King Kong (2005)

[image=http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d76/jedimasterronoc/kong.jpg]

so i know there are alot of people out there that have varying opinions on this movie. i thought it was very good. i loved the work done on Kong. especially the emotions on his face. people say the music wasn't that great. i loved it. especially the theme that played during the T-Rex fight and when he's on the empire state building. it gave that epic feel to it.

 

It was good but far too long. It needed to be edited down significantly. It has a four star movie within it`s bulk,and Jackson tries desperatly to make it longer. He addes slow moving dramatic shots for the sake of doing it and there are subplots that aren't really nessecary(Jimmy) On the plus side the special effects are the best ever caught on screen and it has a terrfic cast.WETA will dethrone ILM(Runs for his life)

 

The effects were amazing but other then that it was a PJ movie. Close up, another close-up, dramatic pause that goes on a beat to long, something finaly happens.

It was amazing, it was epic, and it was revolutionary. At the same time though it was long and it was boring in parts. Some of it had me shreking in horror some of it had me snoring.

Its just the same feeling I get from any of his recent movies. I don't hate them, don't love them. Its just kind of there.

 

It was excellent. I can't wait to see it again in a few weeks on DVD.

 

I liked most of it, but at times, it just dragged on.

 

I absolutely love that movie, but I have a couple of complaints:


It was a little long. An understatement? No, not in my opinion. The great majority of the movie held my attention.

Ok, the entire subplot with Jimmy and Mr. Hayes was completely unnecessary. It went nowhere and just ate up screen time.



At the moment I can't think of anything else I didn't like. The effects were amazing, the music was spectacular, and the action... oh, man. Don't even get me started about the T-Rex fight.


[Insert more gushing here-- I don't have time to post any more. Just assume it's there.]

 

I really liked this movie save for a few things they altered from the original story. It's a winner either way thought IMHO and I loved how long it was personally.

 

I heard the best quip about the movie's length while I was walking out of the theater.

One guy turned to his friend and said "I could of written the book in that time".

I just don't like long movies. Slightly over 2 hours is one thing anything past 3 is just silly IMO.

 

I like longer movies. I feel cheated when I pay 10 bucks for a movie, and it's only like an hour and 20 minutes.

I was so interested in Kong that I didn't think it was long at all.

 

maybe you'd like bollywood movies, then

anyway, kong was an incredible movie, the heartache! the loss! and as a friend said the other day, his death accomplished nothing, whihc makes it even more tragic.

 

I thought King Kong was a great movie. personally i am a fan of long movies, but i believe this was a bit to long.
Especially when certain subplots seemed to go no where...Still, it was very fun to watch and brought me to place of imagination and adventure. just eye candy and a fun movie experience...
The special effects were outstanding and very believable. Kong was very Ape like.
and the fight against the dinosaurs was just fascinating.
I thought Naomi Watts did a wonderful job as Anne Darrow. She is beautiful yet humble and seemed perfect for the role.

I will be buying this on DVD!!

 

Aside from the generation of Kong himself, I thought the movie was a disaster. It was textbook indulgent cinema. It should've been an hour shorter. The first act as far too slow and had so much that should've been cut it was unreal, the second act was a mess of poor constructed, repetative, poor CGI'd, dull, tedious crap. The third act was (again) too long and the Kong / Ann relationship was hammered home to such an extent I began to lose interest in that too. There are redundant and unresolved subplots. The 1933 original is superior in every respect save the ape.

Very poor.

 

I'm going to be seeing this movie later today. Exactly how long is it?

 

Approx. 3 hours. I loved this movie and its seriously bumrushing my top ten all time. You HAVE to see it in the theatre ( unless you have a six foot + screen in your house ). My wife , god bless her, cried from the minute they took Kong off the island to the ending - which is like an hour of the movie. The Central Park scene really, really got to me, and I think that scene, with respect to another thread sugesting the Balrog scene in FotR, is arguably one of the greatest sequences ever filmed.

 

about three hours.

 

if anything needed to be cut down. it would have to be that first hour. some scenes in new york city weren't necessary and you could've cut some of the scenes on the boat. everything else was fine

 

I liked it. I agree that the first hour could have been shortened a lot, but I didn't mind it that much. When the movie ended I still felt like I watched a good movie, because the exciting parts morew than compensate for the slowness. Still, I'll only rent the DVD and just watch the last two thirds. Well, maybe minus the huge-insects-part which was just plain disgusting (but then again I have slight ( ) insectophobia ).

Actually I thought it was one of the best movies I've seen in cinema last year (although I missed a few like Batman Begins...).

 

I heard there was going to be a King Kong: EE on DVD this fall. It will be 40 minutes longer than the one now. I hope it fleshes out the characters on the boat.

 

God, even longer? The film needs to be cut down, not built up even more.

 

Click

5 posts down. My opinion.

 

Actually Weta digital didn't do the work for this film. Sony Image Works did.

 

Oh yeah

You may want to let Weta know that. Good luck getting the Oscar back though, they're pretty attached to it.

 

The dvd comes out in March 28. Dont Belive me? Go to www.kingkong.com

 

Yes, but that is the theater cut not any type of extended edition. Don't believe me... eh, I could care less.

Still don't understand the point of a Peter Jackson extended edition. Seems like something they would use at Abu Ghraib.

 

8/10

The stampede(Why so much hate?), Kong vs. the Dinos and the climatic Empire State Building sequence are all amazing. The performances are generally top-notch. But...

Lots of people firmly believe that George Lucas doesn't pay enough attention to drama or actual emotion. I firmly believe that Peter Jackson pays too much attention. And not just a little bit--he COMPLETELY BINGES on it.

That's the problem with King Kong; he goes too far. I went in expecting an unforgettable spectacle on the scale of the LOTR films, and I instead witnessed a good movie held back from greatness thanks to a director's obsession with indulgence. The same could arguably be said for the LOTR trilogy--except that despite their 9-plus hour length, they didn't have much filler in them. The first hour of King Kong was, well, it wasn't bad by any storytelling means, but they weren't very compelling either. At times, Carl Denham's antics made it feel like some goofy screwball comedy instead of a classic monster epic--not just because of Jack Black, but because of the overall tone.

The second and third hours thankfully make up for it in being thrilling and stirring; however, I still wasn't able to shake off the feeling that Peter Jackson was so focused on making the story come across as deep and emotional that he somewhat lost focus of the story itself.