I can't believe there isn't a thread about this yet. This movie is unbelievable. It is absolutely breathtaking. It is so grand, it's as epic and ambitious as all three Lord of the Rings. It was one of the very few times in the theater that I was completely taken in by the world presented to me. I forgot that my life existed for three hours yesterday. What an experience! It is so well done and the visual effects are the best to date in history. I can't get over it. Anyone else feel the same?

Someone should have said "no" to half the movie.

TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG

Actually I didn't hink it was too long, maybe just about 15 min or so. What I thought was bad was some o fth CGI of the dinosaurs. The ape was amazing, but some of the dinosaurs look BAD like they were running in front of a screen. Amazingly Jurrasic Park still looks the best for any dinosaur movie thus far. Otherwise Kong was entertaining. Sort of a sad commentary that we generally take what we want and do whatever we want with it without thinking of the consequences.

I loved it. One of the best action movies ever. It's world wide gross is $146M in the first 5 days.

Sort of a sad commentary that we generally take what we want and do whatever we want with it without thinking of the consequences.

Like remaking classic movies? ;-)

and a sluggish opening weekend... down from expectations.

Like remaking classic movies? ;-)

Exactly...LOL

and a sluggish opening weekend... down from expectations.

I doubt it wil touch Titanic... Thhis is not a girly film..

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051218/box_office.html?.v=5

Peter Jackson's remake of "King Kong" did out-gross the opening weekend of his "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," the first of his J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy trilogy that debuted with $47.2 million. But factoring in a 12 percent rise in admission prices since that 2001 film's release, "King Kong" sold about 7.9 million tickets, 450,000 fewer than "Fellowship of the Ring."

Three hours was no problem for me... I could have sat there longer. It's been a long time since I've seen a movie that made me feel as tickled as a kid.

Notice the overhead view of the broken bi-plane spiraling down toward 1930s Manhattan? Amazing how unbelievably realistic CGI has become.

Jackson's remake is amazing, he didn't ruin it. I went opening night, and 2.5 hours into it, right when Kong bursts out of the theatre, the projector screwed up... So we got free passes and I went again the next night. I didn't mind though, cause it's so good. I didn't find it long at all, it went by fairly quickly if you ask me. Not one dull moment. 5 out of 5.

We were all gonna see it last night but we put it off till next week, plus I want to finish seeing the original 1933 version first before I see it. Gonna get some burgers and beer and enjoy them in the theater, maybe we'll even bring in some pizza.

Thing I like about the theaters here is they sell beer and you can bring in your own food.

Saw the film last night and loved it. It looked like Jackson wanted to take each part a few steps further, like the Kong verses T-Rex (or V-Rex as they seem to be called according to the merchandising) fight was not what I was expecting, and was much better actually.

One thing I noticed, is that in every scene with the natives, it was raining.

Gonna get some burgers and beer and enjoy them in the theater, maybe we'll even bring in some pizza.

Thing I like about the theaters here is they sell beer and you can bring in your own food.

Man, I'm moving to Japan!

Mike

It is one of the best and most fun movies I've seen in years, a good all around fun time at the movies. Definitely agree, about the being a kid again comment. The movie had a little of everything, with just enough teasing and follow through to be satisfying. Peter Jackson had a good time filling in extra steps to each scene. I loved the way he'd show you something creep/scary, then just keep finding ways to let it keep getting it closer and closer to the characters. He did that through out the whole film.

Just saw it twice in two days, cuz my friends can't get their butts gear. Interestingly, it felt shorter the second time I saw it.

Well it made me laugh and it made me cry, so for me it has the full range of human emotion.

The last time that happened to me in a theatre was 'The Legend of 1900' which incidently also has an amazing portrait shot of a beautiful woman on a ship.

Cant fault it really , definitely one of the best movies ever.

Kicked a$$

the shot near the end when kong is falling and the camera rotates around looking down at the city, the planes fly by, GAaAAAH BEAUTIFUL (holds hand to heart) naomi watts was absolutely great in this, SHE is beauitful

adrian brodi did awesome as well...jack black...eh..he cant not be funny

I notice most people saying they were into the visuals; very few mention story or acting.

In my opinion Naomi Watts made this movie watchable: without her all the CGI in the world could not have sold this movie. Adrian Brody was ok, and Jack Black was I guess ok; I wasn't impressed.

Yes the CGI was good with Kong, though in some places unfinished: look at the last scenes where Naomi stands up; she's pretending to hold his finger but you can clearly see there is no finger!! The Dinosaurs, yeah Jurassic Park rules!!

The movie was too long and paid attention to bit characters that added no real value to the overall story. The beginning could easily have been 20 minutes shorter, and the overall movie about 30 minutes shorter, which in my opinion would have led to a more emotional experience and more of a ride, we did all know how it was going to end after all.

The Cinematorgraphy was great; excellent, really nothing to argue about there.

Epic? Hardly. A long movie does not an Epic make. Vaudeville to tame the savage beast? [Does anyone know anything about Vaudeville on this board? It's highly ironic that a caucasian woman tames a wild beast with Vaudeville - just a personal rant here] Maybe on another planet, hardly in the jungle with a beast accustomed to eating the offerings put out by the cannibals/tribe.

My grade for this movie, a B- nothing more.

Epic? Hardly. A long movie does not an Epic make.


Say whatever you want about this film, but to say it is not epic is ridiculous! Here is the definition of epic - Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size. Everything about that movie falls into that category (even the running time). Kong himself is huge, the action is unrelenting, and especially back in New York. Scenes from the top of the ESB are so gigantic in scope that I felt I was up there, looking down too. After watching that movie you almost wonder how you even begin to make a film that large. King Kong is most definitely an epic movie.

After watching that movie you almost wonder how you even begin to make a film that large.

www.kongisking.net

Watch the Post-Production diaries there. And go buy the Production Diaries, cause they are on DVD now, since they took those off the site.

"Here is the definition of epic - Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size." - Mitchell Stookey.

Well by your definition then any film is epic, since most films touch on matters that surpass the ordinary, as for scope or size, lol, well then the following are all epic:

Innerspace
Star Wars (no arguement here)
Battlestar Galactica (even the TV series)
Terminator
The Matrix Series
The LOTR Trilogy (no argument there)
6th Element
12 Monkeys
The Sound of Music (anyone wanna argue this one?)
The Godfather Series
Scarface
Jurassic Park (all of them)
Star Trek (all of them?)

I can go on, but I think I provided enough examples above :-)

So, do you disagree?

Kong is not an epic when compared to Ben Hur, the Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, or any of the more classically accepted Epics. Just because a digital landscape suggests size does not automatically make it great in scope. And like I already said, everyone seems to be so caught up in the visual element, the story seems to be getting an automatic passing grade. But, this is all just my opinion. :-)

No need to argue over the definition of epic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=epic)

A love story between a woman and a monstrous ape is pretty out of the ordinary, and does fit the definition of epic. A monstrous ape that can rip apart a dinosaur's jaw, and then turns around to appreciate a sunset, is definitely out of the ordinary.

But I understand where Krystian is coming from, the classic epics have massive, world changing repercussions for the characters as well as the audience, which is where scope comes in. Maybe a better description of the classic epics would be grand or sweeping epics.

King Kong is a great rollercoaster ride, but you don't really come out of it with an earth-shatteringly different view of the world as we know it.

And yes I admit to tearing up during the movie.

But I understand where Krystian is coming from, the classic epics have massive, world changing repercussions for the characters as well as the audience, which is where scope comes in. Maybe a better description of the classic epics would be grand or sweeping epics.

Though I agree with Krystian with regard to the term "epic" (I can't speak for the quality of the film, as I haven't seen it, and have no plans to--I'm not a fan of Kong, nor primates in general...my face flushes red when I think of this film, and I have heated arguments with no one in particular when an ad for the movie shows on TV), I like what you've proposed. In my mind, the issue at hand isn't "what is technically called an epic according to the dictionary", but "what SHOULD be called an epic, according to the feel of the work".

I'm as much a Grammar Nazi as the next guy, but from where I'm sitting, something like Lord of the Rings is epic; continent-wide war, hundred thousand man armies sweeping across the landscape, affecting everyone and everything in their path, forever changing the entire world, a battle between the most basic goods and evils of the universe, all peoples doing their part. On the other hand, a story about a single ape captured by a small team of people, who then escapes and wreaks havoc in a single city, scaring the crap out of a few hundred (or few thousand, maybe?) people, then falling in love with a single woman before dying, is not my idea of "epic". Too isolated. Unique, extraordinary, but not grand in either size or concept. Kong is huge, sure, but that just means HE is epic, as far as animals are concerned. Not the film/story.

I agree mostly with your list. However, you cite the Jurassic Park movies as epic. What, exactly, is the difference between King Kong and Jurassic Park? Not only is there a small number of humans on an island with dinosaurs, but they bring Kong back to destroy New York (on a much larger scale than the JP's) and that took until the SECOND Jurassic Park for that to happen. They are identical, except for the fact that King Kong combines from two of the movies. Also, more than just Kong is huge in that movie. *Possible spoilers if you haven't seen the trailer* The chase with all the brachiosauruses and raptor like things is huge. The fight between Kong and the T-rexes is huge. The amount of danger the humans face again and again is huge. The quest they go on to rescue Anne is as dangerous as Frodo and Sam destroying the ring. Everything about that movie is grand and I still believe that it is epic.

I was actually suggesting that Jurassic Park was not epic and threrefore Kong is not epic; I was simply showing that accroding to your definition many movies may be called epic, but actually don't really deserve to be.

Kong is many things: a progression in CGI, an advance in the flexibility filmmakers have, a great exposition in ability for Peter Jackson, even an indication of what a remake can be, but Epic requires far more than mere CGI wizardry and the efforts of a couple actors. Epic should, as Michael Wisniewski and Robert Martens support, really change your world view of something; you should come out of that film experience with a sense that the world has changed, or your view of the world has changed. You've experienced a paradigm shift or something close to it. Kong is a good film - with flaws - but, where is the shift in perspective?

What does the story leave you with? We all knew from the start where the filom was going; it is a remake after all. What was added? What questions does it pose that the original filmmakers did not ask? This is the latest in a long line of remakes after all. Does CGI really make that much of a difference to story? Compare Kong to Godzilla, or Kong to Mighty Joe Young.

I love Naomi Watts in this role, she was transcendant; she became the lynchpin of the movie, she carried the movie far more than any other character, including Kong, but what does the film ask of us as an audience that is groundbreaking, original, or new? In my opinion, nothing. Hence my argument that Kong while large in size does not encompass great scope.

With more time and tighter storytelling perhaps Jackson could have brought the bacon home, but not as the film stands right now. More does not equal better in this case. I do respect the opinions of those who think it is a great movie, however as I said, this is just my opinion.

:-)

King Kong was certainly the best movie I've ever seen. I went to watch it the first day it came to the cinemas and it was simply amazing how it pulled you to the middle of the scenes. The sounds were stunning also. Didn't like the sad end though :(

The chase with all the brachiosauruses and raptor like things is huge. The fight between Kong and the T-rexes is huge. The amount of danger the humans face again and again is huge. The quest they go on to rescue Anne is as dangerous as Frodo and Sam destroying the ring. Everything about that movie is grand and I still believe that it is epic.

Can you tell me, though, how MANY dinosaurs he fights? Or in how many places they face off? The creatures and settings are large, perhaps, but it's still just a handful of entities fighting each other in a relatively confined, isolated place, correct?

I just think the spirit of the word "epic" as it relates to stories implies that the story affects lots of people in lots of places--widespread and far-reaching. No matter how big the animals, sets, scenes, and/or individual shots may be, I don't believe they should solely determine a thing like this.

Maybe it's me, but as big as King Kong (the story) is, when you consider Lord of the Rings (my personal definition of "epic"), there's an enormous leap in scale, not only in the size of the environments, but also the geographic diversity of the locations traversed by the characters, the sheer number of people involved, and the fundamental impact the story has on its own world. Sauron, the rings...they changed everything permanently, and affected everyone in that world in some way, however small. Does King Kong have any impact on the rest of the world? Do most people in that imaginary universe hear anything more about him than a report in the newspaper? Do they care? Are their lives changed?

It just seems unfair, in light of that kind of gap, to use the exact same word to refer to the style of both stories.

Robert got it right in my view: it's what I was saying, size does not equal scope, and no one in NY really cares about Kong or the attachment he's made to Naomi Watts' character. Even Adrian Brody's character never saw KONG as more than a savage beast, perhaps the ultimate competition for the affections of his woman, but even that angle never got major play.

He's just a savage beast, a curiosity that becomes a terror. IF Peter Jackson had contrived to show the humanity behind KONGS actions to more than just one person within the story then it could have become a larger story and affected more people, but he kept the entire emotional interaction between just two characters. There are superficial parallels to LOTRs but really, there is no depth to Kong at the emotional or intellectual level that LOTRs attained.

KONG was a good movie and a great testament to CGI wizardry and the level of realism filmmakers can tap into for their vision, but there were too many flaws for me to even consider this a great movie. If there had been a stronger competitor at the Box Office I hazard a guess that KONG would have done far worse; as always timing is everything.

Once again, just my humble opinion. :-)

Here is the definition of epic

Well to paraphrase a Supreme Court justice, I may not be able to define it but I know it when I see it. :-)

Have just been watching the letterbox version of Greatest Story Ever Told on Turner Classic Movies today. Now that's epic! I've seen this many times on network broadcasts, but never presented in the restored widescreen version on a nice plasma TV. Wow, the photography and especially the lighting in this film is just beautiful. I think I'm going to need to get the DVD so I can see the full quality anamorphic version.

Of course it's w-a-y too l-o-n-g and could be criticized for a lot of other reasons in today's world. But the visuals alone make it worth watching.

Good movie but not great... just too long IMHO. 30s NY was impressive but the language was NOT like the 30s... the vernacular and script had serious problems. If I was a movie exec I would have made him lose the insects and the dino bowling pin pile up scene... that was just... silly. One major continuity error after the 2 leads are thrown into the water trying to escape, the next cut they are bone dry.

All that is splitting hairs though... my biggest issue is that Peter Jackson LOVED the original as a young boy but the film he made is far too intense for many 9 year olds. Like I said, it is good, not great. I think people fail to realize that the reason Jurassic Park looked so good is that it was 80% real animatronics and 20% CGI....


ash =o)

I really wanted to love this movie and mostly I did, but there isn't three hours worth of story here. I like long movies though, so I'm happy to overlook that, if it's the biggest complaint.

What was up with the first mate? Did he have a crush on that annoying kid or what? Why was that plotline even in this movie? I couldn't wait for that little jerk to get his.

I thought the CGI was a mixed bag. Much of it looked so fake it was embarrassing, but a whole lot more of the time it was just amazing -- which was how I felt about the "Lord of the Rings," incidentally. No doubt in my mind that Kong is the most vivid, fully realized CGI character to date in a live-action movie. My directing partner just said that she thought the monkey was the best actor in the whole movie. I thought Jack Black was great though. He's always fun to watch.

... What was up with the first mate? Did he have a crush on that annoying kid or what? Why was that plotline even in this movie? I couldn't wait for that little jerk to get his.Lol, yeah me too, but that's because the kid is not supposed to be lovable.

One of the main themes in the movie is the exploration of what it means to be a man. Each male character, including King Kong, represents different types of men and the phases they go through.

The plot line of the first mate & kid represents the father/son relationship. And that's why the kid is so annoying, he represents what males are like when they're still children: foolish, childish, annoying, and a little dangerous to themselves and those around them, especially when they have no guidance. They could have made the the kid more lovable, but I think it would have played false against this theme in the movie.

One thing to watch for in King Kong, is how each man, treats the women around them. Notice who gives good/bad advice, ignores, manipulates, falls in love, and protects the women in the story, and you'll see the filmmakers commentary on what it means to be a man.

I thought that First mate/cabin boy plot line was going to get out of hand, but I think their roles really added to the movie, especially if you stop to imagine that it was set in the Great Deppression.

The (ah-hem) odd relationship was between the cigar smoking one-eye-closed guy and the chinese cook...

Jimi

I saw Kong two weeks ago and have had plenty of time to reflect on it. Part of me is hoping that I learn to love it, that it grows on me with time. Sadly, this just hasn't happened and I don't think it will.
I have to agree with those who are saying "good, not great". Maybe I've seen one too many movies, maybe I've been making commercials too long and been around the business so much that the magic of movies has been lost a little, or a lot. Or maybe, just maybe, Kong wasn't that great of a movie.
Length of the movie wasn't the problem here, lack of story to sustain a 3 hour pseudo-epic was. The movie felt a bit forced. Jackson in my opinion was trying to stretch a tired and aged story line a bit too far. In the 1930's Kong was a fresh idea and a grand cinematic event never before dared. In 2005 Kong was another in a long line of effects heavy blockbusters and it failed to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack. Yes it was big, and yes it was mostly well done in the CG department, but it still felt hollow and it fell short of it's promise. Much CG and many special effects wonders were in LOTR as well, but lets not forget that ultimately a good film comes down to story and story telling. Effects are just icing on the cake, or at least I feel they should be.

I definitely thought I got my money's worth, but it's interesting to note that Kong is 12 minutes longer than "The Godfather." I don't think there's any question which film put the time to better use.

Part of me is hoping that I learn to love it, that it grows on me with time. Sadly, this just hasn't happened and I don't think it will.I agree with you. I think there are some really great scenes in King Kong, but the entire movie didn't really move me, it's like the BIG point got lost at the end, the story just never made it clear.

It's great piece of entertainment though, and I hope Andy Serkis gets an Academy award for playing Kong.

... Maybe I've seen one too many movies, maybe ... the magic of movies has been lost a little, or a lot. Or maybe, just maybe, Kong wasn't that great of a movie...Yeah, Ethan speaks for me too. My college aged son and I were suitably entertained but moved not at all. I think this movie, like many others I could name, is a litmus test for something in us. I partly envy Jackson and the contributors above who were brought to tears, for still having that much emotion in their gut and that much romanticism in their souls. Me, I have trouble getting past even a detail like the improbability of a bottle smashing on impact against the flesh of the ape's face.

I do adore Jackson's LOR trilogy, as well as the Wizard of Oz, because I'm perfectly willing to suspend disbelief for a blatant fantasy. But when you try to bridge fantasy and reality, you have to be a little more careful to get me to buy in. Is it an overactive and prideful intellect, or simply a deficiency in the emotional department? I don't know.

I'm not totally empty and unreachable, though. The Deerhunter had me shaking in my seat during the harrowing POW scene. Without even trying I came away with a new sense of the differences among individuals in what it meant to be a man. I was unwillingly forced to examine things in myself. If Jackson was reaching for something like that, he missed with me.

Emotionally, the idea of platonic love between large monkey and pretty blonde doesn't work for me. Didn't work for Fae Ray's character in the original either-she screamed and tried to get away through the whole movie. Of course, there was less fascination and dalliance with the notion of good and bad being interchangeable back then, and they hadn't heard of the Stockholm Syndrome.....

I also wanted to like it, and I tried harder than I should have, but ultimately I hated it.
Things I found hard to accept:
1. They kill the noble black guy. Hello 1979.
2. Kong had an apatosaurus (brontosaurus) Jackson's kong has a herd. More is better.
3. Kong had a t-rex, jackson's kong has three(?) more is better.
4. Kong has a fight with a pteronodon. Jackson's kong fights dozens of bats. more is better.
5. In Kong the wall is shown from a human perspective, which gives you a good idea of it's scope. In jackson's kong, it is displayed mostly with crazy swinging (cgi) helicopter shots that keep you from getting a look at it.
6. The camera moves too much, especially during the fight scenes. I could not at any time figure out how many of the trex's were still standing.
7. T-rex on strings. High level video game nonesense.
8. Ann Darrow travels on a ship for several weeks, maybe a couple of months, and makes friends among the crew. Kong kills half of the crew of this ship- while they are engaged in an effort to save Ann. Of course she is going to side with the giant ape that kidnapped and terrorized her. It is only natural. In fact the months of reflection she has had on the voyage back only strtengthen her love for her kidnapper. weak. Really really weak.
9. Kong has just killed dozens of people in manhatten, Ann wants to take him ice skating. Weaker.
10.Who on earth would trust Jack Black's denham even for a moment? Who? And the scene where he "tricks" driscol into staying aboard. the view from the office windows, makes it apparent that the ship is casting off. I figured it out. How come the genius screen writer did not? please.

all in all this movie is about the strongest argument for restraint and the occasional use of a stationary camera that I have ever seen. Furthermore, it shows how wrong one can go when one makes a period piece and insists on viewing the characters from a perspective of contemporary morals. The original Kong contained much of the same subtext as this one- but it had two things this one lacked- originality and subtlety.

Someone should have said "no" to half the movie.

TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG

I could not agree more. Peter Jackon wasted this movie with his ambition. Because this is his favorite youth movie, I believe that he could not cut as much as he should as he wanted to put "everything and more" in.

The result is a three-hour long movie that should have ended after two-hours. The original is 110 minutes and is perfect in length. All the things Peter Jacskon put in do not add to the story. Like the story of that boy, it just does not contribute to the movie. It is all about Ann and Kong.

I must say however that I was so impressed by the special effects and the way the movie was filmed. It was hard to see that New York is almost completely in CGI in this movie. I did not like the scene with King Kong and Ann on the frozen lake in Central Park, I think it is cheesy. However, I understand that many people think this scene is already a classic. I also did not care about the "Jurassic Park" in the middle of the movie. The original movie shows only a few dinosaurs, and not dozens.

So to summarize, I think Peter Jackson could not do with King Kong what he could with Lord of the Rings... only put in the necessary. The original Lord of the Rings episodes where also like 5 hours each and were cut down to 4 hours and then to 3 hours on order of New Line Cinema.

But everyone should see this movie.

There were many great things about King Kong, but it was severely limited by a few things. Here is how I would fix it if I had magical powers (skip to the next post if you don't like criticism of this otherwise good movie):

I would completely cut out the scene with the brontosaurus-like dinosaurs stampeding down the chasm. It was not really relevant and did NOT LOOK GOOD. A movie depending on it's visuals should cut out ridiculous compositing like that. I saw on several occasions (and I'm not alone on this) dinosaur legs passing through people's bodies without touching them. Also, one could not run down a passage that narrow with cows without being crushed. Brontosaurus? Give me a break. This scene made the action boring and silly and dampened the enjoyment of action that happened later.

Three t-rex vs. Kong made the t-rex seem lame. One or two really kick-ash dinosaurs would have made them seem more threatening. And why the heck were they so interested in eating Naomi Watts? They are going to risk their lives for a tiny bite of food? I doubt they would pay something her size any attention. Naomi should have been the reason the fight started, but once King Kong is pounding on your skull you would probably not be interested in a potato-chip sized snack.

Kong needed to have a reason to be eating people. It seemed to be clear that he, like all gorillas, was a vegetarian. His relation to the island's people needed to be elaborated. There was not that much story to begin with and Kong's niche on Skull Island needed to be better shown. There seemed to be something odd going on between Kong and the bad island people, but it never was revealed. Some bad action shots could have been shortened to fit this.

In a partially-related issue, Kong seemed a bit strange to hate ALL people except Naomi Watts' character. Once he realized she is not so bad, they should have shown him being more open-minded about people. THEN, people should betray him (trying to capture him) and he should go ape-sht on them. Why did he start out hating them so much? I don't hate cows and I eat them all the time. Was there something about those creepy island people that started this hatred?

Kong's capture should have happened because of Kong's rage and his single flaw. He should have been out of control pursuing the men and followed the rowboat into the water. Once Kong realized that he was in too deep and can't swim, that is when Jack Black's character would have the opportunity to gas him. They had a harpoon ready and could have hooked the drowning and gassed Kong and floated him out to the boat and winched him up with the cargo crane. This would set up an unjustified overconfidence in their ability to control Kong. This would also establish Kong's flawed personality in that he can't control his rage.

Why didn't Naomi Watt's character EVER stick up for Kong? She never said the obvious "Please don't shoot him! He saved my life! Just leave him alone!" Then, when they antagonize him, the people are fair game. Without someone revealing that Kong is something other than a vile beast, it makes the people seem completely justified in harming him. After all, he killed a bunch of them. Without some of them knowing that they are doing wrong, it takes away human responsibility.

OMG! Give me a frickin wide shot! Throw us a bone! Does ALL action need to be with a long lens 6 feet away from the characters? If they would have, for just three seconds, shown a really wide shot of Kong fighting the t-rex it would have really put things in a better perspective. One thing that was being told about Skull Island is that it is a big and brutal place and Kong is just one of a host of big bad boys. The problem is, they never pulled back to give the audience perspective.

And last, but not least, Jack Black's line at the end of the movie was either written, acted, or both written and acted CHEESY!

I agree with you on one point: the last sentence in the movie is rubbish.

However, I think it was a really great and almost perfect movie.

I disliked it alot. Thought a remake was bad idea--but I was shocked how much of a mess it was, given all I had heard about Jackson's fanatical love for the source material. I think he loved the idea of Kong--but should have examined the original script a bit more carefully.

Jackson had said he had to remake it because audiences couldnt appreciate a black and white film, and supposedly, Kong was such a timeless story it had to be remade. Which was arrogant of him to say on both fronts.

The original is a personal favorite --but the story of a giant ape who goes up a building then falls down, just isnt something with the thematic depth to compare to say, reinterpretations of Hamlet. To suggest it is, is pretentious and "film geek overthink."

It came about when cinema was experimenting and is firmly rooted in that period.

The human characters are pretty thinly drawn(deliberately) with the exception of Denham. What is truly remarkable about it, besides the technological innovations, was that the title character was a 18 inch puppet who didnt speak, and was a ramaging monster, stomping on people, chewing them up, dropping them from windows, and yet--you feel sorry for him at the end.

The remakes hit you over the head with the idea that you have to feel sympathy for him--and they removed all the homicidal violence he was doing in the original.


It wasnt a literal beauty and the beast story--which seems to be how Jackson approached it--having the girl develop this weird bond with Kong was not realistic--and undermined audience sympathy for Kong.

Even Dino Kong didnt go that route. The fact that he didnt have a friend in the world is what helped make the audience feel sorry for him.

Also--I never saw the original Kong as a giant gorilla--he seemed to have a mishmash of simian characteristics--even human qualities, was more like some prehistoric ape than a modern gorilla.

Technically speaking--the JP movies and Mighty Joe Young beat Jackson to the punch--so audiences just couldnt be wowed by the CG novelty of a giant ape(the one scene that was unique in that respect was the ESB finale-hadnt seen a giant CG ape standing on a building in daylight in full colour before-but he could have easily financed a short film without doing an entire movie).

The movie was overindulgent. The backstory for the human characters, the dinosaur fight scenes(I like a good CG spectacular but there has to be some restraint or logic--having dinosaurs swingings from vines and massive pileups of brontosauruses was bad storytelling).


It was like Lucas' prequels--he had years and years to prepare for them--and made a mess. If Jackson was such a fan of Kong you would think he could have thought more about the story. The dialogue was anachronistic at times, in fact--he seemed to be mocking the original, especially Bruce Cabot.

The only good thing about it is that we probably wont see another remake attempt until they perfect 3d or virtual reality.

"The movie was overindulgent."

That sums it up well. I don't understand why those scenes made it into the production, never mind the final release.

"-and they removed all the homicidal violence he was doing in the original."

Actually, Kong killed lots of people toward the end. As he was going through the streets looking for the woman, he picked up and threw several blonde ladies. Being tossed 50 feet in the air is a pretty sure way to die.

I really never felt much sympathy towards any of the characters in the movie except maybe the female lead.

I must not have been paying attention when he was throwing people around. i suspect the Coca Cola ice skating scene in Central Park dulled my senses.

ps
they did make Jessica Lange sympathetic to Kong in the 76 version-my first post suggested otherwise--I just didnt think they were so overt as in the Jackson version.