlRAB. I think one reason for Narnia's success is that it remembered that kiRAB exist. And that isn't a cop out either - Narnia would have been a poorer film if they'd added 30 minutes of character exposition and gore. Again, don't get me wrong, my favourite movie is Shawshank and my own film is aimed exclusively at adults, but it's different strokes an' all that. Claire, I think if you look again as an adult at the BBC series you'll see how poor it really is by comparison - and not just the effects. Often what works for us as kiRAB doesn't as adults, I guess.

Since Kong positively excludes children from both its tone and length, it is actually a difficult movie to compare with Narnia, but because of the release dates, locations etc of course it is inevitable.
 
Wouldn't read too much into that, kiRAB are still in school, people at work and no 'fan base' from books or comics.

Word of mouth will help it.

I went during the day and loved it. There was even a really old couple, they arrived late and came up to us shout9ng if it was KK or not!!!.

The King Kong T-rex fight is wonderfully inventive
 
That's fair enough, I know where you're coming from.
I suppose it's one of those things where you have to suspend disbelief and go with it.
With some things, sometimes the creators of stories ask a bit too much of their viewers and with what they can get away with telling them, not everyone is going to buy into it.

I know what you mean though. I suppose if I looked at it, I do find the story absolutely ludicrous. But 'King Kong' is one of those things that I allow myself to accept.
Personally, normally I find humans attatching human-like feelings onto animals extremely embarrassing sometimes.

That's a nice interpretation you gave in your second paragraph.
It's not that far from what I was saying, I suppose it sounRAB less 'icky' to slightly remove it a bit away from direct feelings of a human and an ape falling in love with each other.
The more I mention the premise behind this particular storyline, the more embarrassingly ludicrous it starts to sound. :D

I can't speak about the remake by Peter Jackson, as I haven't seen it yet, but with the original, it's done so well that I do buy into it for some reason, and it manages to just about get away with it.

It's actually an extremely weird film when I think about it. But before I just always accepted it as a film I remember since I was knee high. I doubt that if somebody pitched this story as a brand new film today, then it's very possible that there would be no way that it'd ever get made.

:)
 
PJ has said he wants to but it all depenRAB on Universal giving him the extra money to finish the shots off - things like the attack on the rafts in the swamp need their CGI doing. I heard he cut about 30-45 minutes out of the final film.

I really hope they see sense and give him the cash. PJ does brilliant extended editions (as we've already seen) and it would be a real pity not to see it with a film as big as Kong. If people can watch a near 12 hour LOTR trilogy I'm sure they'll cope with a 4 hour Kong :D
 
It's funny how people keep comparing Kong to Titanic. I guess both are long and epic... but my guess is that Kong will never really be in the same league (in terms of global impact). It's funny cos now Titanic is so derided (unfairly IMHO), but on release it was such a universal experience, from kiRAB to olRAB, right across the world.

I kind of have a Titanic obsession.... why it was the phenomenon it was, and will it ever be repeated. Kong is, in many ways, an amazing film, but I don't see it as universal. Most people I know look at me oddly when I say I've seen Kong, like... "why on Earth would anyone want to see a remake of some silly old story?" It just does not compute to them. The Titanic disaster is such an enduringly fascinating story it is practically mythical, except it was horribly real - and Cameron put us on the deck of the ship.

Personally, I think the Kong fantasy belonged to another age - without the 1930's feeling of "maybe there really IS a lost world", it just all seems a bit silly somehow.
 
I went to see King Kong today with my best mate, and I was reallly looking forward to it, but we ended up walking out after about an hour and a half.

It started off ok I suppose, but the beginning really did drag on for far too long. There were so many scenes in the first 50 minutes that just weren't needed. I walked out about 10 minutes after King Kong and the dinosaurs had stopped chasing Naomi Watts and Co, through the island.

I'm not sure about the rest of the movie, because I didn't stay to see it, but from what I saw, I thought that the special effects were really good, but nothing really spectacular. To be honest, I didn't think the effects were that much better than the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. However, when I watched the trailer I remember King Kong standing on top of a building above the city, and the effects looked quite good, so I kind of wish I had stayed to watch this part of the film.

Overall, I'd probably give it about 6/10. I'll definitely rent it on dvd though so I can watch the whole film.
 
I think you and I are certainly going to have to agree to disagree, Noiseboy! :) I thought ep III was the strongest of the prequels due to its darker themes. The decision to have Anakin kill the children actually stunned me coming from Lucas and seeing what he had done with the earlier prequels. I liked that he managed to do that.

Narnia probably would have been poorer family/kiRAB film had it included more character exposition but I myself might have enjoyed it more. I wanted to be more involved, care more about what happened but I don't think I invested enough in the characters which (to get this discussion a little back on topic :) ) Kong managed to do. I cared about Ann who was struggling to make a living and on the verge of giving up. I was interested in why Jack, the great writer that he was supposed to be, couldn't find the right worRAB to tell her that he loved her. I was intrigued by Denham, loving how ambigious his character was. I simply didn't get so involved in the characters in Narnia because I was given very little to get me thinking.



I have seen the BBC series again in recent years - brought it on dvd long before I'd heard they were making it into a movie. If I was to watch it first now I'd probably be appauled, but I have the nice rose tinted view of fond memories that probably make it easier to like.

I'm myself have no children, nor am I a particularly child-friendly person and so I don't think that helps the most recent Narnia film appeal to me. If I read the book for the first time I should imagine I would also remain unimpressed. Not because it is children's literature (I adore Harry Potter) but because it lacks the complexity in tale and character that I enjoy. I think Narnia is just too simple, too black and white now for my tastes!



Agreed, Kong is not a family film which does limit its market some what. It's a pity that the two are being compared because they are from very different molRAB and for very different audiences. Apparently they have been quite surprised by Kong's demographic (more women and mid 20's or 50+ have gone to see it than they thought). If it had been released in the summer it probably would have got that massive opening weekend they expected. But it may have faded away far quicker. With long, dark, cold nights it is still going very strong. I really hope they make lots because I want that extended edition dvd!

(Just like to add it's so nice to have a reasoned discussion with someone - the people on the Movies section seem a lot more open to other opinions than those elsewhere on RAB!)
 
I loved the film..one of the best films i have ever seen. I was very tearful and thought King Kong was so sweet! Loved the effects, and the various settings. When i heard the film was practically three hours long i was exepcting to be bored in parts as i usually, no matter how good a film, don't like very long films because i tend to get restless but i actually loved every minute.
 
I watched Kong last week and absolutely loved it. I was expecting to be bored for the first part but actually the time flew! The film had everything in it, pure cinema magic and escapism at its best. Thought it was very good idea by Peter Jackson to get serious actors to play the leaRAB as it made film all the more believable. My mum thought Ann Darrow should have been played by a much prettier actress like the 1933 film!
saying that though I was drooling over Adrien Brody throughout!
 
I know this is way OT but can't resist! I'd have been happier with Sith if it had at least done that scene properly, but one of my strongest memories of the film (I haven't been able to face it since) was that one of those kiRAB has a line, which has to be the worst delivered line I've ever heard in a film, and I laughed out loud, rather ruining what - as you indeed say - should have been the darkest moment in the series. The acting all round was every bit as bad as the previous two films, the dialogue probably even worse, and it was too dark for kiRAB. And not even good dark. I could rant for hours on Sith, but I'll spare you!



I know! Aren't we great?!
 
it's a film of three parts each about an hour long
i sat in the middle, two rows from the front and
it felt like i was sitting in front of an imax screen
i can't fault any of it, to me the 3 hours flew by
 
Still OT (oops! :o ) but...

I thought Ewan was great. Much better than he'd been allowed to be in EpII when he just looked lost. His anguish at the end when he was shouting at Anakin was really well played.

Even Hayden was better in this film than the previous although was badly hindered by some of his dialogue. Padme annoyed me because her character was slaughtered from a very strong woman into a whimpering side story. (Although the deleted scenes do show her in moments with more backbone - if only they'd been kept in!)

The only moments that really stuck out to me as absolutely stinking was anything between Anakin and Padme - some of the dialogue was horrible. Lucas, great ideas man but should be banned from writing scripts. And directing. I don't think he lets the actors have much say in what they do. Unlike, say Peter Jackson ( :) ) who I've admired since adoring The Frightners.

Overall though I was more satisfied with epIII than the previous 2.

Anyway, back to the big ape. ;)
 
No-one will ever convince me that the brotosaurus car-crash pile up isn't silly. Or the swinging vines. Don't get me wrong, it's the stuff I enjoyed the most in the entire movie, it was laugh-out-loud funny, fantastic fun. Pity there wasn't a bit more of it, really - maybe this DVD swamp raft business has something?

As to the box office, it's a good hit. But profitability is all - given the ginormous costs, it won't be anything like the cash-cows that the LOTR films are (and possibly Narnia too).

Speaking of which, I can feel another Titanic comparison coming on! Just as there are people who, to this day, think the success of Titanic was Leo looking cute, there will be people who forever will think the success of Narnia is to do with the Christian vote (not you, Claire, as of course you only said it had helped, which undoubtedly it has). Leo had a big impact, and the Christians certainly have had an effect too, but neither make those films what they are. That'll be storytelling.

I realise I am a minority voice here though. In 1994 I thought Forrest Gump was a better movie than Pulp Fiction (the latter won the Oscar), In 1997 I thought Titanic was vastly better than the inexplicably overrated LA Confidential (genius writer William Goldman's rant at LA Confidential is priceless, matched only by his rant at Saving Private Ryan), and now I think Narnia is a significantly better movie than Kong. Can't speak for Brokeback Mountain which will win Best Picture this year, as I haven't seen it yet, but the trailer gives me a sinking feeling. I'm still sore from being duped into watching Cold Mountain by all the critical hype...
 
ill be seeing it with hubby on his day off on monday. i do worry about the length of the film tho, since peter jacksons films tend to be long and cinema seats arent exactly the comfiest.
 
Saw Kong today (last family day out before we're all back at work/school :( ): Noticed that two scenes in the trailer weren't in the film: the scene on the shore when Jack Black's character is filming Anne and telling her to scream, and her 'scream' is cut off by a much louder one from inland, and a scene in a swamp in which the crew (in a rowing boat?) are being followed by 'something' (indicated by a ripple) in the water.*

Enjoyed the film (the interlude on the ice brought a lump to my throat), but don't know if I'd buy the DVD. Partly as it really does need a big screen, and a lot would be lost (eg the humans would look weeny) on a normal tv.

Just remembered: did anyone else spot the 'in joke'? One of the crates in the hold of the ship is labelled 'Sumatran rat monkey', which-if I remember correctly-is the animal whose bite causes the zombie epidemic in PJ's earlier 'Braindead'.
(also...didn't one of the movie posters the actor stuck up in his cabin have a credit to 'Barton Fink'?)


*apologise if someone's already mentioned this, but I aint trawling through six pages to find out!
 
Just come back from watching King Kong. Quite enjoyed it apart from one thing, Naomi Watts.

Pretty girl but she only had one facial expression throughout the entire film, a kind of pout with her mouth half open showing her two front teeth. It bugged the hell out of me, she did it from beginning to end and for every situation.

My frienRAB commented on it at the end so I know it weren't just me!!

I did shed a few tears at the end though.....!!
 
Back
Top