King Kong (2005) (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

Anecdotal evidence alert!

Don't expect a huge midnight take. My usual theater (AMC 22) showed the midnight KONG on one screen, and it wasn't but about half full. Never been to a midnight show that wasn't packed or on multiple screens. I still think the film is going to be pretty huge, with a nice long WoM supported run in theaters. But it won't open to $100M.

Unless my screening was the exception, and I doubt it was.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The midnight showing I attended only had about 30-35 people.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Interesting, Chuck.

 

[TheBat]

I had more people at my press screening then the midnight screening.. you have to remember it was a tuesday/wednesday night. I never saw the lotr movies at midnight.. narnia had a bigger crowd last thursday night.

JACOB

 

[Malcolm R]

WOO HOO!!! An "***Official" thread. I didn't think they made those anymore. :wink:

 

[Aaron Garman]

Our midnight show didn't do that well either, but it's easy to explain: many colleges have finals this week. I know Notre Dame, right up the street from our place, did. I know I would have chosen Kong back in college, most kids won't, especially if they can see it for a lot less the next morning or afternoon.

AJG

 

[Andy Sheets]

If "watercooler talk" at my workplace is any indication, this is definitely a movie that will need strong word of mouth to build its audience. Most people here who have any familiarity with King Kong, original or otherwise, seem to regard it with baffled amusement more than appreciation or anticipation.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

It'll get strong word of mouth. If Cameron made a chick flick out of a disaster film, PJ has made a chick flick out of a monster film. KK is not going to tank. Batman Begins found it's audience this summer. King Kong will find his.

WoM isn't "I liked it", but rather "You have to see this!" KK is definitely the "You have to see this!" material.

 

[Phil Florian]

Andy, agreed. My midnight showing wasn't horrible (better than most movie's second weekend) but it was by no means a sell out or even half. I have a lot of geek friends who are into all the fantasy and sci-fi and horror flicks. Yet, this crew that would attend LOTR and Star Wars on opening midnight not only opted out of midnight but can't get the gusto up to even see this. "Maybe when it is on DVD" if at all! I honestly can't figure it out. It has PJ (proven time and again to be amazing) and freaking dinosaurs fighting a giant ape...with guns and bi-planes thrown in for good measure. Amazing. I hope it gets the word of mouth it needs. Not a soul left there last night without a grin on their face (even with the somber ending).

I think this is actually a great date movie, too. It has a lot of cross-gender appeal. In an odd way this is one of the better romantic tragedies to come out. Granted, there are some tense scenes but the overall romantic appeal of the film is there. I will find out Friday when I go with more casual movie fans (men and women).

Re: the score. I thought it was an unobtrusive score but not nearly as memorable as Howard Shore's work on LOTR movies. Which might be by design, too. To be honest, I can't remember a single theme from it whereas I was humming the various themes from the Trilogy long after the movie came out. That said, that worked well in the (and until more folks see it, spoiler it) bug scene. The fact that it eschewed anything but the most subtle music made it all the more intense. More than a bombastic score might have made it come out. It was more desperate and hopeless where bombast would have assured us victory for the heroes.


It will be interesting to track the income for this movie. Here is hoping it does well. Either way, with PJ taking on a smaller project he is making a good choice. How can you f/u a huge trilogy and giant Kong? With something completely different. Not sure about the book "Lovely Bones." The content didn't appeal to me but I trust the man.

 

[Tim Glover]

Nice review Chuck. Your seal of approval has me more excited. I wasn't really into the KK thing until the past few days, then I began feeling others excitement.

Again, well written review.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I posted a short review in the other thread.

Not much I can say about this movie beyond exceptional.

I agree that the Kong vs. Rex fight was the best
effects work I have ever witnessed. I also thought
the travelers skirting between the legs of the running
(I am guessing) brontosaurus was also quite amazing.

This movie represents the best digital effects work
ever done for film.

My only complaint is the running time, though honestly,
I wouldn't even begin to know where to cut this film
to trim it up.

 

[Timothy Alexander]

Was I the only one feeling vertigo just watching that entire Empire State Building sequence? Such an awesome movie...

 

[Chris Atkins]

Concerning the length of the first act, as I was watching the original KING KONG last night, I was getting antsy for them to get to Skull Island, and the intro in that one was only about 10-15 minutes long. The setup was just not that interesting, frankly, and not because of the time they were taking.

 

[MikeRS]

It really feels like two films to me. The first act and the last two acts.

And it's not so much that the first act is bad per se -- not all. It's just quite ordinary and even pedestrian at times. Alot folks ARE gonna get antsy. The worst thing you can say about the latter two acts is that they might get a tad excessive or indulgent at times. But you'd never call it ordinary. It always feels "first class" all the way.

The thing is, I really don't think the first act is essential to what will eventually become the heart of the film (Kong's relationship with Ann). Ann's backstory doesn't really add to (in any profound way) her eventual connection with this beast. I see it as archetypal woman and primal masculine force. That's what the audience is really gonna respond to. It's all you really need when you have an actress as talented and charismatic as Watts playing the female lead. The depression era character sketching/melancholy is all fine and dandy, but I don't think it really amounts to a hill of beans once Darrow is scooped up by Kong. I'm talking on that deeper cinematic level. Obviously on a textual narrative level someone will make the argument that Kong and Darrow share a similar melancholy about life, etc...

Ehh

I don't think you would need an hour and ten minutes to nail that character sketching. 35-40 minutes would be plenty (and that includes the Denham arc, Brody)

That first act could have easily been cut in half, IMHO.

 

[MikeRS]

Favorite action scene:

Brody driving the car on the streets of New York -- being chased by Kong

 

[Paul_Scott]

i'm obviously going to be one of the few (looks like very few) throwing wet blankets around so let me get some gripes off my chest here because i didn't want to throw a lot of spoilers around in the review thread



(spoilers abound- BEWARE!)

i actually enjoyed the build -up to the departure of the ship. that part all worked for me. Jack Black (who i initially thought was inspired casting in the role, but who gave me pause when seeing him in the first trailer) was actually not bad as Denham, and the character was really quite an interesting embellishment in his single-mindedness and i honestly had a few good laughs at him (and not merely at Black doing something funny).
the way he hustled everyone in his orbit was a lot of fun to watch.
and i was really up for the fellow who played Englehorn- great character presence.
and the production design...another big huge WOW.
everything up to the ship sailing was just fine and dandy for me- i was up and excited for the rest of the voyage-

and then it happened.
Huck and Jim, or whatever their names were- UGH!
drop every single scene with these two together and the film improves a full star rating in my book.
they are the epitome of inessential and flabby.
worse, their scenes become pretentious in their attempts at portentious.

and if they were bad enough, the next bad creative choice rears it staccato ugly head--- the silly, sophmoric use of slow mo.
i actually winced and howled as Jackson used that for the the typing reveal of SI. very, VERY silly.
Loved the addition of Baxter (star of the lost pre-code classic DAME TAMER!) and loved the winking use of the originals dialouge.
and i was very impressed with Serkis as Lumpy. that guy can honestly act outside of just doing cgi motion capture. very surprised.
but other than that, there isn't really anything that happens on the ship. the relationship between Ann and Jack feels really off and never for me felt genuine, even though it was established that she admired him previously.
say what you want about the '76 version, but for me, i honestly felt the chemistry between the two characters and it was much easier to understand his dogged pursuit of her on the island.
here Driscoll makes a few goo-goo eyes at her while shes goofing around with the crew, then he gets her in a nice lip lock- but where is the scene where you actually see them engaging each other and can see that spark of chemistry as it slowly dawns on each of them?
sure she admires him as a great playwright...but does she actually like him?
was surpised that the relationship between these two characters was sketched so weakly here.
what happens on ship may realistically set up the third act (where each of the three are off on their own) but it doesn't provide a compelling establishment for reading anything more (or in other words, i easily see them climbing down from the ESB and going their seperate ways yet again...)

and then we get to the Island and i really start to become disengaged with this version.
in addition to more silly , ill advised, self conscious slo-mo camera work we get the hands down ugliest, dreariest 'land beyond' that i have ever seen.
in addition to ugly production design (of the human portion of the island) we get natives who really seem to have no purpose.
unlike both previous versions, the crew here doesn't interupt anything, and whats worse- there is never any indication that blonde haired Ann is anything special here.
Very Bad mis-step here by Jackson, me thinks.
there is just no good reason that they would go to the trouble of getting her, and the sacrificial offering and the entrance of Kong both pale in comparision, conception, and execution to both previous versions, for me.

and to show just how poorly conceptualized the natives are here, we inexplicably never see them again after this!?

Jackson actually stole a few things from the 76 version, besides the 'girl as protector of the beast' element, but he missed something really profound- and that was when Wilson(the Denham character) comments to Prescott(the Driscoll character) that the natives are sure to be glad to be rid of Kong.
"no. you're wrong. actually they'll miss him alot. he was there magic...their god. in a year there will be nothing left on that island but a lot of burned out drunks."

in Jacksons film, i really missed a sense of just how the natives felt about Kong.

the pole vaulting was cute, but given that the motivation wasn't established for them to be out to get her, more than kind of silly.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I agree. For a film that added more character depth, this part seemed rushed.

However, all in all, for me, this is the greatest monster movie of all time...if you want to restrict it to that genre. Since Jurassic Park, I have been waiting for a dinosaur/monster flick that combined story, acting, and sfx in one package. This one is it.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I thought they had solid chemistry. PJ showed more about Jack Driscoll in one visual (climbing up from the Pit after the ickiest scene in film history) using the entire screen than most wordy scenes. I felt a real spark, but maybe that's because I loved Naomi Watts from the first minute. She has the most stunning eyes I've ever seen.

Tim, I'd put the ESB among the greatest sequences in film history. Some feel it goes too long. I wished it could have lasted forever :frowning: As crisp and powerful as the great Moria sequence in FOTR, and then some.

I sort of agree with Mike, but I think KONG goes way beyond primal masculinity. That's certainly part of it, but I think it extends even beyond gender roles. He is unjudging and endlessly faithful.

KONG himself was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen on screen. I agree that Serkis must be considered a great actor after seeing this film. He'd have to be to pull that off.

Johnny, KONG is definitely a monster movie. Just like Aliens is an action movie, Star Wars is a space movie, and Shawshank is a prison movie. Such a small label for such a HUGE film.

 

[Paul_Scott]

see...for me it just doesn't play like a monster movie, because Kong himself is just way to naturalistic...too indebted to reality.

his reactions to Ann when she first tries to entertain him, made me feel like i was watching close-up inserts of a real ape cut into the film. and that is probably the biggest element of why this version ultimately left me a little cold.
Kong was never a real ape...not in the original and not in the Baker suit- he was a fantasy concoction springboarded from a real ape.

here...he's just a really big silverback. i thought that was a really silly criticism when someone offered it days or weaks ago, but now i sadly understand what could engender that criticism.
although it hits the same plot points as King Kong, this really feels more like Mighty Joe Young quite often.

 

[Johnny Angell]

That's why I was reluctant to call it that. It goes beyond the genre.

I was wondering if anyone noticed many "inside" references to the original movie. I'm not talking about obvious ones, like similar plot. Little details you've got to be alert to catch.

In the early part of the movie, when Denham had just finished with the money men, in the room he's standing in, I noticed a movie poster for "Chang", the Cooper movie. Anyone notice anything else?