NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't exactly understand why every critic and their dogs rave about this movie. I recently saw it...it was ok, not HALF as good as these guys are raving.

Granted there were some humorous moments, and the action was well executed...But to be honest, the whole "beauty and the beast" aspect just...bugged me.

3 hours and twenty minutes...a sap fest with a few good moments. The movie seemed to just drone on after the first two hours, and by the time King Kong's death came around, all I was thinking was while the lady was weeping over his impending doom was "Oh GOD just DIE already!". Maybe I'm just not the sentimental type when it comes to movies, maybe I just didn't like how it was executed, all I know is...I didn't particularly like it.

Your thoughts?

i think peter jackson is a genius. i didnt really believe that he could make a king kong that was actually GOOD.

did you ever see the original or the godawful remake of the 70s? i never could last the whole way through.

the original was ground breaking but it hasnt stood the test of time for me. its not convincing and not scary

jack black was a great choice. naomi watts is gorgeous. the other male leads were sexy and appealing. the effects were spectacular. there were only a few places where the cgi/actor mix was unconvincing (im thinking of the apatosaurus stampede)

kong was incredible thanks to andy serkis. he was both gorilla-esque and sympathetic.

yeah it was a big long and the love story was on auto-pilot. i could have done with fewer long lingering looks. but overall, im gonna see it again and take my sister with.

King Kong was terrible, i am vastly disapointed with that film.

What was with the Slow Motion shots?

It was overdrawn and and many of the shots lingered way too long.

I wish id spent my money on Narnia.

I don't exactly understand why every critic and their dogs rave about this movie. I recently saw it...it was ok, not HALF as good as these guys are raving.

Granted there were some humorous moments, and the action was well executed...But to be honest, the whole "beauty and the beast" aspect just...bugged me.

3 hours and twenty minutes...a sap fest with a few good moments. The movie seemed to just drone on after the first two hours, and by the time King Kong's death came around, all I was thinking was while the lady was weeping over his impending doom was "Oh GOD just DIE already!". Maybe I'm just not the sentimental type when it comes to movies, maybe I just didn't like how it was executed, all I know is...I didn't particularly like it.

Your thoughts?


King Kong was everything it was advertised, it was a hollywood blockbuster with some cheap sentimental tricks, above average acting, and technical excellence. Critics have been making such noise about it because it was a very well made film. The direction and the cinematography was amazing, the effects managed to blend well enough that you didn't notice. Hell, Jackson even managed to uncover an actor in Jack Black. More than that, King Kong was really a movie without pretension. It was an old fashioned movie that wasn't ashamed to to feature a fight between a giant monkey and a pack of dinosaurs just because it could. It was fun, a hell of alot more fun than most popcorn movies.

Maybe I'm just a Peter Jackson mark, I have been a fan since I saw Bad Taste in the early 90s, and I own a copy of even his more obscure movies (Meet the Feebles or Forgotten Silver, anyone?). I really enjoyed King Kong. It isn't high art, but it is escapist cinema at it's best. Besides, even if the movie fails to make back it's production budget, Hollywood owed Jackson after Lord of the Rings. The three Lord of the Rings movies broke $1,000,000,00 (billion) in domestic ticket sales alone, and shocked everyone in hollywood when it's overseas take was twice it's domestic box office take. When you factor in DVD sales, the man has brought in the kind of money that movies just don't see.

I wanna look it tomorrow but from the trailers I think its good entertainment

King Kong was terrible, i am vastly disapointed with that film.

What was with the Slow Motion shots?

It was overdrawn and and many of the shots lingered way too long.

Haven't you ever seen another Peter Jackson movie? Thats kinda like going to see a Quentin Tarantino movie and complaining about the violence and the soundtrack.

what's with the spoiler warning? who doesn't know the King Kong story?

Bolol, perhaps you just have bad taste in movies?

Have you thought of that? Go back to Gigli!

King Kong was everything it was advertised, it was a hollywood blockbuster with some cheap sentimental tricks, above average acting, and technical excellence. Critics have been making such noise about it because it was a very well made film. The direction and the cinematography was amazing, the effects managed to blend well enough that you didn't notice. Hell, Jackson even managed to uncover an actor in Jack Black. More than that, King Kong was really a movie without pretension. It was an old fashioned movie that wasn't ashamed to to feature a fight between a giant monkey and a pack of dinosaurs just because it could. It was fun, a hell of alot more fun than most popcorn movies.

I have to disagree on some level. I guess that it just isn't my kind of movie.

the only reason i enjoyed it the slightest little bit was because me and my friend were making jokes and laughing all the way through it(much to the annoyance of the people around us), it was overly cheesy and there was no need for it to be that long, if they'd cut down some of the random 10 minute monkey breathing shots they probably couldda got it down to 2 hours:rolleyes: by the time the monkey died i was just like 'bout bloody time, take the stupid bitch with you'

the only reason i enjoyed it the slightest little bit was because me and my friend were making jokes and laughing all the way through it(much to the annoyance of the people around us), it was overly cheesy and there was no need for it to be that long, if they'd cut down some of the random 10 minute monkey breathing shots they probably couldda got it down to 2 hours:rolleyes: by the time the monkey died i was just like 'bout bloody time, take the stupid bitch with you'

Very similar to my reactions.

King Kong was terrible, i am vastly disapointed with that film.

What was with the Slow Motion shots?

It was overdrawn and and many of the shots lingered way too long.

I wish id spent my money on Narnia.
what? you can only go to one movie this month??

i loved narnia too. its a childrens movie thats a bit too intense for kids but i left the theater wishing i could by a "white queen barbie with silver chariot pulled by polar bears"

too bad they arent selling those

sigh

the only reason i enjoyed it the slightest little bit was because me and my friend were making jokes and laughing all the way through it(much to the annoyance of the people around us), it was overly cheesy and there was no need for it to be that long, if they'd cut down some of the random 10 minute monkey breathing shots they probably couldda got it down to 2 hours:rolleyes: by the time the monkey died i was just like 'bout bloody time, take the stupid bitch with you'

Eh, to each his own. We could argue in circles about the need for this shot or that, but in the end it will all come down to preference. I'll take King Kong and the long breathing shots over a Vin Deisel (or whoever the action hero of the day is) vehicle every time.

Eh, to each his own. We could argue in circles about the need for this shot or that, but in the end it will all come down to preference. I'll take King Kong and the long breathing shots over a Vin Deisel (or whoever the action hero of the day is) vehicle every time.

No one likes Vin Diesel in a Vin Diesel-movie, but put a Jessica Alba and too little clothing in that mixture, and you'll have a film I'd watch 3 times before spending any cash to the Shoot Big Monkey-movie. :rolleyes:


EDIT: It just occured to me, both VinDiesel-action and King Kong are Shoot Big Monkey movies... Oh, well.

I saw it last Friday and it was pretty good for King Kong. Of course, it was rather cheesy and at times boring(filming KK's face for ten minutes straight is not exciting). I finally realized how stupidly dinosaurs were designed and why they became extinct. (charging off cliffs is not the smartest idea thought of)

... I finally realized how stupidly dinosaurs were designed and why they became extinct. (charging off cliffs is not the smartest idea thought of)

I think it was just Arnold and his minigun... can be wrong though.

King Kong's a good film, but it's definitely not perfect. The visual effects were excellent during most of the movie, but a total let-down on at least two occasions:

- The scene in the snow-covered park in New York. The park looked horrible, as if it were made in the 70s with paper mache and carton. Definitely nothing like the awesome landscape in the island.
- Then some shots of the airplanes at the end. Another throwback to the 70s and especially the Thunderbirds, if anyone remembers that series. Sometimes all I saw were toy planes "flying" beside a scrolling sheet representing the sky.

And then there were two MAJOR inconsistencies in the plot:

- The captain of the ship was very concerned about his men, and was going to leave all the film crew (including the girl) in the island as soon as the ship was repaired and ready to set sail. Nevertheless, after the first encounter with the natives and the return of the survivors, they all go "oh, let's go and rescue the chick!". WTF? Didn't you want to escape the island without the film guys AND the girl just minutes ago?
- And then when they are about to return to civilization, they sedate Kong and he's left unconscious. Fine. But how could they EVER transport the giant ape across the Atlantic in a tiny-a$$ boat? There was certainly not enough space onboard (you've seen the deck and where they kept captured animals), and even if there were, the beast is just too damn heavy.

Anyway, I guess that those plot errors were there in the original version, so they didn't have much choice in the remake if they wanted to stay true to it. However, those mistakes in the visual effects are inexcusable, especially in the 21st century.

It was good. I liked the T-rex and bug fight. Yes some of the scenes where too llong and the ending was a little bit long to. Still...Id take Godzilla over Kong anyday.

I nearly hyperventilated when Kong took on those dinosaur jerks, and spent the entire evening after leaving the film exclaiming "OH MY GOD HE WAS SO KICKASS!!!!" every 5 minutes or so. I think my boy got tired of that but I didn't care.

I nearly hyperventilated when Kong took on those dinosaur jerks, and spent the entire evening after leaving the film exclaiming "OH MY GOD HE WAS SO KICKASS!!!!" every 5 minutes or so. I think my boy got tired of that but I didn't care.
i got really bored with the dinosaur scene

i got really bored with the dinosaur scene

How? Jeez, he was so masterful! Three on one, with the one having only one hand free, and he still whupped their stupid dinosaur asses! *hyperventilates*

Although I have not seen King Kong, I have a relatively good idea why you may have been expecting alot. I live in New Zealand, and here, Peter Jackson is our king. If you badmouth anything that he has done then no one will think anything of you again. So every review and every advertisement are all hyped up as much as possible here because the movie is considered to be a triumph for New Zealand.

Personally, I don't give a fuck.

How? Jeez, he was so masterful! Three on one, with the one having only one hand free, and he still whupped their stupid dinosaur asses! *hyperventilates*
it lasted like 20 minutes though

did the original have them "renting" a tramp steamer to go from NYC to the south pacific without ever having to go throughthe panama canal or stop somewhere to take on more coal? it seemed just a TAD unrealistic (like the rest of the movie was a paragon of logic!)

Skull Island is on the Atlantic, so they wouldn't have needed to restock on coal.

Skull Island is on the Atlantic, so they wouldn't have needed to restock on coal.

not in this movie it wasnt. they were talking about making for rangoon. thats in burma.

not in this movie it wasnt. they were talking about making for rangoon. thats in burma.

Myanmar.

Myanmar.
*snarky look*

not in 1930whatever.

I see. Anyway, they used what's called "ellipsis", which is the omission of the most parts of a long action. For instance, you don't see Kong's complete travels around the island: just the beginning, somewhere in the middle and the end. This resource is used all the time.

I see. Anyway, they used what's called "ellipsis", which is the omission of the most parts of a long action. For instance, you don't see Kong's complete travels around the island: just the beginning, somewhere in the middle and the end. This resource is used all the time.
yeah i know. but the change of ocean makes a trip on a tramp steamer without paying any cash quite a different undertaking than a quick trip across the atlantic.

Speaking of Godzilla, it is on Sci-fi right now.

thats in burma.

I haven't even seen the movie and dunno about it's time, but that sentence over there is untrue, because Rangoon isn't in Burma, it is in Myanmar.

I win.

You loose.

*tribal dance of victory over the humiliated opponent lying in the ground, face down*

Not quite. Myanmar's called Burma in the movie's timeframe. Besides, there's no Rangoon in Myanmar since that place's now Yangon.

From Wikipedia:
Yangon (Population 1,034,768, formerly Rangoon), is the largest city of Myanmar (formerly Burma) and the former capital.

I win.

You lose.

*tribal dance of victory over the humiliated opponent lying in the ground, face down* :D

You don't count, the fight was with Ashmoria! I won't play with you, go away! :D

I haven't even seen the movie and dunno about it's time, but that sentence over there is untrue, because Rangoon isn't in Burma, it is in Myanmar.

I win.

You loose.

*tribal dance of victory over the humiliated opponent lying in the ground, face down*
*looks at the piteous form lying on the ground*

yes but i was speaking in "movie time" which is the early '30s

*sighs deeply then kicks him in the kidney*

Bolol, I agree with you completely. It's to long, to emotional, and Peter Jackson messes with the original. The 1933 version was short but sweet, focused on the brutality and cruelty of love and nature, and the dinosaurs, though not scientifically accurate, were real species, not the fake ones in this movie. Also King Kong could not fight and beat three large theropods,
T-Rex, Allosaurus, or Giganatosaurus, or one of them in fact.

Do you honestly think you needed to put spoiler tags in the title? I mean, this movie is 70+ years old, except for a few CGI and some extra stuff thrown in it's basically the same story.

What's really shocking is that Peter Jackson did the brilliant Heavenly Creatures, which avoided overblown sentimentality / 20 minute long CGI showcase dino fight scenes / horribly stereotyped black natives against heroic europeans witha a token black guy. Funny what $200 million will do to your artistic credibility, but look at Ridley Scott who went from doing Blade Runner to GI Jane...