Register or Login:
FAQ | Search ]

King Kong:Most Overrated Movie Of 2005? Forum Index -> Hollywood Stop Reply to topic   Post new topic
Author Message
Review Team Member

Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Location: Lemoore, CA
Posts: 69

Post24 Apr 2006 01:11 pm
Post subject: King Kong:Most Overrated Movie Of 2005?
Reply with quote

So, I finally had a chance to watch Peter Jackson's King Kong recently while on leave. (I'd missed it's theatrical run as it came out the same day I left for Boot Camp). Now two things right up front, I'm a huge Peter Jackson fan since even before LOTR, and a fan of the original movie. So, I figured the combination of the two must equal pure brilliance. It started out great, until they got to the boat I was thoroughly captured in this world, and thought it a brillaint rethinking of the story.

Then an hour or so into the movie, in which they set up characters that have no purpose, and throw in a ludicrous love story between Jack (Adrien Brody) and Ann (Naomi Watts) I know that's how it was in the original, the two fall in love, but just how they handled it just took me out of the movie, they don't even say barely anything to each other yet they fall in love?

Then we get an hour further into the movie and we get to see Kong (finally) and the search for Ann in the jungle. To be honest I fell asleep at one point here,during the "thrilling" dinosaur chase scene, and stopped paying attention for about a half hour on top of that and didn't really miss anything integral to the furthering of the story.

Then there's the ludicrous love story between Kong and Ann which I guess is supposed to make the viewer feel more for Kong in this version but didn't do anything for me at all personally.

Another hour goes by and we're in New York (I did love the homage to the original film in the theater) and the whole climax gets stretched out for another hour (and what was up with the ice skating sequence) I felt the movie was overdone and well shot, but a little too much at times, if that makes any sense. The story of Kong is a short one, they get on the boat, go to the island bring kong back. If it was an hour and a half I'd probably like it better. Peter Jackson needs to realize just because LOTR was long doesn't mean all his films need to be epic length (giant size for all you comic fans) movies. Just my opinion, but I had to put it out there.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!
Back to top
Review Team Member

Send private message Send e-mail
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Location: Bettendorf, Iowa
Posts: 329

Post25 Apr 2006 03:20 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

On a glance I agree with you. I was not blown away when I saw the film back in November. I thought the movie needed to lose some weight, atleast 20 possibly 30 minutes. I have had the DVD from Netflix about three weeks and have been unable to find the time to watch it because of the 3 hour plus runtime. I want to take another look at this one as I was unable to get inspired enough to write about it when it was initially released.
Back to top

Send private message MSN Messenger
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 8

Post25 Apr 2006 09:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

You're preaching to the choir, dude. This movie was in terrible need of an editor to cut out some completely needless scenes and slim down the running time. I think there should be a clause in Mr. Jackson's next contract that says his next film can't be any longer than 120 minutes. We know he is capable of doing it, with great results. He is capable of doing it again!

Back to top
Review Team Member

Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Location: Redmond, OR
Posts: 124

Post25 Apr 2006 11:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply with quote

Hmm, I agree it needed trimming, but keeping it under 2 hours would force the cutting of some good character development.

I know a lot of people complained about the fact that there was a lot of character development. But I personally found those scenes to be wonderful, well-paced, and just right.

It was those darn action scenes! A good action scene should further the story along with its action. Instead, (and I realized this too late), the chases and fights here were for nothing more than a testosteronic thrill, if such things even thrill you at all. During any of the chases or fights, I could have gotten up, used the restroom, refilled my popcorn, perhaps even browsed the "coming soon" posters in the theater lobby, returned to my seat in the theater as the scene was ending, AND NOT HAVE MISSED A SINGLE PLOT POINT!

I think even 15 minutes of trimming, a little from each of the fights and chases, would have made those scenes a great deal more bearable.

Oh, and Kong's slo-mo fall from the Empire State Building ... You want to talk about restrictions, I think Jackson should be forbidden by the producing studio from using slow-motion footage. Ruined the climax of LOTR, and ruined the climax of Kong.
Back to top

Send private message Send e-mail
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 17

Post26 Apr 2006 01:44 am
Post subject:
Reply with quote

I agree that:

a) The movie was overrated (especially here in New Zealand where every single critic feel obliged to give anything by Jackson a 5 - star rating simply because he is a kiwi)
b)The action sequences were too long ESPECIALLY THAT GORRAM ICE SKATING SEQENCE (which shouldn't have been in the movie at all)

but I can't believe that nobody mentioned Jack Black delivering his "Beauty killed the beast" line. I cringed. A few people laughed. I heard that Jackson wanted Fay Wray to have a cameo and say the line instead, but I think that that would have turned out worse. Despite having said all of that, I still enjoyed the movie, it just could have been worth that 5 star rating
Back to top
Display posts from previous: Forum Index -> Hollywood Stop Reply to topic   Post new topic
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group