parker63

That's what I was thinking!

Just got back tonight, and loved it. All of it, even through the silly bits (shooting the bugs off, etc.). But hey, it's a movie folks...and it entertained 100%. I really liked the score too. I'll definitely be going again.

jaeufraser

I agree. That sequence was definately over the top, as was much of the action in the film, but hot damn was it entertaining.

DthRdrX

Great movie IMO. I was very surprised that the Cinemark I saw this in was only about 25% filled!

The dino-chase/pileup scenes stuck me as something that was probably cut and then put back in. Nevertheless, I found it amusing watching Jack Black run faster than Raptors ....

Giantrobo

But you must remember that Ann was setup as the type of person who deeply falls/cares for things that don't last like her comedy career, the theater, the old Actor, and of course Kong. The Old Actor said that to her when he told her he was leaving. So it(her strong affection for Kong) works on many levels if one thinks of her in this way.

atlantamoi

I think my biggest problem with the film was how they dealt with the locals. Almost every time they showed these people it seemed very cheesy. For a group of people who could make a giant sacrifical moving bridge, they sure were weak at fighting back. Yeah, I know machine guns are just a touch mightier than spears, but the locals were completely gone after that. Didn't seem realistic. Of course, the whole movie can't be enjoyed without suspending disbelief... still bugged me a bit.

greg9x

Thought the natives were done pretty well, appropriatly creepy. What did you expect them to do when they got their asses handed to them by machine guns ?? The survivors went into hiding and probably didn't return for a week or two, there only seemed to be a couple hundred of them not thousands. What does building a bridge (which could have taken many years) have to do with fighting back ??

atlantamoi

The bridge shows that they are fairly adept at doing very tough tasks. They weren't stupid. Shortly after they appear a spear kills one of the guys. They had the ability to fight. Yeah, I really did find it strange that they completely disappeared even with the machine guns. Regardless, it's minor stuff... moreso I just found their appearance and actions on the cheesy side. Diff strokes...

sdcrym

I feel compelled to comment about Jack Black's character's cheesy line at the end. I think they could've gone without. Admittedly, I haven't seen the original, but I don't think it's really relevant to the discussion. Cinema has changed a lot in the last 75 years in many ways, including the story telling aspect. That line comes off as some cheesy after school special moral of the story, essentially spelling everything out for us as if we were too stupid to infer one of the themes from the movie. Just because it was in the original doesn't mean it needs to be in the remake. It reminds me of the season finale of Rome on HBO. (Spoilers not for what happened, but how it went down.)

RichC2

Odd that the final line really wasn't the moral of the story, or at least, not the one I preceived. Agreeably cheesey though - I was intentionally looking away when the scene came up.

Groucho

Assuming you aren't being glib, perhaps you should rent the 1976 version if you want to see things go down this way.

Baron Of Hell

Did you notice the shape in the clouds when kong climbed the building. Not at the end or beginning but somewhere in the middle and closer to the beginning. When its on screen its in the upper left.

fumanstan

Caught a late showing of this last night at 10:30 PM. I thought it was pretty fun and definitely something that deserves to be seen in theaters versus on DVD. The length of the movie and being tired at night left me to doze off a couple times during the film though. I could have easily seen 30 minutes trimmed from the movie without losing much substance. I really wish they got to the Island quicker, maybe trimmed down some of the action on the island, and then brought Kong back to NY a bit quicker.

Kong looked fantastic. The trailer didn't "wow" me, but the movie sure did. The dinosaurs were dissapointing, especially the dino pile-up. Yeah yeah, suspend belief or whatever. The whole scene still looked poor and a bit hokey to me. The bugs and creatures on the island were great as well. Huge audience reaction with those, and they really had me squirming.

Naomi Watts was great. It was real hard for me to take my eyes off her Jack Black and Adrian Brody were servicable.

I'd give the movie a B or B-. About the same level as the LOTR movies for me.

Mordred

Speaking of that, was I the only one who noticed the sign in the back of the ship's cargo hold that read "Sumatran Rat Monkey?" I thought that was a nice touch.

Groucho

Why don't you just tell us what it is, since you can't "rewind" a memory and review it.

Shannon Nutt

It's funny many are complaining about Jack Black in this thread...I thought he was the best thing in the movie. There's an ambiguity about his character at the end of the picture...did he learn anything or was he the same old greedy guy? I think by changing the tone of the final line (in the original, it was theatrically delievered...in Jackson's KONG, its much more somber) we get the feeling Denham may actually finally feel a sense of loss.

A-aron

Anyone catch Jackson;s nod to Dead Alive? As Adrian Brody is being taken to where he will stay in the ship, there is a box among the animals that says "Sumatian Rat Monkey"

Sweet!

edit: oops! I see someone else noticed it a few posts up.

Shannon Nutt

I noticed a "Joe Berlinger" store in NYC. Is that a nod to the "Blair Witch 2" director, or is that actually a store?

flixtime

I caught this one earlier today. A little background first…….I’m not really a fan of Naomi Watts or Jack Black, no reason really, I don’t dislike them but their work hasn’t particularly interested me either. I’m certainly not a Peter Jackson fanboy; I thought the last two films in the Rings trilogy were – at best – only good (and that would be if I were being generous in my grading of the third film). What else…I’ve seen both the ’33 and ’76 versions of the Kong story multiple times (not necessarily recently) and enjoyed them both…..I wasn’t really planning on going to the theater for this new version – I certainly wasn’t dying to see it or anything – but the positive reviews changed my mind. Just a little more to perhaps better frame my comments………..for recent American films, I loved “Crash”, enjoyed “Batman Begins” quite a bit, likewise the first 2/3 of “War of the Worlds” (don’t get me started on everything post the farmhouse segment), and was very disappointed by “Sin City”.

Anyway, as I was saying, I caught “King Kong” earlier today and I really loved it! The audience I saw it with (which skewed much more adult than the normal audience might) also seemed to really like it. The female portion of the audience seemed to find the film particularly affecting. The film seemed to result in a fair amount of nose-blowing, tear dabbing, etc. and I saw some red, teary eyes as I was walking out. The general vibe from the comments I overheard was “that was soooo sad”. And that is was elevated this film for me as well……….it had a remarkable poignancy. I hope there is positive word-of-mouth on this film that gives it some legs at the box-office via that portion of the population that aren’t necessarily movie fans. Meaning, I hope it isn’t dismissed by many as just another big, loud CGI action/monster movie.

Thinking back the scenes (maybe stop reading now if you are spoiler sensitive) that made the film for me centered primarily on Ann Darrow and her interactions with Kong. I mean, yes, I enjoyed the action scenes and all; the effects in fleeting instances (ex: the close-up shot of Jimmy running on the collapsing cliffside) could have been better but whenever they were perhaps lacking it never broke the spell of the experience as a whole. The effects for Kong however were fantastic! The first scene that won me over was a very brief one; it was the one early on outside the burlesque hall when Denham catches Ann’s reflection in the glass. For whatever reason I thought it was magical….pure cinematic poetry (don’t know what that means really but that’s what it felt like). The dance scene Ann does for Kong was likewise a joy….as was their sunset scene on the island, very touching. Similarly, the scene where Ann finds Kong in the night. The unforgettable scene for me was the ice dance towards the end….again with the misty eyes….just a beautiful and moving scene. I really think Peter Jackson could have let that scene go on a little longer. And finally the end scenes between Ann and Kong…….”yes” more misty eyes. I didn’t expect going in to the film that I would walk out having seen such a great romantic film………and that’s what it was for me, a great romance! I mean I’d read the stuff that said “King Kong” was supposed to be like “Jurassic Park” meets “Titanic” but I kind of doubted the latter half of the comparison; I was wrong. I see the genre listings for “King Kong” on IMDb and there is no mention of romance and that is a regrettable and glaring oversight. It is the aforementioned scenes that for me made my time in the theater a wondrous experience and distinguished “King Kong” from what otherwise might have been “been there done that” loud, brash, re-cycled, forgettable summertime popcorn/blockbuster fare.

As for the three-hour runtime, I thought the pacing was perfect and I would even say that I wish it would have been a little bit longer. I thought the New York portion lacked slightly in showing the passage of time between the start of the Kong exhibition and the climax; the dawn seemed to come a little too soon. As of right now, I’ve done only a cursory scan of comments both in this thread and in other reviews. I accept the points of criticism being leveled at the film but they did not bother me……and if so it was only on a fine-tooth comb level. Naomi Watts was for the most part terrific. I’ve seen her commenting on how helpful it was in working with Andy Serkis and it isn’t just lip service….the results are there on screen. I liked Jack Black in the role of Denham. Adrien Brody at first seemed miscast, but I think they poked enough fun at things that I quickly accepted him in the role. Would others have been better than Black and Brody…….I suppose there is always someone better out there, but they held their own. Combing through things some more, I wasn’t wild about the last minute or two of the film…….the embrace and closing lines didn’t really work for me……maybe Driscoll reaching out his hand to Ann would have been sufficient, followed by the shot of Kong on the ground, a pan to Denham’s face, him turning his back, walking away, and then fade to credits. Another small issue I had was with the second “ad” from that famous soda company. The first one in Times Square was fitting enough but the second one by Kong’s shoulder when Ann finds him in the dark night streets of New York was somewhat distracting for that scene. Not really significant but just shootin’ the breeze on some of my thoughts. None of this however did anything to take away from the accomplishment as a whole.

I’ll be strong-selling this film to everyone I know; it really is deserving of a trip to the theater; it was an outstanding package of all-around entertainment. Not only one of my favorites from this year but from the past few years as well. For me, Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” was one of those unique ("yes", a curious choice of word given that it is a re-make) and enchanting films that reaffirmed my love for the movies.

wm lopez

This movie reminds me of THE HULK the way it's being talked about.
That movie cost a lot to make and got good reviews, but it didn't do the money it could have. And there was complaint on the lenth on that movie too.

B5Erik

I saw Kong today and I thought it was really good. I loved the little nods to the '33 version - "Maybe we could get Fay." "No, Fay's doing a project at RKO for Cooper." - hilarious! And including Max Steiner's original Kong music in the Broadway show segment was a great touch.

And a strange thing happened - I actually got dizzy and felt like I was going to fall when the movie got to the top of the Empire State Building. Jackson realy outdid himself there - I actually felt a fear of heights and got that funny feeling in my stomach like I would if I were really up that high, and I've never felt that before from watching a movie (my wife noted the same thing, too).

I wasn't big on how Jackson presented the natives - they were a bit too savage and mindless, they didn't show the potential to actually build a wall like that or to maintain it. The natives in both the 1933 and 1976 versions were handled much better.

But, still, the movie was great on so many levels that even with a few flaws (including being too long by 20 minutes or so, IMO), Kong is still a very, very good movie overall. I definitely recommend seeing it in the theater, as much of the visuals will be lost at home (even on a really big home theater screen).

I give this version of King Kong an "A-." (And I give the 1933 version an "A," and the 1976 version a very generous "B-.")

Kal-El

Saw it last night. It was ok, I liked it but I'm not really jumping up and down and wanting everybody else to see it. That ending dragged and got repetitive. It's like, tender moment. Guns blazing. Lather, rinse repeat a couple more times. Loved Naomi Watts though.

flixtime

Interesting analogy. For what it is worth, I loved "Hulk" as well. I was glad the action in "Hulk" was secondary to the story. I think Kong was much more action heavy but still as I mentioned above, the action for me was secondary to Ann and Kong's story. I hope the romantic angle to Kong that wasn't really there in "Hulk" gives Kong greater life at the box-office. I initially dismissed it as not possible, but Kong really plays as more "Titanic" than "Jurassic Park" to me. "Titanic" was Rose's story and "King Kong" is Ann's story. I wonder if they can (or already did) cut a trailer that plays up this aspect......or maybe they won't bother because it is a tough concept to be receptive about without actually seeing it in the movie.

Chew

I agree: the dinosaur stampede was awful CGI/human integration.

The ice pond was a bit silly.

Other than that, I have little to complain about. A very entertaining movie.

As to my theater: it was only about a third full. I cannot believe how "poorly" this movie did in it's opening weekend. Only $66mil since Wednesday? Thought for sure it would be at least double that by now.

There were plenty of kids in the theater. When they weren't bored out of their minds during the first hour, they were scared during the rest.

Geofferson

Yep -- I loved the nods to the original. Everything from the fruit stand scene to the final line of dialogue at the end -- respected the original.

Muaddib

I'm glad someone else noticed the reference to Fay Wray. I was laughing like crazy, but nobody else did! Also the dialog between Ann and Baxter on the ship was the same as the dialog between Ann and Driscoll in the original. That was really brilliant, that they split Driscoll into 2 characters. The old one won't have worked to today's audience.


The way I saw this, is that the island is ancient, and the people have been there for 1000's or tens of thousands of years. The wall was ancient. I think the people were probably dying off, just as Kong was the last of his species (notice the gorilla bones in Kong's home cave?).

I loved the T-Rexx battle and also how it ended just like the original ended with Kong snapping it's jaw. I liked the scene with Ann between the T-Rexx and Kong. She has to decide who's the monster, she turns her back to Kong. And Kong looks down and sees her do it, realizing she has chosen him as her savour. Great stuff here!!

I think Peter Jackson has out done himself this time!

The only un-believable scene to me, was seeing a women on top of the empire state building in a thin dress in the dead of winter. It must have been -50 degrees!!?? Oh, well, I enjoyed the view anyway