King Kong (dir. Peter Jackson)

[pistachioofliberty]

I'm sticking with the churches theory.

And I almost forgot about the Dino D/Jessica Lange version! Ew. As I recall, it was a little like the Love Boat.

I did wonder, "Okay, it seems long, but maybe that's why we feel so much now. They allowed it to mellow and develop, or whatever." But I am thinking of cutting certain scenes by like, 3% or something. And then maybe we could see more of the scaredycat people of New York. I was wishing that some of the scenes of NYC streets didn't go by so fast that I couldn't see them. But maybe that's so that we can't see the raw edges? I'd loved to have seen horiffied faces looking out the brownstone windows, but there was little or none of that. In the original, one of the most memorable/horrifying scenes was the view of Kong from inside looking through the window, and I can't believe they wouldn't duplicate that! [Or did I miss it?]

I haven't seen the '33 version for a while, BUT: I did seem that the scene where Brody rescues her and they swing from vines? That one long shot of the cliff overhang was almost a duplicate of the original. Was it?

[huntergrayson]

specious, the funny thing is that to a studio "adaptation of beloved/successful book" and "half-assed remake to cash in " are pretty much identical, in principle -- that of relying on previous material to have a built-in audience or "marketing penetration". Thankfully, this was approached more from the former standpoint (the director saw the original and wanted to make movies, had a huge vision, got the deal post-Heavenly Creatures, got pulled for a couple reasons, got it again post-LOTR, etc, etc).

And Narnia pretty much ripped off all of the battle sequences from the LOTR-films, so there! (I liked it, FWIW, but would still recommend this)

I was kinda surprised that they cut the scene featured sooo much in the trailers and ads of Ann screaming on the beach and Kong growling in response and everyone looking astonished, "what was that, etc, etc." I really liked the way the cinematography looked -- all foggy and mysterious.

In the original, one of the most memorable/horrifying scenes was the view of Kong from inside looking through the window, and I can't believe they would duplicate that! [Or did I miss it?]

You didn't miss it, but it's used in a Burger King campaign featuring the evil and terrifying King - seriously, his face is a frozen and immobile plastic mask, just like the Carver. And it's used as a Spokesicon?

But back to the film - maybe showing New Yorkers inside a building freaking out at its destruction might still be a little much, even if a giant monkey was involved? Okay, it's a stretch, but from the vague memories I have of the 33 version, they showed those apartments being ripped apart. Or, more likely reason - Kong is to have our sympathy at that point, not our terror.

I feel so sad and lonely being the only one wearing my little Team Kong shirt. Interspecies love is hott and you haters are jus' jellus! KonArrow foreva 1!!1! ;D

[foxfair]

I am pretty much in agreement with speciousreasoning. I have no desire to see Kong and probably won't even see it on DVD - it just doesn't interest me, but I saw Narnia a couple of nights ago and was looking forward to it all year.

I obv. can't comment on the flick, since I haven't seen it, but yeah, just zero interest and some small measure of bafflement as to the few people I know who *are* showing extreme interest. Different strokes, I guess.

It will probably eventually recoup its cost, things are just so pre-hyped these days it's almost like the studios are setting themselves up to take the fall.

[clementine74]

OK, that was one of the biggest pieces of garbage I've ever had the misfortune of spending three hours of my life on. I want my $10.75 back. $10.75!!! GAH!! Damn you, NYC! First, you take all my transportation away in the dead of winter, then you make me spend an exorbitant amount of money to see a giant monkey out-act ever actor he shared a scene with. Jack Black? Must go away.

[jazz]

I have no desire to see this movie and reading way back that they cast Jack Black in it pretty much killed the smallest iota of curiosity I might have had.

[pistachioofliberty]

Or, more likely reason - Kong is to have our sympathy at that point, not our terror.

Yeah, I thought that - it was just weird that of all those building exterior shots, you saw not one person through their window. It was like the opposite of Network. Were they not mad as hell? And they were going to continue taking it?

Okay, it is not a good idea to be visible to a charging beast. But it would have been cute to have a kid pop his awestruck lil' haid into the windah, only to have his ma yank him away.

[Deleted]

But pretty much all of the pre-release PR mentioned how much Ann's character had been fleshed out

Admittedly I am out of the loop on pre-release PR so I never heard that.

I stick with my original theory--remake without big name actors. I think Narnia did better because it's the first time it's been done and you know you can take the children.

I also think it could have been edited and shortened. I don't know about everyone else, but my movie theatre does commercials with the previews nowadays, meaning the movie generally starts 20 minutes or so after the listed start time. If you want me to sit there for up to or exceeding three hours you better have something really interesting to say. Lumpy being eaten by bugs is not interesting. The ship hung up on the rocks is also not that interesting.

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.

I agree with you here. I appreciated the beginning and the end in New York and would not have cut that. It was the on the ship stuff and the extended scenes with the crew being attacked by creatures I would have cut.

I have to say in closing that I think Naomi Watts is a great actress with bland looks. I think she is generically pretty but very talented. Ann could have been just a plot device--pretty woman in danger, but I think Watts took it way beyond that.

[clementine74]

I am not trying to be snide, but I would love for those who saw and liked (or loved) this movie to say why. I just don't get it. I thought the script and acting were horrendous, and what was left were some effects, that, all things considered, weren't that original or impressive--IMO, of course

[Deleted]

Well I'm not very demanding of my entertainment so I liked it largely because the special effects were cool (IMO anyway) and I like Peter Jackson, Adrien Brody, Kyle Chandler, Jamie Bell, Thomas Kretchsmann, and Andy Serkis. Also I went in with no expectations so I wasn't disappointed. I can't really think of anything to cut myself, I liked all of it. Maybe it's because I have a really strong bladder but the length didn't bug me, I actually like long movies.

[clementine74]

The reviews were the only reason I decided to see the movie; I was So disappointed.

ETA: I agree with this one the most:
link