So Kath and I arranged for child care for Caroline and went to see “King Kong” yesterday, hitting an early morning show when the kids were all in school.
Is it worth seeing? Right, like anything *I* say is going to make a difference to you one way or the other on that score. Bottom line: If you intend to see it, absolutely don’t wait for it to show up on DVD. You should see it on a big screen. Spoilers follow:
Things I liked: All the tips of the hat to the original, which is fresh in my mind because we just watched it last week. Some wonderfully snarky in-gags, such as Carl Denham grousing over Fay Wray’s unavailability to star in his picture (and the hilarious reasons why), or snatches of dialogue from the original (including a shipboard conversation from the original film being restaged as a segment from Denham’s film). Or the stage show accompanying Kong’s presentation in New York, including music from the original and native costumes lifted from the 1933 version.
The relationship between Ann and Kong. Yes, I said relationship. The original Kong’s interest was strictly one way. In this go around, made in an era more sensitive to the sensibilities of animals, Naomi Watts’ Ann Darrow–rather than doing nothing but screaming in Kong’s presence–actually bonds with the big galoot. You can chalk a chunk of this up to the brilliant CGI, modeled on Andy Serkis’ performance (Serkis does double duty as the ship’s cook, uttering a memorable Robert Shaw-esque tale of a previous survivor of Skull Island). But the bottom line is that when human actors interact with huge green screens, if the human doesn’t sell it, the audience won’t buy it. And Watts does it brilliantly, so much so that this “King Kong,” as opposed to the original which was mostly a horror movie, is truly to all intents and purposes a romance.
The rest of the cast. There’s not a misstep in the bunch. I, along with many others, was dubious about Jack Black as Denham. But the new take on the character absolutely works. The original Denham was an aggressive adventurer, largely modeled on Marion Cooper, the original director. Black’s Denham is one third adventurer, one third con man, one third crazed movie maker. He’s Orson Welles with a map. With the most expressive eyebrows since Nathan Lane, Black always reins himself in just when you think he’s about to go over the top.
And if he’s the storm, he’s well matched with the steady eye of the storm with Adrian Brody as Driscoll, transformed from ship’s first officer to thoughtful playwright turned screenwriter. Although I have to say, the one thing that bugs me about Brody is that I kept waiting for him to change into a slouch hat, large black flapping coat, whip out a pair of guns and recede into the shadows while laughing dementedly. I’m sorry, I can’t help it: Adrian Brody looks more like Lamont Cranston than any actor in the English speaking world. Peter Jackson’s next project should be to produce a “Shadow” film for Brody to star in. Hëll, bring Naomi Watts along for Margo.
The pacing. People don’t understand how important pacing is: A three hour film such as this can fly by in the right hands, while I’ve been to films that were 95 minutes and I checked my watch five times in the course of it.
Kong and Ann go ice skating. Screw the dino stampedes. For my money, Kong and Ann cavorting on a frozen Central Park lake was the single best sequence in the entire film, even though by rights both of them should have had breath misting out of their mouths in the cold New York air.
Things I didn’t like: The special effects. Okay, bear with me on this–yes, they’re brilliant. Yes, they brought Kong to life in a way that was previously impossible. Yes, there were tons of edge-of-your-seat moments, most particularly the battle between Kong and the three T-Rexs over Ann. (Although I have to say, watching three T-Rexs all fighting over who gets to eat Ann Darrow is like watching three sumo wrestlers slugging it out over a single Ruffles. You appreciate their artistry and enthusiasm, but my God, that’s a lot of work for one little chippy).
Anyway, here’s the thing–In the old days, the very limitations of special effects forced the movie makers to be more clever. The plot drove the FX. Now the plot has become interchangeable with the FX, except FX and plot AREN’T interchangeable. Ten minutes of our heroes running from a herd of dinosaurs, no matter how incredibly rendered, isn’t plot. Ten minutes of bugs attacking them isn’t plot. It’s twenty minutes of filler, none of which was needed, and the reason we know it wasn’t needed is because the first film clocked in at 94 minutes and did just fine without them. Don’t get me wrong: It wasn’t boring. My attention was fully engaged. But no matter how wonderful FX are, “less is more” is as true now as it was then. Furthermore, Ray Harryhausen was right. One of the main accomplishments of CGI is to take the nightmarish and render it mundane. The herky-jerky surreal movements of the original Kong–the imitation of reality–made him a creature out of your deepest bad dreams. The new Kong, whatever else he may be, isn’t a monster. He’s a really really big silverback gorilla. So the masterful CGI both elevates him and diminishes him.
The big plot hole. Three hours long. Over seventy years to come up with an explanation. And STILL they take a big sidestep around how the hëll they managed to get Kong TO New York. How did they lift him? How’d they get him to the boat? How’d they restrain him ON the boat? How’d they manage to navigate past the treacherous rocks and shoals? How’d they manage to keep him unconscious for the entire trip? Chloroform? The WHOLE TIME? What did they feed him? Any of that answered? Nope. Denham shouts, “Kong, the eighth wonder of the world!” and boom, we’re in New York.
The end. He falls off the Empire State Building and dies. How depressing is THAT? That’s the most depressing ending since that movie where the boat sinks. They should have fixed that part.
PAD
• 
It’s not only crap, it’s racist. If a white guy suggested that a gorilla was supposed to represent black men he would be rightly condemned.
Look, I’ve taken film classes and its fun to find “hidden meanings” in films but let’s be realistic–it’s mostly crap. The Empire State Building as a Phallic symbol, that sort of thing. I remember getting into an argument with a friend in college who insisted that missiles and torpedoes were shaped like pëņìšëš because it was an extension of male aggression, as opposed to being pretty much a case of physics which is what I argued (breast shaped torpedoes take much more time to reach the target, I argued. In retrospect, that discussion was several minutes of my life I wouldn’t mind getting back).
“You forgot the big continuity flub: the Kong show starts at 8 PM on Broadway. Kong gets loose towards the end of it. He makes it to Herald Square and the Empire State Building and climbs it– and suddenly, the sun rises? No chance in hëll.”
Yeah, that bugged the hëll out of me, too. It reminded me of the original Hulk series (probably because I just re-read it recently), when the Hulk was Banner by day and the Hulk by night, and yet he changed back and forth with such rapidity that night and day lasted what could only be a few minutes.
“Chewbacca was copilot on the Millenium Falcon for that mission – why didn’t he get a medal too?”
That’s not what bothers me. What bothers me, why does Han get a medal at all? All he does is show up at the last minute and shoot a TIE fighter. Meanwhile, Wedge was in the battle from the beginning and he didn’t get jack šhìŧ!
Of course, the one moment in movie history that still grates on me, and probably always will, is the ending of Star Wars: A New Hope, when Skywalker and Solo get their medals. Chewbacca was copilot on the Millenium Falcon for that mission – why didn’t he get a medal too? For that matter, the last time the movie was re-edited, Lucas managed to change things around so much that Greedo shot first (blasphemy!) – why couldn’t he have CGI’d in a medal around Chewbacca’s neck?? It’s anti-Wookie discrimination, I tells ya…
The original novel explains that: he did get a medal, but Leia was just too short to put it on him during the ceremony. I guess Wookies aren’t supposed bend over that far. 🙂
KIP
“I remember getting into an argument with a friend in college who insisted that missiles and torpedoes were shaped like pëņìšëš because it was an extension of male aggression”
Aero- and hydrodynamics…nuff said (to quote a great man).
This movie was boring. Three hours that felt like at least five. The theatre was pretty packed and a good 15 people walked out after the poorly done dino-stampede (man, that looked like šhìŧ… how can effects NOT be better since JP?!?!?) and the rest were just bored and yawning. Kids were running about until Kong got back on screen. And even then, when he was alone or with other CG critters, he looked fine. Any time he intereacted with something REAL, it looked horrible. And the dinosaurs looked weak. ILM does better dinos, hands down.
Maybe it’s just because I didn’t really like the story much and so when you drag it out to twice its required length, it FEELS like it. Yeah, a lot of padding in this one. Unnecessary padding, which is the worst.
Save yourself the time and money. I saw it free and am dámņ glad I did. Had I paid for it, I would’ve been pìššëd.
If you’ve seen the original then you can save the time and money if you have:
Watched Disney’s Tarzan so you have an idea how the trex fight is going to go.
Watched Godzilla (us remake) so you know what a monster attacking New York kind of looks like.
Watched Jurassic Park so you know what it’s like to wait a fricking HOUR just to see what you came to see… and then you only have another hour to go before the end, not two.
Watched Roxanne so you know what it’s like having a ‘romantic lead’ with a huge schnoz!
Watched Hulk to see a large, CGI critter running about and trying to be calm with everyone attacking it all the time. Plus, you have the scene where he falls from the plane which is a lot like the fall from the ESB.
Lastly, watched Return of the King so you know what a really long Peter Jackson crap fest feels like.
I hope that helps some of you.
>If you WANT to see it, I dont understand the hesitation. How much reinforcement do you need to hear? I had at least 5 people tell me tonight their waiting till X-mas weekend to see it. I’ve seen it twice now, both times the theatre was at least 4/5ths full for weekday matinee (Wed. and Friday) showings. I dont get why people are waiting and hesitating.
The obsessive nature that serves my comic collecting well, isn’t nearly as strong with most films. Why would I hold off seeing King Kong? Plenty of reasons, It is a rare film that motivates me out on opening weekend. Crowds often annoy and frustrate me. I don’t like being held up for a great deal of time getting in or out of the area or the theatre itself. I don’t like being sucked away from the experience going on on the screen by morons who wouldn’t know manners if it forced its way down their throats to block outbursts to friends, conversations, or answering their cell phones.
That is the main reason, but I also often find myself with a dozen other life responsibilities or events to attend/attend to.
I saw the film last night and enjoyed it. I was a bit thrown at the overwhelming amount of visual violence throughout the film. Not sure why I didn’t expect the volume of that we saw, but I was mindful of my girlfriend, who has no use for seeing it on film. *Saw RENT together last week and used that leverage with her to go see this film together….. it may have been enough to assist her in seeing that our going to see movies on our own or with others can be a very good thing indeed.* 🙂
Fred
>If you WANT to see it, I dont understand the hesitation. How much reinforcement do you need to hear? I had at least 5 people tell me tonight their waiting till X-mas weekend to see it. I’ve seen it twice now, both times the theatre was at least 4/5ths full for weekday matinee (Wed. and Friday) showings. I dont get why people are waiting and hesitating.
The obsessive nature that serves my comic collecting well, isn’t nearly as strong with most films. Why would I hold off seeing King Kong? Plenty of reasons, It is a rare film that motivates me out on opening weekend. Crowds often annoy and frustrate me. I don’t like being held up for a great deal of time getting in or out of the area or the theatre itself. I don’t like being sucked away from the experience going on on the screen by morons who wouldn’t know manners if it forced its way down their throats to block outbursts to friends, conversations, or answering their cell phones.
That is the main reason, but I also often find myself with a dozen other life responsibilities or events to attend/attend to.
I saw the film last night and enjoyed it. I was a bit thrown at the overwhelming amount of visual violence throughout the film. Not sure why I didn’t expect the volume of that we saw, but I was mindful of my girlfriend, who has no use for seeing it on film. *Saw RENT together last week and used that leverage with her to go see this film together….. it may have been enough to assist her in seeing that our going to see movies on our own or with others can be a very good thing indeed.* 🙂
Fred
“If you WANT to see it, I dont understand the hesitation. How much reinforcement do you need to hear? I had at least 5 people tell me tonight their waiting till X-mas weekend to see it. I’ve seen it twice now, both times the theatre was at least 4/5ths full for weekday matinee (Wed. and Friday) showings. I dont get why people are waiting and hesitating.”
There’s lots to do and lots to get ready for in the holiday season (and the two week run up to Christmas) that eats up time. It’s easier to swallow giving up an hour and a half for a film then it is three hours. It’s harder to give up that time for a remake of a film that you’ve seen fifty times or more in your life.
I love Kong and want to see it on the big screen but even I was in the “wait for DVD” camp that most my friends are in until only about a week or so back. This is the busy season and Kong just isn’t a major deal for them. Even the guys I know who worshipped at the feet of Peter Jackson for the previous three years did so only because of Lord of the Rings. Their love of Rings hasn’t moved them to be devoted Jackson fans (unless or until he does The Hobbit) and Kong doesn’t float most their boats.
Kong and its budget, as I said above, was a huge risk for Jackson. It’s his passion for a very personal reason (it was the film that made him want to be a filmmaker) but that specific love isn’t shared by many others. I hope Monday’s box office totals prove me wrong but I’m not holding my breath for the “bigger then Titanic” box office predictions that were being thrown around the last two weeks by so many critics.
Well, there *is* subtle racism in the original (though one must think about it in context of the period), and the idea of the white explorers abducting Kong from Skull Island, where he’s a “king” and dragging him in chains back to America, where he’s meant to provide profit for his captors and eventually, upon trying to escape, is murdered… well, you don’t have to stretch *too* far to see the similarities.
And the sexualized fear of Kong from the blonde has its roots in legitimate cultural issues, as well. Of course, none of this is intentional, I’m sure. And definitely doesn’t exist in the new film (outside from the fact that the plot is still identical).
This whole issue would have been voided if they had capture White Pongo instead (And if you get that reference you, like me, need help).
I’m a bit shocked by the poor performance since virtually every kid I teach has expressed a desire to see it. Obviously the 3 hour running time is putting off the average viewer.
The irony is I think it might have been better if Jackson had been able to make Kong when he first had the chance, right after THE FRIGHTENERS, with a budget of “only” 100 million. I know I’m going to love the movie because I have the same relationship to the original that Jackson and Harryhausen and whole army of film fans that see Kong as the origin of their love for movies do. But the average viewer might not want to indulge that.
I’m thinking that maybe Jackson should have pared down the first hour hard and simplified the Dinosaur fights (it’s enough to have a T-Rex. 3 T-Rex seems a bit overkill, 3 T-Rex suspended from vines is definitely overkill).
Actually, Jackson has earned the right to make a movie any way he wishes, especially since so much of his own money is invested in it. But if Kong fails we can kiss a lot of other good projects goodbye as well.
At least V FOR VENDETTA looks like it has exceeded expectations.
“This whole issue would have been voided if they had capture White Pongo instead (And if you get that reference you, like me, need help).”
Actually, the same guy who directed “White Pongo” directed “Terror of Tinytown.” I would have liked to have met him….anyone who can direct a movie about a midget gunslinger deserves much respect.
Bill, the fact that you haven’t erased all memory of White Pongo from your mind shows the need for immediate institutional help. I’d managed to block that movie out of my mind until I read your post.
Thanks ever so much.
However………
This is coming from a guy who rates The Green Slime, The Loch Ness Horror(or Terror depending on the print) and The Crater Lake Monster as an all time favorite cheese movies.
🙂
V FOR VENDETTA is out? Where? I thought it got kicked back until early next year.
They had a sneak at the Aintitcool.com Buttnumathon, to universal praise. The trailer is great as well (though it gives away too much, as usual.
GREEN SLIME was directed by the genius who also did BATTLE ROYALE, my favorite Asian movie of the last 10 years. Great theme song too–check out the version by the Fuzztones.
My biggest problem with the ending is that Watts should have dived after him. Her running into Brody’s arms felt wrong.
V FOR VENDETTA is out? Where? I thought it got kicked back until early next year.
February still, iirc.
But there’s a new trailer for it that came out in the last week or so. I’ve not read the graphic novel (or comic, or whatever it should be called), but it does look interesting.
Lots of spoilers in my post here. So don’t read if you don’t want to be spoiled. lol.
Saw King Kong today! LOVED IT!
I thought that the first half with the New York stuff dragged a bit. It was slow. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it, but I really wanted to get to the island part. lol.
The stuff on the ship was great. Especially the part with the fog and the wall. Very intense.
The island stuff was GREAT though. I LOVED IT.
I totally disagree with PAD and however else said the effects were a minus. I LOVED THE EFFECTS. King Kong looked great, the dinosaurs IMO looked better then any of the Jurassic Parks (I thought they looked very real. just amazing really), loved the chase sequence (VERY intense! Whew. Wow), the insect nest sequence was pretty horrifying (this is NOT a movie for kids. I saw some kids at the movie and once I saw the nest sequence I was thinking, ” Kids shouldn’t be watching this! “), etc. The island stuff was perfect.
Then the New York stuff again, wow. King Kong in New York was very cool. Very intense.
And yes, the ending is VERY sad, but I think it really couldn’t have ended any different. I usually don’t like sad endings like this and prefer happy endings, but really, this is the only way this movie could have ended I think.
As for the actors, Naomi Watts was definitly the best in this movie. Wow. She just sold all the emotion. And Jack Black was really good in this too. So was Brody. Everybody else too (was suprised to see Kyle Chandler, formly from Early Edition, in this movie!).
Anyway, I loved it. Like I said, the only real nitpick is the beginning in New York. Even that I loved. Though the island stuff was pure gold and the the New York stuff was alot of fun.
Excellent movie!! Can’t wait till it comes to dvd!
DF2506
” I do agree with PAD about seeing it at the big screen though! WOW! Everything in this movie is HUGE: King Kong, the dinosaurs, the bats, insects, heck, even New York is so massive in scale. Just amazing.”
Well spoken; the old days fored them to create
Speaking of plot holes – if the natives built the wall to keep Kong and the other beasties out, why did they put a HUGE FRICKIN’ DOOR THERE????
That said, I went yesterday with two female friends, one of whom claimed to not know the ending. She’s refused to go see any other remakes with us until she finds out what happens and called us the devil for not preparing her. The three of us weren’t the only ones weepy-eyed at the the end. Bigger guys than I were blowing their noses and wiping their eyes on the way out.
Being a fan of the period, the New York stuff at the beginning was great for me.
There definitely were some effects shots that weren’t totally spot-on (unless they involved Kong, of course) and an unfortunate leaning towards the over-the-top action so common in films now, but those are really minor nitpicks when put up against the movie as a whole.
As for the ‘disappointing’ box office – could weather have been a factor? Around here, most anyone not at work on Wednesday afternoon was working on getting their Christmas stuff done and stocking up for the ice that hit on Wednesday night/Thursday morning. What was going on around the rest of the country?
– Chris
Okay, let me do my real review. I promise I wont be too over-worded, and I’ll keep it short and sweet.
I’ve mentioned already Im a long time fan of Kong. But aside from the original Kong, Son of Kong, Kong ’76, and even Mighty Joe Young, I’ve seen every other Kong Toho picture and crappy rip off like Konga, Mighty Peking Man, King Kong Escapes, Kong vs. Godzilla, and even some lame flick that as a little kid thought was lame called Ape! back in the early 80’s on late night TV. I know Jackson is a Kong fan, and I was excited to hear that the Bad Taste/Meet the Feebles/Dead-Alive/Frightners director was going to do a Kong remake in the Mid-90’s starring fresh-off-titanic Kate Winslett. Of course, that project fell through, and Jackson did those little movies about Elves and Goblins and Wizards, and most critics forgot that this is the same dude who had suicidal and oversexed muppets, zombie sex, and “I kick ášš for the Lord” in his earlier films.
But lets talk about Kong. Is it perfect? No, but no movie is to everyone. But you take what you get, and I took in alot from this flick. Im not going to retread what others said and what I have said here and there, you lets talk turkey. Or Gorilla…
The Story and Characters – Very close to the original, but with some tweeks. The main change is making the Ann Darrow character not some screaming terrified stereotypical damsel in distress, or some flirty big breasted bimbo who get’s off being gripped up by a 50 ft. ape. That sexual element that was there in the 33 film was overdone in the 76 remake, is hardly even here in Jackson’s’ version. Ann is a vaudeville out of work performer (who physical dexterity comes in handy later by being thrown and snapped around in Kongs grasp, as was Jackson’s intent), and is only interested in taking the job because of Denham mentions having her favorite Playwright is working on the script.
Denham himself isn’t full of the bravado that some projected on Robert Armstrong’s take in the 33 flick, he’s an Ed Wood/washed up Orson Wells type who is only concerned with himself. He’s even a bit of a Sociopath, pushing off Deaths in a way to promote his film (“I’ll give all the proceeds to his wife and kids”), and finally snap’s and decides to just bring back Kong using Ann as bait.
The Jack Driscoll character is thankfully taken down a couple notches, made into a nerdish playwright who does heroic things to save a woman he fell hard for, instead of some outdated he-man sailor (which is gloriously parodied by the vain actor Bruce Baxter).
I honestly didn’t dig the Mr. Hayes/Jimmy sub-plot, seeing it a second time didn’t change my opinion. They were (literally with Hayes) throw away characters who I guess we were supposed to feel sorry for, but personally I wanted them to die in high profile deaths at Kongs hand. If anything, they should have ditched these losers and focused on other characters like Lumpy the Cook, the Popeye like 2nd character played by Serkis, or Jackson could have spent more time building on the Jack/Ann relationship. Thats my only real b!tch about the film though.
Kong. Well, I was expecting more of missing link look, but I loved the battle scarred twisted Jaw mean ol’ bášŧárd we got to see instead. Serkis and WETA Digital should be given their own Oscar, dammit. They stole TTT and ROTK as Gollum, and ruled as Kong here. I dont want to go over all the little things that the character did, but I loved how you could tell what Kong was thinking at many times. My favorite is when he spots Jack in the Theatre, the the scowl he flashes, thats awesome considering I know exactly what he’s thinking when I see his face. Just kick ášš. The detail shown to Kong and the other creatures also add’s to the story, the Claw marks, bites, and scars just beg to tell of long forgotten battles. As does the the ruins ask alot of questions, along with the Stone heads all over the Island. The boneyard of tossed away sacrifices was cool, and the Cave/Tomb of Kongs family (especially the sad look Kong flashes at the one Skeleton) made you quickly realize this Old Gorilla is the last of his kind.
The New York scenes had a strong Vibe of fate. Once you see the Empire State building, you know what is coming down. But when you actually get there, knowing what happens, you cheer for Kong just to last a little bit longer, to knock down those dámņ planes, climb down and haul a$$ to the mountains of Upstate NY. But instead, we see Ann try to stop the inevitable, and we see that theres no “try to save the girl” mentality by the authorities, it’s a cold collateral damage result. Those Pilots dont care if Ann is killed, they just want to put down Kong.
Overall, after seeing both times, it hit the same emotional notes. This is a good film that WILL stand for repeated showings. It has even more heart than I was expecting. And despite the yammering from the moron’s who try to bring Kong down by pointing out details most film critics dont notice or fairly compare to, I think this film will have some dámņ strong legs.
Some random thoughts:
* One hour in and we’re wondering if King Kong is even IN this movie…
* Jack Black is comfortable in front of a camera, but that doesn’t make him an actor. He was terrible, unbelievable and detrimental. If you want a big, doofy guy who still has the chops to utter the last line, you wanted Oliver Platt, not this misbegotten eyebrow mugger who’s wrecked every movie he’s ever been in (or maybe it’s just me).
* New York in the ’40s, especially when contrasted with the prop planes… WOW! The city as a character came through beautifully.
* Jimmy would have been useful only if Kong used his limbs in a “She loves, She loves me not” bit…
* Okay, I had a large coke and missed, apparently, Kong’s family tomb (thanks, poster above. I was wondering if that was Mrs. Kong the hero was climbing over).
* Or was it Mr. Kong? Kong is rendered amazingly well, and while I don’t really want the proof of his Kingship dangling…
* Kong changes size with more ability than the movie Hulk.
* What the heck was our hero trying to accomplish with his game of tag with Kong at the end? Suicide?
* Speaking of which, isn’t it amazing that people can outrun giant dinosaurs for so long? Who woulda thunk?
* People in the 40’s were amazing. No traumatic stress syndrome for these guys. You can experience the most amazing horrors and come home and write a comedy, star in follies, and set up a giant show!
* There were so many well realized characters that had no purpose to the end that their removal wouldn’t have hurt the movie and would it have shortened it to a one-pee break show. Forget the sailors, what’s-his-name with the glasses and the scar had this great arc that didn’t matter to the movie. I liked him as much as I detested Black. Too bad he wasn’t instrumental to the end.
* My full-house audience shed not a tear, but when Black fractured the last line we ALL groaned, even the kids. Platt couldn’t done it, I tell ya… Woulda been better had we seen Black’s arm sticking out from under Kong and glasses-guy saying “He died doing what he loved…”
Did you actually sit and watch the film? It took place in the early 30’s, Dammit! Did you really need to have a crawl telling you when it took place? Sheesh. I can handle critism, but when you dont even know when it took place, and look over stuff that WAS explained, and then say stuff like “not a tear was shed” (like you watched every face in the Theatre) it just makes me want to flip you off instead of saying “I respect your opinion”. Regardless chuckles, your in the Minority. Nice attempt at a witty review, take it to the AICN talkback and CHUD boards, where this kind of wit is respected by your peers.
Okay, 30’s then. New York is all the more impressive.
Actually, I enjoyed the movie, but it had flaws. The length was just one of them.
It wasn’t that big of a house, and while I didn’t look at everyone, I did take a good look around. So yes, it could be some were deeply moved, but I’m surprised at the reactions that included tears (more power to ’em).
And I need permission from you where I can post? Let your finger fly free as a bird, my friend, I can handle it. “Your in the Minority” should read “You’re in the minority” and on this board, yes, I am, only that’s not such a bad thing…
I must’ve seen a different print. I’ve gone over the posts above me and I see people talking about great acting and effects and story. Dman, I want to see the one YOU guys saw.
Cause the version I saw was boring, overly long, crudely done for much of the effects and poorly acted.
It was an ‘ok’ movie. But see a THREE HOUR PLUS ‘ok’ movie = BAD movie. And it’s not just the length. FOTR was great… moreso for the extended cut. Schindler’s List holds my attention from frame one. I can watch the Pie films back to back and enjoy it without feeling like it’s gone on too long. Kong plodded along. Hëll, the people moved faster.
And yeah… Black’s character outrunning dinosaurs AND running for at least a half mile AND carrying the equipment/film… didn’t matter that he looked like he was running in place w/ rear projection, it was just flat out retarded.
Well, I haven’t seen the new King Kong, and I’m not sure if (when?) I will, but there are a couple of semi-relevant comments I can make on this thread.
TCM started showing the 1933 Kong last Wed (Tues?)night … at the same time that AMC was showing the 1976; so I’ve seen parts of each of them, between that night and re-broadcasts, over the past week. The original – a little sleepy at times, but still pretty impressive. ’76 – I guess I really hadn’t seen this since I was a pretty young kid, because I didn’t remember just how bad the thing was. And it won a special Oscar for effects? Rick Baker, in the Kong suit, was walking around bold upright like a potbellied dude taking a stroll to the fridge for a beer! I was surprised to discover, however – Jessica Lange was a _hottie_ in 1976! And – she invented Daisy Dukes? (See the landing on the beach – a year or two before the Dukes of Hazzard started.)
And, Jonathan (the other one) wrote “Chewbacca was copilot on the Millenium Falcon for that mission – why didn’t he get a medal too?”, which has also bugged me; which led Robert Fuller to ask why Han Solo got one, and Wedge didn’t – which is a good question which I hadn’t had before. The only explanation I have is that maybe Wedge – and the couple other pilots who fly away from the battle intact – don’t get medals because they’re enlisted (or whatever) members of the Rebel Alliance forces, while Han, and Luke, at least until the day of the battle, were independents who chipped in? But – Chewie still should have gotten a medal – unless he secretly was a regestered member of the Alliance already? (We have subsequently learned he was tight with the number one Jedi ….)
Luckily, this dilemma was solved several years ago by MTV (how often can you say THAT?). Chewbacca finally received his medal – and a nice clips montage – when he was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award at the MTV Movie Awards. Peter Mayhew was flown in to wear his Wookie uniform, march down the isle, receive his medal – from Carrie Fisher, even – and head-sync to an “acceptance speech” of growls and grunts. THAT was pretty cool : )
The first hour was just plain bad I thought. The stuff on the boat is pointless: The crew are a bunch of badly done characters, including the french cook and the over the top asian guy and I hated Jimmy and Mr. Hayes. Terrible stuff there, and cheesy moments like Jack typing “S… K… U… L… L…” in super slow mo. The movie picks up in a big way when Kong himself finally appears; he’s a great effect and a great character. But the movie never really blew me away, and it’s hard to say a three hour movie is great when it has an hour that I would have gladly seen go.
Luke wrote: “And it won a special Oscar for effects? Rick Baker, in the Kong suit, was walking around bold upright like a potbellied dude taking a stroll to the fridge for a beer!”
That special effects Oscar was the product of some creative marketing “special effects” by Delaurentis. The way the studio was pitching Carlo Rambaldi’s much ballyhooed giant robot, there were actually some reasonably smart people who thought Rick Baker’s uncredited ape suit footage was Rambaldi’s robot stomping around a big set. But the full-sized robot never worked right, and for the 2 or 3 minutes it was in the film at the very end, it was laying inanimate on the ground.
Oh, that 1976 Kong was a real turkey alright. They dumped the dinosaurs — probably because they had no time/money left and thus no way of quickly sticking them in the film — and instead tossed in an incredibly bad fight between Kong (Rick Baker) and a big rubber snake. They must’ve spent all of their money shooting on location in Hawaii and on balky robots, I guess, and thus there was no money left for some decent special effects.
And you’re right, while Baker’s monkey suit wasn’t too bad, he was strolling around much of the time like Homer Simpson heading for the refrigerator for another beer, rather than a gorilla. But I’ll wager that this was because the footage Baker was in was last-minute, “the-first-take-was-great” stuff cranked out to make the film’s release date.
I’ll be a pig agree with a cow-orker who said that the ’76 Kong had two great things in it – both of which belonged to Jessica Lange.
Having not seen it in ages, I’m still pretty sure the ‘mecha-Kong’ had another scene – when he’s first revealed to the crowds in New York he’s inanimate standing up in that cage thing.
Thanks for the info, R. Maheras! That all makes a lot more sense now. And I should say that there were a few nice shots in the movie; I was just shocked at how bad some of them were. Seriously, Kong moved more apeishly in King Kong vs. Godzilla. If Baker – a very highly respected and regarded creature/effects man – responsible for the very impressive apes in Greystoke, IIRC – was a hurried (and uncredited, hm?) fallback plan, this would better explain this lapse than blaming it on the newness, at the time, of his career.
I’m always amused when I read those “special effects sucked – x looked so fake” comments, particularly in regard to Kong. I find myself wondering if the commentator has thought they’ve seen any special effects that were good recently.
I watched KK last night and the biggest question I had was regarding the ritual sacrifice- the reasons the natives did it, and how Kong reacted/played a part in it. I know one can bring race into it, as others have already mentioned, in movie reviews and this comment thread.
Mainly my puzzlement comes from watching Kong treat Ann like a rag doll at the “sacrifical boneyard.” He doesn’t kill her immedately or eat her (or the previous sacrifices as seen by the bones strewn about the area). I almost want to say Kong was just “Hm, another squealy thing from the squealy things on the wall. Oh well, I have no use for it, so toss it in the trash.” Kind of like a present you got but you have absolutely no use for.
I think the question is linked to one Arclight/Chris posed- “Why did they build huge frickin’ door there?” I would imagine perhaps in the distant past the Kongs and the natives (or if they didn’t build the wall, the previous civilization) coexisted peacefully so the door wasn’t a barrier. I posit this because the door had lots of makeshift pikes, boards and struts piled against the door, indicating a change in the use of the door- from a passageway to a barrier. This could somewhat explain the puzzling ritual which may just be the product of logic and customs twisted over decades and centuries- from a natural symbiosis to a submissive relationship.
Thought Kong was a Great Movie for my two cents. Never occured to me that they likely would’ve brought dinosaurs back instead of the big ape, but the process of getting him on the boat occured to me instantly.
The best bit with Jimmy and Mr. Hayes, which it seems no one caught, was the book Jimmy was reading, what was it, “Up the Amazon”? He reads a passage and asks Hayes, “Why didn’t they just turn back?” and Hayes gives us a sililoqy about overcoming wht you fear and learning what’s important. Jimmy then says “It’s not just an adventure story, is it?” A little wink to the auidence, I should say.
Kevin, It was “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad. The movie seemed to have two somewhat plotlines or themes- a romantic one and the one exemplified by the novel, humanity’s inhumanity. They meet at the end after switching off for screen-time basically. Jack Black very easily could’ve just been saying “The horror… the horror…” instead of “it was Beauty that killed the Beast.”
Hey, if you folk really want to have fun, you should look up and read Walter Wager’s Hillarious book My Side, by King Kong, as told to Walter Wager. It is wet your pants funny, but in a good way.
Just got back from seeing again, this time with my girls. They thoight it a bit long but well done and “very sad”.
A few observations:
Some of the human skeletons on the island looked rather large. Could the original natives have been giants? Maybe the size of the wall was in keeping with the builders. The natives left on the isalnd seemed to be dying out. Were they the remains of an unsuccesful evolutionary experiment or newer arrivals who took some advantage of the ruins of a once great civilization?
How BIG was this place? Imagine the amount of land mass it would take to support so many T-Rex that you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one.
That said, the amunt of prime meat left over from the apatasaurus stamped could feed a family of carnivores for a decade, with proper refridgeration.
This is the first movie to really capture the fetid nastiness of what a lost world would be like. Kong has insects constantly buzzing around him, as would be expected from a 25 foot tall stack of feces matted fur.
Even if crickets are 2 feet long they aren’t scary.
Scorpions and spiders however, are scary at any size. The almost invisible shot of the poor guy being tossed around by the crab monsters was very brutal.
The glances Kong gives the bines of his fellow apes…wonderful.
Why were those T. Rex so eager to get Ann anyway–she wasn’t even a mouthfull. Either humans must taste really good to a dinosaur or it just became one of those roadrunner coyote things where they had just invested too much time and effort into it to give up.
Finally saw it tonight (Christmas at the Post Office leaves little free time), enjoyed it.
Kong and Ann go ice skating.
Does anyone else want to see a Kong on Ice ride at Universal Studios?
Eddie’s question: “I watched KK last night and the biggest question I had was regarding the ritual sacrifice- the reasons the natives did it, and how Kong reacted/played a part in it.”
In the book “The Natural History of Skull Island” the talk briefly of a great civilization that worshipped the giant apes, and that they may have even been responsible for them being on the island (they hint that there may have been a land bridge as well). Then due to geological instability the island began to fall, break apart and shrink, causing the society to fragment and collapse, and the islanders we see in the movie are problem just distant echoes of their past, a pale shadow of their former greatness.
As to what the ritual-sacrifice signifies, well my guess is the natives and Kong are both acting out a ritual that has been going on for hundreds of years, and that the true/original meaning and reason for it is lost to both parties. The islanders send out a sacrifice, light the flames, Kong sees the fire in the distance, and comes for no other reason than force of habit. Once he gets the girl he really has no use for her, and the pile of bones we see is the result of his lack of interest in them. Why is Anne different? Well she stabs him in the finger and tries and get away, this shocks Kong because up until now he had been getting only willing sacrifices, and this is what starts the relationship between Kong and Anne. Finally this ape, whose life has basically been full of loneliness punctuated by violence, has found a diversion from his sad existence, and for a brief time know happiness again.
But that’s just my theory.
hm-m-m …
:))
how about a post-christmas party in Frisko ?
happy holidays !!!
p.s. sorry for offtop 🙂