KING KONG '05 --What did you think ?

[Mikey]

Cruelty to animals ?

Show her all the human bones next to Kong's lair

[thunderbolt]

I liked it a lot, really did like the Black casting. He played up the con man aspect of Carl Denham pretty well. The only thing that bugged me were a few of the LOTR like camera tricks and slow mo stuff.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I thought it was okay, but not really good. The CGI was okay, but they did what a lot of new films do these days and threw in LOTS of filler to hilight the effects. (WHY was there a car chase....?) So yeah; it's like, five days long and tells essentially the same story the original did in 88 minutes.

One thing that DID bother me was how they changed Anne's origin. In the original she was a street kid that they took along because they knew nobody would miss her if something happened. They SORT of did that in the new one, but it didn't make sense. She wasn't an outcast or misfit like they SAID in the dialogue.... she was someone employed, with a careeer, during the freakin' DEPRESSION! She's HARDLY one of society's forgotten....!

THAT kinda bugged me 'cos it undermines the whole point of the film; that her and Kong shared a link 'cos they were both misfits.

Don C.

[jayihdz]

I really liked the movie, it was long but it was cool to have different "monsters" and "bugs" to figth with besides kong.

[Bill]

I liked it until they found Kong. At the point of using the dinosaur as a glider I couldn't watch anymore. Ugggg..... I really thought I'd like the movie; one of the few times I've actually stopped watching a DVD.

[Vortigern99]

I love all three versions, and I know them like the lines on my own face.

1933: One of the all-time great adventure films; probably THE all-time great adventure film! There's not a wasted shot or line of dialogue in the entire movie; the cinematography is amazing, including the rear-projection, which is among the best use of that FX technique ever shot; the script is rapid-fire and witty, and brilliantly expresses character. The stop-motion is powerful and dynamic at the same time that it is nuanced and artistically-crafted. I love this movie; it is one of the rare 5-STAR films in existence.

1976: Much better than people are willing to give it credit for. Some of the dialogue is hokey, the ape is clearly an actor (Rick Baker!) in a suit, and there's a distinct lack of monsters apart from the giant snake -- but it is nonetheless a unique and dramatic film, with intriguing characters and sense of verisimilitude ("real-seeming") that many fantasy/adventure movies (including the 2005 re-make) lack. I've always found the animatronic ape-mask very life-like and expressive. Kong's death, in particular, is incredibly moving in this version, and the emotions of the lead actress are heart-wrenchingly spot-on, IMO. Also one of my favorite movies, though I recognize its flaws.

2005: A clever and well-made homage to the original 1933 film, with terrific action scenes and compelling use of CGI. Kong feels like a living, breathing creature with a heart and mind all his own. However, the movie is overlong by at least 45 minutes, and feels -- not like a series of real-world events that are actually happening -- but rather like a clever and well-made homage to another film. Some of the would-be romantic banter between Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts is just painful, and the "It's not an adventure story, is it, Sir?"/"No, Jimmy it's not!" sidebar feels forced, contrived and just plain boring. Black is fair, but he's straining to keep up with the dramatic demands of his role, and it shows. The entire voyage from NYC to the island is an almost complete snooze-fest. All that said, when it comes down to the stirring climax -- the urban rampage, the climb to the top of the ESB, the sunset bonding between beauty and beast, and the breath-taking biplane shootout, the movie redeems itself, and reminds us why we came to a re-make of KING KONG in the first place. In my opinion it's the weakest of the three versions, but it's still an eye-popping spectacle... and of course, one of the great adventure films of all time.

[spiderrogue]

would have been cooler if jackson had changed the ending...ape lives!! see, no one would see that coming. it's like watching titanic...you know what's going to happen, no matter what, in the end...
but KK was still a great movie...made you believe that kong really could be real...some outstanding cgi...and did anyone else know that jackson is one of the plane gunner's towards the end? he's in all of his flicks, supposedly...

[ctc]

>would have been cooler if jackson had changed the ending...ape lives!!

They did that with the 70's version.... "King Kong Lives!"

Anyone remember THAT flick? Anyone? Anyone?

Don C.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Unfortunately I do.

[Bo8a_Fett]

Great film...even better if Black was recast.

[megoscott]

It left me cold in the end, but the Dino fight was out of control.

[spiderrogue]

wasnt there a son of kong, too? or something stupid like that in the 80's?? or is that the same one as kong lives?

[apes3978]

One thing that DID bother me was how they changed Anne's origin. In the original she was a street kid that they took along because they knew nobody would miss her if something happened. They SORT of did that in the new one, but it didn't make sense. She wasn't an outcast or misfit like they SAID in the dialogue.... she was someone employed, with a career, during the freakin' DEPRESSION! She's HARDLY one of society's forgotten...

I'd hardly say that she was employed during the Depression, not gainfully employed anyhow. She was dancing in what was essentially a Vaudeville house, performing for dwindling audiences. And, remember as they exited the theater, she asks that old man if he ate today, so obviously they weren't making any money at it. Then to show up and see the theater closed and locked up with no chance of getting the money they were owed hardly makes her (or any of the others) one of societies top rung.

[apes3978]

They did that with the 70's version.... "King Kong Lives!"

I rented it a few months back and I have to say it was downright horrible.

[apes3978]

wasnt there a son of kong, too? or something stupid like that in the 80's?

Yes, there was a film called SON OF KONG, but it was released in 1933, the same year as the original KING KONG... Not a bad film, but nothing great either. Mediocre viewing.