Charlie Goose

Great movie, although not perfect.
The bug scene was a little much. Roaches, scorpions, centipedes, and whatever those swamp tubes were made for overkill. Also, the kid who didn't know how to use a gun, but managed to shoot off all the bugs on Jack without hitting him. And I'm still not sure why the kid was such a big part of the early story, then forgotten about later on.
One other little nitpick re Baxter. He shows himself to be a coward by heading back to the ship. Then he becomes a vine-swinging hero in the bug pit. Then in NYC, he's a coward again.

The dinosaur stampede was excellent, I really couldn't look away. Not only did they have to contend with the big feet stomping down all around them, but also the little T-Rexes trying to eat them.
Kong fighting off the three T-Rexes was another incredible scene.
Back in NYC, I loved the ice-skating and also how Kong would grab a blond woman, and then casually toss her away when he saw it wasn't Ann.
The biggest laugh from the audience came during the Broadway show. Kong is chained and sees Ann come up through the floor. Of course, he's getting all excited. Then, she looks up and Kong gets a WTF look on his face.

Buttmunker

there was a discreet little homage to the original 1933 King Kong in this movie: in the beginning of the picture, when Denham has a petite dress but no actress to wear it, he suggests: "how about Fay?" His partner replies: "she's under contract with RKO." Denham smiles: "ah, yes. Cooper."

freudguy

Finally saw it this weekend. We liked it quite a bit. In fact, the only things I didn't like were the slow-mo blur effects already mentioned. I felt they were out of place in this flick. I think a good reason why it is not resonating with a lot of folks is due to the ending. Nearly everyone knows going in to the movie what will happen at the end. I know I spent a lot of time during the movie thinking of Kong's fate and that may have kept me from enjoying it as much as I might have if I were completely oblivious to the story.

grim_tales

My thoughts:

King Kong (2005) - 5/5

Absoloutely brilliant.
Even though you have to wait more than an hour for Kong to appear, its' more than worth the wait, the film never gets boring - even though it may be too long (does that make sense?) - and delivers some stunning set pieces, starting with the attack by the hostile natives of Skull Island and continuing with a dinosaur rampage. I also liked seeing Kong taking on dinosaurs (when he does appear, he is a true wonder to behold) and a terrifying tribute to the lost Spider Pit sequence from the 1933 original.
Andy Serkis really brings Kong to life IMO, I felt really sorry for him
He does a fine job of potraying a tortured soul, a la the Beast in Beauty and The Beast, or Gollum in LOTR, wonderfully.
Naomi Watts is appealing and I liked the humor in the film brought by Jack Black's movie producer, and Lumpy the Cook (Andy Serkis again), and the references/in-jokes.
Fantastic movie

BTW, I think this will make about $220m or so in US theatres, maybe more going by the figures now.

grim_tales

I noticed that, I loved those little asides I haven't seen the original yet, but know the story.

DonnachaOne

I wasn't terribly moved. An alright flick.

Michael Corvin

Just saw it. I didn't read the whole 375 post thread, just this page, but I agree on a lot of what's in cactusoly's post above.

I'm sure it is a common complaint, and an easy one to pick at, but the first hour, blech. It would have made a great movie on it's own w/o Kong, just a depression era film. What we have is a down on his luck director who picks up a down on her luck actress and get on a boat to film a movie with the depression as a backdrop. That takes an hour to tell us? Sheesh.

Same on the boat. We got it, the boat takes coal to run. We don't need to see it a half dozen times.

How about worthless characters? Check. By the boatload. Are we supposed to care for these people? They are introduced and have little to now character development. Why waste our time?

Love the comment about the natives looking like Orc rejects, because that's what they are. Too much screen time for them too. Get to the island already. Sure they are on shore but it still takes forever to get "in" the island. They worship Kong. Got it. Move on.

The ending seemed drawn out as well.

Jackson seems to have the same problem as Lucas. Hire a fucking editor with some balls. Tighten this bad boy up. I find it funny when someone mentions these 3 hour flicks for "Best Editing" when they didn't 'edit' a damn thing. I know there is more to editing than trimming, but come on. Another example is the bug scene.

The insect battle was too much too soon. The audience hadn't gotten their breath from the T-Rex battle before we are thrust into the middle of this bug scene. The scene was good, just came too hot on the heals of the other scene. Here is where some padding should have been.

What was with Kong setting Ann down in the Empire State Building? Looked like the T-1000 oozed out of his fingers and out came Ann. Shoddy & rushed F/X there.

How exactly does a dozen guys load up a ton of rocks with nets to trap Kong in a matter of minutes? How do these same 12 people get Kong on a boat? A boat that is nowhere near the shore? How does Ann not have both arms broken from when Kong yanks her from her captive ropes? Normally I shrug off the little stuff, but there were too many problems and inconsistencies for me to ignore, especially when everyone is talking "Best Picture."

Naomi Watts was excellent as everyone mentions. Brody was equally good, and Jack Black wasn't half bad either.

I dug the parallells between Jack & Kong. Both had the hots for Ann yet neither knew how to express their feelings for her.

Overall I thought it was good, 3 out of 4 stars. Not perfect by any means, and definitely not deserving of any Oscars noms except for the technical ones, and maybe Watts. It was very entertaining fllm but I doubt it will warrant a DVD purchase though. This is one time where I wouldn't mind a shorter version for video release. Probably the only way I would pick it up.

Lastly, what was up with the last line of the film? Totally out of place and very akward. Beauty killed the Beast. It was unnecessary. Was it the last line of the previous versions? It has been quite some time since I saw either.

Jay G.

Jackson has mentioned that there's 30-40 minute of material that was trimmed from the final edit of kong, including some action sequences. Possibly more could've been trimmed, but it's not like nothing was edited out.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

What padding would you have suggested to put there?

I don't think Ann was CGI'd here; I saw it twice and didn't notice a problem.

It's not a matter of minutes. They possibly have several hours. If I recall the timing right, Jack and the crew climb out of the insect pit right around sunset, and Kong is captured just around dawn. So at least 6 hours for the crew to get back to the beach and prep for capture.

Here Jackson is copying an edit from the original film, which goes from Denham on the shore shouting about Kong's name in lights on Broadway to teh shot of Kong's name on Broadway. It was a deliberate edit, and I think it works in both cases. I really don't need to see how they got Kong back, just know that they did.

I don't think an arm would break easily when pulled that way. More likely, it'd get pulled out of its socket. In the original film, the knots on the ropes just had to be tight enough so Ann couldn't break free. In this case, the ropes had to support Ann's weight as well, but maybe they weren't much stronger than that.

Who's talking Best Picture? It didn't even get nominated for a Globe for Best Picture.

I thought Kong expressed his feelings for her pretty well, especially considering he's not even the same species, let alone speaking the same language.

It is indeed the last line of the original film. Here Jackson is again paying homage, although a lot of people question how well it works.

grim_tales

I believe originally Jackson wanted Fay Wray to deliver that last line (she was in negogiations to appear in the film before she died).
I'm sure Kong will take home some awards - being 3 hours long never hurt Titanic (most successful film ever) or Seven Samurai, though I agree in some parts Jackson should have shortened the film. I still loved it though, not once did I think "What time is it now?" (Have I contradicted myself)?

Michael Corvin

I didn't have a problem with the runtime either while I was watching it. It was good for what it was until it was over and you realize the entire first hour was pretty pointlesss and could have been handled in 20-30 minutes.

Dr. DVD

I didn't have a problem with the runtime myself, but I really do think that PJ could have stood to make it 2.5 hours instead. While I didn't mind some character development, I still can't figure out what purpose the Hayes and Jimmy subplot served, maybe there's something that will be in the EE to wrap that one up more thoroughly.
While a lot of critics gave it good reviews and a lot of my family and friends liked it, I heard some quite venomous reviews from people who might qualify as the average movie goer or J6P. Let's be honest, LOTR was the kind of story where lots of the public didn't know what was going to happen and were seeing the kind of story that had never been done on that scale before, and they made time to go see it. King Kong on the other hand is something almost everybody knows about and a lot of people, while not against the length, have a hard time justifying to themselves that they should go and see a three hour movie about a giant ape in a story that has a been done before in 2/3 the amount of time.

Mr. Cinema

I've seen it twice and thought it flew by both times. However, they could have trimmed it down to 150 minutes and sold a few more tickets.

fmian

Has anyone in this thread discussed the 7th production diary video from Superman Returns where Bryan Singer get's flown from Sydney to Wellington by Peter Jackson to direct parts of King Kong just so Jackson can have a nap?
Here is a link to the video.
http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/b...s/blog_l_7.mov
I find it kind of unsettling that Jackson let himself get so bad for the movie. And it couldn't have been good for the actors and crew on King Kong either.
Singer appears to be directing the scene where Ann is backing away from the T-rex's and turns around to see Kong behind her.

grim_tales

Yeah, maybe thats why it hasn't been such a *big* success.

Jay G.

The was a King Kong production journal made about it too, which is on the DVD set. Both journal videos are jokes though; Singer was coming to visit the set and both crews thought it'd be fun to do a skit of Singer taking over directing.

fmian

I tell ya what, they did a pretty good job of it. Most convincing act I've seen since the Blair Witch documentary. I guess I fell for it cause Jackson appears to have lost all his weight making Kong and then the actors put on such a good job of it too.

digitalfreaknyc

i finally saw it tonight. We had the very last showing in NYC and it was over half-full. A lot of people taking it in that hadn't seen it already

god. jack black just killed it for me. i'd give it a 6.5 out of 10. Had they cast someone else, it would have DEFINITELY been a 9 or 10. he was just absolutely atrocious. when he was on the screen, i was like..."damn, this movie needs to move on." when he wasn't, i was completely enraptured. i really hate that he had the last line in the movie. the length didn't even bother me. it was only him. *sigh*

OldBoy

anyone know why Jackson didn't show Kong actually falling down the Empire State Building? i always thought that would have been more dramatic actually seeing him fall (perhaps from Ann's pov). then seeing the original (33) and seeing him fall, rather graphically, only makes me wonder more why he didn't shoot that.

Mr. Cinema

He probably felt Kong had suffered enough by being taken from his home, held captive and treated like a sideshow, and then getting blasted by fighter planes. I'm glad he shot it the way he did, no sense in showing any more brutality to the animal.

awmurray

Maybe he didn't do the fall because it would look fake (as in CGI fake). If it did, it would have been a humorous scene whereas it is supposed to come of as serious (like it did in the version he cut).

Maybe you just can't show people falling off tall buildings in NY after 9/11.

OldBoy

he can create a 25 foot hulking ape, holding a woman in his paw, and many dinosaurs falling down a mountain, through vines...and the last scene of the movie would look fake? i don't think Jackson could ever again make anything look fake.

this was a fictitous, prehistoric 25 foot ape.

Mr. Salty

As much as I liked "King Kong," and as much as I admire Peter Jackson and the people at Weta, there were several shots in "Kong" that looked pretty fake. Either they reached a little beyond their grasp, or they didn't have enough time to finish the shots.

I disagree with your desire to see Kong splatter on the pavement. I think the way Jackson shot it was perfect.

awmurray

I was thinking the bouncing down the side of the building could look fake.

OldBoy

no, not at all...i am not saying i want to see him splatter and carnage and all that, not even hit the side like in the original. i would rather have seen a graceful fall, perhaps with him looking up at Ann and falling through the air almost peacefully, but a fall nonetheless. i think that would have been the added emotion i was looking for.

Mr. Salty

Strange, in the version of "King Kong" I've seen, Kong does fall through the air gracefully. He doesn't look up at Anne because he's dead, which is, you know, why he fell off the building. But I think Anne being with him as he died was a much better emotional payoff than having him die from the fall looking up at her pathetically. In Jackson's version, Kong literally slipped away from her.