King Kong?

→ in
Tools    





Finished here. It's been fun.
This movie is the definition of bloated. A good hour or so could have been cut from this film, and I feel it would've been much sleaker, and much more entertaining. This movie does have spectacular special effects though. No doubt.



On the outside looking in.
This movie is the definition of bloated. A good hour or so could have been cut from this film, and I feel it would've been much sleaker, and much more entertaining. This movie does have spectacular special effects though. No doubt.

I love all three versions of KING KONG, but since this thread is about the Peter Jackson remake, I'll confine my remarks to that version. First off, it was absolutely thrilling seeing this on the big screen; everything, from the stirling performances to James Newton Howard's powerful score to the spectacular special effects make this KONG an epic motion picture event to startle the senses. If the film is bloated, I can think of only one scene in particular that should have been excised: the spider pit sequence. This scene brings the film to a complete standstill, not because it's unexciting, but because it's so stupid: Adrien Brody shouting at Jamie Bell to shoot the giant bugs off his body with a machine gun?! That's so dumb it's offensive. We go into a movie like KING KONG knowing we're being asked to suspend our disbelief, but while no one expects to see a giant ape on safari, everyone knows what a machine gun can do.

Clearly, Jackson's cache was so great at the time KING KONG was made that no studio head was going to go to him and tell him how to make his movie, but that spider pit sequence stops the movie cold every time I watch it, and legend has it the scene was expunged from the original KONG for the very same reason. Still, I love this telling of the beauty and the beast fable and one lapse in directorial judgment isn't going to stop me from giving it a four-star rating; it's a cinematic masterpiece, emotionally devastating at times and always incredible to look at, the stunning recreation of Depression-era New York adding immensely to the picture's overall effectiveness.



KING KONG (2005): **** (Out of four)
__________________
"Yes, citizen, there is no cause for alarm -- you may return to your harpsichord."



I think that King Kong was a great movie but it was to long and should have been made 3 movies, the city/ship would be one, then the jungle, and then NewYork,also it would lead on to minor characters like that kid jimmy and his friend the firstmate i think it was and took the time using them and then suddenly ended but it was a pretty good movie other then that
Yeah. It would be cool if instead of one bloated movie, they made it into a trilogy, three exciting parts. I think I would watch all three and they revised the storyline into realistic rather than all about King Kong.


Follow me on twitter/instagram - @jxldalayon
__________________
Follow me on twitter/instagram - @jxldalayon

Old heart, young mind



On the outside looking in.
Make King Kong not about King Kong?

Yes, perhaps the movie could focus on those lovable chaps from ONE DIRECTION instead, and rather than being the star attraction of the "presentation scene" in New York, KONG could be the opening act. I'm tired of all his scene-stealing antics!!!