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