King Kong (2005)

Originally posted by DarkWizard
With all respect to above opinions, I thought the movie was great. It's in my favorites list.

People don't understand why the film is so different, stretched, and exaggerated. Without taking into consideration that this is 'Peter Jacksons King Kong'.

I took it in to consideration. "Lord of the Rings" were long, and rightfully so. Look at the source material. This time, Jackson was basing a movie off of another movie. The original was approximately 1/2 the run time of "his" version. The majority of said version was also a bunch of filler, with sequence after sequence of character development that was overdone, unnecessary, and misdirected. Granted, Kong was the supposed to be the focus, but that left all the other characters to sit and rot. A bunch of talent was literally wasted by Peter Jackson while he showcased WETA's abilities and, what I found to be, their unimpressive CGI monkey. Not to mention harping on Ann and Kong's love connection, which, by movies end, was emotionally tiresome and again, borderline beastial.

By the middle of the movie, we knew there was some bizzare connection, and that the monkey had feelings. But ice skating? Give me a break. Why not focus on some much needed CLOSURE and RELEVENCE for the gaggle of supporting characters, which weren't in the original, BTW. Kong, Ann, Driscoll and Denham. That's what should have been the movies focus.

For a supposed epic, there were too many elements of a simplistic summer blockbuster.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
By the middle of the movie, we knew there was some bizzare connection, and that the monkey had feelings. But ice skating? Give me a break.

I remember them getting there by accident. Or they just so 'happened to get there'. The scene was used to break the line between peace and war, with Kong, when the cannon was fired towards kong.

good good good movie.

best king kong movie ever. skull island was freaky.

Kong is probably my top movie of all time. The fact that gorillas are my favorite animal only adds to that.

What'sso great bout this movie.... big monkey, blondie & Empire State.... it is very long and boring!

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I took it in to consideration. "Lord of the Rings" were long, and rightfully so. Look at the source material. This time, Jackson was basing a movie off of another movie. The original was approximately 1/2 the run time of "his" version. The majority of said version was also a bunch of filler, with sequence after sequence of character development that was overdone, unnecessary, and misdirected. Granted, Kong was the supposed to be the focus, but that left all the other characters to sit and rot. A bunch of talent was literally wasted by Peter Jackson while he showcased WETA's abilities and, what I found to be, their unimpressive CGI monkey. Not to mention harping on Ann and Kong's love connection, which, by movies end, was emotionally tiresome and again, borderline beastial.

By the middle of the movie, we knew there was some bizzare connection, and that the monkey had feelings. But ice skating? Give me a break. Why not focus on some much needed CLOSURE and RELEVENCE for the gaggle of supporting characters, which weren't in the original, BTW. Kong, Ann, Driscoll and Denham. That's what should have been the movies focus.

For a supposed epic, there were too many elements of a simplistic summer blockbuster.

Jackson's version was longer because he expanded on the action sequences which, i might add were what got the original kong so much attention. And also because he made a much more tangible relationship between Ann and Kong. In the original Kong has no reason to like Ann other than she is blonde and all the other women on the island are natives.(this is pretty racist) However, in Jackson's version kong plans to kill Ann just like he does with his other sacrifices, not because she is pretty, but because she is the only one who treats him with kindness.

As for the comment about relevence and closure...

Is there anything more relevant than love? Love is something that everyone feels and this film portrays it better than most.

To suggest that it was merely action sequences that made "King Kong" so memorable is underappreciating the movie entirely. The story, the suspense, the cinematography, the writing, and the outstanding performances ALL played equal parts in making it a classic. There was very little action in the original, it was all suspense and drama. They didn't have Kong trapesing through an island full of Bronchiosaurus' (sp.) and he didn't (unnecessarily) take on THREE T-Rex. Just one. Peter Jackson amped up the carnage and stuffed the scenes leading up to them with filler, a bunch of characters that were hardly important, and the love interest was there, but his biggest flaw was overproducing both that, and the movie itself.

It's very flawed, IMO. Not enough of some things, too much of most, and I didn't think it flowed well at all. The best parts of the movie were more or less in the trailer.

As for closure, Kong and Ann got theirs, but all 100 other characters in the movie just seemed to fade into, where else, but the background.

The Billy Elliot character made absolutely no sense. They created this whole backstory for him and took it nowhere... That is bad writing. Apart from that side story and the bronto stampede (*cringe*), everything else is perfect in my opinion...

Whether or not they were needed, the other action sequences were amazing... and that, I think, was their main purpose.

Originally posted by C-Dic
To suggest that it was merely action sequences that made "King Kong" so memorable is underappreciating the movie entirely. The story, the suspense, the cinematography, the writing, and the outstanding performances ALL played equal parts in making it a classic. There was very little action in the original, it was all suspense and drama. They didn't have Kong trapesing through an island full of Bronchiosaurus' (sp.) and he didn't (unnecessarily) take on THREE T-Rex. Just one. Peter Jackson amped up the carnage and stuffed the scenes leading up to them with filler, a bunch of characters that were hardly important, and the love interest was there, but his biggest flaw was overproducing both that, and the movie itself.

It's very flawed, IMO. Not enough of some things, too much of most, and I didn't think it flowed well at all. The best parts of the movie were more or less in the trailer.

As for closure, Kong and Ann got theirs, but all 100 other characters in the movie just seemed to fade into, where else, but the background.

There was very little action in the original? are you serious? There's just as many action scenes as in the new one, they were just shorter. Peter Jackson actually omited at least two in the group men shooting the stegasaurus which wasn't in the new one, Kong fighting a pteradactile which I don't think was in the new one, a very prolonged sequence of Kong rampaging on Skull island when he gets through the wall and starts eating people which wasn't in the new one, and another prolonged scene in which the men are attacked by brontosauruses in the lake which is not in the new one either. Jakcson did add a couple fight scenes too however so it pretty much balances out except the new film is much longer so it is spread out. Now, you mention the story, suspense, cinematography, and acting as contributing to the film's fame as much as the action. However Jackson's Kong eclipses the old film in every one of those aspects. They added depth and character to what most people regard as a pretty simple story. There i s no suspense in the old one because Ann wants Kong to be killed instead of in the new one where she actually tries to save her captor, adding infinitely more drama. Cinematography? You can not possibly believe that the old kong has better cinematography than the new one. The new New York is absolutly gorgeous. As for acting, we have come so much further in terms of acting technique and believability that you can't even compare the acting in the two films. The old one has boring archtypes for characters and are played by actors who seem to know that their characters are boring because they are totally flat. In the new film, the characters are more interesting, thugh over-the-top without ever turning into the cartoonish cardboard cut-outs that the original actors were. Long story short, the original was a groun-breaking film in terms of action, but was average in almost every other aspect even by 1933 standards. I f you do some research it didn't get very good reviews because it was all action and no story. Jackson has given it story.

Was the relationship between Ann and Kong actual love? 😘

Or was more like a loyal dog and his master?

Anyone?

I just ordered the Special Edition DVD 😄

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Was the relationship between Ann and Kong actual love? 😘

Or was more like a loyal dog and his master?

Anyone?

You don't love your dog??? 🙁

Originally posted by Rapscallion
There was very little action in the original? are you serious? There's just as many action scenes as in the new one, they were just shorter. Peter Jackson actually omited at least two in the group men shooting the stegasaurus which wasn't in the new one, Kong fighting a pteradactile which I don't think was in the new one, a very prolonged sequence of Kong rampaging on Skull island when he gets through the wall and starts eating people which wasn't in the new one, and another prolonged scene in which the men are attacked by brontosauruses in the lake which is not in the new one either. Jakcson did add a couple fight scenes too however so it pretty much balances out except the new film is much longer so it is spread out. Now, you mention the story, suspense, cinematography, and acting as contributing to the film's fame as much as the action. However Jackson's Kong eclipses the old film in every one of those aspects. They added depth and character to what most people regard as a pretty simple story. There i s no suspense in the old one because Ann wants Kong to be killed instead of in the new one where she actually tries to save her captor, adding infinitely more drama. Cinematography? You can not possibly believe that the old kong has better cinematography than the new one. The new New York is absolutly gorgeous. As for acting, we have come so much further in terms of acting technique and believability that you can't even compare the acting in the two films. The old one has boring archtypes for characters and are played by actors who seem to know that their characters are boring because they are totally flat. In the new film, the characters are more interesting, thugh over-the-top without ever turning into the cartoonish cardboard cut-outs that the original actors were. Long story short, the original was a groun-breaking film in terms of action, but was average in almost every other aspect even by 1933 standards. I f you do some research it didn't get very good reviews because it was all action and no story. Jackson has given it story.

Some good points here.

But wasn't the brontosauruses lake scene basically equivalent to the stampede scene?

Mostly opinions, not so many points.

Jackson made his own "King Kong". He took what he liked about the original and pretty much doubled it, and complicated it, as if it were his trademark to make nothing but long movies now that LOTR is over.

However Jackson's Kong eclipses the old film in every one of those aspects.

Opinion.

They added depth and character to what most people regard as a pretty simple story. There i s no suspense in the old one because Ann wants Kong to be killed instead of in the new one where she actually tries to save her captor, adding infinitely more drama.

The story worked FINE when it was simple. There's no more "depth" to this version than the original, unless you mean that we should make like that dumbass "Grizzly Man" and try and bridge a gap between humans and wild animals because "we're all mammals". P.J. pretty much made it a borderline beastiality picture. All Kong and Darrow had to do was ****, and you could call it a day. It was too heavy on the "humanity" of Kong angle. Way too heavy. While he focused on a bizzare love story, he left the supporting cast to rot, with no closure or sense of importance.

Ann doesn't care about Kong because she fell in love with Jack, and she feared for her life. There's no room for some ****ed up simian love triangle. Why would anyone want DRAMA or a LOVE story in a "King Kong" remake, involving KONG himself. There's PLENTY of suspense in the original. Charting off to a forbidden island, coming across a giant ape, not knowing what to expect from the natives, the ape falling for a human woman, Kong rampaging through New York. The element of surprise was VERY MUCH alive in the original, and people actually wondered and moreso cared what happened, unlike me in this one. I found no emotional attachment to anyone.

Cinematography? You can not possibly believe that the old kong has better cinematography than the new one. The new New York is absolutly gorgeous.

I can and I do. The almost seamless integration of stop motion animation, which was done by human hands, not super-computers, and human beings was flawless. There were beautiful locales, the Empire State Building with the biplanes and helldivers...everything. Signature scene after signature scene.

As for acting, we have come so much further in terms of acting technique and believability that you can't even compare the acting in the two films.

I can and I do. Jack Black can't do drama. Adrian Brody was alright, Andy Serkis was funny, and Naomi Watts played a typical damsel in distress. Their acting was modeled after the people of the 30's, which was just..acting. Nothing strenuous.

The old one has boring archtypes for characters and are played by actors who seem to know that their characters are boring because they are totally flat. In the new film, the characters are more interesting, thugh over-the-top without ever turning into the cartoonish cardboard cut-outs that the original actors were.

What do we care about human characters when the main attraction is the ape? That's like going to the circus and complaining about the ringleader. They got neutral looking people for the remake to play stand-along roles. Atleast Fay Wray was absolutely stunning, and nice to look at. The original actors are no better nor worse than those of 2005, IMO. There weren't big name stars in the original, either. Are you familiar with films of the 30's? I am. Most of them are very simplistic, black and white, and rely on dialogue to set the tone of the movies.

Long story short, the original was a groun-breaking film in terms of action, but was average in almost every other aspect even by 1933 standards. I f you do some research it didn't get very good reviews because it was all action and no story. Jackson has given it story.

The original "King Kong" hasn't recieved good reviews?!?! There wasn't a story? Are you so completely immersed in the new film (and your own opinions) that you're in denial? It's the most influential monster movie of all time! It's No. 204 of 250# greatest movies of all time on IMDB! It was the first movie with a running orchestral store, not using sound library clips! It more or less BIRTHED special effects as we know them today!

I mean..we're all entitled to our opinions, but let's be a little less biased, use what we know, and be a little more fair when juding an American classic like the 1933 "Kong".

Originally posted by C-Dic
I can and I do. Jack Black can't do drama. Adrian Brody was alright, Andy Serkis was funny, and Naomi Watts played a typical damsel in distress. Their acting was modeled after the people of the 30's, which was just..acting. Nothing strenuous.

In My opinion, Jack Black did a good job. Sure, he's no Robert Armstrong but still did good in Not only playing a desperate director at the end of his pitiful rope, But also doing a nice job switching genres so quickly and efficiently. In other words, when I watched him I completely forgot he was in 'Shallow hal', 'School of rock', etcetera.. Which was good. Because it could have been much much worse. (Jimmy Fallon, Kyle Gass, you get the picture). If anyone thinks someone else could have done better, without stealing the film, or making it feel out of place, please let me know.

I agree with Brody, Serkis, and Watts. Although Brody felt like the 'Lurch' of the cast. At the end of the film, I felt like he had the smaller portion of the movies dialogue.

I really liked Jack Black in it like DW said he isnt like the original Carl Denham but then again i think Jack's part was harder mainly because one it was his first drama and two because he had to play more of an aggressive Denham in the original one he was obssessed over the film nearly as much as he was about saving Ann. I really liked him in the spider pit where he beats the crap out of all the creatures

There are plenty of "good guy" actors that could have played Carl Denham, IMO. Namely, Paul Giamatti.

Jack Black did a good job, C-Dic. I think its just cuz you're used to seeing him in slap-stick comedies, and that affected your judgment.

I never said he did a bad job, really, he was just neutral.

Originally posted by C-Dic
I never said he did a bad job, really, he was just neutral.

To me, that kind of is a good job. The fact that Jack Black was able to play a more serious role without ****ing it up was a success in my mind.