King Kong

Well, I just came back from watching King Kong and thought I’d throw in my cents on Peter Jackson’s remake. If I could sum it up in one sentence I’d say that it’s moving, spectacular and exciting yet at the same time disappointing. Lord of the Rings was better.

The Good: Naomi Watts is amazing, and Kong himself even more so. Fantastic effects, amazing action and a heart-wrenching romance. Kong. The fight with Kong and the three T-Rexes was the best rumble I’ve ever seen. Kong. Every scene with Kong and Watts was moving. Kong. Andy Serkis being eaten by four giant worms. And did I mention Kong?

The Bad: The length. No way does this justify 3 hours. It’s not an epic story, so the lenght should have been shorter by 40 minutes. An idiotic stampede of dinosaurs that looked fake as hell and ended up as unintentionally funny because every single one of the cast would have ended up dead in five seconds. That scene belonged in Road Runner. The horrible miscasting of Jack Black and Adrian Brody. The wait for Kong to appear. That wasn’t build up, it was just a waste of time. Despite great effects, I have to question their use - why did they use CGI so often instead of set-design.

Well, did anyone else see it? What do you think?

[quote=“Reaperjim”]Well, I just came back from watching King Kong and thought I’d throw in my cents on Peter Jackson’s remake. If I could sum it up in one sentence I’d say that it’s moving, spectacular and exciting yet at the same time disappointing. Lord of the Rings was better.

The Good: Naomi Watts is amazing, and Kong himself even more so. Fantastic effects, amazing action and a heart-wrenching romance. Kong. The fight with Kong and the three T-Rexes was the best rumble I’ve ever seen. Kong. Every scene with Kong and Watts was moving. Kong. Andy Serkis being eaten by four giant worms. And did I mention Kong?

The Bad: The length. No way does this justify 3 hours. It’s not an epic story, so the lenght should have been shorter by 40 minutes. An idiotic stampede of dinosaurs that looked fake as hell and ended up as unintentionally funny because every single one of the cast would have ended up dead in five seconds. That scene belonged in Road Runner. The horrible miscasting of Jack Black and Adrian Brody. The wait for Kong to appear. That wasn’t build up, it was just a waste of time. Despite great effects, I have to question their use - why did they use CGI so often instead of set-design.

Well, did anyone else see it? What do you think?[/quote]

Well I’ve got to say I dissagree. I was excited thw entire time and thought the movie felt like 90 mins. I was wanting more when the island sequence came to an end. Then again I am a huge fan of the 1933 version and have been since i was 6. I thought that Jack Black did good enough in his role as an eccentric director, his acting is eccentric too.

The only parts that bothered me were when they got away from the orriginal. For example making Jack Driscol a Playwright instead of a swarthy sailor. I did like all the homages to the orriginal though, like the scenes Anne acted out and the Kong presentation in NYC.

I thought the effects were great, acting was good, length was fine, and they managed to show Kong as being ruthless (1933) and sensative (1970’s) at the same time.

Very Impressive film. Obviously aware of all the subtexts and cultural baggage that’s built up around this film over the years–Kong represents so many things throughout the film–but Jackson doesn’t get hung up on any of it.

It’s a very smart, thrilling film. And the length didn’t bother me at all. I checked my watch after the first hour and was happily surprised to see how much there was left to watch. There was a lot story packed into that first hour.

Thumbs up.

I thought Jack Black’s performance summed up the whole movie - good, but not great. Got sick of seeing Kong run around and smash shit after a while, and thought it felt way too long, but still a fun watch. Don’t think I’ll bother with the DVD though.

The average penis size for a fully grown Gorilla is 5cm, guess it might have worked out in the end between them after all.

King Kong’s old fella must have been about as long as your computer keyboard.

Any guy would have reacted the same way, chained up, naked with a small penis and waking up with a wicked hangover in New York.

[quote=“Ian_Alexander”]I thought the effects were great, acting was good, length was fine, and they managed to show Kong as being ruthless (1933) and sensative (1970’s) at the same time.[/quote] Really? The “run-away quick as you can from the dinosaur” parts looked in the second hour looked cut and pasted and the entire second hour reminded me of Peter Jackson’s first two incredibly low budget films and the New Zealand short films (which often featured plasticine monsters) that were shown on a New Zealand TV show called Spot On many years ago rather than the 70’s version of the movie which admittedly the last hour of the movie was a little similar too.

Still there have been far worse movie re-makes in recent times.

[quote=“Bubba 2 Guns”]The average penis size for a fully grown Gorilla is 5cm, guess it might have worked out in the end between them after all.

King Kong’s old fella must have been about as long as your computer keyboard.

Any guy would have reacted the same way, chained up, naked with a small penis and waking up with a wicked hangover in New York.[/quote]
Shit, B2G…where you come up with this stuff? No wonder you’re a poet.
:laughing:

You made me ell-oh-ell again.

I’m pretty sure Kong was supposed to be a female, actually. I also noticed the lack of a penis. I need a better direction to my attention span.

Like he said they are not at all well endowed. Go to the zoo and see if you can see their uhhh… you know… :blush:

But yeah KING Kong is not a female, if he was it would be QUEEN Kong, and I think there is a spin-off called that.

[But yeah KING Kong is not a female, if he was it would be QUEEN Kong, and I think there is a spin-off called that.}

That’s a gay porno I think.