King Kong (spoilers)

[loulabelle]

I just got back from seeing it. I have mixed feelings about it. I think it was mostly good, but Peter Jackson's trademark camera shots and editing kinda took away from it in my opinion (some people might like that style. I don't). Also it was really long, and some scenes could have been eliminated (like the Billy Elliot subplot, which didn't even have a resolution).
The ending dragged on too, to the point where I was thinking "just kill the damn gorilla already." Even though I liked this version's Kong.
I liked the beginning and the build-up to the Skull Island, and I thought some of the monsters were scary. I was really sad that the lake monster wasn't in this version, because I thought the original one was pretty scary (for a play-doh animatronic model).
I also liked the different take on the Ann/Kong relationship.

Also, it has one of the grossest movie deaths I've ever seen. And minor references to the original King Kong are plentiful.

Overall, if it had a tighter edit, it would have been a better cinema experience.

[Genetic Mishap]

My thoughts on leaving the theater were thus:

Dinosaursandgorillasandgiantbugsandbatsthey'reallfightingOMGsocool.

I'll put my thoughts together later.

[Spiderdancer]

Giant bugs?

Dang. I really MUST see this movie.

[Genetic Mishap]

SPOILERS:

Actually, the giant bugs just fight the peoples; not the dinosaurs or the bats or Kong as I may have implied.

But ther're there, all right. They are so THERE.

Anyhow, I think I may have something to note that pertains to the actual content of the film, and not just the quagmire of critters...

Wait, no I don't. A T-rex with three fingers? Sauropods with nostrils at the front? Those are all cardinal sins!

I WILL talk about what I thought of the movie as a whole, eventually.

[kylerexpop]

for some odd reason, i'm completely unenthusiastic about seeing 'king kong.'

should i be? i really don't know. can you or anyone tell me why i SHOULD be rarin' to go see 'king kong?'

i'm about to take off for christmas clam chowder, but i just have to ask. otherwise, i guess i'll see 'the family stone' and call it a year.

[siegeshot]

I just feel like this.

How did they even get the rights to redo King Kong when they totally blew their shot at Godzilla.

I didn't see a point at re-doing KK unless there was a possibility at a KK vs GZ.

I havn't seen it, but I saw the previews where he fights the Trex and I'd probably go for just that part.

oh woa is me

[Al]

I was finally able to see King Kong tonight, and despite it having taken away from my precious sleeptime, I have very few qualms. All three 'acts' of the movie were extraordinarily well done, but when you put them all together, you really do feel all 3 hours and 7 minutes of it. Certainly something from the first two thirds could have been trimmed (the whole New York sequence was perfect), but I'm hard pressed to say what. The Jimmy thing probably, like loulabelle said. It was overall a solid offering, though. The Ann Darrow/Kong relationship was touching (as advertised), but I didn't cry like my friend Charlie, nor was a put to sleep like that pompous guy from the New York Post. Also, no one should be going into the movie surprised by the ending, and Jackson knows it, so I certainly appreciated the sense of impending doom he gave to the approach of the airplanes. Those are my immediate impressions at least, and I'm too tired to think about it much more tonight.

And Kyle, in response to your question: if you have any inkling that this is a movie you might end up seeing at *some* point, do yourself a favor and catch it in the theater. It's big enough, bold enough, and loud enough that if possible, it's best seen twenty feet high. As long as you don't have to hear running commentary in Spanish for the entire 3 hours like I did.

Al

[blinkfan]

this movie was way to long just way to long

[sarahbot]

I've seen this movie twice, and I have to say that any - ANY - qualms I may have had with it (especially the native scenes) are completely wiped away by the dinosaur scenes. They were unbelievable. I don't even normally like action (The Two Towers bored me) so that's saying something.

[blinkfan]

It was too long just to long i sat there for 3 and half hours for a ending i already knew and i felt unfufilled i just shook my head shamlessly got up and left. another thing that bothered me was the unnessary boring scenes were really long, and the cool action or nessary enjpyable scenes where like 5 minutes once agaim i am sorry for my grammar

[sunsetryder]

(Spoilers, but you probably knew that)

This movie annoys me, but it's nowhere near the worst film I ever saw.

I grew up on King Kong. I own the original film. While I'm not about to cite it as a cinematic masterpiece, I have no idea why Peter Jackson (as a fellow Kong-kid) felt that he needed to remake it.

And though it was nowhere near as wretched as the 1970's remake, there were several things that built up to make me vent like an overactive heater the minute I left the theater.

Negative Point #1: I like my movies subtle and sweet, and the theme of this movie seemed to be "If we don't feed them emotional output with a spoon, the audience will never understand what I, PETER JACKSON want them to feel!". Instead of sticking to the original Kong v.s. T-Rex match, Peter Jackson decided that one dinosaur wasn't exciting enough and added two more fricking lizards. Not only that, but he had them fight SWINGING FROM VINES, which defies all logic. Even more irritating to me were the ridiculously sappy "sunset" scenes with Ann and Kong. I really felt like I was being slapped in the face and being ordered by the movie to "Awwwww...", and I didn't like the sensation.

Negative Point #2: What was Adrien Brody doing in a human/ape mush-fest? I mean, I was delighted when I realized they had done away with the butch, "Say, I guess I love you!" Jack Driscoll. It was actually around the point they introduced his character that I began to hope that this would be a good movie, an actual improvement on the original (Watching the stiffness of 1936 Jack and Ann, I swore off love as a six-year old- a decision that was changed by better films). I was filled with hope through the development of that relationship- only to have the hope dashed on the rocks by the first "sunset-juggling" scene. And I was certainly pissed when Ann tells Jack off FOR NO REASON.

Negative Point# 3: Too long. Way, way too long. We could have totally done without so much of this movie. I went to see it after breakfast, and after the film I had to eat dinner.

Negative Point #4: The ending. I did not like the cheap attempt to copy the beautiful snow scene of Edward Scissorhands- a cheesy scene which I describe to my friends as Kong Goes Ice-Skating With His Human Girlfriend. I kid you not. It's there. It's dumb, and made me roll my eyes to no end. Nevertheless, I hoped the film would be improved, and continued to sit there. It was about the point where Naomi Watts does the most pointless thing in movie history that I realized the movie had gone past the point of redemption. Though I was happy that they EVENTUALLY acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with Adrien Brody's character, I was left at the end of the film wondering why the entire score seemed to consist of three notes.

Oh, and what does Naomi Watts do that's so pointless? Well, let's just say that she's too fricking small to make a difference.