King Kong (2005) (1 Viewer)

[Cory S.]

And that's why I let that go, Kami. It is a fantasy film. I should look at it that way. So with that aside, there are still problems with the film.

 

[Paul_Scott]

and yeah, the Temple of Doom similarities were a sore point for me. there is a point where you can add too much salt and pepper and this film really poured it on, which is a shame because it seemed like there was a really good, well cooked piece of meat under all the sauce and the spice there.
i would rather have a directors cut that scrapped more of that off, rather than one piling more of it on.

don't think thats what we'll get though.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I will be seeing this movie again next week.

 

[Cory S.]

Personally, had I done this film, we would've started with Jack's character as it starts in the film and follow him all the way as it stands now.

When we got to the SS Venture, that's the part of the film were we would've gotten to know Ann and Jack extensively instead of all the nonsense we get on the vessel now. Ann's backstory doesn't work for me at all where it is because it isn't important to who she is once she gets on that island. When she gets on that island, the Ann character we got in the beginning doesn't exist.

I understand what he was going for but the execution is off. Had he moved that all onto the boat and juxtapose that with Jack's character, then he would've had something. But the film should've started off with Carl, plain and simple.

 

[Johnny Angell]

BTW, the 2nd most emotionally disturbing part of the film (after the ESB sequence) was seeing Kong in chains. Compaired to the original, this Kong has been degraded and humbled to a much greater degree.


I had come to dislike Denham, but now I hated him. I never felt that strongly about him in the original.

 

[Paul_Scott]

there is an awful lot of this movie i actively despise, but there are also quite a few sequences i was thrilled by and quite a bit i genuinely, pleasantly enjoyed.
so even though most of my comments have been negative, or focused on negatives, i'm probably not as down on the movie as it seems.
and i think i was pretty much bullshitting myself earlier.
i will more than likely see this again at the theater and maybe having a better idea of what to expect, i can sit back and not feel the need to wrestle with it as much.
this happens a lot for me with highly anticiapted movies that i desperately want to be great.
i'm so on edge the first viewing , waiting for the film to misstep that i can't loosen up and enjoy it- while a second viewing may take the edge of the highs, it also helps shallow out the lows a bit more. i dunno. we'll see maybe if i hurry i can catch the three o'clock show

 

[eric tengren]

I am a huge King Kong 33 fan .I am a huge Peter Jackson fan. but this King Kong was about an hour too long and too self indulgent, There are some cool set pieces, but .it needed to be edited down and perhaps Mr. Jackson loved it too much.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Yeah, I agree with Paul's response to this. Besides, this would excuse things like "I hate sand..." etc., in certain other fantasy films. You still have to have a certain grounding in the way our world works and they way people talk or it takes people out of the film.

 

[Cory S.]

What does that line have to do with Kong? It's a terrible line but it doesn't destroy the reality of the world either...

 

[Johnny Angell]

Did anyone else enjoythe original Kong natives appearing in New York? I thought it was a brilliant idea, since in the original, they were Hollywood sterotypes. So now, they become Broadway stereotypes.

 

[Chris Atkins]

I was just making the point that you can't say "it's fantasy" to excuse something in a fantasy film.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I actually disagree with Paul. Discussing dinosaur behavior in a fantasy film versus a sci-fi film (as Jurassic Park is sci-fi) is the difference between discussing 2001 without sound in space (JP) and Star Wars with sound in space(Kong). One is fantasy, one sci-fi...meaning that our filters are different for the films. As for comparing behaviors...the dinosaurs in JP were evolved 65M LESS years and on a controlled island without predators. Skull Island is the most, most, most lethal place on earth. So there is a real and a film argument for you. There are a lot of legit complaints, but that one seems like a REAL stretch to me. I intellectually agree regarding the bat-creatures...it bothered me at first. But that's looking at the film in a way the film does not invite. I can think of several reasons the bats would suddenly attack Kong after decades of not doing so. The film explained none, and didn't need to.

Maybe the real question is why don't the crew feel more sympathy towards Kong? Because they haven't spent ANY time with him. Ann has. Kong is doing what any animal does when you invade his land or attack him.

As for the length...I am far less worried about that. I do feel it was too long...but I was never bored. We seem to be so impatient with entertainment these days...I'm as guilty as anyone. But PJ gives and gives, and maybe gives too much. That's a hell of a lot better than not enough.

And Denham was obsessed. OBSESSED. Like Kurtz, which is where the (admittedly unneeded) HoD references come in. Not evil, not good. Obsessed. I think Black did an outstanding job with Denham.

For those that didn't like it (except Paul, who has answered):

Would you not recommend others see the film at all?
If so, would you recommend they wait to see the DVD instead?
Are you seeing it again?

 

[Paul_Scott]

i may have been able to accept a conflicted response- but this was wholly one sided.
i just didn't feel that the bonding scenes had been sufficent or had the depth to set up an attitude adjustment this dramatic.

if Ann had been established as a misanthrope, or someone who people were consistently and regularly taking advantage of- if she was shown to have reason to distrust men or mankind, and showed an greater affinity to animals prior to arriving on the island, then i might, might have been able to swallow this.
as it is, its strikes me as being sentimental and false, which is why the ending made me feel a little emotionally mugged.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Paul, she just witnessed them attacking KONG for no reason other than profit. Not bad men per se...but if I saw a man walk into a lion cage at the zoo and taser the creature, I wouldn't feel bad when it ripped him apart. Even if it was a work acquaintance. The stupid shall be punished. How could she be angry with KONG? He was trying to defend her. He's the victim of their assault. Self-defense and all that. She didn't see his earlier attack of the men (which might have changed things). I am a humanist, and even I believe that. I was wholly invested in KONG. Which drives my opinions, I admit that.

And Paul...
I knew that couldn't be Ann on stage, though I wasn't POSITIVE! That would be a betrayal, and she wasn't capable of that.
It was a great shot and surprise.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Kong was hands down the most relateable, sympathetic character in the film- no small achievment- i really do hope Serkis gets some kind of honour for this in addition to Weta- but that isn't to say i was invested in the Kong/Ann relationship.

i think the release date really compromised this film and had Jackson suddenly been given another 6-12 months, after delivering this 'final cut', we would have seen a much different film.
i read Moriartys review over on AICN and i agree with a lot of it, its clear he loves parts of the film and has big problems with other aspects- but i think his relationship with jackson is going to blunt his stronger criticisms before he can actually express them.

 

[Johnny Angell]

There's a moment in the movie I don't quite understand.
Kong has just recently taken Ann. He's arrived at the spot where apparently many of the previous sacrifical victims had died. Kong repeatedly whips the hand carrying Ann up and down. Is he trying to make up his mind about her? Why doesn't he dispose of her like the others? Because she gets rid of the native necklace? Because she's blond?

BTW, do we ever hear the natives talk about the "golden woman?"


Paul, concerning Ann caring more for Kong than the crewmembers, I think when considering what she's been thru with Kong, he has risked life and limb against terrible odds to save her, I still believe her actions were appropriate. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Edit to add: As stated above, he's still trying to defend her while she's in the boat and Ann knows that. She also understands they are going to try to capture him for no good reason but to profit.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

A fascinating hypothetical that does not apply to the events in the film. In the least. Besides, let's consider for a moment her psychological state at this moment. Of course she is extra-senstive to KONG. She's exhausted, she's scared, and they won't LISTEN TO HER and leave him in peace. PJ set it up that way.

 

[Cory S.]

Chuck,

I'm one of those in the minority who didn't like the film. There only two, truly great moments for me throughout the film; Ann's Vaudeville act with Kong on the cliff and the one on one T-Rex and Kong showdown.

I would reccomment seeing the film in the theatre because it's a film made for the big screen. Just the size and scope of the thing makes it perfect for the theatre. But, if some one asked me which film they should see this weekend, Kong or Potter, hands down, I'm saying Potter for overall satisfaction.

But, Kong should be witnessed on the big screen at least once.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Chuck, i could have bought Ann catching Stockholm syndrome at some point- but in this film it just happens way too fast for me.
obviously thats not a problem for other people and were i to argue from the other side i would suggest that the intensity of the threats to her were enough to flip her so fast like that.

but for me, it was a little too abrupt and why i would have liked to have seen another sequence between them that delineated the boundaries of the relationship more.

pan the 76 version all you will, but when Kong took the girl to the waterfall to clean off and refresh, and then gently blew her dry was the type of scene that would not have been out of place here to sell Anns character as becoming more invested in the ape than her human rescuers.
i don't doubt that the above is unrealistic Silverback behaviour, but as others have said, this is a fantasy film and i just felt that even after the sunset scene, there needed to be a scene that cemented that Kong was going to be dutiful protector and 'owner' of her, and not just some wild animal that may suddenly get bored with her tommorrow and thoughtlessly toss her down to die with the other skeletons when he finds some new distraction.



and the skeleton pit is actually a very important point,because it suggests that at least quite a few times in the past, his 'toys' have not just gotten up and left when he's done with them, but rather they all meet the same fate in one mass grave.
if i were Ann and i saw that, i would have a niggling doubt in the back of my mind just how long and how far i could trust a wild animal like this

 

[Johnny Angell]

Seems like I recall the Stockholm syndrome occurs after months of captivity. Hmmm...aren't many already complaining the movie is too long?

But seriously, isn't it often necessary and commonly accepted that a movie must compress time in order to tell its story in one sitting?

I commented earlier I'd like to have had one more scene of Ann and Kong bonding, but I don't need it to accept the fact that they have formed some sort of relationship. I'd just like to have seen it.