Great review of King Kong

"There's lots of it and lots of time to take it in. Peter Jackson's King Kong is yet another tedious example of the cinematic dog that licks its balls because it can."


http://www.thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2005/12/19/CuriousKong/

I wanted to love this movie so badly. I really did.

There is a lot to like in this movie, but then there is a LOT of this movie period--at least one hour too much. Peter Jackson seems to think that if an action sequence is thrilling at three minutes then it's TWICE as thrilling at six minutes, and THREE TIMES as thrilling at nine. Ask anyone who's ever watched a porn flick--that kind of math just doesn't work in movies.

I'm afraid that PJ has fallen in with the rest of the lot of great artists who think that EVERYTHING they do is just fantastic, and that they need no editing whatsoever. I'm afraid he's dead wrong.

but it didn't spoil it for me as it did for you.

http://www.us.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/combined

See user's ratings and comments. Kind of astounding -- after a slow Wednesday opening. Now, a few days plus one weekend later, 14,511 people have give it GENERALLY FAVORABLE RATINGS and have it already in the Top 250 Films!!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Text of Radio_Lady's review: King Kong -- Opened 12/14/05

The reign of the King is over. All hail the King…the new “King Kong” that is. “King Kong” circa 1933, was great – but who still alive remembers its original run and its probable acclaim worldwide? Somehow we cannot forget the scene of Kong at the top of the Empire State Building swatting at attacking bi-wing gnats…a symbol even then of nature not respected. And what a cast! Faye Wray as femme monkey fatale, Robert Armstrong as madman promoter Carl Denham and handsome Bruce Cabot as adventurer Jack Driscoll.

For me, this was an era past, and I was really ripe for the 1949 “Mighty Joe Young.” That movie has been the most successful follow-on to the 1933 “Kong” hit. What a movie! The big monkey is there – and it’s almost unbelievable that Robert Armstrong was back again playing the mad promoter Max O’Hara. He’d been busy though…Armstrong, not the monkey… He made more than eighty movies in the intervening twenty-six years…more than 125 total in his lifetime, spanning the period of 1927 to 1964. That doesn’t count his TV work! Maybe someone should make a movie of HIS life story. One more thing and than back to the big ape story…”Mighty Joe Young” also obtained excellent performances from Terry Moore and Ben Johnson.

Dino De Laurentiis, you may recall took a shot at a remake of “Kong” in 1976 – again starring the big monkey…this time with Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges. That one wasn’t bad – but not quite up to the achievement of the 1933 original!

So, I went to see the latest “Kong” thinking that they’ll probably screw it up. You know with razzle-dazzle effects seamlessly integrated in with actual film footage but along the way missing the boat on the story. I crossed my fingers and placed myself in the hands of Peter Jackson, movie maker “par-excellence” and hoped for the best. Well, folks – Peter does not disappoint. This is the new king, the “King Kong” that deserves to take on the mantle going forward from the original.

This is a marvelous film that flies by even though it’s more than three hours long. Upon reflection the next day, it could be about a half hour shorter. I’m sure I’ll see it again on DVD. The updated seamless effects are all there in Jackson’s capable movie-making hands. Kong is totally real and believable. He is supported wonderfully by Naomi Watts as Anne Darrow. Jack Black plays mad promoter Carl Denham and Adrien Brody plays Jack Driscoll now a writer in the somewhat revised story. The script provides many new elements and kudos to writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens for a job well done. Kudos also to Peter Jackson who directed and, in his spare time, produced and helped with the writing. What a talent! Are there more like him in New Zealand?

So don’t go ape and don’t monkey around. See the new King…it’s a “King Kong” you won’t soon forget! Rated a quintuple A. (Is that possible?) Oscar, please take note.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

as the "Extended Version" for the real fans to get on DVD and enjoy in their homes. As it is, I can't imagine what Jackson has in mind for that release. I just hope the people that do invest in it also buy the "Family" sized Preparation H.

couple of hours before the screening time.

Also, be sure you make a "pit stop" -- before taking a seat in the auditorium.

It's just like when you take a 3+ hour trip in a car.

I haven't seen it, and while I normally piss all over reviews from people I haven't seen things, I'm saying I haven't seen this because I'm wondering how much of the "it's too long" noise is coming from fans who wanted to see something different. If you know what's going to happen, how it's going to end, of course it's going to seem longer.

Each production brings lot of moolah from all that activity. Why, just last August, we saw "X-men 3" film crew at Hadley Castle in Victoria! It was a big group of extras and crew!

I'd watch my comments about films, unless you don't care for our greenbacks!

:sarcasm:

Sorry, the name didn't mean anything to me...

said it was way too long... they were disappointed

This is his first movie after LOTR - give him some slack. Have you ever seen Bad Taste? You wouldn't believe how simple, but good his first movies are. Sure, it's long, but it's also the work of a guy who's wanted to do King Kong his whole adolescent life - and with a budget to match. I'm not going to see it, it simply doesn't interested me as a story, but I'll give the guy a break for doing what he wanted to do, how he wanted to do it.

having read all the great reviews, I went in thinking it was going to be fabulous. Instead it was just pretty good. I found it hard to get lost in the story for some reason. I think it was just too long, there was too much buildup to the story, I mean an entire movie went by before Kong even showed on camera. That's painful.

as a comparison, I walked out of Chronicles of Narnia last weekend thinking "wow, that was short" and it was only 30 minutes less than KK.

... who is sick of the fact that Hollywood cannot come up with a new film? I'm so tired of remakes, knock-offs, copycats, etc.

I wouldn't pay a dime to see King Kong or War of the Worlds. It's already been done, and gussying it up with CGI doesn't interest me :(

Same with music..etc

Relatively short, gory as hell, and the funniest damn movie I've ever seen.

I disagree with this review in almost all its aspects. Pardon the parody, but this review is another tedious example of a critic in love with stroking his own ego monkey because he can. The review isn't very coherent; it is mostly a series of insults all built on the ball licking theme, which is rather obnoxious, but which the author seems to think is incredibly witty.

One criticism I find particularly irritating is that the movie is long. Yes, it's long. Not too long ago, the tirade coming from the Critic Circle Jerk Forum was that Hollywood had fallen in love with the "always less than two hours" formula. Filmmakers actually responded to this and started producing films longer than two hours, films that in fact needed to be longer than two hours to give the story a legitimate treatment, and almost universally they have been tossed about in the mud by at least one critic like this. LotR was also lambasted by certain critics because of how long it was, which, in my view, is the most illigitimate criticism of that series I have yet encountered.

I don't know if King Kong is great art, but it's damn entertaining.

"it is mostly a series of insults all built on the ball licking theme,"

That's what made it so great!