King Kong (2005)

Hello everybody. I've seen the movie recently and wrote this review. Please share your opinions with the new girl on the block🙂.
Almost a month has passed since Peter Jackson’s King Kong was released. At last I braced up and saw this movie. For more than 3 hours I was staring at the screen and after they turned on the lights I realized that I have no impression at all. Neither good nor bad one. Everything was so trivial and unexciting that the most vivid memory of the movie was a badly drawn 3D raptor.
A lot of people did not like that the movie was so long. Well, if a film is reasonably long (e.g. classical “Apocalypse Now”) it does make sense. But if a movie has a huge number of unnecessary long scenes there is a big possibility that watchers will fall asleep somewhere in the middle of the action.
But OK, it is 187 minutes long. So there should be tons of details considering each and every character. Is it so? No way! Actually Mr. Jackson even failed to resolve some of the plotlines. Anton Chekhov, Russian writer famous for his theatrical plays, once said that if there is a gun hanging on the wall in the first act of a play, it should go bang by the third act.

So, there is a boy named Jimmy who comes from a mysterious place he never wants to talk about. He fears something and wants to fight his fear. There’s also a guy on the ship who protects Jimmy and seems to know somewhat more about his life. That is a gun. Does it go bang? Not this time. Jimmy’s friend dies and they boy never tells his story. Absolutely useless details.

This is one of the most vivid examples but there are dozens of unnecessary episodes which make the movie so long. This is especially true for chasing and fighting scenes. They are very long and become boring quite soon.
Nevertheless, the producers have already made big money on the Big Ape and probably will make even more. The audience likes fights. The audience likes chases. The audience likes trick effects.
Bread and circuses. Oh, I mean “popcorn and action movies”. Now that’s it.

Nice Review. Very informative. People who think differently would respect your well-inforced opinion.

yeah..it was abit too long..but I could sit through again because I liked the actors in it and I like the story and I think it was very well-done and well acted by Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis hehehe I just overall loved it 😄

Originally posted by DarkWizard
Are you inferring you haven't seen the movie yet?

Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/w/King-Kong-%281933%29-Restored-2005--Giant-Spider-Scene?v=1jp2VW5QWpk&search=king%20kong

HERE IT IS GUYS...the missing scene we were all discussing before. These are some of the gruesome scenes the 1933 version cut out when shown in theaters. Pretty horrific for its time, i guess.

ENJOY!

Aiiie, that was a little frightening. I can see why people back then would be apalled.

I was immensely impressed with this movie. PJ does it again imo. The 3 and a half hours passed really fast.

Adrien Brody definitely stole the show, well apart from the monkey. Naomi had like 5 lines but her facial expressions were great imo. And so unlike his other works, Jack Black has gained respect in my books.

Originally posted by SpyCspider

HERE IT IS GUYS...the missing scene we were all discussing before. These are some of the gruesome scenes the 1933 version cut out when shown in theaters. Pretty horrific for its time, i guess.

ENJOY! [/B]

Good work digging that up. That's the clip from the original King Kong 2-disc set (that I mentioned earlier) that Peter Jackson made based on their impression of what should have happened in the canyon. The Strackyosaurus (sp?) turns up later in Son of Kong also. Great idea for PJ to do this.

Nicely written review Miss_Nash, but I have a few comments:

Originally posted by Miss_Nash
For more than 3 hours I was staring at the screen and after they turned on the lights I realized that I have no impression at all. Neither good nor bad one.

It must take alot to impress you! Or maybe just not re-makes of classic monster movies.

Originally posted by Miss_Nash
Everything was so trivial and unexciting that the most vivid memory of the movie was a badly drawn 3D raptor.

"Trivial"? I agree this movie doesn't solve the meaning of life, but who expected it to? "Unexciting" ??....an hour and a half of running around an island full of dinosaurs and monsters! Do you not like roller coater rides? Can't you feel the adventure of being on an uncharted island in the 30's? The mystery? the suspense? "badly drawn raptor".. I agree the dinosaurs were not up to Kong standard, but since the Kong standard is the state of the art, best special effects ever made, I think it's obvious that the money/time went into Kong and the dinosaurs were done good enough for the sub-plots. For example, the stampede was obviously just for pure fun. It gives us a chase, gets the heart pounding, and sets up the next scene with Ann and Kong, which is slow and touching. Good pacing trick.

Originally posted by Miss_Nash
But OK, it is 187 minutes long. So there should be tons of details considering each and every character. Is it so? No way! Actually Mr. Jackson even failed to resolve some of the plotlines. Anton Chekhov, Russian writer famous for his theatrical plays, once said that if there is a gun hanging on the wall in the first act of a play, it should go bang by the third act.

I agree that the sub plot with Jimmy could have been cut out, but I think Jimmy and the "Heart of Darkness" book, helps to set up a mood of mystery and facing your fear. It works ok for me, but I can understand that it doesn't hit home for everyone.

Originally posted by Miss_Nash
The audience likes fights. The audience likes chases. The audience likes trick effects.
Bread and circuses. Oh, I mean “popcorn and action movies”. Now that’s it. [/B]

This is "King Kong". If you go see a re-make of a classic monster movie about a big ape and dinosaurs, I think you should be expecting chases and fights and special effects. That's what I expected, and that's what I got, in triplicate!

was no one else freaked out by the native people on the island??

i mean the way that girl just stood there with her arm out was really weird, and then when she actually grabbed the guy (jack black) i screamed! no one else in the cinema did tho.... 😮

The natives were kinda freaky ✅

Dear gang,

This movie is the movie I will go see this weekend. Only because of what certain people here have said about it. I believe I will like this movie.

Love, Preston.

Originally posted by Tired Hiker
Dear gang,

This movie is the movie I will go see this weekend. Only because of what certain people here have said about it. I believe I will like this movie.

Love, Preston.

um....ok

ITS AN AMAZING FILM..............................Tired Hiker, bring a box of tissues.

Even the hardest person will cry 😛

Originally posted by T.M
The natives were kinda freaky ✅

Yes they were....very unlike the classic where they were more human-like and had some vestige of a non-savage-voodoo culture. The natives were less zombiesh in the classic; with the 2005 one, they're depicted pretty much like orcs.

It's funny how things are often switched in remakes. In the classic, Kong was more horrifying, but in a disturbing way..almost like acting what a gigantic mentally ill HUMAN would do to a girl. Kong in the remake is very gorilla-like....animal-like, but with a different sort of anthropormophism. It's more Disney-ish...and accurate, I guess.

2Muaddib

What I was trying to say in the passage about Chekhov is that each strange detail given in the beginning should be resolved by the end of the movie. I'm not asking where the hell the ape comes from. But Jimmie's story could add a lot to the plot. They started it but failed to complete the task.

2SpyCspider

Thanks a lot. Veeeeeery scary dinos and crabs

Originally posted by SpyCspider
Yes they were....very unlike the classic where they were more human-like and had some vestige of a non-savage-voodoo culture. The natives were less zombiesh in the classic; with the 2005 one, they're depicted pretty much like orcs.

It's funny how things are often switched in remakes. In the classic, Kong was more horrifying, but in a disturbing way..almost like acting what a gigantic mentally ill HUMAN would do to a girl. Kong in the remake is very gorilla-like....animal-like, but with a different sort of anthropormophism. It's more Disney-ish...and accurate, I guess.

Blah blah blah....you're just nitpicking over some dumb shit.

Am I the only one who wanted a sex scene? LMAO. I wanted to see Kong **** Ann, booooooooooooo.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
Blah blah blah....you're just nitpicking over some dumb shit.

says the person who possibly STILL HASN'T seen the movie yet. 🤨

grow up, kid. I wasn't nitpicking. I was COMPARING. That's what people who've SEEN the movie do. Maybe you'll understand when you're older...

1.I still haven't seen the movie but I will soon so don't worry about me.

2.Yes,you were nitpicking.

3.You don't know how old I am so you can't say ''maybe you'll understand when you're older''.Besides,when will you grow up and learn that you don't start sentences with small letters?