King Kong (dir. Peter Jackson)

[Deleted]

God me too, I thought I was going to vomit. Particularly with the worms. Poor poor Lumpy.

[Deleted]

Poor poor Lumpy.

Yeah, I thought he would make it after his trials and tribulations as Gollum.

running time was blamed, along with some crazy analysts saying women didn't want to see a damsel in distress movie (WTF?)

I don't think the damsel in distress angle is that crazy. Jackson did well with it, but it is really outdated and I think it could have gone the other way with the wrong director. Naomi Watts did a great job not playing too helpless but not playing it too modern either.

I don't think the studio should be surprised at Kong's performance so far. They release it right before Christmas when everyone is still running around shopping or going to parties, it doesn't have any blockbuster stars and it's a remake. There's no urgency to go see it before the plot is spoiled and although I love Jack Black, Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody they aren't universally known names.

I almost wonder if they released it when they did for the word of mouth factor. Once people aren't at work and aren't frantically finishing Christmas preparations they will hit the theatres and will want to see it because they've heard good things.

[Deleted]

georgianna said:

Poor poor Lumpy.

Yeah, I thought he would make it after his trials and tribulations as Gollum.

I just realized that Andy Serkis dies twice in this movie, first as Lumpy then as Kong. I wonder if he'll get to live if he ever makes another movie with Jackson.

The "women won't want to see it" thing is crap. I'm a woman and half the people in the packed theater I saw it in were women. I think it was an odd time to release but word-of-mouth will definitely help. I know I myself have convinced at least three friends to go see it.

[Deleted]

I don't think the "women won't want to see it" is because it has elements of an action film, but because the Ann Darrow character is the typical helpless female. That's why I think Watts' performance is really good on that level.

[huntergrayson]

But pretty much all of the pre-release PR mentioned how much Ann's character had been fleshed out and the shift to a love story, de-emphasizing the damsel-in-distress angle. "Women don't want to see it" reeks of grasping at straws spin to figure out why it wasn't as successful as they originally thought -- uh, hello, running time? Finals? Holiday shopping? -- and that kind of reasoning strikes me as sort of sexist in a way itself.

Pretty, pretty Naomi. So pretty and so talented. I know she has no shot, but after seeing her get passed over for Mulholland Drive (not even nominated!) and 21 Grams, I'm really, really wanting her to win a shiny, shiny statue at this point.

Oh, I'll say it -- Jack Black's character was hella underdeveloped. Not that we needed to add to the running time, but...

I think I sold my (female) friend by telling her about Kyle Chandler.

[pistachioofliberty]

Maybe all the people who were sent to the polls last year were sent to see Narnia? eta- I knew it! If Hunter Grayson agrees, that proves it!

For whatever reason find Naomi Watts a little bland or ....weak? In fact I kept being reminded of Ann Heche in that desert island "comedy". But I know that's a minority opinion. I just don't "get" her.

I have never seen a movie where I thought as much while watching it about exactly how I'd edit it. And that is not a minority opinion, I'll bet.

I have never seen a movie where I thought as much while watching it about exactly how I'd edit it. And that is not a minority opinion, I'll bet.

[angel17987]

I have never seen a movie where I thought as much while watchign it about exactly how I'd edit it. And that is not a minority opinion, I'll bet.

You are so not alone. I thought the very same thing. During the whole movie I was making a mental list of all the scenes that could have graced the cutting room floor. If it had been up to me, I could have made that movie 45 minutes shorter.

[pistachioofliberty]

Why did it take so long for the chloroform to work? It seemed like it could have been just as poignant if given a snappier pace [I can't believe I am saying that either, because I am always defending films that people find slowish: "But I thought you'd LOVE Persona!"].

Okay, so there were millions of Junior Editors watching. How many of y'all kept wondering the whole time how they were going to deal with getting him onboard ship? But then, suddenly, it's just darkness, and then: "Ladies and Gentleman! I give you the 8th Wonder of the Worrrrrrld!". And also, why was Naomi estranged from Adrian suddenly? Because of his apparent disdain for PETA? He was probably jealous from the moment he found Kong's enormous footprint in the mud. That play he was wrote and was watching seemed sort of lame to cause him to have this sudden epiphany.

[huntergrayson]

Why did Narnia open stronger?

Because of the children and Lion=JESUS! No, they seriously pulled a Passion type thing where churches bought out 1000s of tickets in advance. As has been pointed out, Kong doesn't have the "built-in" audience that a Narnia or LOTR does. "Peter Jackson enthusiasts" and "hardcore fans of Watts/Black/Brody" isn't that big of a group.

Yeah, the movie could have been shorter, but what would be the point of the remake then? I think you would just end up with the straight-ahead action of the original then. I really enjoyed seeing how NY was, watching Ann struggle, watching Denhem find Ann, see the character be immersed in the world of skull island, etc, etc. It added texture and a true emotional resonance to Ann and Kong's stories.

And several people who started Naomi's thread expressed the bland opinion. I adore and vehemently disagree, but to each their own (love her killer maternal instinct in the Ring films).

[speciousreasoning]

Why did Narnia open stronger? Because it's a movie that people could take their kids to. Because there's people like me who grew up loving the Chronicles of Narnia and thought it was awesome that they made a movie out of it. Because lots of people love JRR Tolkien's books and Narnia is based on much the same thing - old legends and myths made into a pretty creative book. Yeah the church thing probably helped but Narnia was a movie for families and I have no idea who "King Kong" is aimed at.

Will I go see "King Kong"? Hell, no. I've seen the original and the Jessica Lange version and I know how it ends so sitting on my ass for three hours to find out that the stupid ape dies at the end isn't going to do it for me. Even the ten or fifteen minutes of "King Homer" on "The Simpsons" looks better (and that ended happily). This remake looks like a half assed attempt to cash in on a movie I hated when I first saw it (both of them).