kong (2005)

valryte · Post by **valryte** » December 18, 2005, 6:08 am

Now that I have actually seen the film, I can say without a doubt, that my original prediction about it being too long were true. BUT, not in a really bad way. Knowing the story, you know that it could have definately been shorter, but what was left in isn't terrible. Movies are too long, when you can clearly see parts that just aren't good enough and should have been removed or parts that just drag on for 10-15 minutes when they could have been done differently in 5 minutes. But with Peter Jackson's Kong, what is shown is what he wanted to be shown. That is his version of the story and I can't complain.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » December 22, 2005, 3:15 am

I guess I will be the one to say I didnt care much for it. I did like most of

[Show]: The fight with the Dino's, until they where swinging from vines and shit. That whole part was stupid.

[Show]: Many of the scenes where just to much, OMG they are in trouble, OMFG they are in so much trouble, OMFG OMFG they are really doomed now! Was like watching that scene in Jar Jar Wars when the big fish got eaten by the bigger fish, eaten by the bigger fish......ect. Then then of course you must be rescued a few times just in time, why? I dont know nor do I care.

I could go on.......but why

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 25, 2005, 5:46 am

I'm all for initial character development but the character bonding in the first hour of the movie just wasn't that interesting.

I was entertained the second two hours of the movie although, besides the special effects, I thought it was an average movie.

It's hard to tell whether the female lead is a good actress or not as all she had to do in this movie was stare a lot...at kong and at the other actors. She's got a pretty face so it didn't hurt the movie too much with all of these ultra long staring at her stare past the camera at KK and others.

The drama scenes were a little overdone as well...lots and lots of slow zoom-ins on staring faces. I also didn't care for the slow-mo drug-cam during the initial encounter with the natives.

My attention span is A-OK but this movie would have been better served as a two hour movie.

68/100 (take a pee break about 50 minutes in before the action starts, you won't miss much until after the one hour mark into the movie)

Some additional notes:

[Show]: -how in the hell did they get Kong back to New York? There's no way that boat had the space for him. They just sort of blew right past that part...how the hell did they even get him from the shore to anywhere? They didn't have the manpower to even hoist him and the natives weren't about to chip in.

-after a high speed chase through New York as Kong tries to kill the guy whoe stole the girl from him, the leading acress all the sudden shows up at exactly where the wild chase scene ended. What's up with that?

-Why didn't Kong's ass break through the lake ice? Is the lake shallow enough that it totally freezes in the winter? Kong has to weigh 10 tons or more and he's spinning on his ass around the ice.

-Kong may be big, but he must have been shot hundreds of times on the island without even flinching. Is his skin that thick? The gunfire was pretty much point blank so I don't think they missed every time. It wouldn't kill him but should do a little damage.

-the same with the planes. They lit him up with bullets for a long time. Kong is huge but jeeze, he's got serious endurance to be climbing up the Empire State Building after the rampage through the city.

-worst acting and line of the movie was at the end when, yet another zoom in to a staring Jack Black, he says, "No, it was beauty the killed the beats." (and I like Jack Black)

Kwonryu DragonFist · December 25, 2005, 6:36 am

Well, one has to take into consideration that Gorillas can benchpress OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of weight , especially compared with their size.

So, by that account, anything is possible, especially when talking about a Giant Gorilla.

If you have a good benchpress, you can do it all and anything is possible.

Merry Xmas Y'all!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » December 27, 2005, 5:17 am

Kwonryu DragonFist wrote:Well, one has to take into consideration that Gorillas can benchpress OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of weight , especially compared with their size.

So, by that account, anything is possible, especially when talking about a Giant Gorilla.

If you have a good benchpress, you can do it all and anything is possible.

Merry Xmas Y'all!

lmao kwon, i thought i was the only person that had "hmm, i wonder how much kong could benchpress" going through my mind...either way its a big damn number
Other then a few flaws and the loudass stupid motherfuckers behind me making monkey sounds and laughing at the most innoportune portions of the movie, I would have to say that this was an incredibly well made remake of what was at first a dull monster flick with fairly shallow characters (from what I remember). Peter Jackson is the master of re enterprising, well just about anything onto film

[

[Show]: spoiler]he was right, parts of the movie were too "good to be true"...many of the characters had "too close" of encounters one after another, after another, as you would expect in a cheesy vin deisel flick, i also love how the author is just by chance a professional driver, a great shot, and a master of deception as he is soley able to penetrate the forest to valiantly rescue the damsel in distress[/spoiler

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » December 27, 2005, 6:04 am

Winnow wrote:It's hard to tell whether the female lead is a good actress or not as all she had to do in this movie was stare a lot...at kong and at the other actors. She's got a pretty face so it didn't hurt the movie too much with all of these ultra long staring at her stare past the camera at KK and others.

The drama scenes were a little overdone as well...lots and lots of slow zoom-ins on staring faces. I also didn't care for the slow-mo drug-cam during the initial encounter with the natives.

Do you remember LOTR, most notably the end of ROTK? Holy crap. I liked the movie, but the ending kinda drives me nuts for the same reasons. Peter equates "long stares (often slo-mo)" to "dramatic" a little much for my tastes, but I am still entertained for the most part.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » December 27, 2005, 11:23 am

[Show]
-how in the hell did they get Kong back to New York? There's no way that boat had the space for him. They just sort of blew right past that part...how the hell did they even get him from the shore to anywhere? They didn't have the manpower to even hoist him and the natives weren't about to chip in.

Above is Winnow's question, and here is the answer:

[Show]: That exact scenerio also took place in the original King Kong and has been referred to as "the worst cut in film history" for the very reasons you pointed out. Peter Jackson actually did the exact same thing on purpose for reasons only he truely knows. It might be a salute to the original film, and while it certianly is absurd, it is also very much intended.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » December 27, 2005, 11:49 am

Saw this flick last Friday and really enjoyed it. There were scenes that could have been cut out and added to the DVD instead but I thought the three hours went very quick. I thought the acting was very good. I need to pick up the original and see how similar they are. I saw it years ago but don't remember much. I thought Naomi Watts was very good and she really did a good job with her character. Better than I remember Fay Wray doing although I remember Fay having a better scream.

I would give Kong a 8.5 out of 10 and would see it again.

Next up for Jackson should be a Hobbit remake. That should be really awesome.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 9, 2006, 8:21 pm

I thought it was OK but not great. Kong was pretty awesome and any scene with him was good. Any scene without him was pretty much a waste of time.

I didn't like Jack Black at all. Every time he came on screen, I kept thinking "oh god, don't do something terrible that makes everyone realize they're watching Jack Black in a dramatic role." Even though he sometimes managed to not do something terrible, his mere presence was distracting and unfortunate.

I thought Naomi Watts did a good job.

I understand that it's a remake of an already written story, but it really pusses out at the end.

[Show]: There is no need to have a Driscoll / Darrow love story. The love story is between Darrow and Kong. Darrow should die at the end, with Kong-- either torn apart by stray bullets or resting in his hand as he falls or something. Having her live and then run to embrace Adrien Brody at the end of the movie is really an enormous cop out.

Kwonryu DragonFist · January 18, 2006, 10:00 am

Saw it. I think it was a good movie actually, not a movie where you have to think but just watch and enjoy!

Only thing that boggles me was

[Show]: What's up with the leech/insect-scene? First they attack the humans like a coordinated zerg, then suddenly they stop.

Are leeches, roaches and the latter insects actually living together? That's a new one!

You could recognize the roaches and the beetles that appeared, but what in the hell were those longlegged thingies at the end of the zerg? And why did they appear so late in the Zerg-attack?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 18, 2006, 12:46 pm

[Show]: Having her live and then run to embrace Adrien Brody at the end of the movie is really an enormous cop out.

It's an American movie, you have to have all the loose ends wrapped up at the (prefferably happy) end of a movie. God forbid you make anyone unhappy or have to think for more than a couple seconds.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 18, 2006, 1:12 pm

Well it is a remake.. Isn't that how the original ended?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 18, 2006, 4:25 pm

Aslanna wrote:Well it is a remake.. Isn't that how the original ended?

Didn't think so, but I haven't seen it in 20 years either.