I’ve been a drooling wreck since watching Naomi Watts in glorious girl-on-girl action in Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.
Damn, but she’s hot!
Oh yeah! Jet Girl! Woohoo! 
Peter Jackson is not fat. He lost 70 pounds in the last 2 years.
Regarding the rest of your rant, why the hell did you go see the thing when you already hated the whole King Kong mythos to begin with? You knew you were going to hate it before you even set foot in the theater. Don’t blame Ebert and Roeper (and all the other critics who are praising this movie) for your failings as a moviegoer (that is, going to see a movie you knew you’d hate then blaming the movie).
Sorry you couldn’t just sit back and enjoy all the good things about it. I’ve seen it twice and loved it. Sucks to be you I guess.
The movies were made for wonderous spectacles like King Kong.
And for the people who are deciding not to see the movie just based on Nickrz’s rant, go read some other reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, where 147 professional critics liked it as opposed to 31 who didn’t. If it’s not your kind of movie, hey, great, stay away, go see Memoirs of a Geisha (though King Kong is far more emotional), but don’t base your whole decision on someone who didn’t like the whole King Kong story anyway. That’s like not going to see The Lord of the Rings based on a bad review by someone who just thought it was a silly movie about a stupid ring.
Agreed. I hate shakey-cam and slo-mos at the best of times; I swear during the fight scenes in The Bourne Supremacy the actors just stood there and let the camera do the work. At least Supremacy only had it a couple of times, and not every og-damn 5 minutes in a 3 hour film.
I didn’t hate this film, but the only part of it I’ll ever willingly see again is the last half hour - everything from Kong flipping Adrian Brody’s car in New York onward. Naomi Watts looks absolutely fantastic in that dress.
I sympathizise with the OP… King Kong is tiresome even if there are some good action scenes. 2 hours max please for so little story. I’m surprised the OP didn’t mention Jack Black’s boring and caricatured portrayal of an obsessive director. By far worse than anything in the movie.
The Bug scenes were great… I still don’t understand why people didn’t like it. Very disturbing part of the movie… really makes you feel icky. Better than yawning at the bronto stampede.
Sure Peter Jackson came up with some of the best CGI ever with Kong… but the T-Rexes and Brontos are like watching Jurassic Park again. I like my movies with a story… not a CGI show.
Forgot to mention – Jack Black was quite good.
Why ?! :eek:
Did you find him funny or something ? Did he seem convincing as a caricature crazy director ? I thought he was like a sore thumb… overdone and badly acted as compared to the other more sober characters.
Well, Nickrz, I gotta say you’re full of shit. Mainly because you approached a movie remake of a movie you didn’t like in the first place and was shocked – shocked, I tell you! – that you didn’t like the remake. Call the fucking waaaahmbulance.
I watched the original when I was a kid on some Saturday afternoon rerun and didn’t particularly like it. And have never watched it again, at least not for more than a few minutes while channel surfing. I decided to watch this remake for one and only one reason, and that was PJ.
It was pretty much what I expected. On the balance, not quite as good as I’d hoped, but better than the original, IMHO. I enjoyed it for the most part, but I can’t say as I’d recommend it to someone that didn’t really get into the original. I also think, as many others have stated, that this could have been a much better movie if PJ had been forced to cut a half-hour to an hour of footage.
With all of Jackson’s efforts to be faithful to the original film, including restoration of the bug scene, you’d think he would have included the scene where Kong peels off Ann’s clothes.
From IMDB, on the 1933 version of the film:
A quick addition: we liked the movie. I’d recommend it to friends. The giant ape looked really good. The human in the grip of a giant, well done. Jack Black was IMO the overly done kind of persona that is consistant with the tone of the original film, and a leap for him. Cheesey at times perhaps, but intend to be I think. And the natives in the village. Way past the original presentation.
I also liked many of the supporting roles. The ship’s captain and cook, for instance, were both interesting.
The apes emotions were well conveyed. I felt much of the slow-mo mentioned added to the artsy feel that many claim to enjoy in old movies and complain about in new one’s.
Go see it.
Because the audience seems pretty split here, I feel obligated to throw my vote in here that King Kong = Extrememly Dissapointing.
After reading such wonderful reviews about this film, I couldn’t believe it when I was so tempted during the movie to turn on my cell phone just to check the time – and worse yet, to see that there was another hour and a half to go.
Sure there were some good parts, but they were so overshadowed by the detached sensation you got when jumping between curiously odd storylines and the overdone special effects mixed in between.
What was the deal with the black guy and Jimmy? Some of the dialoge between them was awful, especially on the ship. The personality of the crew (on the ship) seemed to change with almost every scene.
I know it’s not supposed to be realistic, but come on, standing atop the Empire State Building in Winter wearing a quarter of a bed sheet? Watts would have had hypothermia before having the urge to climb the ladder, only for the chance to absently gaze into the eyes of the beast.
What probably didn’t help, in my case, was that I watched Hotel Rwanda the night before. What a great movie that was. I probably should have spent my $15 on Syriana.
I thought King Kong was pretty fun. I was surprised that it was as long as it was – it really didn’t drag, even though it was three hours. I also agree that the middle sequence really seemed just to be put in there to show what we can do with computers nowadays. (I mean, dinosaurs fighting? Please.) My only advice is, when you go to see it, bring with you a lot of willingness to suspend your disbelief. Because you will have a lot of disbelief you’ll have to suspend.
I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Hotel Rwanda works by yanking our emotional chains – up, then down; tension followed by absurdity. King Kong is an entirely different type of film; it really doesn’t yank our emotional chains. Frankly, I suspect we’re simply supposed to be swept away by the sheer majesty of the vision. If, like me, you found some of the effects to inspire laughter rather than awe, it kind of ruins the moment.
I wouldn’t go see it again (there’s too much else to do), but I don’t regret seeing it. Unlike some other movies I could name.
Wow, speak for yourself. My husband and I were in tears for much of the last hour and judging by the sniffles, so were a lot of people around us. It is an entirely different type of film from Hotel Rwanda, but I didn’t cry at HR. Not because the events weren’t important and didn’t move me, but because they were based on reality and were too important and moving to trivialize with tears. KK is pure entertainment, good old-fashioned spectacle. HR is closer to a documentary. I can appreciate both for different reasons.
This next doesn’t necessarily apply to you. It applies to whoever it applies to, and those people might not necessarily be on the Straight Dope Message Board.
This is the pit, so I’ll speak my piece. The whining about this movie is freaking hilarious. People have the attention spans nowadays of a fucking gnat. Everything has to be quick quick quick and everybody thinks they’re a fucking editor. People who wouldn’t know Thelma Schoonmaker from Walter Murch think they could march into an editing suite and snip this and cut that and whack that whole section right out of the movie. Fuck off, ok? I prefer to trust Peter Jackson and Jamie Selkirk and watch the movie they wanted me to see under their terms, not the terms of arbitrary audience members. This is not meant to be Raiders of the Lost Ark on Skull Island. That movie was quick quick quick because it was supposed to be that kind of movie and it worked brilliantly.
This movie, however, is supposed to be exactly what it is. If you hate character development or backstory, well, I guess you’re going to hate it because there’s a whole lot of it. I’m glad of it, so thank goodness none of you wannabes editors can get our grubby mitts on
-
the first hour, where we learn a bit more about Ann and Carl. Not a lot, but enough to make it interesting. I like knowing that she turned down a stripping gig right before meeting Denham. I like knowing that Carl was one step ahead of his investors and the police. Sure none of that was necessary. Very little in the movie was “necessary.” The whole movie could be a 15-minute short, but where’s the fun in that?
-
the ship, where we learn a bit more about minor characters who we usually don’t know ANYTHING about and who are usually only there to die conveniently. People have whined about not having closure to the captain’s mate/reading kid story. There was closure: we got to know a little bit about them THEN THEY DIED!! Geez!
-
The dino stampede which I thought was pulse-pounding excitement because I wasn’t there to whine and bitch and be critical about every fucking special effect
-
The rex fights. To hell with anyone who would take out or shorten the rex fights! If you’re too jaded to just let go and be a kid again and marvel at t/v/whatever rex’s fighting King Kong on a much larger than life screen then I pity you for growing up TOO much.
People going to see King Kong should have a general idea of what they’re getting into, both story and length-wise. By walking into the theater you’ve just entered into a gentleperson’s agreement with the filmmaker: try to enjoy the movie on its own terms. Sure it’s not going to work for everybody. No movie does. But some of the bitching I’m hearing is more along the lines of “I want the movie to be what I think it should be rather than what Peter Jackson presented me.” Try to watch the damn movie the way that Peter Jackson intended, scene by scene, and quit deconstructing and re-editing the film in your head as you watch it. You might actually enjoy it! (Well, the OP won’t, but others might)
But then, I like movies that are far far slower than KK. Since I thrive on films like Days of Heaven (any Malik really), Solaris, Northfork, and can watch all 3 Extended LOTR films in a row without checking my watch once, I suppose I’m weird like that. Compared to those kinds of films, KK was action-packed excitement from beginning to end. In any case, the 3 hours zipped by for me because I didn’t fight the flow of the movie.
I’m not saying that everybody can and should like King Kong. There are movies I don’t like too (the new version of The Producers…ack ack blaugh ptooey) but I do think too many people are trying too hard to stay OUT of the movie and find faults simply to have something to bitch about. Hey, it’s a movie about a GIANT APE who comes to love, like a pet, a human woman, and you’re worried that the DINOSAUR STAMPEDE isn’t quite believeable? Give me a break! People did die during the stampede, just not the main characters, who are automatically pre-charmed in movies like this.
Equipoise, bless your heart, those are some perspectives I’ve honestly never heard before. It trivializes something if a movie based on real events makes the audience feel? Leave your critical thinking skills at the door when you see a movie? Don’t criticize anything the director does because by agreeing to see his movie I’ve agreed to just accept any pile of bull he dishes out?
Look, we can agree that King Kong was meant to be entertainment. I don’t get why no one’s permitted to suggest that there was a better way to do something, or that a different approach would have helped the film. To each his own, I suppose.
Are you sure it wasn’t Congo?
No wonder, since I never said what you thought you heard, since you didn’t hear what I was saying.
No, I didn’t say that.
No, I didn’t say that.
No, I didn’t say that.
Indeed.
Oh good, there is someone else in the world who’s seen that movie. Tell me, when Ann tapped her chest while saying “beautiful” to Kong, was I the only one thinking she was also saying “Kong good gorilla”? 
Word is that he’s been sneaking in bananas and grunting during the movie.
That’s just the thing - I love movies like Northfork, LOTR, and Solaris, and that’s why I can say, without wanting the picture to be only “like I want it to be”, that it really wasn’t worth my time relative to ANY kind of movie (true story, pure entertainment, whatever).
I pay $20+ to be entertained. To leave the theatre with that feeling you get sometimes when you finish a really good movie. Sometimes even average movies give you that feel, only to wear off sooner than the REAL good movies.
I just wanted King Kong to be over about 3/4 of the way through. With that kind of talent, time, and money going into the thing, it just seems a shame that more didn’t come out of it. More isn’t always better in the whole scheme of things.
Not only have I seen it. I had to suffer through it twice. In the same weekend.
It is a sad day when “An Ape Named ‘Ape’” from George of the Jungle portrays a better ape than Amy in Congo.