|
|
 - Just plain AwesomeKING KONG is just plain awesome! It is one of the best movies that has EVER been created! For those who don't like it can take your negative views elsewhere! KING KONG is awesome. Nothing more, nothing less. Rating:  - MiddlingI grew up with King Kong. King Kong was a friend of mine. Peter Jackson's nominal ape is no King Kong! When I was a child in New York, Thanksgiving Days would not have been the same without WOR-TV's King Kong marathons, which included the original 1933 film, its 1934 sequel- Son Of Kong, 1949's Mighty Joe Young, and several Japanese films with the same titular gorilla. My dad and I loved those films. Director Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong (and it is a remake of the 1933 classic, not a mere updating like the 1976 Jessica Lange camp classic) is not nearly as great a film as most of the critics say it is, but it's still a damned sight better than most films out today, and certainly most horror films. The single best thing Jackson did was to set the film in the 1930s, and not in the 2000s, because this harkens back to an era where it was still plausible to believe in undiscovered islands, and round the world trips to them were akin to what interplanetary travel is in space films that came along later. The worst thing Jackson did, however, was nearly double the screening time of the original film, bloating this version to nearly three hours. There simply isn't enough material, so he adds far too many silly scenes of the modern Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) ridiculously making goo-goo eyes at the twenty-five foot tall gorilla. This, and a few other negatives, make the newer version a much inferior one to the original, although better than the 1976 version. Now, don't get me wrong, the special effects in this film top even those of the Spielbergian dino-fests of the 1990s, but even though Jackson was wise to go back to a 1930s setting, did he have to go retro-racist to boot? I'm hardly PC, but the Skull Islanders' savage depiction was ghastly and incredibly demeaning. First, since the island was south of Sumatra, it would be inhabited by people who looked Indonesian, not Negroid, nor even Negritos. Second, that they were almost all in a zombified state is odd, since this is a cultural trait from Haiti, in the West Indies, not that of the East Indies. And, of course, amongst the first to die in the film are the nerdy guy with eyeglasses, the black sailor, and the Chinese. Who survives? The Great White Hunters! I don't know what sort of statement Jackson thought he was making, but perhaps New Zealand is so far removed from the political realities of today that he just didn't know he was being racist with such depictions and narratives. I guess the Maoris have had it much better down under than we were led to believe.... Overall, this version of Kong is not bad, and at times, quite good, and you'll leave the theater with a bit of a buzz. Rating: - Another Peter Jackson Masterpiece! Peter Jackson's Tribute Remake To The Classic 1933 Movie King Kong is Incredible. Peter Jackson proves that his success from The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy was no fluke. Peter was able to recreate New York in the 1930's and some elements of the time like people who were suffering from The Great Depression and the battle between the humans and the giant bugs on Skull Island. Thanks to This Remake, King Kong is popular once again. Rating: - King Kong RocksThe 2005 version of King Kong is unmistakeably better than the 1933 original. Awesome special effects and acting. Jack Black was sensational and I really liked the bug sequence. Good picture, sound and everything else. MPAA Rating= frightning adventure violence and disturbing images. Rating: - Mixed feelings, but closer to a miss than a hit (*SPOILERS*),I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse. The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more. Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect): Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes. Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable. Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches. When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island. There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film. As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one. Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over. I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad. In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong, or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it. Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway.
|
