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.