PDA

View Full Version : King Kong


Mattk
01-13-2006, 02:04 AM
For such a big budget film, this was a real stinker. One would expect something better from Peter Jackson (director, LOTR series). It was boring, and too long. The plot was wafer-thin, had nowhere to go, and was pretty unremarkable in the first place.

The film (a heavily modified screenplay) starts off about a bloke called Carl Denham (Jack Black) hiring struggling actress Ann Darrow (Watts) to play a part in his film, which he wants to film on Skull Island. He hires playwright Jack Driscoll (Brody) to help him write the script. Lots of things happen in the plot, none of which seem important. Chiefly, Darrow turns animal-rights activist and falls in love with Kong, who is captured by Black and his mate Captain Englehorn. Black puts on a ridiculous show featuring Kong, but Kong escapes, and climbs up the Empire State Building (after taking Darrow for a ride) and is eventually shot down by planes. Driscoll and Darrow then fall into each others arms. This isn't really a spoiler, because it's nothing new, and it's predictable.

The graphics people did well with Kong, but he still ends up looking like a bad-tempered panda at times. Also, too much focus was placed on the beast - he's really not that interesting. Lots of new things were put in the script to give these graphics people something to do - like dinosaurs, weird giant worms, giant centipedes... Such scenes lengthened to movie to a hefty 3 hours. At the end, I was willing the planes to hurry up and shoot the damned beast down.

In conclusion, this movie is rubbish. There are some interesting bits, and to Jackson's credit, he did a decent job with a lousy plot. But on the whole, a lot was lacking, primarily, the fact that I came out of it not knowing what had really just happened.

fishfreek
01-13-2006, 09:44 AM
I have the exact opposite view. I do agree it was to long. The origonal kong movie was something like 100min in duration where as this version was 180 min. It sounds alot like you have not seen the orgional Kong from 1933. I can see where alot would be lost to those whom have no knowlege or experence with the first film or the awful remake done in the mid 70's.

The new Kong holds to the orginoal storyline significantly but does add some hollywood liberties at time expanding the inital story or even adding components. There are areas where I think the speical effects crew went a bit overboard. Like the fight with three t-rex's vs the orginal movies fight with just one. And then the spider pit sequence was a bit to long and drawn out.

The movie is a classic beauty and the beast love story and Watts did a great job in portraying it. Clearly the beast first finds beauty with all the intentions of killing her and slowly you can see the beasts transition from wanting to kill her to beign her protector and the wise leading lady picks up on this and uses it to her favor, key in on the t-rex scene when she has a chance to run from both but choooses to hide under kong for protection.

Mattk
01-15-2006, 08:17 AM
I agree partially. This film could have been excellent (despite the fact that I think the plot is rubbish). There were some good snippets, but nothing substantially good. More should've been made of the Kong-Darrow relationship. Instead of heavy emphasis on this key relationship (essentially the crux of the plot), the focus was skewed towards Kong. It was always Kong fighting animal X, with Darrow screaming, then Kong running through the jungle with Darrow in hand,
then some boring scenes with the other blokes etc. It just got quite monotonous.

You mentioned those scenes where Darrow didn't run. I was under the impression that she was scared stiff. I didn't get the impression that she had any affection towards the beast until she was rescued and the ship's crew were trying to capture the thing.

fishfreek
01-15-2006, 09:24 PM
If you watch it again you might pickup on the sublties of the change. It effectivly changes at some point after her little song and dance for kong and when the t'rex's come into the picture.

Mattk
01-16-2006, 08:53 PM
Watch it again? No way, once was enough.

I think the song and dance was a neat little scene which wasn't fully exploited, much like every other scene in the film.

fishfreek
01-16-2006, 09:00 PM
See I felt that was one of the extras that just went on to long. Seems like it was well over 5min of film time. If thats the case two min IMO would have been fine.

Mattk
01-16-2006, 09:23 PM
Well it was underexploited not that it was too short, but that it wasn't weaved into the storyline well enough.

Overmind
01-17-2006, 12:03 PM
I liked the movie and I think Jackson and the crew did a good job. As for the stupid plot, what did you expect? It's a King Kong for god's sake! ;) It rarely gets any more stupid than that.

And then the spider pit sequence was a bit to long and drawn out.

I hated this part of the movie :(, I would even be willing to pay some extra fee to see a different copy without that sequence :).

Mattk
01-18-2006, 02:30 AM
There are numerous ways to disguise a dumb plot, few of which were used in this film.

RC45
01-18-2006, 11:17 AM
There are numerous ways to disguise a dumb plot, few of which were used in this film.

But the point was to remake the original dumb plotless movie... ;) That's the thing about remakes - you either do the original justoce and keep 200 million original fans happy - or change it and keep a few new whipper snappers hapy ;) :P

blinkmeat
01-18-2006, 12:18 PM
It was over the top - especially with the kid shooting the tommy-gun at those bugs and not hitting Adrian Brody. And btw - I hate Adrian brody, wtf was that homo doing in this movie? ... Jack Black was Marginal at best ... and Naomi Watts was 60% good. She just looked semi-"classic"

The only character I liked was the smarmy Movie Actor guy - he was good in that role.

Too slow initially - over the top action (Minus TREX scenes) and far too much juggling - I was hoping for boobies too but that's another story.

5.5/10

Mattk
01-18-2006, 09:55 PM
How did the kid know how to use a gun anyway? I was under the impression that Hayes didn't want him to follow him because he didn't know how to shoot.

Overmind
01-19-2006, 07:28 AM
How did the kid know how to use a gun anyway? I was under the impression that Hayes didn't want him to follow him because he didn't know how to shoot.

I know he wasn't a very bright fellow, but then again it isn't that hard to push a trigger, is it? :)

Mattk
01-19-2006, 08:46 AM
Fair enough, but shoot off a dozen or so moving cockroaches off a moving man's back? Nah.

Overmind
01-19-2006, 01:41 PM
Fair enough, but shoot off a dozen or so moving cockroaches off a moving man's back? Nah.

Go see that scene again :), it was pure luck he didn't kill Brody.

Mattk
01-25-2006, 05:30 AM
Well then it's just bloody ridiculous, so either way it's a bit stupid.

Overmind
01-26-2006, 10:24 AM
Well then it's just bloody ridiculous, so either way it's a bit stupid.

bingo!

Shinigami
01-26-2006, 10:27 AM
Good thing I got free tickets to the movie, as I didn't really like it that much. Some scenes were toooooo loooooong and ridiculous.

A few good points bring it to a 3 out of 5, but otherwise it's just not what I'd have expected.