King Kong

J

Jef C

New member
For me this film was one flaw after another. The set up was good i do admit but when they reached the island it was too much of a tribute to clash of the titans.

The insect scene was so drawn out.

Why make a 3 hour film which drags and drags when you could have made a 90-120 minute film which would encapsulate the story.

And theres rumours of an Extended Cut :cry:
 
I thought the film was excellent, awesome entertainment and outstanding action sequences. Plus the special effects are the best I have ever seen in any movie up till now.

I loved it, the film had a huge heart. The whole idea of making the film that long is to provide adequate time to build a frienRABhip between Kong and Anne while thoroughly entertaining the audience with it's action.

Personally I wish it were longer as I was exhilirated all the way through, from start to finish, and that to me is an outstanding movie achievement.
 
Peter Jackson is like the kid who is let-loose in the mother of all candy stores.. without a discerning adult to reign him in. If only he had a conception of narrative and characterisation. "Masterpiece" - really?? I actually think the film could have kicked-in once Kong appeared and no-one would have noticed the difference... although they would have missed out on the 50 mins worth of hackneyed character-building !
 
Just watched it tonight great film from start to finish. Agree with some of the long drawn out bits with insects on Island, plus the first bits with the dinasours the CGI mixed with live human action could be better. But the fight with Kong and the T-Rex's made up for that. Overall great film lots of action.


Did not see a pictures just watched on DVD.
 
I agree with this. As a fan of Lord of the Rings, I enjoyed those movies but i thought Jackson overly indulged, especially in the last film. He cut out important bits of plot, changed characters to suit himself, and introuced long scenes which were unnecessary and unbalanced the story. As one critic said, the films did not tell Tolkiens tale, but told the story as jackson thought it should have been written.

Anyway, as a result i haven't been interested in seeing King Kong, but I'm not surprised to read similar criticisms apply to this movie as well.
 
I also saw King Kong on DVD a day or two ago...

Overall, I thought it was a good film but not great by any means. Maybe it was a great special effects showcase but I felt little connection with any of the main characters, except perhaps Kong - and we all know what happens to him.

I actually enjoyed the insect fight scene that people are saying was too long. If cuts needed to be made it would be the first part of the movie that I would trim down (ie. before they actually set sail). I think the depression era and Jack Black's story could've been told in half the time.

The character animation of Kong was top drawer, especially the intricate facial expressions and non-verbal dialogue. Ditto the fight scene with the 3 T-Rex(s).

I also like the editing of the Vaudeville opening sequences.

I'd give it 8 out of 10.
 
Didn't like it. Too long & too much, over the top special effects. Also watched BBC4s 1933 version Monday, Starring: Fay Wray which had much more with less if you know what I mean.
 
I saw that too. I thought the original King Kong looked stoned, very wierd facial expression, like a smile, even when putting natives in his mouth. And not the same mobility as the fantastic Kong from the remake. The special effects is what gave it character and made it believable surprisingly.

Plus the original Anne Darrow just wasn't as great as the remake Anne, she never cared for Kong in the original, was always afraid of him and even participated in the money making scam of bringing Kong back to NYC. The remake had more heart and I actually now think it improves on the original.
 
Very disappointed, as I'd been looking forward to it for a while - but it turned out to be a complete waste of 3hrs of my life. :mad:

Far too long - the fight scenes seemed to go on forever (halfway through the fight between ape and dinos I was saying "Oh! RAB!, what next?") - and at the end, when Jack Black said "No! It was beauty that killed the beast", I actually burst out laughing, it was so corny. :rolleyes:

Proof (along with Titanic and Pearl Harbor) that great special effects can't rescue a dire movie.
 
King Kong had heart and that's nice, but that doesn't make it a great film.

It's good, but overlong, an hour could have been lopped out of it and it would have been far better, it would have been more tense and our interest wouldn't have waned. we'd have understood the story without having the relationships rammed and re-rammed in our faces just to make sure we got it.
 
I burst out laughing at that line in the cinema as well. But I actually read later that that final line is a homage to the original, I'm guessing it was the last line in the original movie.
 
Correct. In Jackson's remake, the line comes out of nowhere and doesn't make much sense. In the original, much more is made during the film of how intrigued and entranced Kong is by Ann Darrow. Being the first white woman he's ever been offered as sacrifice, he's captivated by her beauty, which is why he doesn't attack her. There's even a scene where Kong gently peels of Ann's clothes and sniRAB his fingers. In Jackson's version, we're led to believe Kong doesn't eat her simply because she performs a few Vaudeville routines, therefore come the end, the beauty reference is completely lost. In the original, it makes perfect sense. To be fair to Jackson though, keeping the clothes peeling scene and the idea that Kong falls in love because Ann's white would not have gone down at all well, however he does seem to overlooked, or not understood, their significance.

Generally I was very disappointed with this film. It's way overlong and although Kong is brilliantly created, this isn't enough to sustain a three-hour film. Some of the effects are decidedly dodgy as well. In fact, comparing the times they were made, the original is a much better achievement in special effects than Jackson's.

I'm surprised no-one mentioned the awfulness of Kong frigging ice-skating ! WTF is that about?! And how can it be that he's heavy enough to bring down the stalls of the theatre by swinging on them, but not to break the ice?

Overall it's a classic fanboy film. Jackson put in whatever he wanted and to Hell if it actually made sense or not.
 
Totally agree. Having loves the LOTR films I thought this would be worth watching although I did wait for the DVD release. Far too long. Special FX were dodgy to say the least in some scenes.

Lets hope when he does The Hobbit he is back to form :)
 
Not a bad film but 30 minutes too long (at least.)

I found my attention flagging several times, as did my 11-year-old son, who was getting very restless.
 
I cannot imagine any child sitting through the turgid first hour. It was more melodramatic than Titanic, but with no action.

There's no way my frienRAB and I would have sat through it at the age of 11. As it is, at the age of 31, I just fell asleep. Woke up when the monkey arrived, but at that point I'd lost all desire to carry on watching. I may go back to it tonight with my finger on the FFWD button (well I paid my
 
I went to the cinema to see this and walked out about half way through! :o It took ages to get going and the first hour was a complete waste of time, by the time the monkey came, it was just one fight after another fight after another and it just got boring! So I've never actually seen the end! They hadn't even left the island when I stopped watching! :rolleyes:
 
I thought it was boring and the CGI was shoddy too. ...You wouldn't think you could get bored watching a big monkey fighting dinosaurs but this film proves you can.

Also what was the point of Billy Elliot? ...He's set up with a mysterious backstory and nothing comes of it.
 
Back
Top