man, so does king kong stink or what??

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
revisted this movie (friend had a screener) and boy is it bad. i'm not quite sure what's missing from the movie but when you're watching it you're just... bored.

I guess bad casting and drawn out pointless scenes are the biggest things that stick out. But now that all the hype has died down, what do you guys think? Was this as terrible as I think it is?
 
No. It was a very nice film I thought. Apart from a couple of scenes that were overdone or silly (Dinosaur valley run) I thought it was damned moving.
 
i don't think the movie was bad, but i do think they could have cut out a good hour of the movie. some of the action sequences were boring, which is what i don't want in a movie.
 
I agree other than it being a little longer than it had to it was a great film and Jackson despite the success of the Rings still suprised me that he was able to adapt the film with that extent of fx and keep it almost like watching a moving classical film
 
yeah i thought it was genuinely touching in the end. i agree with others that it could have lost 30 minutes that would have never been missed, but im sure every peter jackson movie now will be 3+ hours long...

also the effects were pretty lo-fi in several scenes. all that aside i was really emotionally involved in kong and the lass.
 
I thought the stuff with the kid and the 1st mate could have been cut without missing it...it never really went anywhere...

Otherwise, I thought it was terrific...
 
i don't know, i guess the movie was missing a soul for me. There are a lot of things in the movie that feel, individually, very well done. But I watch it as a whole and continually feel like I'm watching a movie. I'm never transported to another world, which I feel King Kong is supposed to do. I mean come on, Jack Black was terrible. Adrian Brody was pointless. You don't remember one single supporting character in the entire film. Whenever I see a big ensemble movie like this I always think back to James Cameron's films and how he writes such memorable supporting characters. Colin Hanks??? What was he even doing in this movie?? A supporting character needs one distinctive characteristic that you will remember no matter what. None of these characters had that. I blame that on Jackson because even though it may have been the actor's job to bring out that distinction, the fact that they couldn't rests on Jackson, since he casted the part.

Anyway, I'm very confused by this movie and the way people defend it. They always say "30-60 minutes could have been cut out but I still loved it." WHAT?? In other words, "Outside of the 1/3 of the movie that I was bored to death, I really liked it". What other movie do you give this kind of a leeway to? Peter Jackson seems to have this 'aura' about him right now where everybody's too afraid to step up and say, "you know what, that really sucked". Because outside of T-Rexes and the Empire State building, this movie was a big bore.
 
I guess the movie was missing a soul for me.

If you can watch that movie with the part with Kong and Ann playing in the park on the ice and then you see the empire state building light in the back ground and think it has now soul you missed the point. It is a Love story nothing more. The T-Rex stuff and the Empire scenes are such a small part of the movie. You missed the movie and just fell for the action stuff. Its Not Die Hard with a Monkey
 
actually, i was looking for exactly what you described, and came away with only those two scenes. for every ice rink scene there were 9 pointless scenes (swatting away bugs, escaping onto giant bats) where Peter Jackson seemed to be trying very hard to make exactly that: Die Hard With a Monkey. Had he committed all the way, I think it would have been only mildly worse than this film.
 
Swatting away bugs, escaping onto giant bats

Now I will agree with you on that. I do think that those scenes are redundant and do not enhance the story. I think if anything they should have been shortened in the edit or cut completely. But I do think that the movie works as a love story and it plays to the original very well.
 
You guys say its long now....and it is.....

but isnt jackson cutting together an extended DVD just like the LOTR ones?
 
The original (1933) was 100 minutes (restored 104 min.) long. Peter Jackson's was 187 minutes long. Peter Jackson was a bit indulgent with a poorly cast movie, except perhaps Naomi Watts.
 
I have posted before that I thought the movie was miscast and a huge disapointment. I'm sure I will buy it when it comes out next week because my grandkids love seeing the monkey. I hope PJ does a better job producing Halo the movie. Every director has a film or two in his catalog that doesn't quite measure up. I think Kong may be Jackson's.
 
If I enjoyed watching a movie then to me it is a good movie.
I enjoyed this one alot. But then again I like movies.
I did think the dinosaur chase scene in the valley was stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top