King Kong - review
 

Just got back from a screening of King Kong with my son and three of his friends and other than the print having bad sound it was awesome!

I have to divulge that I am a fan of the original film and actually saw the 70s version in the theatre when it came out.


You all know the story (and if you don't what planet were you raised under?) so I will dispense with the plot summary and get to the good stuff...

The film clocks in at over three hours and in my mind it is too long. Not that I don't enjoy watching Kong go nuts, and believe me the film does not disappoint in that department, I just felt that the pacing was off. It took over 70 minutes before we even get to see the big ape! That's a lot of back story that just isn't all that neccessary.

The main reason anyone wants to see this film is for Kong and he doesn't disappoint. Looking just like a giant Silverback Gorilla, Kong emotes better than some actors I know. Andy Serkis (the guy who did the motion capture for Kong - as well as Gollum in LOTR) should get some sort of award for this. I came out the film feeling for the big ape and not just because of the end of the film. For the first time I understood him to be a loney sort... the last of his kind. When he finds Ann... his whole world starts to change. The film brings all of this out where the other films just couldn't... they were hampered by the ability to get their ape to act.

In the end, the action scenes are over-the-top in all the good ways (even the creepy scenes that simply gave me the willies). The big set pieces from the original are all there... only moreso. In fact, I would argue that the original film is there, it's just been lovingly embellished by a man, Peter Jackson, who is very clearly a fan.

This is definately the best popcorn film of the year.

Meh. That's about all I can say for it.

The CG was amazing, the acting was good, but it was too freakin long. I found myself wishing they would just kill the damn thing already. And in some parts it was just completely unrealistic, in the bad way.

I found myself wondering, "WTF?" too many times. The movie just didn't do it for me. Sure, the ape graphics were very well done, but the little things just killed it for me.

the bottom of the valley was just too creepy for me. Did you know that Chef was Serkis???

i saw it as a screener earlier this week and it was nothing short of incredible. NYC recreated in the 30s was just incredible.

Believe it or not, I don't think I've ever seen a King Koing movie all the way through! I didn't have much interest in seeing this one, but I think I will give it a shot thanks to your review Charlatan. I'm still not expecting a masterpiece, but perhaps it's worth the $10 :)

Cyn... yes, I knew Lumpy was Serkis. It was good to see him as "himself"... Spoiler: His death totally creeped me out... (shudder)

Secret... many are already calling this a masterpiece... I'm not sure I would go that far but it definately a good film...

In Times Square they had a life size Kong sitting there...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...hetiq/capt.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...q/44031e6e.jpg

I thought it was a complete shitfest from start to finish. The biggest complaint I have is the length. The plot does not lend itself to a three hour epic. It should have been two hours at most. The first 90 minutes was a complete waste of time. Additionally, the acting was by-the-numbers (although that's more due to the redundant and tedious script), and the cg was seriously shoddy in places. I really hate excessive use of cg - Jurassic Park will still look great in another ten years, but this movie will look like fucking pacman. I hope it flops.

How could Jackson direct a movie as good as The Frighteners, and then put out this garbage?

I agree with Charlatan about the pacing in places but I didn't mind. However, I did notice a full blown green-mile fidget fest in the front 1/2 of the theatre. Did Barney & Power Rangers do something to attention spans? :D

It was great to see a new take on Kong. Baker had the movement down but a suit is a suit. This Kong has a face. Oh, and Naomi. My oh my.

The Skull Island natives looked like leftover LOTR extras. Why are they so dark in the perpetual fog?

It's good, but a cut down version might be better for non-fans. If you like Kong see it now.

See...that's just it. As a classical movie buff, I'm a fan of the original 1933 King Kong. I'm sure this is great and all, but...for me, it'll never compare. Still, I'll probably go to see it. Just...because.

For me that's it. Just because. I like the evolution. Effects & monster movie stuff were my first calling, until I came to know the black void that someone swapped for my artistic talent. :hmm:

We're having a '33 LD viewing tomorrow night if the old Pioneer can spin up.

heh heh heh, This cat.....

reduredundant and tediousndant and tediousredundant and tediousredundant and tediousredundant and tediousredundant and tediousredundant and tedious

This Movie is Great.
and will remain So.

This film is a complete labour of love... If I didn't know that Jackson was a fan of the movie I would only have to watch this film to see that he is...

The original film was 100 minutes and from what I can see, this film is true in many ways to the first film. There are a number of shots that are right out of the 33 film. In fact I would argue that the original film is in there... it's just been fleshed out.

This is the film that Jackson wishes he saw when he was a kid obsessing about King Kong... especially the Skull Island stuff forward.

I just got back from it. For the most part, I really liked it. However Spoiler: the insects. OH MY GOD THE INSECTS!! Centipedes give me the willies to begin with, but I will never look at grasshoppers and earthworms the same again. *shuddersquirm* I have a feeling I may have nightmares tonight I never saw the original, or the 70's version (climbing from under a rock here, Charlatan) so I have nothing to base it on, but it was definitely captivating...the 7/8 year old boy next to me was quiet and still almost the entire movie. Definitely worth seeing, IMO :thumbsup:

Hey Medusa... but you knew what the story was before you went in right? I was shocked my son a few days before we went to see the film. He said Spoiler: you know King Kong dies at the end, right? . He had just finished the King Kong video game and had no idea what the end was... I wish I hadn't let him play the game before he saw the film. Spoiler: Actually, the father of one his friends who came with us spoiled the end for his son on purpose... he was worried it might be a little too sad for him... and boy it was sad.

Oh and Medusa Spoiler: I absolutely agree about the bugs... I was squirming in my seat...

Yeah, the bugs were freakin gnarly! I could barely watch that part :o

My 2 cents.

Kong looked amazing.
It was about 30 minutes too long. Really did we need backstory for every crew member on the ship? Because thats what it felt like.
It was an amazing movie though. I just think PJ needs an editor, not every movie HAS to be a 3+ hour epic. Kong could have been told in 2 1/2 hours and still been damn good.

Well my clairvoyance about the film did not disapoint me. Which means I was disapointed.

The pacing is actually pretty damn good for a movie that runs longer then 3 hours.

I thought the first third of the film was the best - before they met Kong. They it went goofy. The action sceenes are outlandish, you'll be laughing at how many monsters Jackson can cram on the screen and the supernatural abilities of people to avoid death.

People talked of Jack Black "nailing" his role. No. I was hopping to be impressed because other commedians have an uncany ability to capture humanity in their dramatic roles. Bill Murry, Jim Carry, Adam Sandler to name a few. Jack was okay, he wasn't horrible. I think the fault was actually with the script.

Speaking of that, it was pretty bad. Ok, very lame. I've never seen so little character development in a film that long. The characters do countless things that make you just scream out for some consistency, realism and a touch of common sense.

This film was like a classical painting. Masterfully done, but lacking in originality, deapth or vision. The kids will love it!

You say that like it's a bad thing... :lol:

I completely agree with this.

Exactly. This is all about loving the first film and loving the special effects...

For those who thought it was too long, just wait for the Extended Edition DVD release.....

overrated!

Everything was overdone and it really wasn't even a good flick. Not in the least bit inspiring like the LOTR trilogy. In my opinion, this is Jackson trying to turn something into an epic that was never intended to be. Fight scenes were boring and the "love story" just didn't make sense for this movie.

To sum it up, I enjoyed Just Friends more than this film. That should say alot!

Charlatan, Spoiler: I really didn't know he died, but I never really thought about it before either. The only thing I knew for sure was that he was captured somehow and taken to NYC. It only makes sense that he would get killed though, because where would he live?

Well there was no love story. Obviously they were just friends. Infact the last line Carl (Black's character) said was all wrong. It topped the cake with one of those nasty cherries everyone picks off. The the idea of the film isn't about love, it's about man being the real beast.

Now if Kong really did have the hots for Ann...well, that would be a movie I'd pay to see again! It would be like something out of Bondage Farries :lol:

Medusa... Central Park. :lol:

Mantus... just be thankful the film didn't pull that theme out of the subtext (so to speak). It would have been PETA's film of the year.

Was anybody else perlexed as to how any substantial population could live on sheer, lifeless rock? Let alone sent up somewhat unhealthy corpse displays in their spare time...

Anyway, I thought it was an OK film, definitely the length was a bit over the top, and certain scenes involving dinosaurs seemed somewhat over the top Spoiler: ie. Jack Driscoll not only managing to outpace, but also out punch a velociraptor, dubious

I still think 33 version rules, but I did enjoy the references upon references of Jackson's film.

So it's long?

The length didn't really bother me, but maybe that's because everyone and their mother decided to call me, text me, and leave me voicemails, and distract me with the like. Overall I thought it was pretty good for a monkey movie. Ohh, and yeah, I hate monkies. I think they are ugly and I just don't really like them, but for a monkey movie, it wasn't bad. It actually made me feel sorry for Kong.. just a little bit, but not too much. He was still a monkey.. looked like a monkey, probably even smelled like a monkey. I did like some of it when I could look past the fact that he was a monkey and look into what he represents and all that good stuff. I might go see it again if someone else was paying... maybe.

Dude... King Kong is an ape.

No love story?

What about the blonde chick having the hots for the writer guy?

That (love) was motivation for his (that writer guy) character to rescue her, the movie wasn't about it though.

I liked it, don't go into every movie expecting the world and you should too.

Well, of course the movie wasn't about that.. it was about a giant gorilla.

But still, it was a love story and it was in the movie.

Just saw this last night, and i thought it was AWSOME. Much much better than i expected. Fantastic movie experience. I would say the only problem with the movie would be the length (which, i did not notice, BTW. It breezed by). So, anyone with ADD, or that just doesn't like to watch a 3 hour gorilla movie, maybe it won't be your cup of tea. It does devote a full hour or so to "setting up" the movie (i.e., before Kong shows up). But, you had this in the original as well (Kong appears 45 minutes into the 1933 version). And the setup is entertaining, anyway. If you cut the movie there (before Kong) and released it, it would be a fine drama film in itself.

So, if you are ready to sit back and relax and let the film happen, i strongly recomend. Just don't get the large soda.

I saw it with my 11 year old son and my 7 year old daughter. We caught the 7:30 P.M. showing. My daughter fell asleep after half an hour, which is not surprising considering her bedtime is 8 o'clock. I liked it all the way through. I never felt like it was too long. The bugs left me with the willies. I think it is comparable to the Indiana Jones flicks. Solidly entertaining and fun. I know for sure that it passes the 11-Year Old Boy Test. Not once did he lose focus. He was captured. When the lights came up my son said, "That's the best movie I've ever seen!" I wouldn't go that far, but I was definately taken away for three hours.

I was pretty dissapointed with the movie. The CGI was fairly impressive in some parts, but the movie as a whole didn't really do much for me. It seemed to take far longer than it needed to to tell the story that they did, and the only truly interesting character was Kong himself. Any enjoyment I did have was also ruined by a horribly annoying kid sitting behind me who didn't stop talking for the entire three hours of the movie. Maybe I'll give it another try when it comes out on DVD, or maybe you just had to be a fan of the original in order to really enjoy this one.

Apes, monkeys, gorrilas... I hate anything of the primate family (especially including whatever kong is).. and sloths and lemurs too.

Dude... you're a primate.

I liked it a lot. I didn't find the length bothersome, as the first third was necessary exposition to fully introduce all of the characters to fully set up the second and third acts.

Gilda

Ummm... what?

Humans are primates.

Mammals with thumbs, I think.

My wording may have been off, but the only point I was trying to make was that for an ape (as I've been told Kong is not a monkey) movie, it was a nice one.. and I hate ape movies. So that should really say a lot.

This movie gets my highest rating: as good as the original. I felt for Kong yesterday as much as I felt for him when I first saw the original when I was 5. This was exceptional (despite the slow motion scenes - what was that about?), and I need to say that Peter Jackson has a fan for life in me now.