King Kong

While I just spent a little bit of time talking about Imperialism in Kong, I don’t want you to think that –I- think that it was the heart of the movie. It wasn’t, in my movie-going experience. Although, I bet it –was- the heart of the movie for anyone writing a thesis paper about British Imperialism. This goes back to the second scenario for subtextual inference back a couple pages/posts ago. But for me, it was an aside.

Another, larger, aside (I’m building up to what the movie was –really- about, in case you’re curious) was this.

2. Society vs. The Individual and/or The So-Called “Evolution” of Man

Now, this is so large and so… rampant, that it’ll be hard to squeeze into a one-two page breakdown, especially one with anything approaching coherence, but I’ll try.

I really believe there is some powerful stuff going on in this movie, discussing how, well, terrible society is, and how unevolved we all really are. Well, most of us.

The cliff-noted (SparkNotes, actually) page that I linked to earlier has an interesting sentence which I will just quote here, “Madness, in Heart of Darkness, is the result of being removed from one’s social context and allowed to be the sole arbiter of one’s own actions.”

I think that Jackson & Co. have taken this thought a step further in Kong, and suggested that there’s a good chance that while madness can come from being removed from one’s social context, it can also come as a result of being in one’s social context.

What I mean is this: We are given two ‘societies’ in King Kong. Civilized Man’s, and Kong’s. (There is one of the tribal people but I’m not going to deal with that right now. Or as they say in academia “it is beyond the scope of this paper”)

I think that it’d be difficult to say who is ‘mad’ between the two. Sure Kong has his rage moments, but okay, he’s a gorilla/ape/whatever. I don’t think that makes him any less evolved than mankind in the city.

The civilized ‘promoters’ of art (the producers) are nothing more than chimps themselves, remember when the one guy, when asking for what makes a movie sell, says “What about some boobies?!” Is that guy any more evolved than Kong?

What about at the end when all the black people are on stage dancing, and singing, and then the camera cuts to the entirely white audience. Is legalized (and later, socialized) racial segregation the sign of a fully evolved society?

I don’t remember the complete backstory but that one guy who was on the boat –preferred- to live in the animal hold, rather than live with people, because while he was in “civilized, evolved society” he had both of his arms broken, or something to that effect.

But on the other side of the fence, Kong lives alone. A society of one, but a perfectly functioning one.

Well, not entirely alone.

Do you remember that one brilliant bit of set design where Brody (forget the character’s name) is crawling about through the body of another giant ape? I refuse to believe that it was a complete accident. “OH what do you think if we put the skeleton of another kong here?” “Uhh, sure sounds cool.”

I think that there’s a chance that either that ape was kong’s love interest (if you buy into my ‘love & kong’ thoughts, which will come soon) or, if you buy into the thought that society causes conflict, I think there’s a chance that kong –killed- that other ape. Either way, it’s a wonderful bit of discussion and hypothesizing all because of a three second clip where Adrien Brody walks through the skeleton. That’s good filmmaking, and better than any 30 minutes of Chronicles of Narnia.
 
While I just spent a little bit of time talking about Imperialism in Kong, I don’t want you to think that –I- think that it was the heart of the movie. It wasn’t, in my movie-going experience. Although, I bet it –was- the heart of the movie for anyone writing a thesis paper about British Imperialism. This goes back to the second scenario for subtextual inference back a couple pages/posts ago. But for me, it was an aside.

Another, larger, aside (I’m building up to what the movie was –really- about, in case you’re curious) was this.

2. Society vs. The Individual and/or The So-Called “Evolution” of Man

Now, this is so large and so… rampant, that it’ll be hard to squeeze into a one-two page breakdown, especially one with anything approaching coherence, but I’ll try.

I really believe there is some powerful stuff going on in this movie, discussing how, well, terrible society is, and how unevolved we all really are. Well, most of us.

The cliff-noted (SparkNotes, actually) page that I linked to earlier has an interesting sentence which I will just quote here, “Madness, in Heart of Darkness, is the result of being removed from one’s social context and allowed to be the sole arbiter of one’s own actions.”

I think that Jackson & Co. have taken this thought a step further in Kong, and suggested that there’s a good chance that while madness can come from being removed from one’s social context, it can also come as a result of being in one’s social context.

What I mean is this: We are given two ‘societies’ in King Kong. Civilized Man’s, and Kong’s. (There is one of the tribal people but I’m not going to deal with that right now. Or as they say in academia “it is beyond the scope of this paper”)

I think that it’d be difficult to say who is ‘mad’ between the two. Sure Kong has his rage moments, but okay, he’s a gorilla/ape/whatever. I don’t think that makes him any less evolved than mankind in the city.

The civilized ‘promoters’ of art (the producers) are nothing more than chimps themselves, remember when the one guy, when asking for what makes a movie sell, says “What about some boobies?!” Is that guy any more evolved than Kong?

What about at the end when all the black people are on stage dancing, and singing, and then the camera cuts to the entirely white audience. Is legalized (and later, socialized) racial segregation the sign of a fully evolved society?

I don’t remember the complete backstory but that one guy who was on the boat –preferred- to live in the animal hold, rather than live with people, because while he was in “civilized, evolved society” he had both of his arms broken, or something to that effect.

But on the other side of the fence, Kong lives alone. A society of one, but a perfectly functioning one.

Well, not entirely alone.

Do you remember that one brilliant bit of set design where Brody (forget the character’s name) is crawling about through the body of another giant ape? I refuse to believe that it was a complete accident. “OH what do you think if we put the skeleton of another kong here?” “Uhh, sure sounds cool.” I just don't believe that any filmmaking team could be so lazy and just throw something in randomly.

I think that there’s a chance that either that ape was kong’s love interest (if you buy into my ‘love & kong’ thoughts, which will come soon) or, if you buy into the thought that society causes conflict, I think there’s a chance that kong –killed- that other ape. Either way, it’s a wonderful bit of discussion and hypothesizing all because of a three second clip where Adrien Brody walks through the skeleton. That’s good filmmaking, and better than any 30 minutes of Chronicles of Narnia.

It just occurred to me that maybe it's not even society that is underattack in the Kong movie (both literally, and figuratively). Maybe it's just the idea of civilization. Remember how crummy all the people were, living in a city. Cheating one another, lying. (lots of dialogue about this in the movie, if I recall). Remember that actor and how self-indulged he was, posters of himself on the boat, etc etc.

The transformation was not instantaneous, but after some time away from society, and what society not only allowed him to be, but encouraged him to be, he became something else. Something more. He became a hero. When put in a primitive, raw, environment, the actor became something primitive, and raw himself, and he was better for it.
 
Now that I just spent some time saying why I think that this movie has a pretty sick anti-imperialist streak running straight down the middle of it, I’m going to sort of under-cut that by saying that the discussion on imperialism was only an aside for this movie.

Similarly, I spent a little bit of time talking about the ills of society and how perhaps the filmmakers think living alone is preferable. But again, I think that thought too was just an aside. Those things were just the backdrop on which to paint the larger story. And while 99% of critics think that King Kong is an “FX Extravaganza”, the truth is more simple than that. King Kong is a love story, and it’s one of the best ever made.

(But what about Titanic?)

Now, a lot of comparison has been made to the end of this movie and the end of Titanic, (yes I think it was intentional, and yes, I think that’s a good move) and I think, fellas, if you’ll take a second to read between the lines of this film you’ll realize that while James Cameron made Titanic for the ladies, Peter Jackson made this movie for us. In a move that is at once both strange, and perfect, Peter Jackson has described the love problems of modern man by remaking classic movie about a girl and a gorilla.

Well, it’s not just a girl and a gorilla, this time.

Are you familiar with the concept of triangulation?

In mathematical terms, if given one point, and its angular relationship to two other points, and the distance between them, you can calculate the distance to the initial point.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation )

That’s what’s different about this iteration of King Kong. It triangulates. This time, instead of a confused love story with two characters, It’s a love triangle, and suddenly everything comes into perspective.

By adding the character of Jack Driscoll in the movie, Peter Jackson is able to be perfectly honest about what it means to be a male searching for love. Simply put, at times every guy feels like Jack Driscoll, and at times we feel like King Kong.

(Ladies, though it may be hard to believe, there really is a part of us that is like Driscoll. We will totally jump on stage and make out with Halle Berry for no reason at all)

There’s a part of us that is sensitive, and feels complicated emotions, and wants to find a woman to talk to, make love to, etc.

Some of us are lucky (or cursed, depending on your perspective), and have the ability to articulate those emotions in songs, poems, plays, whatever. Note that even though Driscoll is quite the wordsmith on the page, in person he comes up short. I’m not even sure that the movie thinks that the ability to wield words is all that great. There’s a scene with a play-within-the-play where a female character berates the entire male gender for their inability to use words properly, even the ones of us that are reasonably competent at it.

Worse, unless you are very successful with those skills, society suggests that those skills in males are useless (and sometimes defined as –un- male). To avoid the demasculization of being branded “soft” or “new age”, many men just err on the side of being an “alpha male.”

If you google the phrase “alpha male” you’ll find a bunch of pages suggesting that by being the alpha male, guys will get girls. The concept of “alpha male” of course comes from the study of primate society , we’re basically attempting to be the socially accepted equivalent of Kong.

Yes, there’s a part of us that is King Kong. There’s a part of us that doesn’t want to say s@#t. We just want to swing vine to vine, break the skulls of tyrannosaurs, and devour things. We want to yell, and bang our chests in the woods. But most of all we want to find and protect, and be understood by the woman we love.

But it’s hard.

We’ve tried relationships before. You only have to look at the pile of ceremonial garbs at Kong’s house to see that he has, as well. But for whatever reason those relationships didn’t work. Every guy is worried about finding that girl, bringing her into his world, and having her change her mind and go look for something else. Or (and we all know this feeling) go back to the ex that she dated before us. The look on Kong’s face as they capture him is all too familiar for most people. “I thought you liked the thing you and I shared?”

We’re scarred from our past relationships, and to an extent, the world we live in. Kong is not a mint-condition CGI character. He has scrapes and wounds and scars from the hundreds of battles he’s fought just to survive in his environment. Are we monstrous by nature, or has our environment made us that way?

As a male it’s hard for us to find a woman who will love us, despite our inability to articulate our emotions (or in Kong’s case, articulate anything at all) and it’s just as hard to find one that will maintain our interest.

Every guy has dated the girl who was willing to go along, and consent to every thing that the guy has said, and every guy has eventually broken up with that girl. It’s not just about maintaining interest.

Luckily, Ann Darrow does more than maintain Kong’s interest.

If Darrow had just kept on dancing and singing Kong would’ve been interested for a little longer, but then eventually he would’ve grown bored, and squashed/eaten her. Sure, they were tricks that Kong hadn’t seen before with his previous “loves”, but at the end of the day they were just tricks. What made Ann Darrow different is that she drew the line.

At one point in their odd courtship Darrow effectively says “Enough is enough,” and she stops entertaining Kong. While it pisses off Kong, it also earns his respect. And that’s what makes their relationship work for him, his respect for her.

However the relationship can’t work yet, because the respect is not mutual. She fears Kong, but doesn’t respect him. Not yet.

Later she escapes, temporarily, and is almost killed, in Kong’s world. Kong saves her of course (No spoiling here. Did you think she would be eaten?) and at that point her fear does turn to respect, and she chooses him, as her protector and alpha male. With their mutual respect in place, their relationship does begin, in earnest.

The movie isn’t solely about guys, however. It’s also about girls, because I think that girls are forced to make this decision, every day. The movie starts out with a related decision for a girl, does Darrow sell her morals short and go dance at a risqué review, and eat? Or should she stick to her beliefs and starve? It’s tough. Many girls feel that if they don’t, let’s say mediate the flow of their morals at an appropriate rate, their relationship will be at risk. But this is an aside from the bigger decision girls have to make.

Do they hang with the guy who understands and emotes and is arty and sensitive and serious, or do they go with the alpha male frat guy who is obnoxious, and quite possibly slightly retarded, but… fun?

Honestly, I don’t envy Darrow’s choices. Driscoll might be a sensitive emotional guy, but do you think she’ll ever have fun with him? I mean, for real fun?

She has fun with Kong.

The one scene (which I won’t name and totally spoil, but if you’ve seen it, you know the one I’m talking about) is one of the best first dates ever filmed, and that’s because it’s fun. The connection between Kong and Darrow is pure, one of the purest in the films, because it’s not spoiled by language. They don’t have a shared language, which stops them from lying to/hurting/deceiving one another, as happens so frequently back in human society. They just have their interactions, and their love for one another.

Eventually they do develop a language, and that language has one word, and something about that scene, and this movie at large, really is beautiful and I think this movie stands as a shining testimony to the saying “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” on two levels. On one level, it’s up to the viewer to decide how powerful this movie is or isn’t. If you just see a movie about a gorilla fighting T-rex’s that’s your choice. But similarly, if you see that there’s something beautiful about people, and love, and relationships, all interwoven into this movie, that’s also your choice. And on a more practical level, at the end of the day what does Kong want to do besides simply hold and behold his love?
 
Machardi, thank you so much for this. What a great read. I watched King Kong and I think it was truly great. Not only the technical perfection and that perfect flair of old style hollywood movies but also the way the story was told and interpreted by Peter Jackson's sharp eye and crooked humour. I loved it and your ‘essay/email/whatever’ made me think about it more then I already did. This is truly one to be seen on a big screen to be appreciated.
 
Ignoring the 20 page term paper above, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say: This movie sucked.

Way too much CG. Yeah-yeah, they couldn't have done Kong without it, but, in my opinion, a lot of it looked like crap. Every shot of Kong carrying Watts around looked cheesy. The 20 dinosaur pile-up sequence and the chase leading up to it screamed green screen so bad that it pulled me out of the action. Even some of the shots of just the people wandering around the CG island looked off. Like there was a motion tracking problem or something.

It started off weird, too. Watching the first 10 minutes I felt like I was being setup for a comedy or musical.

I'm all for suspension of disbelief. There is an island in the middle of the ocean with a big ape on it - ok. This island's got big bugs and dinosuars, too - that's fine. I'll even buy into the idea that the big ape falls in love with the babe. But when I watch the big ape plod through the jungle on all fours with the lady in his hand and then stop and shake the hell out of her I expect her to be dead as a result.

Then, later the big ape gets trapped trying to recapture the girl he loves. I'll stomach the idea of the crew being able to sink spears into the big apes skin even though a T-rex had a hard time sinking it's teeth into the big apes forearm. After all, these are hardy seamen. But how the hell did they get Kong back to New York on that little ship with only fifteen hardy seamen? Maybe they left someone behind with some chloroform and a shotgun to watch the ape while the others went to get a new ship and rustle up five more hardy seamen.

Finally, they get back to New York. It's time to put the animal on display. So, they put him in a theatre. Maybe they do some rehearsals for a week or so, then it's opening night. They have an incredibly large, dangerous beast in front of a live audience. Might armed police men be necessary to insure the publics safety? Perhaps some hardy seamen will do? No-no, no need for all that we'll just drug him and put some chains on him and hope they hold.

Of course, the chains don't hold. Kong goes on a rampage looking for his babe. The army shows up and blows up half the city while Kong smashes the rest of it. While smashing his half of the city Kong finds his babe. Then, that silly Kong, he stumbles on to a frozen pond (one so frozen that the ice can bear his weight) and he shows his girl a good time. Then the army finally catches up with them and their special, heart warming moment is over.

Other complaints:
This movie should have been no more than two hours long. That whole dinosaur pile-up sequence should have been cut. The T-rex battle could have been much shorter and there were plenty of other areas that could have been trimmed. Once they got back to New York I found the movie to be almost unwatchable. I had to fight the urge to walk out.

This movie was sappy from the start. Watts' vaudeville act being shut down, the kodak moments with Kong, woman and ape on top of the Empire State building . . .

Where the hell was her coat? It's the middle of winter in New York. Ponds are frozen completely. Everyone else outside is bundled up and she is prancing around town with Kong, playing silly games on the ice, and watching the sunrise on top of a sky scraper. "Who need's a coat? Wind chill - smind chill!"

I'll assume she died of hypothermia shortly after Kong plunges to his death. Speaking of which, I could not wait for Kong to die. This movie was ridiculous in my opinion. I've only touched on a few of my complaints here. I could go on, but since the majority of you like this movie I'll spare you.
 
I wasn't a huge fan. Peter Jackson just isn't that great a director. He can put together massive projects, but he just can't put them together well. I respect and admire the man incredibly, but I don't think he's a very good "artist." Later that day I watched Minority Report and to me it's just so clear that Spielberg is a genius while Jackson is a moderate talent. There's no comparing the two. Also, the script was a bit dramatically intert.

Still, I had fun. The CGI was mind-boggling. I was expecting it to be good but it floored me.
 
Okay, so I (er) somehow got a copy of this movie, and just started re-watching it (no I don't feel guilty. I already spent my $7 at the theater, and will spend another $20 on DVD, this is just for...analysis), and already I'm appreciating it more.

The movie starts off with images of monkeys. Then it cuts directly to images of people starving in depression area NY. Then it cuts to images of people building skyscrapers.

The song in the background, lyrically, says this:

I'm sitting on top of the world, just rolling along, just rolling along
I'm quitting the blues of the world, just singing a song, just singing a song

Glory halleluha, I just phoned the parson
Hey "Par", get ready to call, Just like humpty dumpty, I'm going to fall
-----

That's solid.
 
Finally got to see it!

Pretty good I thought, just the standard complaints - 1st Act dragged (cut Jamie Bell etc) some of the Greenscreen was off, Ann took a major pounding without injury and parts did get a little sappy. Couldn't say a word against the CGI of Kong though - Outstanding.

I also have doubts about PJ's skill as a director. He can make a specticle, sure, but there are times when I really question his decisions. The slow shutter effect when the natives attacked? His editing decisions (the start of Kong and end of ROTK)? The overplayed emotional moments are sometimes quite embarassing - Sam and Frodo in LOTR, Ann and Kong's lustful looks, you know, the bits where you laugh but you shouldn't.

He ain't no Spielberg, but at his best he makes great fun moments - the T-Rex fight had me laughing and my heart racing.
 
Finally saw it too. Amazing. Didn't understand a single word, but still cried like a baby at the end. Kong was fascinating to watch. The detail was phenominal. On the close-ups you can see the flies buzzing around his head (like a cow). And his reactions were dead-on. I can't imagine how they can improve the CG (but they will). ...The dinosaur chase scene was a bit much (as mentioned already) and the final scene did go on too long. Other than that it was an intense film with a lot of heart.
 
Machardi

How you have 120 posts after a year and 4 months here I don't know...

What a killer and solid take on KONG and much appreciated; I hope you read my take (although generic comapred to yours) back on page 2?)

Wow!

I loved this film. It was'nt perfect; but to KNOCK it is is mind boggling.

Your insight is impressive; I'll watch it again with re-newed vision
 
Machardi,
All I can say is thank you for your article. I know you spent time writing all of that, and I truly appreciate the review. Keep it up, and I'd like to hear you take on other movies.
 
I'm probably in the minority but I didn't like this film at all. I thought the cgi was only so so. I am a huge Jack Black and Tenacious D fan but he was horrble in this flick. I could have cut a good 90 minutes and maybe even two hours out of this film. Lets have Kong fight multiple trex's bats and anything else to occupy time?

If this film was put out by any other director it would get called what it is. LOTRs was fantastic so the "in the know' community will applaud this effort from the "master". Sorry at the risk of being out of the loop its not a great picture. Lucky for me the popcorn was good and the seating comfortable or I wouldn't have made it to the end and I love movies. I bought the "Making of Kong" set for 35.00 bucks that came out the day the movie opened and I can tell you its better than the movie. PJ should try to make a movie for under a 100 million and he might remember how to do the work.

The kiddies will rush out and be amazed by the giant ape and PJ fanatics will rave on about his "vision". Personally I am now very concerned about the new Halo movie that he is the executive producer on. Somebody get Ridley Scott on it PLEASE!
 
I'll give it an 8/10...

All the Kong and Ann interaction and emotion was amazing. Tugged at me in all the right ways. Huge kudos to Watts and Serkis.

Brontosaurus sequence was terrible and made it obvious that we still shouldn't assume we can do anything imaginable with CGI. Didn't ruin the movie for me though.
 
John_Hudson said:
Machardi

How you have 120 posts after a year and 4 months here I don't know...
Click to expand...
Well, because while I'm totally willing and eager to be a blow hard in the free-style conversations, when technical stuff comes into play I just don't have the right or room to really say much. I've only made one real short in my life, and that was almost 4 years ago with a GL1. I managed to save up and buy a DVX and I haven't shot a single -useable- thing with it. Plus my job (musician) keeps me away from the internet a fair amount.

I didn't read your take, initially, but I did, just now (it has since moved to page 4, in case you're curious. Or wait. I guess that depends on your settings w.r.t. posts per page) and (as you know I guess) agree you, 99.9%. It's definitely a great and powerful movie, and it's not perfect.

I think alot of what makes it great, to me, is because it made you (or, conservatively, allowed you) to -work- for a slightly more meaningful experience. It didn't shove it down your throat (again, assuming it was intentional), we could show up and see CGI or we could show up and see more, our choice.

Ooh. The .1% of discord is about Adrien Brody. Maybe this is just being generous, I just don't think Brody's character was -supposed- to be convincing, or -supposed- to be a solid pick for Darrow.

I think she settled for Brody cause Kong wasn't there. I mean even when she gets back to NY, all of Brody's words were basically lies weren't they? (Legit question, I don't really remember if she was working in the comedy he swore he was writing for her or not). Again, I really don't think she ends up with the person she loves. The person she loves did a triple gainer off of the building, she has to accept Brody.

Mc.

p.s. If anyone else is interested you can torrent the King Kong movie from isohunt.com. It took me about 2-3 days to DL the whole thing. I would get the version that has an obscenity as the release group. Check out www.vcdquality.com , it's a good site as far as knowing which of these movies to download.

p.p.s. Please only download movies you've already paid for. There's something karmically iffy about stealing from an industry you desperately want to survive.


John_Hudson said:
Machardi

How you have 120 posts after a year and 4 months here I don't know...

What a killer and solid take on KONG and much appreciated; I hope you read my take (although generic comapred to yours) back on page 2?)

Wow!

I loved this film. It was'nt perfect; but to KNOCK it is is mind boggling.

Your insight is impressive; I'll watch it again with re-newed vision
Click to expand...
 
Took my mom to see it last week. Here are my personal thoughts on Kong (**POSSIBLY SPOILERIFIC**)

-- I cannot separate Jack Black from his Tenacious D persona (which I love) -- my mom had no problem with him.

-- I could care less about the First Man and the boy reading heart of darkness. I totally get it; I just don't care.

-- I can't say what to cut, and I don't feel like the movie dragged much -- some of the action scenes seemed a little drawn out -- but shorter is always better.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, and it's THE movie I've been waiting to see, but it did not floor me. However, when we were leaving the theatre, a dad was carrying his 8 year old kid out. The kid was facing me as I followed the dad down the aisle, and I could see the kid's eyes were welled up and that he had shed tears for Kong. To me, that says that PJ nailed it -- he was able to pass on his experience with the original film to a new generation.
 
I thought the movie was pretty good (very well done as far as action, special effects, etc.), but I too fell victem to the horrible theatre expereince. I don't think I have gone to a brand new movie at the theatre since Return of the King and maybe it's because opening weekend of a LOTR flick is filled with LOTR fans that truly want to see the story and not filled up as much with people who just saw a preview of King Kong and go "Oh let's go see that tonight on our date." Anyways I had a hard time becoming emerged into the story for a few reasons, but the main one was the couple behind me. Not to be prejudice or anything but they were definitely ghetto and had no movie theatre ediquite. The lady would not shut up! She would talk and yell whenever she pleased (which was often) Here's a few of the many examples.....

Scene: A guy takes a sword out to fight the spiders
Her reaction "ah na, that mother f#@##er thinks he's gonna hit that thing with a sword?!?! ah hell na!"

Scene: The girl tries to quietly sneak away from Kong
Her reaction: "oh come on now, don't think he doesn't see your #%#!"

I don't know what was worse, her completely random comments or the audiences amusement at her comments and not the movie.

Sorry about not using proper character names here but,

Anyways onto the movie....Obvoiusly i was fighting an uphill battle to stay involved in the movie, but to me it seemed like they didn't spend enough time developing the relationship between Kong and the girl. Cause let's face it, they spent one or maybe two days together as friends, and we're supposed to believe that their relationship is that close? I absolutely loved the scene when they are reunited and slide around on the ice, but this is really the first scene we see where they both are enjoying each other completely (earlier she entertains him, but she is just doing so for survival). I know this would have killed the King Kong faithfuls, but I think if they changed the storyline to where she stayed on the island with him for a year or so, the connection between their relationship and the viewer would have been much stronger (and it would have been that much more of a struggle for her on whether to stay on the island or return to the love of the writer guy. Also, I think they didn't develop the relationship between the writer and the girl enough as well. It was almost a side story that wasn't very emtionally attached. I think if they spent less time in the beginning focusing on the movie they were making (alot of jack black's stuff) and spent more time developing the relationships, the movie and especially the ending would have meant so much more (since that is what matters, the 2 relationships, and not the fact that jack black was trying to make a movie).

But anyways, that's just my two cents and perhaps they were affected by my movie theatre experience, but all in all it's still a good movie and Peter Jackson is still great.
 
boo pete. That was absolute junk. It ran about an hour and a half too long. Savages, apes, dinosaurs, bugs, o look more bugs, lets see how many shapes with teeth we can make.. got really boring and repetative.

acting was great, loved brody and blondy. Camera was fantastic, but DRAGGGGED.

Green screens were distracting, as well as the lousy CG.
 
I second that too long complaint. And all the CG bug monsters. Boring. I probably would have dug it if it was under 2 hours.
 
machardi... I'd also like to say thanks for taking the time to share an intelligent perspective.

I had planned to pass on Kong. They showed a 10 minute sneak preview on some channel a week before the flick came out, and I was disgusted at the CG they showed... and the long scene of the girl and Kong gave me a sense that the movie would drag too much for my taste, but now I think I could actually enjoy the movie on a different level then I might have.

You gave a pretty good breakdown of all the feelings I've been struggling with about society for years. I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see how obvious some of the recent trends are... and where they're going. It's a funny perspective you get on things when you sit just behind the crest of the wave... and realize that you better swim a little harder and try not to look back.

I may have never seen this flick at all if you hadn't given me a deeper reason to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top