King Kong:reviews

[Slate Shannon]

I just saw Kong last night. I thought it was pretty good. Was it long? Yeah. Was it too long? I didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have a problem with it, but then I go to the theater so seldom, that I make the most of every visit. Sure, I would have done some things different, if it were my movie. It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not perfect, but worth seeing. I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m glad I saw it, but I probably won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t buy the DVD. I might rent it once, just to see it on disc, but for me personally, it just didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have that ?¢‚Ǩ?ìchemistry?¢‚Ǩ? to make me want to watch it multiple times.

On another note, this is the first new movie where I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve paid so much attention to the costumes, particularly the men?¢‚ǨÀús hats! And that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a direct result of hanging out here. I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m still far from an expert, so I wasn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t really distracted by anything not being period correct. Overall, it looked pretty good to me.

 

[swinggal]

Well, I just saw Kong and was dissapointed. I found myself very bored and I tire of digital effects being milked for all they are worth. I know the movie is a fantasy, but why can't they just leave things at a certain point, that gives it more realism. I mean - the girl would be dead from the mere inertia of being shaken about in Kongs hand while he running away with her. I know it's only a movie but the little things are what keep me held.

I agree that it was way too long and I was annoyed at Naomi Watts's look (I'm a fellow aussie and I love her but it was very slack). I mean, when you are spending that much money on a movie - get the damn costuming and make-up right!!

Why is it that lower budget films (especially English ones) always do a better job in that department? If you want to see a visually stunning move, see "Mrs Henderson Presents'.

One thing I did love however, where the scenes of Mathhattan in the 30's. These were great and an awesome use of digital imaging.

 

[CoffeeDude]

- the girl would be dead from the mere inertia of being shaken about in Kongs hand while he running away with her. I know it's only a movie but the little things are what keep me held ...

That's one of the things that had me busting a gut! There were several times where her head should have flown off completely!

 

[Zach R.]

Is it just me, but did Brody's character not really do anything the whole film?

It seemed to me like he was just going through the motions of whatever was happening at the time on screen, but never really did anything dramatic. It also seemed that he hardly said anything or listened to anything. Like I said, he just seemed to be going through the motions of whatever his character was supposed to be doing at the moment.

I don't know if this was Brody's fault or how the character was written, but I didn't feel anything for Jack Driscoll.

 

[The_Edge]

So I finally went and saw King Kong last evening. I'm a huge fan of the 1933 original and have watched it adoringly many times. In addition, I am not a fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies at all. So I wasn't really looking forward to this remake when I first heard about it many moons ago and I put off going.

However, I've been gushing over the new DVD of the original film and my curiosity got the better of me. So I decided to brave the three hour run time, plunk down my nine (nine?!) dollars and experience it on the big screen.

WOW! I'm glad that I did! I was thoroughly entertained the entire film. I went into the film wanting to take it as it's own entity rather than comparing it to the original and I loved it.

I've read a lot of opposition to Jack Black's portrayal of Carl Denham. I actually enjoyed the new direction the film took with the character. Jack Black played the character as a man obsessed with his own success rather than a thrill seeker. He would willingly put everyone around him in danger just to become a somebody. Then when someone was killed he would justify their death as a saccrifice for his own ambition. This attitude culmitated in that wonderful final line of, "It was beauty killed the beast." Some people have said that Denham should not have been the one to say this line but in direct contrast to the original's sincerity regarding this line (which to a greater extent was true about Kong in that particular version) this showed Denham once again creating a justification in his mind for the death of the great ape. He never turns the blame inward. He finds external reasons for his own failings. I found it fascinating how two readings of the exact same line gave it two completely different meanings.

There are just so many things about the film that I enjoyed I can't possibly go into detail about them all. All the views of 1930's New York were breathtaking. The battle with the T-Rexes was jaw dropping, geek out cool. Naomi Watts was gorgeous and wonderful the whole time. I'm not usually a fan of Adrian Brody but I really liked his character by the end. Kong was amazing! A little too sympathetic early on but it was an interesting take off from the original film where sympathy for the ape is found in the final moments. Kong throwing one bi-plane into another! The gorgeous and lush jungle design! Stamped!

The one thing I didn't care for was the Spider Pit sequence. It was lame (fine motor control of a Thompson anyone?) and I don't think the film needed it just as the orginal didn't. I was also amazed that no one seemed to have a fear of heights. There is no way I would be able to climb an open air ladder up the spire of the Empire State Building. No way. I'd be scared to death. Yet Anne Darrow just walks around it and rocky precipices like she's on the side walk. She doesn't get cold either I guess. Other than that, I thought the film was fantastic and the running time just flew by.

Overall I loved it! Believe it or not I didn't find it to be as brutally violent as the 1933 film (which is one of the qualities I love about that film.) I'll have to see this new King Kong again for sure though.

 

[scotrace]

I mean - the girl would be dead from the mere inertia of being shaken about in Kongs hand while he running away with her.

I leaned to my wife during that part and said "No way. She'd be in pieces."

 

[scotrace]

I don't know if this was Brody's fault or how the character was written, but I didn't feel anything for Jack Driscoll.

Agreed, except "get that bad mop cut."

 

[Slate Shannon]

I was also amazed that no one seemed to have a fear of heights. There is no way I would be able to climb an open air ladder up the spire of the Empire State Building. No way. I'd be scared to death. Yet Anne Darrow just walks around it and rocky precipices like she's on the side walk.

While some people have commented that the insect pit made them squirm, it didn't bother me. The only time I got sweaty palms and a knot in my stomach was when Kong was jumping around on top of the Empire State Building. I don't like heights!

 

[scotrace]

I found the pit scene overdone as well. You know, some New Year's Eve guests asked how I liked Kong, and after I was finished, they said, "That bad huh?" I replied, "oh no, I LOVED it!"

There was a lot of niggling, troublesome detail to bug me. Still loved it.

And yea, that was a brand new Waterman Phileas Jack Driscoll was carrying.

 

[The real Henry]

I really liked the film, but for my taste it is too dramatical!

Anyway, I think they did a very great job on replicating New York's look in those days!:clap (It's was actually one of the reasons I watched the film)

I also think that Jack black was the right actor for Carl Denham!

 

[Zach R.]

I didn't have a problem with Jack Black either, I think people just have an image of him in their mind of just acting stupid or crazy in lame comedies that they cannot get rid of.

 

[Doh!]

I don't feel that Jack Black was miscast due to his comic background -- I think it was due to the way the character was written. I could totally understand falling for Robert Armstrong's "Who's up for some adventure, boys?" vs. Black's... well... a-hole version. Why would I listen to this blowhard? Also, when he gave the "Beauty killed the beast" line, it felt more like he was satirizing it than giving a genuine line read.

Overall, the new "Kong" is quite enjoyable but there are plenty of things wrong with it. Do yourselves a favor and not only watch the original again, but get the DVD and check out the documentaries; they contain some of the most informative, interesting material I've encountered for an older film.

 

[Twitch]

I maintain if no earlier version had ever existed people would not be so negative due to the conscious and unconscious comparisons between the original. This is typical of any remake however. I am entertained by the fact that people mention whether Ann Darrow could survive Kong's rough handling but they've seemingly bought into the fantasy of the rest of the story. Curious.

I also believe that we today are a jaded bunch that are almost at the point of not being entertained by anything due to our penchant for constantly picking out minor errors and validating details. There are nutcases that look frame by frame for any errors or inconsistancy in films- get a life!

All of us are becoming more like this. When we see the latest state of the art CGI we tend to under rate our appreciation not wanting to tip our true feelings. Do we not want to feel foolish when 10 years from now new techniques eclipse these? We've seen all of it many more times in monster and sci-fi stories since 1932. Dracula, The Wolfman, Frankenstien, The Mummy have all been seed for many renditions. It's curious why we can't simply acknowledge the originals for their simple, effective method of conveying the story and go on to immerse ourselves in the effects and modern cinematography, but always seek to find flaws in subsequent versions.

I think that is the key. We can almost never allow this immersion into entertainment for fear of something. We can't enjoy Brendan Frasier's wit or the graphic imagery of epic proportions because we're telling our movie mate, "yeah, in the original they did this or that." Being enthralled by Boris Karloff's freightening face shouldn't be forgotten but carping that the biplane used in the modern rendition is not accrate to the era is senseless.

Could anyone replace Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca? No. Same thing goes for Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney and Boris Karloff. No one should see subsequent actors as supplanting them but simply offering their take on the timeless characters. Who likes Jack Nicholson's slant in Wolf? Different but not alien either. Does he degrade or eclipse Lugosi? Of course not. It's apples and oranges.

I used to review entertainment software and found with time that buyers were becomming harder and harder to satisfy even with revolutionary new technology. The hardcore were so jaded as to never be satisfied where the neophytes were satisfied with crappy products till they got experience.

I find the comments and logic behind them here quite interesting from a purient interest indeed. I think that a simply topic about a movie tells volumes of us as Americans and people.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I just sat through the DVD of King Kong and boy am I glad I didn't waste anymore of my life by seeing this lamentably bad film in a theater. I never laughed AT a film so much in my life. It is so putridly bad, I don't know where to start.

For one thing, every scene is overly sentimental and overly dramatic. Minor characters are given elaborate back-stories they do not need, and given so by "Fox Mulder"-like catch-up dialogue. Speaking of dialogue, it is as flat and unbelievable as a Lucas script.

The acting is laughably bad. Worst of all is Jack Black who looks lost in this film, mugging his way haplessly through this like a 16 year-old that has wandered on to the set. He simply cannot act. No amount of mugging bug-eyes into the camera can make up for his lack of expressing any emotional resonance.

Each frame of film is overdone. There is too much stage dressing: through in a ton of bugs, giant ape skeletons, natives with white eyes and bad teeth, anything Mr. Jackson can think of.

This film is pretentiously bad. Mr. Jackson thinks he is brilliant and he may be, but brilliance needs discipline. Everything here is so ridiculously overdone.

So much of this film is stupid, I hardly know what else to list to make my case. How about shooting bugs off someone with a Thompson, or dinosaurs swinging from vines while falling down a crevasse, or Anne trying to teach Kong to speak, or Anne dancing Vaudevillian style to a laughing Kong, or the pole-vaulting native making his way to the ship, or the disturbing relationship between "Jimmy" and "Mr. Hayes," or the fact that Anne would be dashed to pieces from Kong or at least suffered some serious shaken-baby-syndrome, or her Stockholm syndrome. I could go on and on and on and on.

This is yet another reason why I don't waste time on going to the movies.

 

[Steve]

You have to admit though, the scene on top of the Empire State Building is cinematic beauty; which is what I loved most about the film.

 

[scotrace]

I just sat through the DVD of King Kong and boy am I glad I didn't waste anymore of my life by seeing this lamentably bad film in a theater.
The acting is laughably bad.
Each frame of film is overdone.
This film is pretentiously bad.
So much of this film is stupid...
This is yet another reason why I don't waste time on going to the movies.

Is this something you feel strongly about, Hem?

It played better on the big screen. I'm working my way through the DVD and am surprised at how little things bug me lots more in this format. The worst is Jack Black. The worst, most amateurish, 10-grade high school first-time on stage performance ever immortalized on film.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Is this something you feel strongly about, Hem?

It played better on the big screen. I'm working my way through the DVD and am surprised at how little things bug me lots more in this format. The worst is Jack Black. The worst, most amateurish, 10-grade high school first-time on stage performance ever immortalized on film.

You know, I wrote the rant above right after I finished the film, so I needed to vent.

The reason I reacted so strongly is that I am a fan of Mr. Jackson. I thought the LOTR trilogy was brilliant, every moment and frame of film. Also, I am a huge fan of "King Kong." Knowing modern cincema, I had adjusted my expectations way way down, but not far enough.

The zeal of my criticism come from feeling cheated by a brilliant film maker and the indignation of seeing the legacy of an excellent film besmerched.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I told you guys...this is a mediocre, overrated film.

 

[Feraud]

I never thought this remake would amount to much. All the Kong hype helped me get my '33 version of King Kong on dvd.

 

[Magus]

Ok...let me get out my flame resistant suit.

Watched it last night with my wife...we both liked it. We expected Action Fulf put your brain in nutral and enjoy a ride entertainment and had a great time with it....we DO like thinking movies as well by the way. But when we put on something like this we try to gear our expectations to match what we anticipate the film to be...generally we are not dissapointed.

Some observations.

1. Great hats...

2. The guy fighting the slugs...I don't know how that could have looked more realistic. Though I am not sure that I HAD to see that...

3. The close ups of her and Kong. Well done I think. (with a few bad exceptions)

4. Interesting to consider a time where a ship of men would even consider going back for one female, let alone do it. Now... in the world of today ...hmmm...it would be "Gee she was great...yep we're gonna miss her."

5. The original "Monkey Style" Kung Fu...look out T Rex...my technique is superior to yours!

Would I watch it again? No.
Would it make my top ten? Not even close.
Did I like it with my wife by my side and a top shelf margarita? Sure thing, fun evening.


Just my thoughts, not trying to convince anyone.

M