Come anticipate Peter Jackson's _King Kong_ with me

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So. I've specifically held off viewing much to do with Jackson's followup to Them Films What I Really Liked As Did Many Others, even though the spinoff fan site from theonering.net:

http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml

...is one of if not the best example yet of a major film production and an organized online fanbase engaging in mutually beneficial 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' shenanigans out there. Basically after my absolutely obsessive tracking of Lord of the Rings online, I just needed a break. Still, it's well worth checking out the production diaries for the whole thing, which will be continuing through post-production. It's also goddamn weird seeing the thin non-glasses wearing Jackson.

But anyway, full-on production is done and presumably some sort of trailer will be surfacing in the next couple of months looking ahead to Christmas release, so come anticipate etc.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 23 April 2005 01:34 (twenty years ago)

i really don't know what to think of this one.

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 23 April 2005 01:38 (twenty years ago)

i just can't get excited about a king kong remake, i think!

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 23 April 2005 01:39 (twenty years ago)

i agree about thin peter jackson being weird.

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 23 April 2005 01:42 (twenty years ago)

In my case I don't have much of a connection to the original (or That Seventies Version...thank god). So I'll actually be coming to this somewhat fresh and will enjoy seeing it stand or fall on its own merits.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 23 April 2005 01:43 (twenty years ago)

Ned, I think you've already started this thread in your mind many times in the past few months. Please use your Internal Search Function!!

efil4zelffor (deangulberry), Saturday, 23 April 2005 01:46 (twenty years ago)

I did! It told me nothing.

(I was actually going to wait for a trailer to finally surface but then thought, 'hell with it.')

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 23 April 2005 01:49 (twenty years ago)

PJ looks fantastic!

David R. (popshots75`), Saturday, 23 April 2005 03:02 (twenty years ago)

i barely have any connection to the original at all--i'm just having a hard time getting excited about this for whatever reason. maybe it's my ingrained remake antipathy...

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 23 April 2005 03:04 (twenty years ago)

i don't get the "i love this so much i have to COPY IT CRASSLY FOR LOTS OF MONEY" stuff. if he loves it leave it the fuck alone.

ryan (ryan), Saturday, 23 April 2005 04:42 (twenty years ago)

This will prob'ly only be classic if Peter returns to his gorefest roots and Kong eats lots of people's brains.

Failin Huxley (noodle vague), Saturday, 23 April 2005 05:21 (twenty years ago)

Imagine how many he'd have to gobble up for it to be much a meal though, he'd have to have the equivalent of a cinema popcorn box full of brains.

Øystein (Øystein), Saturday, 23 April 2005 06:10 (twenty years ago)

Mmmmmmmm, Brain Poppers.

Failin Huxley (noodle vague), Saturday, 23 April 2005 06:13 (twenty years ago)

every version of this movie rules, you can't go wrong with kong

j blount (papa la bas), Saturday, 23 April 2005 06:26 (twenty years ago)

who is playing the guy in the monkey suit?

keith m (keithmcl), Saturday, 23 April 2005 13:59 (twenty years ago)

Tor Johnson

David R. (popshots75`), Saturday, 23 April 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

blount otm

jones (actual), Saturday, 23 April 2005 15:02 (twenty years ago)

how did he get so skinny? did he have gastric bypass surgery or something?

shookout (shookout), Saturday, 23 April 2005 15:38 (twenty years ago)

He's been saying he just decided to go 'hell with it' and do a lot of exercise and eating right, but considering the drop off happened sometime between the Oscars last year and last August or so -- I think that's when I first saw the new look -- all I have to say is that he either spent all his time in between doing nothing but that regimen, he had some assistance via Friendly Medications, or surgery. But who knows? Also for all I know he's actually gotten thinner still between August and now, so maybe it's been more gradual than guessed.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 23 April 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

i bet he went on atkins with ebert!!

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 23 April 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

Hahah. Body exchanges or something.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 23 April 2005 17:04 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...
Trailer out in eight days.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 20 June 2005 00:54 (twenty years ago)

Love the old Peter Jackson (through Heavenly Creatures), can't make it through more than 20 minutes of any LOTR. Can't really get excited for this.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 20 June 2005 01:00 (twenty years ago)

The original King Kong is a perfect movie. It really probably shouldn't ever be remade, even by a guy I admire as much as PJ. In fact, the fact that I admire PJ as much as I do is the only reason I'm not declaring this remake effort a guaranteed ridiculous failure from go. Still, the chances that I'm not going to be disappointed because I'm a cynical, highly skeptical reactionary about this kind of remake are very slim.

And of course I'll probably see it on opening night, too. Like the dorky fanboy I also am.

Austin Still (Austin, Still), Monday, 20 June 2005 01:43 (twenty years ago)

Trailer's up.

Hmmm. Functional enough, but I admit, seems kinda not-entirely-there. (Then again I was expecting more from the dinosaurs perhaps -- twelve years on from Jurassic Park should count for something SFX-wise.)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 01:38 (twenty years ago)

well the dinos from the first Jurassic Park are pretty hard to beat/improve upon.

latebloomer: now with 20% less cetacean content (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 01:41 (twenty years ago)

Hey, so long as we don't see anyone staring at a typewriter and saying "It's a UNIX system!" then that's an improvement right there.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 01:42 (twenty years ago)

hahahahaha otm

thoughts on the trailer: looks nice, the visuals have a very 'painted', stylized feel. the cgi seems decent but iffy in a few places, like ned said.

overall looks promising, i'd say. i just hope it doesnt end up as 2005's Godzilla!

latebloomer: now with 20% less cetacean content (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 01:47 (twenty years ago)

1930s New York looks pretty great, though!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 01:52 (twenty years ago)

The crappy-CGI pullback from the ocean cavemouth (right after Watts screams) does not bode well.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

i think the trailer looks great, actually! makes me MUCH more interested in the film.

kong is a bit weirdly small though isn't he? kinda mighty joe young (redux) sized?

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 02:06 (twenty years ago)

Actually in terms of scale that's not far off from the original movie.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 02:07 (twenty years ago)

really? i guess i remember him bigger in relation to the empire state building!

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 02:08 (twenty years ago)

We'll have to compare/contrast. ;-)

Frame by frame breakdown if you care. Apparently it's being updated bit by bit.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 02:10 (twenty years ago)

(Which, I realize, is why after a few pages it switches to Return of the King trailer descriptions. ;-))

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 02:12 (twenty years ago)

really? i guess i remember him bigger in relation to the empire state building!

-- s1ocki (slytus...), June 28th, 2005.

the kong in the original changed sizes from scene to scene!

latebloomer: now with 20% less cetacean content (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 03:09 (twenty years ago)

Interesting that on the http://www.kongisking.net site, all the headlines have spoiler! and MAJOR SPOILER!!!

It's a remake. What is there to spoil?

fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 03:53 (twenty years ago)

kong is an asexuallly reproducing hermaphrodite and gives birth to little sasquatches.

latebloomer: now with 20% less cetacean content (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 04:28 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, for something that's supposed to be the definition of "really large", that's a pretty small ape.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 07:30 (twenty years ago)

every version of this movie rules, you can't go wrong with kong

how many other versions of king kong have there been? there's the original, the '70s version, i think two japanese takeoffs...any more?

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 08:10 (twenty years ago)

wow, the first japanese monster movie! http://imdb.com/title/tt0157898/

J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 08:14 (twenty years ago)

there was the '86 sequel to the 70's remake, Kong Lives:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091344/

latebloomer: now with 20% less cetacean content (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 08:44 (twenty years ago)

I think there was also a sequel to the original called "Son of Kong", or something like that.

Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 08:59 (twenty years ago)

yeah, that's true.

latebloomer: now with 20% less cetacean content (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 09:23 (twenty years ago)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024593/

latebloomer: now with 20% less cetacean content (latebloomer), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 09:24 (twenty years ago)

Jack Black was like MADE to play the director dude. This should be pretty bad ass.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, this is definitely 'his' trailer as compared to Brody and Watts, who don't seem to do much but strike poses and scream and run around.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 13:13 (twenty years ago)

i think watts looks pretty awesome in it!

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

i mean if she just strikes poses and screams and runs around in this movie i'll be happy

s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

The merriness of a S1ocki!

I have to say rewatching the trailer later, it worked a bit more -- and knowing how Jackson works, he'll have everyone down there fine tuning the effects up until two weeks before the premiere.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)

The ice skating bit was quite good.

Overall, it wasn't any better than, say, Episode 3, for eg.

jel -- (jel), Sunday, 1 January 2006 18:32 (twenty years ago)

I agree with common consensus on most of this, particularly how you could cut the first hour to no great detriment.

The reason the islanders aren't cut is because Peter Jackson still has a horror director inside him, thank Jesus, and their introduction is terrifying. Though not as much as the bug scene, which was worth the price of admission by itself (that + the Monkey vs Dinosaur are the really great bits).

But he still died pretty early, and was sort of the first "meaningful" character death.

He was the only meaningful character death, apart from Kong. Unless the DVD version will give us the story of how the guy who carried the tripod was devoted to his craft/Carl.

Jack Black was FANTASTIC. Renee Zellweger, less so.

i can't really watch jack black in a not-entirely-comedic role, i kept expecting him to lift his eyebrows and say something like "guuuuuuuys? you with me here?"

I thought this was great, playing his untrustworthiness for menace rather than comedy. I wish they'd played the last line like this. "That's right, it WAS beauty that killed the beast" (get Jack Black twinkle in his eyes, drums his fingers on his chin)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 2 January 2006 23:59 (twenty years ago)

or instance Kong On Ice - he would have fallen through!

Actually one of my biggest problems with most CGI, even in this supposedly advanced time, is that the things always move like they're weightless.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 00:10 (twenty years ago)

The islanders' introduction wasn't scary at all. I was too distracted by going "Oh, so that's why they were calling it racist."

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 00:22 (twenty years ago)

Renee Zellweger, less so.

Intentional confusion or not?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 00:30 (twenty years ago)

the more i think about this the more i hate it

I GUARONTEE ::cajun voice:: (Adrian Langston), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 09:08 (twenty years ago)

i can't really watch jack black in a not-entirely-comedic role, i kept expecting him to lift his eyebrows and say something like "guuuuuuuys? you with me here?"

I thought this was great, playing his untrustworthiness for menace rather than comedy.

hey, if you're an actor playing a filmmaker and you just happen to look an uncanny amount like orson welles, milk it!

it was jody that killed the beast (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 09:16 (twenty years ago)

the head-sucking monsters were ACE!

i saw this with my mum and that scene was like one fite too far -- it was only a 12a and it was more violent than many 15s.

and by that point i was pretty bored with it.

what's the point of hiring jack black and Serious Actors like brody if you don't bother hiring a screenwriter?

obviously, jack black shd have been played by werner herzog.

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 09:27 (twenty years ago)

That is an ingenious idea.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:30 (twenty years ago)

"You must not love Kong, but you'd better respect Kong." "In Kong's eyes, I see no feeling, no emotion, only a half-bored interest in white poon."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:31 (twenty years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v515/RJG/kong.jpg

RJG (RJG), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:04 (twenty years ago)

too bad you didn't post the crime and punishment cover here.

miss michel legrand (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:07 (twenty years ago)

Supposing ...

... I'd enjoyed King Kong second time round

Charlie Brooker
Friday January 6, 2006
The Guardian

Last night I saw Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong for the second time. This makes me an idiot. Partly because it's three hours long, and partly because it's rubbish, but mainly because even though I'd already seen it, I'd been in such a state of denial about it being three hours long and rubbish that, on being invited to see it again, I cheerfully accepted.
Ten minutes in to my second viewing, I suddenly realised I'd made a terrible, baffling mistake. And now not only was I going to have to sit through the whole thing again, but I'd somehow have to explain to my two companions (who spent the duration yawning, writhing and fouling themselves with disgust) just why I'd been prepared to waste six hours of my life watching such a mammoth fountain of toss.


There simply isn't space to list everything wrong with it; its most glaring flaw is being 16 times more overblown and histrionic than necessary. For instance, Kong doesn't just fight one T-Rex, as per the original. No, he fights a whole bunch of them, while entangled in vines, dangling above a ravine, and tossing Naomi Watts from paw to paw like a Hacky Sack - for ages.
If there'd been a scene in which Kong went to the toilet, it would've run like this: 1) Kong unfurls his 10km penis and piddles into an erupting volcano for 45 minutes; 2) Kong turns around and passes a stool the size of a blue whale, in slow motion, to the strains of a 20,000-strong choir, while Naomi Watts stares at him, her eyes brimming with love; 3) his bowels emptied, Kong plucks the planet Jupiter out of the sky and swallows it for no reason, while fighting 15 giant crocodiles. And a robot. And a pig.

What's more, the cast are just plain weird to look at. Jack Black looks like he's playing the lead in Young Prescott, Adrien Brody resembles a cross between Ross from Friends and a disappointed sundial, and Naomi Watts spends the entire film gawping, sobbing, screaming or turning into Nicole Kidman in your head. Until the final scene, when she does all three at once. In slow motion. Atop the Empire State Building. In 3D.

As a film, it's the fattest, most swaggering, numb-headed and pointless assault on the senses it's possible to imagine. What I can't understand is why I enjoyed it first time round.

I suspect it was something to do with my state of mind at the time. I'd been Christmas shopping in a particularly miserable shopping mall -one of those modern ones consisting entirely of shiny floors and echoes, JD Sports and Nando's Chickenland. I was thoroughly sick of it, and by extension, of life itself.

At which point I was faced with a choice. I could drop to my knees and headbutt the floor until my skull split open in front of thousands of horrified shoppers. Or I could go and see King Kong, which I figured would probably be far too long and not very good. My expectations thus lowered, I actively enjoyed it. I'd adjusted my filter beforehand.

It's all about adjusting your filter. Just don't try adjusting it twice.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1680381,00.html

jed_ (jed), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:09 (twenty years ago)

1) Kong unfurls his 10km penis

now that woulda been something.

miss michel legrand (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:12 (twenty years ago)

just kidding

I thought this was pretty great

some of the effects were v. ropey w/ people flying and going 5x faster than their legs and the brontosaurus run/tumble was so ridiculous and confusing that it had me turning to nick 3/4 of the way through it saying "what the fuck is going on?" and him saying "I have no idea!" but I didn't REALLY mind. nice to know the effects will age and make this look even sillier, in the future

crossposts

the t-rex fight was a bit long too but OK and the bugs were disgusting and quite good. the fleshy thing that got the andy serkis/popeye guy was terrifically scary and disgusting

the ship and island bits were both a bit long but I don't know what you would cut except a whole lot of little bits and, yeah, the too-long fights but maybe I would be upset if kong victored too easily or something. didn't find myself getting too tired/restless and only looked at the time once, about two hours in, just wondering how much had gone

quite funny in parts (good moments of maybe less intentional ridiculous laughs as well as deliberate comedy) and rather emotional in the end

well acted, for the most part. lots of j black's eyes. not so sure abt a brody but never have been but, apparently, he does drive a hummer

RJG (RJG), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:17 (twenty years ago)

"they should've just made it a pseudo-documentary about the wildlife of Skull Island."

They've written a book, would you believe, including all the ecology they didn't get to include in the film.

isadora (isadora), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:19 (twenty years ago)

was that a real joke, jody?

RJG (RJG), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:19 (twenty years ago)

the brontosaurus run/tumble was so ridiculous and confusing that it had me turning to nick 3/4 of the way through it saying "what the fuck is going on?" and him saying "I have no idea!" but I didn't REALLY mind. nice to know the effects will age and make this look even sillier, in the future

It was so ridiculous! Wasn't the whole audience sitting there with "WTF? You're taking the piss Mr Jackson!" faces on? Or am I confusing myself with the world at large again?

Overall, entertaining. I cried a bit at the Kong persecution, and I liked it when he beat his chest. I only just realised he was Martin Hannett!

Alba (Alba), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:25 (twenty years ago)

oh, shit, so he was

RJG (RJG), Monday, 9 January 2006 00:27 (twenty years ago)

boy did this suck!

Ste (Fuzzy), Monday, 9 January 2006 11:46 (twenty years ago)

go see match point

RJG (RJG), Monday, 9 January 2006 12:03 (twenty years ago)

just kidding: do not

RJG (RJG), Monday, 9 January 2006 12:03 (twenty years ago)

I have never had less interest in a film than I have in seeing Match Point. It just looks so dull and unoriginal from the trailers. And, despite its much-touted Golden Globe nominations, I have to reckon that Woody Allen wouldn't be doing so much press for it if it wasn't shit.

accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Monday, 9 January 2006 13:55 (twenty years ago)

what about King Kong though?

jed_ (jed), Monday, 9 January 2006 13:56 (twenty years ago)

I believe I made my feelings on King Kong clear earlier in this thread.

accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Monday, 9 January 2006 14:05 (twenty years ago)

If this film had been made in the 90s it would have just been called KONG, I bet.

Alba (Alba), Monday, 9 January 2006 14:20 (twenty years ago)

longest rjg post ever?

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 9 January 2006 14:21 (twenty years ago)

surely 'kong', alba?

Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 9 January 2006 14:22 (twenty years ago)

actually alba, until you just said that, I thought it was !

Ste (Fuzzy), Monday, 9 January 2006 14:23 (twenty years ago)

"a disappointed sundial" = most fantastic description of adrian brody, or possibly anyone, that i've ever read

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 9 January 2006 18:13 (twenty years ago)

I was just about to post that myself.

Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Monday, 9 January 2006 20:14 (twenty years ago)

six months pass...
I don't know how anybody could watch this movie without fast forwarding or skipping a chapter or two. I felt like Milhouse waiting for the Fireworks factory.

Zwan (miccio), Saturday, 29 July 2006 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

Also, once you realize they can show anything through CGI, CGI is only impressive when you don't realize that's what you're seeing.

Zwan (miccio), Saturday, 29 July 2006 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

I dunno, I like the idea of CGI being such a common tool as to not be impressive in and of itself.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 29 July 2006 13:01 (nineteen years ago)

I appreciate Jackson most for being able to pump millions of R&D dollars to Weta, which will enable some really cool movies to be made (I hope). As for his own films, eh, okay I guess.

Whitman Mayonnaise (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 29 July 2006 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

I dunno, I like the idea of CGI being such a common tool as to not be impressive in and of itself.

That's part of what I mean, though. You don't have long shots of characters staring in awe at your goddamn animation while the music swells. You just tell a story and do your best to make us focus on something other than the Mary Poppins 2000 of it all.

Zwan (miccio), Saturday, 29 July 2006 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

You don't have long shots of characters staring in awe at your goddamn animation while the music swells.

You anti-Spielbergian! How else does one make movies!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 29 July 2006 13:58 (nineteen years ago)

she was clearly in love with the ape in this version. i didn't really like that. i prefer the ambivalent fear/pity of the 1933 version rather than the star-crossed lovers/"i would marry you if you weren't 30 feet tall" shite.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Saturday, 29 July 2006 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

and there are so many arbitary, unecessary editing quirks in this movie. the heart of darkness bit was bullshit, too. and don't get me started on the natives.

however, i love the creature stuff. i can't get enough of that shit.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Saturday, 29 July 2006 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

TOTALLY!! that was the whole problem. Actual tension = 0. When Adrien Brody takes her away at the end it's like "ho hum, second best."

xpost

Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Saturday, 29 July 2006 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

"ho hummer, second beast"

RJG (RJG), Saturday, 29 July 2006 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

Ew.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 29 July 2006 17:12 (nineteen years ago)

haha

that said, i did like naomi watts in this movie.

latebloomer (latebloomer), Saturday, 29 July 2006 17:16 (nineteen years ago)

three months pass...
Not sure why i waited nearly a year to see this but finally watched it via on-demand home TV service the other night and enjoyed it a lot more than i thought i was going to. maybe watching films at home you don't notice/care about the length so much but it seemed pretty good for a 3 hour film tho i agree there was a bit too much build up. The three D's all seemed so blase about sailing halfway round the world. Loved all scenes with any dinosaurs and the pit of bugs was one of the creepiest, gruesome things I've seen in a long time. I think the sense of despair was captured superbly during this lengthy scene esp. with the cook getting eaten alive head first. I like that Jackson managed to keep out any sense of 'humour' during this sequence - it's just pure terror and you can almost feel overwhelmed by the creatures yourself. Probably the most powerful apeless part of the film (I don't usually watch horror films tho admittedly).

The funniest bit may even have been the jump back to NYC after Kong was captured. Just like that (how'd they keep Kong sedate for what must've been such a lengthy journey back?) Loads of other boring issues (e.g. Black's character is harder to sympathise with compared to the original) but lots to enjoy so...

2 american 4 u (blueski), Sunday, 12 November 2006 20:02 (nineteen years ago)

Apparently a four-disc DVD edition is due soon. Crazy.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 12 November 2006 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

one year passes...

Watched this tother day on ITV for the first time since it came out, and was thoroughly entertained. The first act is way overlong and tonally very odd, but as soon as they get to the island the pace doesn't let up for a second, and some of the action sequences are amongst the most thrillingly audacious I've seen. What makes it really work, though, is how Jackson makes Kong totally sympathetic without ever playing down his animalistic brutality.

chap, Sunday, 14 September 2008 16:24 (seventeen years ago)

They should have called the movie Kong of Skull Island and ended it after the dino fight.

Sparkle Motion, Sunday, 14 September 2008 17:24 (seventeen years ago)

they should have STARTED it right before the dino fight.

s1ocki, Sunday, 14 September 2008 17:59 (seventeen years ago)

sure, and ended it shortly thereafter.

Sparkle Motion, Sunday, 14 September 2008 18:01 (seventeen years ago)

Watched this tother day on ITV for the first time since it came out, and was thoroughly entertained. The first act is way overlong and tonally very odd, but as soon as they get to the island the pace doesn't let up for a second, and some of the action sequences are amongst the most thrillingly audacious I've seen. What makes it really work, though, is how Jackson makes Kong totally sympathetic without ever playing down his animalistic brutality.

I totally agree with everything here. If you can just get past the first act, the rest of the movie is very good, everything just works on a primal, emotional level without any plot gimmicks or irony or other stuff most Hollywood movies these days have. The love story between the ape and Naomi Watts was quite well done, so sweet and sad. And the scene in the park where Kong gets to know snow and ice for the first time is wonderful, it shows how good Jackson is at doing stuff that's simple yet highly effective, pure cinema.

Tuomas, Sunday, 14 September 2008 18:51 (seventeen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.