AnakinSkywalker
12-28-2005, 09:00 PM
After a very sucesfull LOTR triology, Peter Jackson seems to beleive that he is untouchable, giving him a higher budget and simply letting him run amock led to this remake of the classic 1933 film being one of this year's greatest dissapointments. King Kong is the story of a crew who sets off to an island to film a movie, cue Ann Darow(Naomi Watts), Jack Driscoll(Adrien Brody) and corrupt movie maker Carl Denham(Jack Black) and honestly that's all the cast we needed, but no, Peter Jackson wants to make every single character in the movie important and the movie starts taking hits from here on. After they arrive on the Island(takes about 50 minutes to get there,but who's couting?) Ann is offered as a sacrifice to Kong by the local natives and the team must set on a rescue mission, meanwhile Ann and Kong start an ultimatly condemened relationship which carries an important love theme, too bad the movie is just too long and too corny to actually get across and the movie just falls apart. This is not one of the best movies of 2005, it's just high enough to be rankied as a good movie. The good thing about this movie is that the performances are decent, Kong is amazing, there's a nice view of NY in the 30's and it's a decent thriller. However the script is incredibly thin for a 3-hour movie, a full hour could have been taken out of it completly, the main plot is monster movie material(even though at one point, Jackson seems to have taken some cues from the Jurrasic Park movies) but everything else around is just too long, stalls the plot, it's irrelevant and never really goes anywhere. This isn't LOTR, this movie was not cut out to be an epic. To fill in the blanks, the script is plagued by countless moments of prolongued action sequences that start to get boring after a while and feel absurd(imagine that an action movie that gets boring) and you really don't care about most of the characters, it also hurts the movie when the script is full of annoying plot-holes(how large is the crew of that small ship, how could Ann actually walk around in the jungle without getting hurt,etc). The special effects, apart from Kong, I wonder where did the 200 million dollars went. The dinosaurs look terrilbe, the bugs look fake and some parts of NYC seems surreal. The soundtrack is clearly pretentious, trying very hard into making you relate and like the characters, even though you couldn't care less about them. In the end, it's a mindless action/monster movie masquarading as an epic. Shame on you, Peter Jackson.
fred_kane
12-31-2005, 09:00 PM
Jackson's Kong is a masterpiece, easily the best film of the year. I hate it! I hate it for the same reason I hate Spielberg's Jurrassic Park series: Because of the great special FX, I can never revisit my favorite OBRIEN/HARRYHAUSEN dino flicks of old, and regain the magic I once felt. They've just lost their magic. Now when I see the old KONG, or the GIANT BEHEMOTH, or 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA...I don't see cool giant creature-dinosaur things that use to give me a thrill; I see stop animation puppets. I hate the new Kong even more so, because the movie Did EVERYTHING, not just the FX, but EVERYTHING right! I can't wait to add this one to my DVD collection. Damn, I hate it!
movielover
07-11-2006, 09:00 PM
This is just an amazing movie that has a great story and great special effects, and some people say that it's too long, well I think it's perfect.
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.