King Kong

[AndrewTS 0]

Begins had a really weak opening too, actually. It started on a Wednesday, too.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I've still heard nothing but good things. A pretentious asshole I know who usually only likes movies that are in black and white with subtitles says it might be his new favorite.

 

Yeah yeah, just wait till it makes a profit at the box office then ask him again..

[AndrewTS 0]

That's waaaaay too high. I never understood the love that King Kong gets, and a remake seems kinda pointless. I say it'll make something around what the Godzilla remake did, maybe more.

 

 

Not fair to directly compare, but so far...

 

 

Godzilla (1998)

Opening Weekend: $44,047,541

(3,310 theaters, $13,307 average)

% of Total Gross: 32.3%

source: boxofficemojo

 

Ouch.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Holy crap, I called it. Sort of.

 

We'll see what happens over the weekend.

[2GOLD 0]

Length of the film probably hurt it the most.

Unlike LOTR which had a built in audience, there weren't a lot of people wanting a new KONG film and asking them to sit there for three hours was a stretch.

And WOTW needed Cruise and Berg to get the crowds in.

 

It'll hold at #1 for a little bit though, unless The Producers or Fun with Dick and Jane catch everyone off guard and wipe it out.

 

But come on? Godzilla? No way. I don't want to see the film but I can tell it's way better than that crapfest.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Just took in the midnight showing and while I'll elaborate on things later, here's some quick notes:

 

- Didn't drag at all. Anyone who cites the length of the film as a strike either doesn't have a concept of good cinema or just a really bad attention span. I'm not the kind who can sit there and watch just anything, but Kong held my attention through the duration and there weren't any points in which it dragged. The plane sequence during the Empire scene was probably more extended than necessary, but a minor quibble.

 

- Amazing action sequences. I don't like most action films. Seeing tons of amazing things that a computer created doesn't interest me. But the action scenes on Skull Island were amazing. There were some points where it was difficult to suspend disbelief (i.e. the dinosaur chase), but I was surprised at how suspenseful these portions were for me, a non-action sorta guy.

 

- I know it sounds sappy, but the part on the Empire State Building where Kong does the sign for "beautiful" was touching. Trying to develop anything close to a romantic reporte between a woman and giant gorilla is walking a fine line, but it was handled well.

 

- The set designs in New York were fantastic. The first few shots of the film made it clear what era we were viewing, which made posting a date and location unnecessary. Thankfully, Peter Jackson must've felt this way, since no such thing was done.

 

So yeah, I'm not sure if it's my favorite film of 2005, but it's going to be big. It's a perfect example of a movie being able to go beyond three hours and not seem excessive. Thumbs up for the big man. He did a bang-up job.

[Mik 0]

I thought the worst part was the dinosaur chase, the movie could have definitely lost that and that would have trimmed some time.

 

It was just completely unbelievable, even in the context of this movie.

[cabbageboy 0]

Dino chase, huh? The original has a dino chase in it too, which is one of the better parts of the film as the crew is being chased by the big dino (I forget what it was, maybe a bronto?).

 

That said, isn't is sickening to look on imdb.com and see this new film with a better rating than the original? I mean the original is only one of the most influential and best loved films of all time, not to mention setting a standard for special effects that lasted decades (I'd almost say until Star Wars). Is this new Kong really going to change cinema? It's mostly just Peter Jackson using the techniques already available.

[The Mandarin 0]

I thought it was decent, but disappointing. Especially because I could have seen Syriana instead.

 

Don't really have any specific criticisms or complaints other than that the taxi chase was absolutely retarded (it was weaving left and right to a degree that a taxi could never move at). Nothing else, really. Memory hazed by alcohol. I didn't actually wish for it to end until the movie's climactic scene hit the 15 minute mark or so.

 

Anyways, I'd reccomend it at the theatre, but I'm not going to pick it up on DVD.

[Nighthawk 0]

I don't know about rating a movie (in general I mean, not just there) on historical significance. Otherwise, I suppose Birth of a Nation could be called the best movie ever.

[SuperJerk 0]

Its made 50 million this weekend and 66 million since it opened 4 days ago. Its not bombing, it just didn't benefit from a Wednesday release.

[2GOLD 0]

Kong is fine, it made 80 million overseas. So it's already well on it's way to making back the 207 million budget no matter what it does in the second weekend. Of course, if it suffers an insane unpredictable second weekend fall off, then yeah it might not escape the bomb talk. Right now, it's fine. Not explosively awesome like anyone predicted but very good.

Edited December 18, 2005 by 2GOLD

[cabbageboy 0]

OK I saw the movie today....and I thought it pretty much sucked. My parents and brother all liked it though. Anyway here are my thoughts:

 

--The entire opening lasts entirely too long. Christ, we're an hour in before Kong even arrives. The odd aspect is that most critics agree that in the original Kong the first half hour or so is the worst part of the movie (something I don't really agree with). So what does Jackson do? He makes the exposition LONGER. It's mostly unimportant crap too, like "Oh god, is Denham going to be arrested before he leaves? Is the captain going to refuse to go to Skull Island? Is Driscoll coming at all?" Thing is, we all know they have to go there, so it's all pointless wanking that pads the run time for no real reason.

 

--I really hated what they did with Carl Denham as a character in this, and am surprised no one else on here or any critics have mentioned it. It's not that Jack Black did a bad job per se, but the character was changed to the point of character assassination. In the original Denham was nowhere near the fuckhole that Black portrays him as, in fact he was really one of the two main heroes along with Driscoll. In this though Denham is a total megalomaniac asshole, he cares nothing for his crew, actively tries to put them in danger, and is in a lot of ways the real villain of the film. In the original Denham certainly put his crew in peril, but as a documentary filmmaker that was par for the course and the crew knew it (and even seemed to kinda like the derring do).

 

--As an aside, I kinda liked the Hayes/Kid relationship here but in 1932 or so would a ship really have a black first mate? And Hayes mentioned his military background, but I'm not sure to what extent the military was integrated in what I'd assume was WWI. It did however remind me of Mifune and the Kid from Matrix Revolutions though.

 

--Adrien Brody sucked of course as Jack Driscoll, but then again I think he's probably the ugliest actor in movies today. I found it strangely amusing that Jackson included a bit of Denham's film that was actually a scene from the original (it's where Driscoll tells Ann he doesn't want a woman on board) as a way of saying "Haha, isn't that scene lame?" and then includes equally tepid Driscoll/Ann scenes of his own.

 

--The natives in this get worse treatment than they did in the original, which is kinda mindblowing for today. Here they go around very hostile, trying to kill the crew, etc. I found this depiction odd considering that Kong never really kills any of them later on when he comes to find Ann.

 

--There's just overkill in general here. In the original Kong fights a T Rex and it's a great fight. Of course one T Rex isn't good enough now, so there has to be THREE. In the original the crew shoots a stegosaurus and runs from a bronto. Here there's a huge stampede with really cheesy effects.

 

--The whole theme of the film was assbackwards. In the original we get the idea that Kong to some extent is protective of Ann, but that she's essentially still scared out of her mind and wants away from the big ape (which seems like a very natural feeling). Thus we wonder if Driscoll can save her and make it back to the crew. Here though? Ann seems to creepily fall in love with Kong to some degree, shares intimate sunsets and shit, and thus it takes away from the tension of Driscoll saving her before she is harmed. The scenes of Watts entertaining Kong with her mediocre stage act are also really, really bad I might add. And don't get me started on the frolick on the ice in Central Park.

 

Anyway, those are a few of the problems I had with it. I did like the Depression Era milieu in the beginning and the amusing stuff about "Let's get Harlow, let's get Myrna Loy, let's get Mae West (no she's too big for a size 4), let's get Fay (no she's busy filming at RKO)." I also liked the Bruce Baxter character and that he and not Driscoll was credited with saving Ann since he was the big star after all (though he DID do quite a bit of monster killing of his own).

 

 

The bottom line: What else can you give a huge budget misfire with some nice aspects? **1/2.

Edited December 18, 2005 by cabbageboy

[Nighthawk 0]

That's an interesting take. Now, based on this thread, I can say that you, cabbageboy, are someone whose views on film I can respect and understand, but just don't share.

 

I've said this a couple of times, but it seemed more like Stockholm Syndrome than bestiality to me.

[Guest Vitamin X]

So is anyone that absolutely ADORED the film going to come out and defend its criticisms?

[Angle-plex 0]

Way too many retarded action scenes in the middle of the film for me to give a thumbs up to this one. Everything besides the pacing and those action scenes were good though.

[Nighthawk 0]

So is anyone that absolutely ADORED the film going to come out and defend its criticisms?[

 

I think I could... because I have a feeling that this is just one of those polarizing films. But I didn't love it so I don't feel compelled to, that's the bitch of it.

 

I agree on the dino chase, though. It wasn't needed. But there's something to be said for a three hour film. A 2 hour and 40 minute film? Just doesn't have the same romance.

 

I'll say something regarding cabbage's critiques, though. I just don't want to do spoiler tags, so if you don't want them, quit reading.

 

First, the 33 version is out the window in my judgement of this one. That's one of the ways my views on film differ.

 

Based on that, the "we all know what's going to happen" thing loses merit. Now the opening was long, I don't dispute it. But I enjoyed, and I think it could be judged well presented, particularly in context of not considering the original.

 

Denham was a god in this one, in fact, dare I say it, made the movie. I suppose that's just a matter of taste. Apples and oranges, I know, but I liken it to the way some people loved William Forsythe in Devil's Rejects, and to some he was the villain.

 

I have nothing to say regarding Adrien Brody.

 

I can say, without hesitation that the natives were without a doubt my favorite part of the movie. Forgive me if I'm misjudging, but it seems as if cabbage objected to them on a racial level. They are, after all, characters based on a primitive stimulus/response. Of an old style adventure film... savage natives, a blonde heroine. Such is standard. I think that's part of it. This was a 30s film in more ways than one, made in the 00s.

 

Overkill, maybe. Yeah, probably. But hell, I liked the (it may have even been 4 or 5) Tyranosaurs. In a three hour flick, we need some interludes like that. They counterbalance the ice skating.

 

Again, it's not love... she's a pet to Kong, and she has Stockholm Syndrome. I admit they may have gone too far. There should be an edge of "Are they going to cross that line?" in my opinion, and they may have bumped it too hard. But I don't think they crossed it. At least he didn't peel off her clothes like the original.

 

On the whole, I think this version of King Kong was greater than the sum of it's parts. A masterpiece (for the sake of argument) constructed of junk, if you will.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Milky.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

At least he didn't peel off her clothes like the original.

 

Yeah. There was always more of a sexual subtext in the original Kong which was just plain creepy, and I'm glad they dropped it in this version.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

The natives were some of the most disturbing humans I've seen in a non-horror film. When we first see the child, it doesn't seem that bad, but then as the crew realizes they're surrounded by them and we get shots of indvidual natives, it's revealed just how grotesque these people look. I didn't even think of the racial aspect of it. I guess I was too busy being creeped out and thinking, "wow, if I were in that position, I'd be scared out of my mind."

 

I didn't have beef with the opening. The opening in the original wasn't all that brisk, either, but it didn't bother me then. This just seemed like it wanted to establish several characters so that the viewer could get the feeling that they know more about them than the basics.

 

The relationship between Ann and Kong wasn't disturbing to me, either. I didn't think of it so much as her feeling any attraction to him; just a caring individual who sees there's more to Kong than the exterior and thus, doesn't want to see him harmed by others. I link it to women who are intense animal lovers. Do their actions and behaviors always seem normal? No, but at the same time, I don't begin to think they wanna get in bed with the animal.

[Angle-plex 0]

Overkill, maybe. Yeah, probably. But hell, I liked the (it may have even been 4 or 5) Tyranosaurs. In a three hour flick, we need some interludes like that. They counterbalance the ice skating.

 

You're acting like the flick needed to be three hours, so they added three TRexes in just to waste time. Why couldn't they have just stuck with one and made the film 2:30? And the ice-skating was gay; maybe it would be cool for a seven year old. The CGI was ok in parts and awful in other, particularly the horrendous dino-chase and when Kong first escapes in New York.

 

And what's with that scene with all those bugs? It wasn't necessary. The film makers seemed like they just wanted to play around with the CGI and neglected the pacing of the movie completely.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

And the ice-skating was gay;

 

I thought it was a nice moment of innocence before the beginning of the end came. In a way, that scene was like their swan song, since everything from that point on was an uphill battle.

[cabbageboy 0]

Regarding the pacing, I'll put it this way. On the recent Kong DVD release they mention that spider pit scene that Merian C. Cooper cut from the original and is now lost. On the DVD Jackson and Co. reconstruct the scene as an extra. Obviously in the new film the scene is in there and then some. The irony is that Jackson obviously didn't listen to WHY Cooper removed it to begin with, namely that it killed the actual narrative pacing and that the audience hated how unpleasant it was to see the crew all killed so violently. Cooper realized that less is more sometimes. Kong throws them into the chasm off the huge log and they die...period.

 

I really couldn't forget the original here, mainly because I don't think Jackson himself wanted that. In the 1976 film they tried some different directions scriptwise in order to make people forget it (and failed badly, but that's another matter). If Jackson wanted people to come in and not think of the 1933 film, he wouldn't set it in 1933, wouldn't use some of the same dialogue, and wouldn't have had the same iconic images (Statue of Liberty, the T Rex fight, the huge log, etc). I mean everyone knows Kong to some degree, right? Huge ape on the Empire State Bldg., the "It was beauty killed the beast" line, and so on. We all know it even if we don't realize it.

 

The natives really weren't something I had a huge problem with, but I found it kind of harsh and unpleasant for such escapist entertainment. Almost like Jackson wanted to throw in his LOTR style with orcs and Mordor, but the ultra terrifying nature of it doesn't fit the material like it would LOTR. Kong would be more suited to someone like Spielberg, who has a style more akin to old school Hollywood adventure (Raiders, Jurassic Park, etc).

 

Black's Denham will undoubtedly split viewers. I didn't fault Black's actual performance, but his character was written as such a cock. Which is the point I know, but why does he have his men that follow his every word? Why is Jack Driscoll is buddy despite Denham fucking him over, not paying him, putting his life in danger against his will, etc.? I have to admit it was cool to see Denham actually shoot footage on the island this time, whereas in the original I don't recall them ever shooting a reel (though they didn't exactly have time, what with dealing with the natives and then searching for Ann).

 

I guess that's why I didn't like Denham in this, though it's kinda the point I suppose. They changed him from a major protagonist in the first film to antagonist in this one. They changed him here from macho documentary/nature filmmaker (much along the lines of Cooper himself or maybe Frank Buck, who also did African documentaries), the sort who went into dangerous places but really never asked his crew to do things he himself wasn't doing. Here Denham is a sleaze and a liar willing to have his crew killed off and then feign some sympathy and a piece of the profit for the family of the deceased.

 

In the original and Son of Kong we see a much more sympathetic Denham, someone who ends up being truly sorry for bringing Kong to NYC, sorry for the mayhem that Kong caused and also remorseful for Kong himself.

 

That key thematic shift is what caused problems for me. Once we make Denham, the slightly seedy captain, and quite a bit of the crew (Driscoll and maybe Hayes and the Kid aside) as assholes, it really screws up the way we're supposed to view things. In the new one are we supposed to root for Denham and Driscoll to find Ann and save her from certain death? Not really, since we know Kong "loves" her and is protecting her. Are we supposed to want Ann to stay on the island with Kong and live happily ever after in some pseudo bestiality arrangement? I figure Jackson wants us to ponder things like "Is Denham an asshole for shamelessly risking the lives of his crew?" but we don't need to care about that, we just need to go with it. In the original film Ann is likely grateful on some level for Kong protecting her from the dinosaurs, but at no time buddies up to Kong since he's a seriously bad motherfucker and also killed most of the crew she had bonded with on the voyage.

 

As far as the peeling of the clothes stuff in the original, I do believe that scene was cut out for years and restored at some point for video release. Either way I mostly found it harmless Pre Code goofing, stuff that wouldn't have been allowed post 1934. It was mostly Kong being curious I thought, kinda like he really didn't know what all he was doing. Besides, we get to see Fay Wray scantily clad, and who but the bluest of bluenoses can object to that? Haha!

 

Anyway, I actually did like some things in the film. But since the original Kong is one of the few old classics I've seen in a theater reissue I have to say it's an easily better film, with a much faster pace, more likable human characters, and a more vicious badass Kong.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Where'd you get to see it on the big screen? That's what I dislike about my local. There aren't any theaters that'll run a great number of classics. There's one downtown that used to play one each weekend, but because of financial constraints, it's usually reserved for special occasions (i.e. they showed It's A Wonderful Life last Thursday).

[Nighthawk 0]

It's true that you can't forget the original, not really, I just think you should. After all, I half expected to see a quick Naomi Watts nipple slip in tribute to Fay Wray's infamous original. I suppose you can't sneak that sort of of stuff by the censors, though.

 

Also,

You're acting like the flick needed to be three hours, so they added three TRexes in just to waste time.

 

I don't think it needed to be three hours, but I think Jackson thinks it did. That isn't really an excuse, just a reason. And, if you're going to cut it down, what do you cut? Dinosaur fights or ice skating? The former, and it turns sappy and stupid. The latter, and it loses what you would call "heart". (I would have been fine with that, myself) It seems to me that Jackson knew what kind of movie he wanted to make from the outset, and forced it out no matter what. And that is a flaw, yes.

[cabbageboy 0]

You know, I watched the old Kong on DVD some the other day and slow motioned the nipple slip scene and I really never saw anything. I've even seen the pics of it too, but couldn't catch it on DVD.

 

Anyway I saw the old Kong at a revival at Baxter Avenue theaters in 1998, it's the closest thing to an art house theater in Louisville. They also showed The Big Sleep that same year and Forbidden Planet later on as well. The Palace also has a Classic Movie Series, but it's sliding downhill in my view. I mean last year they had Jurassic Park on it. I mean WTF? That's hardly an old film that I'd consider "classic" just yet.

 

I kinda regret not seeing Gold Diggers of 1935 at the Palace when it first reopened....if it'd been GD of 1933 instead I would have gone.

[Jericholic82 0]

Saw it on Sat night on my b-day. The legnth didnt btoher me other then the fact that it was a 9:15 showing so it lasted past midnight and I was tired to begin with. I liked the action sequences for the most part. I actually liked the dino fights cuz Kong was busting out the moveset, with what looked like a snap mare and a pseudo-rock bottom.

 

I'd probably have to see it again to really analzye it, but Im not sure if this is the type of movie you can watch multiple times.

 

The effects were very good and the action was intense.

 

all in all I enjoyed it enough and it was a fun way to spend 3 hours. This is definately one to see on the big screen with the surround sound theater speakers (I was hearing things BEHIND me a lot and it started to feel like I was there on the island) The island parts were great the NY parts seemd not to last too long at the end, but I thought they did a great job of recreating the depression era NYC. The Ice skating thing was a nice calm before the storm. I always wonder (even in the first film and remake) what they thought was gonna happen when they brung this giant ape to NYC? I mean didn't they think for a sec "what if he escapes ?"

 

and why do they need to kill him, couldnt he just get a job at a casino? (simpsons reference for the uninclined)

 

and maybe it was me, but I thought that Kong had jumped off the building at the end, or at least purposely slipped off to save Ann. The way it looked to me at least, at first

 

and no I wont use spoiler tags here since everyone knows the ending to Kong by now

 

any event I'm sure this will get a lot of oscar buzz and it probably deserves it.

[Nighthawk 0]

Come to think of it, if he fell off the Empire State building, wouldn't his guts have splattered everywhere?

[Jericholic82 0]

Come to think of it, if he fell off the Empire State building, wouldn't his guts have splattered everywhere?

I thought the same thing.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I was thinking more along the line of why he didn't cause more damage to the surrounding area around where he fell. He had to have been a pretty fucking heavy guy. Add his weight + the force of a freefall and it should have equalled at least some collateral damage...

[Jericholic82 0]

I was thinking more along the line of why he didn't cause more damage to the surrounding area around where he fell. He had to have been a pretty fucking heavy guy. Add his weight + the force of a freefall and it should have equalled at least some collateral damage...

I'm sure he cracked the street but they didnt show it, youd think thered be a huge crater there though

 

 

plot holes abound in Kong I suppose