KING KONG
 

Just saw this.

Peter Jackson always puts me to sleep. I like how all of his movies are always an hour too long. The beginning of the film was just a complete waste of time, and it probably would have been better if the girl was already a part of Jack Black's filming crew. The romance would have been more believable, rather than some split second FFVIII shit on a ship. Also, it could have created more drama between the girl and Jack Black, who would go from a friend to an enemy when he tries to exploit Kong.

I also like how King Kong was actually Jurassic Park IV in disguise. The Brachiosaurus mountain rolling shit was the dumbest crap I've ever seen. What is this, the Land the Before Time. I also thought it was funny how the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park still looked ten times better, since the overbundance of CG in Kong made everything look fake as what.

The only cool stuff in the film was all the gigantic insects, and the captain AKA Liam Leeson 2.

Yeah, it's amazing that Jurassic Park still has better CGI than most movies these days.

Kong is way too long... Other than the first hour, it's not too bad. I agree with pretty much everything you said, Megalith.

I honestly believe WETA could have done so much better if they had more time.

They had to do 1000s of special effects shots in a mere 30 weeks. ILM gets way more time than that to pull everything off last time I heard.

The special effects were alright and Kong kicking the shit out the dinos was awesome...but at the end scene when he's on the top of the building was just way too frakking long. Seriously I was chanting in my head "just kill the bastard already" over and over until it ended. Movie grade: D+/C-

Kong v. Rex was fucking awesome. Everything else was bland.

I can watch prehistoric beasts engage in combat in Jurassic Park 3. Then I can guarantee at least one black dude will die during the film.

I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and ask him for some original content. I'm simply of the opinion that classic movies need not be remade.

And I agree with Megalith, his movies are too long. I can't stand three hour movies.

I'd think that, 12-13 years after the release of Jurassic Park, the process of making believable CG would be streamlined greatly.

See... Here's the thing with King Kong. Yes it was long, but goddamnit it was entertaining. That flick was like a massive powerful locomotive; it took a while to work up speed, but once it was running on all cylinders it was an unstoppable entertainment machine.

I rarely like 3-hour movies, but King Kong amazed me. I know that everyone is mentioning Jurassic Park as having the most believable CG of all time and I'll go ahead and agree there. King Kong is, by no means, on par with Jurassic Park but for a movie that was made almost entirely in CG, I think that it's hard to top something like this.

You know, that was kind of my outlook on it when I first heard about this. After I watched it I wasn't really too bothered about the remake, but as a standard rule: Yeah... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I actually really liked the 1st part, and the last parts with Kong the city. Character development is important, too, you know (if not more important in some cases). I thought they did an amazing job with Kong's character.

Overall, I thought the movie was great (and beautiful), but it could have done without so much overuse of dino action during the 2nd part. That's my only complaint, really.

I do hope when you all say "Jurassic Park had the best CG ever" That you are referring to the third movie only.

Granted, while it is good, you have to keep in mind that for -most- of the Jurassic Park movies, especially the first one, they used puppets for the majority of the movie, that is why it looked so real. The only time they used CG was when the Dino's were on the move and they were moving fast, that's it.

I enjoyed every moment of Kong. I find it a bit sad that people in this day and age lack the intelligence to figure out that character development (that thing that happend before they got to the island? You know, the 'boring' part of the movie?) is equally as important as 'ZOMG DINOSAURS!' But, people are entitled to their opinion, so I can't really argue with that.

Jackson makes entertaining movies, that is hands down the truth, and if you notice, none of recent films have been cheap, acted poorly, nor have looked unimpressive...for the most part it's extremely high quality, can't argue with that.

As for the fakeness of the CG, watch Spiderman 2 someday, the CG in that movie is crap. On the topic of how bad the cg is in this movie, it seems, look at the bronto scene...everyone who was in that scene had to act with no knowledge of what was going on around them...so I think they did a damn fine job molding the cg around the actors, and the actors did a fine fucking job of making it look intense.

While I didn't mind King Kong, it was disappointing. Not a bad movie, just a massive let down after LOTR and after the hype it had been getting. It just didn't grab me at all. I can't really explain why. It's not the length (I love long films) and it wasn't the acting or script. There was just nothing that made me go "wow" (apart from the Kong vs Rex scene, but CGI doesn't do much for me). It was just "meh".

when I heard there'd be a remake of King Kong, I thought it'd be a flop just like most of the other remakes that have been showing up at the box office. I went and saw it though, since I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies and wanted to see how Peter Jackson would handle this one, and I thought it was great.

this is the type of movie that you go to the movie theatres to see. it's story telling and entertainment all wrapped up in a nice pretty package. granted, it was longer than most movies you'll see, but I mean you can't really compress an epic down into 90 minutes without botching the character development. if you have a short attention span, then just rent the DVD so you can pause it whenever your feeble mind can't take it anymore.

it wasn't a perfect movie by any means, but I still think it's a hell of a lot better than most of the shit raking in money at the box office recently. if you only went to see it for the CGI, sure you might be disappointed, but look at the animation in the original movies. did that make their stories any less enjoyable? no. I could have done without most of those would never happen dinosaur scenes though. they went on far too long, making them way over the top, so if they were shortened down they would have been a lot better.

I think it was a fantastic movie, personally. I don't think the length detracted from the experience at all. It was as long as it had to be. I was expecting some sort of mindless action movie, but it was more than that, and I appreciated it. The movie actually made me care for Kong, which is pretty admirable, I'd say. The scenes on Skull Island with the tribes were actually pretty intense, and the last part of the movie in the city was just great.

Yeah, that dino rampage should never have happened in the first place.
It was just WETA going 'we can do Jurassic Park too, kekeke ^__^'

And also, I think the movie really could have done WITHOUT the attempts at character development of the ship's crew. It didn't really have any immediate impact on what the main characters did, so only really made the story a bit longer.
And yes, I thought the movie dragged on a bit.
They could have shortened it by like half an hour or something.

Agree completely. The crew's stories were inconsequential, and sometimes downright cheesy, like the relationship between the boy and the black guy. The only story thread developed on the ship that matters is the one bewteen Drsicoll and Anne. Even then, they probably could have just done one of those Indiana Jones style travel shots where they just draw a red line from the departure point to the destination.

And about the special effects, I found them to be really well done. Especially the work on Kong. His facial expressions and fur were very realistic. I mean everything was thought of except the dingleberries.

They COULD have replaced people with cardboard boxes, too, and saved bunches of money and effort put into dialogue and human interaction. Why didn't they do that?!

If they did that the movie would only be 2 hours long, and we can't have that!

I don't quite understand what the obsession is over short films? I'm quite glad that in the last decade or so we are starting to see the return of the three-hour-long epic that used to be a tentpole of the cinema.

I like how Ava stomped all over Mega with this post. Lith, as always, you prove yourself to be the simple little boy we all think you are. If it has lightsabers or planes, you love it, if it has character development and a subtle plot, you hate it. You really need to stop watching movies. People like you are the reason why we get Mission Impossible and Fast and the Furious sequels out the ass.

Kong was a fantastic movie. It was driven, it was entertaining, and yes, the CG was less than perfect. I winced at the kid running over the collapsing rocks. It just looked awful. However, the STORY, you know the important part of the movie was awesome. Also, the relationship on the ship had nothing to do with the crew and everything to do with setting up the parallels between Heart of Darkness and Kong. You must have missed that part while you were grumbling about why they kept showing the 'boring' parts.

I just hated how parts of the movie seemed to be in the middle of the film for no reason. Why would we hear so much about the boy and the black guy - for the black guy to die and to never see the boy again?

I don't mind long movies, if the length is necessary. This movie could have easily lost a half an hour and retained every bit of the plot necessary.

Still, wasn't bad for an evening at the movie theatres.

Absolutely. Errol Flynn is the height of the action genre, and it's good to see a return to form in this regard.

Double Post:
And we have an answer.

In looking at the example of Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Rings theatrical and extended versions, I am anxiously waiting for a longer version of King Kong to see how the Jimmy and Hayes plotline changes.

I say this because I remember that when I saw the theatrical version of The Fellowship of the Rings, I absolutely hated the entire Lothlorien sequence. It just didn't seem to contribute anything particularly significant to the plot and was just boring. What I realized after watching the extended version was that the Lothlorien sequence probably might have worked better if they used the longer extended version since the added depth and length of the sequence gave the sequence a purpose to be there whereas the original did not.

As such, I wonder what might have been cut out with the Jimmy and Hayes plotline that might have justified their earlier scenes. Because for me, the film felt very well paced on the first watching. It was only during the second and subsequent watchings that scenes like these felt boring, not because the scenes were intrinsically boring, but because nothing ultimately came out of it.

November for the extended version, I think.

I really enjoyed King Kong; it was one of the first movies I actually went to see in the theater in a long time. If you look at the Mona Lisa or any other piece of art work for that matter under a 1000x microscope of course you will find errors or things that could have been done better. What I don't get is why people have this nagging feeling to niggle over every little detail and let that ruin the experience of a truly great film. Some might be better off sticking with kiddy toons if you can’t enjoy King Kong.

I agree. To me, it felt a tad bit forced whenever Hayes and Jimmy's scenes came up. I understood what they brought to the storyline, but as a whole, it could've been removed or trimmed down.

But I loved the movie. Saw it twice in theaters, and my joy for the movie increased. Peter Jackson did an excellent job, and it was an honor to see it on the big screen.

Is there really an extended version? Cause if there is, then I'm gonna hold out for it.

Just saw it now too. Man, it's great, I really regret not seeing this in the theatres now. They really did a great job, the music great, and Serkis's performance as Kong it really made me care/feel for him (and real). The CG for Kong was pretty good too, the hairs on him actually looked realistic. Haha, also nice to see that Serkis got an actual acting role in the movie as Lumpy (who's pretty funny, but unfortunate death). I liked the whole dinosaur bit too, and the overgrown bugs too; just the whole concept of Skull Island being island from prehistoric time was entertaining. But man I hated those local natives, eww just so nasty. Oh and Captain Englehorn (like Megalith already mentioned) really looked a lot like Liam Neeson.

BTW, did anyone else notice the skeleton of another Kong sized gorilla as Jack went up the mountain? I wonder what's the story behind that. Obviously indicating that Kong wasn't the first of his kind (prehistoric sized gorillas).