John's King Kong review

I haven't seen the movie, so I'll refrain from commenting on the story/characters.

However, having seen Kong sufficiently in web clips and trailers, I'd like to comment on Kong being just unreal:

"yet there's something about the way he swings from the trees of Skull Island or the buildings of New York City that doesn't seem right"

I know exactly what you mean, and I believe this is a compromise between realism and entertainment. The human eye and the brain are tuned to detect even minute deviations from the norm. Just as the moon appears to be larger when it is near the horizon, our brain expects an animal as large as Kong to lumber around instead of swinging like spiderman. The amount of muscle required to move that large a mass quickly and maintain structural integrity makes Kong an impossibility. Yet, because it would suck to watch Kong move in a more realistic (ie slowly) way the filmakers have chosen to go for broke and have Kong move like a regular gorilla but scaled up a hundred fold.

"The new Kong is fearsome as well, but he's even more dewy-eyed than before and less wantonly brutal. He's too often more like one of Andy's playthings in "Toy Story."

I disagree. I thought Kong was plenty brutal, especially when it came to dealing with those T-Rexes. Also, this film, unlike the original, actually got me to CARE about kong, not an easy task. Another point that should be mentioned is the 'relationship'. Whereas Kong's feelings for Anne were one-way in the 1933 version, this update makes it a mutual thing. This could've turned the film's creepiness level up a couple notches, but Jackson handled their 'relationship' quite well, choosing to base the majority of their interaction on actions, rather than words. An example, would be the glorious sunset scene (a high point which was NOT mentioned in your review).

This movie has its low points, sure, but it has a strong emotional core, awesome special effects, and a climax on the Empire State Building like nothing I've ever seen. Peter Jackson has done it again.

**VERY MINOR SPOILER ALERT**

Here's what I want to know. When Kong breaks loose, he grabs hold of every blond he sees in New York then chucks each one away when he realizes she isn't Ann. Did they land safely or are the streets of New York littered with dead blonds who picked the wrong day to go shopping? Jackson wisely leaves this ambiguous. :)

"An example, would be the glorious sunset scene (a high point which was NOT mentioned in your review)." -- Alexanderi

A beautifully photographed scene, to be sure, and I'm glad you appreciated it, but for me it was another example of Jackson's overly sentimental, romanticized shots. Such moments in the film sell tickets, but I didn't buy into them for an instant. As I said, I liked the film, but I wasn't moved, inspired, or uplifted by it as I was "LOTR."

John

Onijay : What i mean is that they are not good enough for this. You leave this kind of works to the experts, ILM. You don't Pretend to be the hybrid version of Spielberg and Lucas and try to do everything in-house. You simply can't.

John I respect your opinion, but I went to the theater to see the 2005 version of King Kong, not the 1933. A lot of your review seems to be nit-picking comparisons, versus viewing the new Kong objectivly. I suppose this is inevitable though.

My opinion is that, sure, Jackson took what he loved about the original and added more, so what? The 1933 Kong was supposed to be more of a monster, Jackson decided to make the audience actually care about him in his version, with marvelous success in my opinion.
Nit-picking comparisons of mine: I really wasn't too sad when the 1933 kong died after trying to strip Fay Wray of her clothes, with that creepy pervert smile that the close ups of his face showed. I was glad to see more of a friendship than lust type of relationship. I enjoyed the little tributes hidden in this new film to the 1933 version, and I was glad that the stories were very much the same, but I'm also glad that they are not the exact same film with only different effects.
As for this movie, yes, several things could have been cut, and yes Jackson tends to over romanticise shots, but for me it worked. I understand why it won't work for some. I never thought Kong looked fake, and if I had any complaints with special effects they all lie within the dinosaur stampede scene.
It's a movie, if one can't suspend a little disbelief I can't think of many movies that they would be able to "get into."
Regardless, I'm sure everyone can agree that '05 and '33 both kick the snot out of the lame 70's version.

You might be right, John.

As a long-time viewer of Peter Jackson's films, I know this is not a man who lets innocent bystanders get away with anything. PJ goes for the kill, though maybe skinny, rich PJ has gotten soft with success.

I see what you mean, Chris, and how you interpreted it. However, it's a well-accepted convention of action-adventure movies that people in them are able to sustain thirty-foot drops, slams against concrete walls, and multiple punches to the jaw without ever sustaining an injury. I doubt that many viewers thought that any of the blondes were actually hurt; especially not after everything that went before in the movie, like both Jack Black and Adrien Brody falling into an insect pit without damage from the fall or the creatures.

So, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. By Jackson's not showing the damage to the blondes, a viewer could assume the logical--that they were killed--or the romantic/sentimental--that they survived. I believe most folks would go for the romantic notion because that's what they've been conditioned to expect in these things. But who knows.

John

Chris,

I know you like ice-skating, but...

Eddie

I think it's one of the better features of the movie, an example of Jackson not just playing it safe. Every time something "bad" happens in a H'wood flick, the film always has to cut away to show you everything is OK - the cute little doggie is just fine, the kitty-cat is just stuck in a tree. This way - none of that crap. Kong's a big ape - Kong don't have no time for social niceties like not killing blondes. I see it as very UN-cuddly. I felt Jackson did a good job of NOT sentimentalizing Kong which was part of what worked well for me.

Chris makes a good point about Jackson never showing us the actual results of Kong's aggressive actions toward humans. I think this is yet another example of the director romanticizing the beast, and it's what I meant by the "cuddly factor." In the early movie we see Kong deliberately dropping a woman off a skyscraper. There was never any question what happened to her or that Kong is not a Mr. Nice Guy. But this new Kong enjoys looking at sunsets and skating on the ice and being entertained by juggling acts. Jackson cannot allow his ape to be shown actually killing anyone, so we assume all those blondes simply get shaken up and recover, just as Naomi Watts is thrown, punched, dropped, and tossed around yet never once sustains so much as a scratch or a bruise.

The movie is a technical marvel, but its exaggeration, sentimentality, romanticizing, and stereotyping are nagging problems that never cropped up for me in Jackson's "LOTR" nor, surprisingly, in Disney's "Narnia," which I far more enjoyed despite its being about children and talking animals.

John

Chris,

The question that you asked has become the most uncomfortable aspect of the movie, and it's an issue that some have raised without the benefit of an answer from Peter Jackson or the movie's defenders. However, EVERYONE knows that those blondes die and that Jackson still has a nasty streak in him.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with displaying a nasty streak in a movie (see Jackson's works prior to "Heavenly Creatures"), but to try to sell this movie as a gentle love story only to have its leading man mauling and breaking other blondes in search of his girl toy? Forget it, this movie is atrocious for its primitiveness.

Eddie

While the music was forgettable, I'm kinda on the fence about the black guy and the kid. On the one hand I really don't understand why it was in the film, but on the other hand, the pair would have been just cut-out stereotypes otherwise (but they sorta ended up being that anyway. Oh man I am confused). Sorry, when you mean way out of WETA's league, did you mean they surpassed expectations, or were incapable of handling such a production? Cause I happened to have enjoyed most of the effects shots (of which there were thousands).

SPOILERS AHEAD==============================================

C'mon guys, the movie was not as good as PJ's fans make it.
The pace was unbalanced, the ship sequences extremely SLOW (not to mention the stupid subplot with the guy and the kid on board...which reminded me of a really bad movie called "the legend of 1900", if you haven’t seen it, don’t!) and the CGI wasn't that good. Specially during the first half. New York looks flat, Blue screen keying is visible, the boat sequences are like a cut scene from an x-box game...they only focused on Kong and the t-rex's, which they did pretty well. Except from the motion thing, like Mr. John said in his preview, Kong moves very smoothly. This was way out of WETTA's league . Even the music wasn't that good. Jackson had "creative differences" with Howard Shore, and gave James Newton Howard a week to compose a new score (troy anyone?)

The only thing worth while in that movie is the Jurassic park homage’s and the t-rex fights, which is a way for Peter Jackson to directly laugh at Steven Spielberg’s face. I hate the fact that people put peter Jackson in the same league as Spielberg or Lucas. They shaped today’s cinema (in a bad way maybe), he is just another man to use that market.

SPOILERS ahead, read with caution (please also excuse my rambling comments which lack any cohesion what-so-ever)

I agree that it was overly long (especially on board the ship, and a few actions sequences were kinda redundant, like the capture of Kong that just went on forever) but I was never really bored, instead I relished the chance to see all those beautiful sets and costumes. Great flick with a very strong performance from Naomi Watts (I even found Adrian Brody slightly plausible as a writer turned hero, but only slightly) and even Kong. Was I the only one sad when the loveable brute gives his farewell to Ann on the Empire States building? Though I'm pretty sure I was the only one laughing in the theatre when Jack Black has that joke about the original cast and crew of KK:
"What about Fay?"
"She's working on a picture with Cooper."
"I should have known!" (or something like that)
Great stuff. The action sequences had me biting my nails most of the time (except for the "spider-pit" sequence, which was sorta silly, it was cut from the original for a reason), so now I have one extremely gnawed index finger. Honestly, I hated this film from the trailers but now I'm in love with it. Everyone must go see it! Support our filmmakers and don't let this film become a flop!

8/10

Actually, Finalseph7 and I are in agreement about most aspects of "Kong," probably within a point of a final rating, too, although he doesn't give one. So I respect his opinions.

It's just that every once in a while I have to remind all our readers not to take anyone's reviews too seriously, especially not mine. Everybody's reaction to a movie is going be different in some way, and "different" does not make something right or wrong, just...er...different.

John

John,

No, no, you have to accept the fact that you're a bad reviewer because you didn't agree with a fan's opinions.

You might yet be a good reviewer one day, though, if you happen to agree with the fella about another movie.

;)

Eddie

"...if one can't suspend a little disbelief I can't think of many movies that they would be able to 'get into.'" --finalseph7

Very true; in fact, it's almost exactly what I said in my review. However, I don't find drawbacks in a movie "nit-picking" if they come up during the viewing and prevent me from enjoying it as much as I should. One person's mole hill is another person's mountain.

More important, I came out recommending the film with a 7/10 rating. Should I have found no fault with the film at all in order to satisfy its fans? Should I have lied or been dishonest? Or should I have been able to read your mind and say only what you believed?

I can just provide readers with yet another take on a subject, mine, and mine alone. And, as always, I encourage people to read as many other opinions as possible; it's the only way to keep an open mind working.

Yes, we can all agree Jackson's "Kong" was better than the '76 version and the many "Kong" rip-offs over the years. So we're not so far apart. And in any case, in order not to confuse readers, I restructured the review putting the positives first. Since I did recommend the movie, after all, the positives should have come first, an oversight on my part in my rush to finish the review.

John

[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Dec 20, 2005]

John I do agree with you on many aspects and it wasn't my intent to say you are a bad reviewer because of your kong review, despite how some may have interpreted that. I visit dvd town regularly, largely because I respect the staff reviews and coverage. Your review, upon my first reading, seemed to almost attack the new kong outright while defending the old. Perhaps my reply was a bit rushed and not as well thought out as it should have been so if I was misunderstood then I apologize.
I dont really consider myself a big Jackson or Kong fan, I just love movies, especially of the action/adventure variety. I know you were making a point in your earlier post, but I hope you would never alter your opinion of a film to fit with the general consensus if they don't quite match up. You were right about the rating as well, I would probably give an 8 or possibly a 9 out of 10, though the 9 side of things would most likely be a little bias on my part (I love dinosaurs, always have). I really enjoyed the film, but its certainly not perfect.
Anyway I hope that makes sense. I generally don't post on message boards unless I have something I think is worth saying.

I took no offense, Finalseph7, and I appreciated your feedback because as I said above, it reminded me that when I write about what I see as the drawbacks of an otherwise recommendable film, I should put them after the positives, not before. Whenever I've started a positive review with negatives, I've gotten complaints that I was too hard on a film, and, in fact, it does set the review off on the wrong tone. If I don't like a film, I generally start with the negatives and add the positives afterward; when I like a film, I generally start with the positives and add the negatives afterward. I should have gone with that personal generality with "Kong," and you reminded me to do so.

John