There’s supposed to be something on Dateline tonight (Friday Dec. 2) about the movie.
It’s all going according to plan…King Kong will, like LOTR, be a huge critical, financial and popular success.
And to think, his next project will be a very small, intimate, personal drama (The Lovely Bones). I’m looking forward to that one too.
I don’t think we can expect an “action movie” from Peter Jackson.
The 1933 Kong has an emotional depth that is unexpected, given the premise. Superficially, King Kong is similar to Godzilla – you’ve got this crazy big critter that knocks stuff down. I don’t think that Godzilla could ever hope to engage people the same way, though.
King Kong’s strength is the complex relationships between its characters, not least of which is Kong himself. It’s got running themes contrasting order and chaos, strength and vulnerability, fear and compassion. There’s no denying that it’s somewhat corny, but there’s plenty in it that strikes a deep chord with people. I expect Peter Jackson to really bring this to the fore, like he did with The Lord of the Rings. Like I said upthread:
From the early reviews that Banquet Bear linked to, I don’t think I’ll be disappointed:
Yeah! That’s what I’m talkin’ about.
I think we can also expect more meditation on how Kong is a blown-up version of Carl Denham: driven by vision, blind to the harm he causes, destructive, but ultimately good. At odds with the forces that contend against him, yadda yadda.
Yeah, there’ll be spectacular action, but it’ll be the drama that makes the movie great. Like LOTR – what are the great moments, really? The battle of Helm’s Deep is a great spectacle, but he really gets you with moments like Sean Astin’s delivery of “I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you!”
King Kong has elements that will scale up to three hours with no problem, so long as it’s approached the right way. A three-hour action movie wouldn’t work, but that’s not the idea.
…I suspect that you may have to stay away from this movie Larry Mudd.
Devin from Chud . com has posted what many consider the first “negative” review. It includes this scene from the movie:
Kong wreaks less havoc in New York as well, and it’s in the middle of the rampage that Jackson again reminds us that he’s a genius. He stops the action and has Kong and Ann end up in a park (possibly Central, but going by general geography I feel like it must be Bryant) and have a touching and beautiful moment where Kong slides and plays on a frozen pond. The knowledge of his tragic end makes the scene all the more poignant. It’s also a scene that could play terribly – imagine the animal crackers scene in Armageddon. But in the hands of Jackson and the wizards of WETA, it’s the sort of scene that brings a lump to your throat.
His “negative” review gave Kong an 8.4/10!
I suspect you will need a large box of tissues…
…anone who followed the LOTR would know about the history between the film reviewer Jeffery Wells and Peter Jackson. Suffice to say, Wells does not like the LOTR saga, and was never shy to say a few bad words about Jackson himself. Now read his initial thoughts about Kong…
Buzz be good!
Buzz is good. Must… avoid… hype.
I may have misinterpreted a quick scene in the trailer, but didn’t they imply that somehow the island is impossibly bigger in it’s interior than it’s coastline would indicate? i.e., the explorers are passing through a gate/portal to another place/time?
Also, as for the native women: maybe Kong kept them too; only the average survival time of a human in the interior is about 36 hours, since every single creature there seems determined to eat all humans on sight (and Kong has to sleep sometime).
P.S. I noticed that Kong is distinctly more quadrapedal then a real mountain gorilla- which is exactly what you’d expect from his body mass. So maybe PJ is trying to rationalize the story as much as feasible.
In one of the early reviews I read (I can’t remeber which one. It might have been at CHUD or at AICN) it was said that the previous victims in this version are played with for a while by Kong and then simply discarded “like chicken wings.” Then Naomi Watts comes along and he takes a shine to her.
I always had pictured a shelf in Kong’s cave piled high with human skeletons from his previous brides.
In a way, Kong is like a much less amusing Benny, the Abominable Snowman.
“Oh, a white woman of my very own. I will love her, and squeeze her, and name her George.”
What do you mean by more? Gorillas are quadrapedal.
Sme complaints, but gives it 5 stars (minor spoilers)
http://www.totalfilm.com/cinema_reviews/king_kong
Brian
It’s currently at 100% on rottentomatoes. Only six reviews in so far, though.
Good review.
The photo at the top of your linked article depicts the event in the original film which squicks me out to the point where I must avert my eyes. Imagine! Not being able to watch a scene in a 1933 monster film! But I’m a bit of a wimp. And this being a PJ film, I know it’s going to be far more gruesome.
::squicked::
…one final update on the buzzzzzz before the movie hits cinemas this week…
Rotten Tomatoes is running at 96%, with only a stinker of a review from Slant Magazine bringing the meter down…
George Lucas made a rare public appearence when he turned up to the New York Premiere, and predicted the movie would make over $150 Million opening weekend, and said to Jackson: “You set the bar!”
http://www.armyarcherd.com/2005/12/armykong.html
The Broadcast Film Critics Association have nominated Kong for best film and best director…
So the Banquet Bear offically gives this film TWO PAWS UP!!!
Ebert & Roper gave it two big thumbs up.
They both really liked Watts and thought the Kong / Ann relationship made sense.
Brian
Jesus H. Christ! From the Slant review: “…sequence in Central Park where Kong and Ann spin around atop an icy lake”? “…sentimental long takes where the beast stares into computer-generated golden sunsets”? “…does a little vaudeville act to amuse Kong. Getting a kick out of her shtick, he starts repeatedly knocking her over with his giant finger, chuckling in glee”? :eek: :eek: :eek:
I cannot believe what I’m hearing. It literally sounds like a parody.
How could something that’s gone this far off the rails possibly be any good? Is every critic in Hollywood completely sycophantic? Has the entire world lost their minds? 
:: shrugs ::
…why don’t you see the movie for yourself and make up your own mind? Maybe the critics are right, and Kong is going to be a damm brilliant movie. Just because it doesn’t fit withn your “thesis” of an action movie doesn’t mean the movie has gone “off the rails”.
I hope your last is correct. Because I think it is entirely possible that it will suck massively.
Think The Jerk, followed by Pennies From Heaven.
LotR was too successful for anyone to tell Jackson “what, are you out of your fucking mind?” about anything in Kong. Maybe that means his artistic vision will be embodied in Kong completely. Or maybe it will this year’s display piece in the Academy’s “Self-Indulgent Dreck” category.
I hope I’m wrong. I am afraid I’m not.
Regards,
Shodan
I saw the movie this weekend at Butt-Numb-a-Thon. It was absolutely fantastic and, in my opion, succeeded on every level. This version of Kong is an extremely sympathetic character and his relationship with Ann beautiful and heartbreaking. There are action scenes that are absolutely breathtaking. People who complain about Ann’s vaudeville routine or the scene on the ice in Central Parl have no soul, and kick puppies in their spare time. Seriously, see the movie and judge for yourself.
It will not suck massively. It may have flaws, and might suck in a few parts for a few people, but massively is simply out of the question. The ecstatic reviews so far prove that it is simply out of the question.
The very concept of the movie is not for everyone and won’t please everyone. No film does. Even Toy Story 2 had some people bitching about computer animation taking over regular animation. I doubt anyone said that it massively sucked though.
If nothing else, something about it is going to be excellent to someone who hates the whole idea of a giant monkey movie. The cinematography, the sets, the costumes, the props, the music, the acting, Andy Sirkus as Kong, the CGI, the pace, the action, the emotion, the re-creation of the period…I expect all of that to be very high-quality, and something in that lineup has to appeal to even the surliest of haters. I’m not reading negative reviews (or positive) so I can’t say that for certain, but in any case, I can’t see it sucking massively in any way, shape or form.
I understand your point, but I loved Pennies From Heaven (The Jerk too) so that’s an indication that we see movies in a different way. A dark, disturbing musical/“comedy” is right up my alley.
Get back to us after you’ve seen it, ok?
We shall see. It’s now being seriously considered as a Best Picture Oscar nominee, taking the “Quality Blockbuster” slot (there’s almost always one of those).
I hope you too will weigh in with your opinion after you’ve seen the film for yourself.
I’ve always wanted to go to one of those. How was the reception overall, from a roomful of certified film geek fanatics?