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.