My condensed opinion: They tried too hard with too big of a budget.
I’ve since read here where you guys have cinemas that actually do refund if people leave within 20 minutes. You’re lucky. Here, we just have to lump it.
But I don’t think the hamburger analogy works with movies. You can read reviews about a movie. Judge from the actors, the director, trailers, all that. For a hamburger, there’s no knowing what an individual burger will be like, whether the meat’s off or not, until a bite’s taken out of it. I’ve returned one before now at KFC, and got my dosh back. It would be nice if the same can be said for the flicks.
I’m with Larry Mudd, I liked the whole thing a lot except for the bronto chase. That said, I’m not sure I want to see it again too soon. It wasn’t too long for me to enjoy once, but more than that might be pushing it.
ALL OF THIS POST SPOILS THE MOVIE
That’s the point of the thread no?
[SPOILER]
Thank God there is someone else who was sorely dissapointed. I was spellbound when Naomi Watts and Kong were on screen together. That covers about thirty minutes of the three hour running time. The rest was insufferable. I dragged my wife to see it and I will be paying for it for some time. Among the notable problems:
The male leads were awful. Jack Black and Adrien Brody are woefully miscast. Black has his one bug eyed expression that is useful for comedic effect, but at times I think we were actually supposed to take him seriously. Brody is a lousy romantic lead. Watts had more sexual chemistry with the ape.
The CGI was strangely murky and inconsistent (apart from the ape). Sometimes it seemed out of focus. Other times the dimensions of the animals seemed to change. The massive brontosauruses’ legs transformed into mere toothpicks when people needed to avoid them.
Plot points were picked up and dropped randomly and at Jackson’s convenience. The natives were terrifying and unique. Their menace was mitigated though by their dissapearance after they sacrifice Watts. The intrepid explorers just wander through their village without even considering that it is already inhabited.
The kid who reads “Heart of Darkness” is described as ‘wild’, and seems to need a caretaker. Later in the film he seems perfectly normal. The male film lead changes from coward to savior when it is completley out of character. Jack Black has a map to Skull Island. There is no plausible explanation as to where it comes from and why he has such confidence in its accuracy (to be fair I may have dozed off during this explanation). The T-Rex battles with Kong are ludicrous. I have a twelve week old puppy. T Rex bites seemd to affect Kong about like a puppy bite. They can’t even break the skin.
I felt like there was a good forty minutes of a terrific film sandwiched between bad acting and interminable chase scenes. The good includes:
Kong himself
Naomi Watts
The natives
The sphincter worms
The construction of depression era New York[/SPOILER]
Ehh. It was OK. My Wife and I like these action adventures.
I always judge a movie on how much we talk about it afterwords. After Kong it was. “Do we need to go to the store”.
For the most part, a fantastic movie. I would have cut out the spider pit sequence (just as they did in 1933, and for the same reason – too intense for a peripheral scene, and it breaks the pacing), severely trimmed the apatosaur stampede scene, and foregone some of the B-movie techniques Peter Jackson can’t seem to get away from. But – the essence of the picture was done about as well as it could be, and Kong was a real character, more than ever before.
So, obviously, I recommend it.
Naomi Watts is in this movie? Good God, why did nobody inform me? I don’t care how bad the movie is, I’d pay good money just to watch that woman twiddle her thumbs for three hours.
You’ll love the cold scenes, then, as her nips are easily noticeable through her clothes. I couldn’t help but shout, “Nips!” everytime they appeared. 
I don’t understand the vitriol.
Fine if you don’t like the film, but it’s not like you were forced into consuming it against your will at gunpoint, and were threatened with ruin if you decided you did not find it entertaining.
If I got angry at every form of entertainment that I didn’t enjoy, I would be a raging maniac at all times of day.
If you don’t like a film, then say so (if you wish), and move on. Please.
Yes Naomi Watts is in this film. And if you watch VEEERY carefuly near the end, when she’s leaning over the edge of the Empire State Building looking after Kong, you might just get to see a little more of her boobies then they intended… 
That was the highlight of my movie experiance here.
Spoiler
[spoiler] Also, Sphincter worms? More like Toothed Dog-Penis worms. They became erect and all. My comment to my wife when first seeing one extend was, “Well, that’s Phallic.” Watching Andy Serkis being eaten head first by one was disturbing.
Ironic that he be eaten by a giant toothed penis right after his character mourns the death of his shipmate/ ?lover?. Or am I reading WAYYY to much into that scene?[/spoiler]
A bit disappointing that they were only visible through her clothes, though.
I was kind of hoping for a faithful homage to the glorious instant we saw full nekkid boobage after the pterodactyl (now giant bat) scene.
“Ooh! Ooh! They’re swinging down over the water! Aaaaaaaaand… aw, dammit.”
previews
What, I have to go see it again, now? Maybe I’ll wait for the DVD.
I guess the reason for me that this film was such a let down was I was expecting something…Awsome. I mean I think we are all getting a little jaded with the special effects. I know I am. Back when good cgi was new, you could use it to sell the film. But now we are getting used to it, and the story is ( I hope) becoming more important. Plus it is possible to do too much with cgi. The scenes with Kong carrying NW around the jungle snapped me out of that state of suspended disbelief. The way he was thrashing her around and such would have reduced her to a bag of broken bones and jelly in a few seconds, but she came out none the worse for the wear. In the very least her neck would have been snapped. Once that suspension of disbelief was gone, my eye got a lot more critical in vewing this film. I could no longer just sit back and enjoy the ride.
That problem is pretty much insoluble, though, unless we just accept that Ann is either has an adamantium skeleton and unbruisable tissue, or Kong can crush bones when he wants to but also has a gentle lover’s touch. I mean, that’s the way it is in the text-- Kong carries her around while he gets in various scraps and manages to climb the Empire State Building without crushing her skull against the side of it. At no point does Ann even evacuate her bladder and bowels, which I think most people would get around to within the first few minutes of such an experience.
If you want to accomodate people who can’t suspend their disbelief that far, you’d have to alter the story beyond recognition. Either find a way for a 25’ tall anthropoid to manhandle a 5’4" girl all night without her getting hurt, or have Kong fixate on her ragged corpse as a fetish object.
But then, if you’re going to do that, it doesn’t make sense to even have a 25’ tall anthropoid. You have to make him nine feet tall or so, and even that’s really stretching the limits of credibility. All those other critters are completely silly.
I guess it comes down to avoiding the entire genre of “fantasy.”
Dude, Straight Dope Message Board.
Acclaimed Director + backlash + mainstream entertainment + backlash + pompous pseudo-scientific criticism + hyperbole + liberal use of profanity - sense of ironic detachment + The BBQ Pit == SDMB.
We saw the film today and liked it - actually was better than I expected.
We did find it odd that Naomi ran through the last scenes wearing 1/4 ounce of fabric, in the snow, and didn’t shiver once…but I if if can believe the rest of the film, I guess I have to believe the snow wasn’t all that cold.
After all, the internet was specifically designed for people to exchange porn and slander one another anonomously.
Damning with faint praise if I ever heard it.
You know, my husband and I just went to see Narnia last night, and I noticed there were signs all over just the King Kong posters: “Absolutely no refunds or exchanges for King Kong”. I remember thinking that was a pretty bad sign. A quick glance around showed no signs like this on any other movie posters. I wonder if people have already begun asking for their money back?
(for Seattle Dopers, this was that new gigantasaurus of a theatre, Loews, in Northgate, I think?)
I’m glad for this rant. I had no idea the movie was that long, and I was iffy on it to begin with. Between the signs, the length, and the fact that my attention span is about as long as SolGrundy’s and that pretty bit of tinfoil he’s been chasing… I’m sorry, what?
Oh yeah. King Kong bad. No go. Narnia has pretty lion.
Of course, it would be wrong to place “Absolutely no refunds or exchanges for King Kong” all over say, Narnia posters, or the Family Stone posters. :smack:
Yuh, she’s one of the best things about Tank Girl.