It reminded me a lot of “Charlies Angles: Full Throttle”, or the last 3 Star Wars movies. Way too much CG for the sake of having CG. And the physics were way too improbable.
Yes we get that they are on a weird island with prehistoric beasts. But the T-Rex battle would have been enough (minus a few minutes). But did we really need the bat attack or the bug attack?
Also is it me, or did Kong’s scale keep changing?
It seems like Peter Jackson didn’t pay enough attention to the detail of this film compared to “The Trilogy”.
I doubt that there is much in the film that wasn’t meticulously chosen to be “just that way.”
Personally I felt that the film was probably the exact best one could ever hope to do to update a 1930’s film. So, taking that into account I gave it a lot of slack.
I do think that he messed up with one thing, which was the human tribe on Skull Island. Of all the monsters and whatnot of the island, the one thing you knew that absolutely would remorselessly murder them was them, and as such they were far scarier than any of the t-rexes or insects that were after all just dumb animals. It lessened the tension for the whole Skull Island run.
I actually enjoyed the movie. I wouldn’t rave about it, but I enjoyed it. Strange you mentioned the T-rexes. It bugged me that there were three giant predators hunting the same range and why would they attack King Kong? One T-rex or maybe two would have let me sustain my suspension of disbelief, but no, lets go for three. :rolleyes:
The Ending I thought was word for word from the original?
2005: [last lines]
Carl Denham: It wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.
1933: [last lines]
Police Lieutenant: Well, Denham, the airplanes got him.
Carl Denham: Oh no, it wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.
Honestly the T-Rex fight was the best part in my opinion. I loved that it kept going. It was one of those “What’s next!” scenes… I hated the stampede, the bug pit (regardless if its an homage to the cut scene from the original it still sucked), the bat creatures, the islanders, all of it was just not interesting enough.
I thought the movie was a good time, but certainly it has flaws. The thing that bugged me the most was when Kong was running at full tilt through the jungle - using all four limbs - with Ann clutched in one hand. A friend of mine pointed out that she was experiencing something like an extremely major car crash every time his knuckles hit the ground. When they got back to his place, she should have been nothing but goo.
The whole thing, especially the dinosaur stampede just struck me as mean spirited. Plus it looked super fake. And yeah, how the hell did they get him to the boat?
And did we really need to spend an hour getting to the island? And what the hell happened to the subplot of the mysterious cabin boy?
Oh, well. I didn’t catch the original. But the delivery seemed, to me, like much of an overkill when the beauty/beast thing had been the theme for the last 90 minutes or so of the film.
They were a family - father, mother, and child - and they didn’t attack Kong; They were after the meat that was Miss Anne Darrow, and Kong got “involved”.
Ok – I grew up on King Kong. Watched the film over and over and over on New York’s Million Dollar Movie. Read about it many times in Forrest J. Ackerman’s Famous Monster of Filmland (the man loved Kong, and published a huge quantity of material on it – including backstage stuff, pre-ptroduction sketchesd, and that Spider Pit stuff). Got Goldner and Turner’s wonderful book The Making of King Kong when it was publiashed back in 1976. So I was primed for this one.
I loved the way Jackson paid homage to the original. Unlike that 1976 Dino de Laurentis abomination, Jackson knew and loved the source material and also had access to much better special effects. Unlike that one’s abominable Lorenzo Semple script, that sought to update the original, Jackson’s script re-interpreted the original, the wat Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns reinterpreted Batman. I thought I weas going to hate Jack Black as Carl Denham, but he was perfect. Instead of the wealthy and successful filmmaker that Armstrong played. sailing off with his friend Captain Englehorn to shoot movies in deepest Polynesia, Denham is a struggling filmmaker mortgaged to the hilt, on the edge of failure, working in a rustbucket ship with an antagonistic captain. He lies and cajolers to keep his project moving forwards, and he keeps telling himself stories and fables to keep going. That line about “'Twas Beauty Killed the Beast” would’ve sounded fake from anyone else, but it was just another of Denham’s self-deceiving fables.
It went on a little too long. I really mean that. Sometimes Jackson’s penchant for overplaying comes on too strong – C’mon three T. Rexes? Does Ann really have to do the same damned slow take to realize the Horrible Awful Monster’s behind her over and over? Isn’t she freezing to death in that flimsy gown in a New York winter (espexcially atop the Empire State Building)? But overall, I loved it.
I actually watched it again last night, and I absolutely love it.
It is just a very nice old-fashioned aventure movie.
It ranks up there with Indiana Jones in my opinion.
(By the way : I don’t think I ever saw the original).
I however did hate, hate, hate the bug-scene.
I think it was stupid (using a machine-gun to shoot bugs off somebody, right :rolleyes: ) and unnecesary.
Actually on my special edition 2-disc version there was a documentary about the natural history of Skull Island.
The T-rexes were evolved so they are able to move fast through the thick jungle.
That is why they move a little different and are a little more streamlined.
I saw it for the first time this weekend, too, after I had been meaning to see it when it first came out in theaters and then after it was released on DVD. It was way too long. The FX weren’t as good as I thought they were going to be. I didn’t like Driscoll. Jack Black was a good Denham. Kong himself was generally good, but some of the stuff, like watching Anne do her tricks and the frozen pond were way too sappy.
I didn’t care for it - way, way too long. I saw it in the theatre mainly because of all the buildup and because it’s a spectacle, and spectacles need to be seen on big screens. That said, it wasn’t worth the money. Everything was just so over the top that it killed my suspension of disbelief. And when my suspension of disbelief is killed, that indicates to me that the movie’s broken.
