I saw King Kong tonight, and maybe you can help me out here...

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/17/05 at 11:53pm

I felt nothing. Not a tear, no chill, nothing at all. I thought the movie was just so visually stunning and absolutely breathtaking in how they actually managed to make it all look so realistic, but I felt as if...nothing was there between the characters at all. So when Kong dies in the end, since there really was no relationship to begin with, I felt as if the death was simply there because it had to be. Of course, Ann and Kong had a very obvious relationship, but to me it just seemed like a very shallow, poorly developed relationship.

I went in with extremely high expectations for this movie, and in general, I thought it was okay, just because it was so "pretty". But I missed the depth that I expected. Jack BLack's character was so 2-D, and I know it was meant to be like that, but I was just waiting for him to take it a step further. Now and then, I could see it, but it just wasn't enough. Adrian's character was very weak, I thought. Naomi and Kong were by far the strongest, but they were still very flimsy in the big picture.

If I would be touched by anything, it would be how human Kong was. How expressive the animators were able to make him and how I could feel his pain and his joy. How he had the ability to love as a mature adult, but experience pure bliss as a child. But I just felt as if the relationship between he and Ann was so underdeveloped, the entire movie just meant nothing to me in the end. I feel as if each of the actors/characters had a wall between them. A thin wall, that might've been broken with a bit more oomph, but a wall nonetheless.

I like how they had it so "everyone had something to enjoy", but it was all very confusing: trying to mush multiple genres into a 3-hour period and one storyline. It was pleasant, but some things just seemed very pointless and didn't contribute at all to the movie as a whole. It was a long movie, yes, but I don't remember anything at all about it really. The only thing I really vivdly remember is that...bug scene...just because I have a bad phobia of insects. It all passed very quickly, yet it was incredibly boring for me because I saw no development between the people and it almost seemed superficial for me. The actors did a great job ESTABLISHING their characters (I kept referring to Naomi as Ann), but I thought they did a poor job "living" as their characters.

I thought I'd walk out of that movie theatre just emotionally moved and perhaps in tears (I don't cry at movies very easily), but I felt nothing at all, and the more I thought about it, the worse I thought the movie was. The only thing that really sent actual chills up my spine was a later line, "He was only a dumb animal..." Just because of how cruel it was. I felt that the movie in a whole just had the things that it had because it had to have had it. Does that make sense? Think about it for a bit...it might start to...

Am I just missing something here? Being the emotionless rock I am? I want to give this movie another chance, but I would just hate to sit through it again...

Updated On: 12/18/05 at 11:53 PM

[robyn525600]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:13am

I saw it tonight too and I also had high expectations with it being directed by Peter Jackson (adore the RINGS trilogy) and starring very talented actors but I thought it was just ok. I have to agree with you that the special effects were AMAZING and Kong was the highlight the movie.

The movie was TOO long - especially the first 45 minutes before they got to the island - that could've easily been edited to 20 minutes.

All in all, I thought it was good but nothing I'd run out and see again.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:15am

Why is this surprising? It's not a very well-made movie.


Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:16am

I smell a coninuation of the other thread...

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:25am

I looked at the other thread, BSO (I'm assuming it's the one by Enchanted). King Kong threads were actually the first thing I looked for, so HOPEFULLY, I would find my own problems and just be able to read and address them. Some sort of explanation on how this movie was so emotional and moving and tear-jerking and blablablablabla. But alas. No result.

Maybe I'm just missing something. That's what I'm looking for, really. Either...that..or I'll finally accept the fact that my skin has in fact gotten too thick for my own good.

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:38am

I completely understand Aigoo... but personally, I feel like the reason why I didn't feel THAT much emotion by the end was that every scene was too long.... the dinosaur fight, by the end I was like "we get it" the bug scene, which was absolutely disgusting... i was like "we get it" so buy the end, i was so worn out by these inane fight sequences that i couldn't feel

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:41am

It was that "humanness" of Kong that made the movie so emotional for most people. It was his ability to form a relationship at all that makes his death powerful.

I really felt the first 45 minutes were absolutly necessary, and that the disconect you feel from most of the characters added to the experience.

But in the end, you just have to care about a giant computer animated gorilla, I was extremely effected, but it easy to see how you might not be.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:06am

Exactly.

It's not the relationship that was lacking. Part of the beauty of the relationship was that it was so blind and green.

[etoile]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:29am

Kong dies? Way to go spoiling the ending for everyone.

[DG]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:30am

*SPOILER*

If you see PASSION OF THE CHRIST, so does Jesus.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:40am

Aigoo - I meant Enchantment's nasty negativity...not a "SEARCH WILL YA"

Cuz you my girl!

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:52am

Holla, BSO.

I'm just not very affected by deaths in general, but I just think...Kong's way of learning was very extraordinary, but nothing to stir up a great big hoopla about.


And sorry for ruining the rest of your life, etoile. My most sincerest apologies.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:07am

Well, I liked it. My aunt walked out and the first thing she said was "I can't believe he DIED!" so I'm guessing it moved her. The bug scene is supposed to be gross (are you just made that Peter Jackson managed to get an extreme reaction out of you?), didn't mind the length of the fight scenes. They were pretty exciting, in my opinion. I'm not in love with the movie but it was definitely a lot of fun.

I mean... it's about a giant ape from a dinosaur island... I went in pretty much willing to buy anything :P

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:29am

This is definitely in my top five of the year, but for some reason I'm able to read Aigoo's post and not strongly disagree. I don't think the film is any less emotionally manipulative than anything Spielberg has ever done; were it not for the strange slapstick that characterized the film's first act and the intensity of the attack by the island natives, I would've thought it was by Spielberg.

[Anakela]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:42am

< whispers>
I did not like the movie either.
< /whispers>

I am glad others are not liking it, I was afraid I was the only one! :) I loved (most of) the effects (a lot of the NY stuff looked too much like miniatures to me), and I loved the way that Kong was made so human (expressions, ice skating - so cute!, etc.) and I could totally root for him, but other than that- there was no chemistry between Naomi and Adrien, I cared about Jack Black even less, the initial setup getting everyone on the ship was lame, the Skull Island stuff dragged on, and I was just honestly *bored* by a lot of it... I've been telling friends who ask me yes, go see it in theatres to see Kong and the other cool effects on the big screen (I loved the dinosaurs eating dinosaurs:)), but no, I did not think it was a *good* movie.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:52am

Well, I thought it was good - even great in many instances (namely the Skull Island scenes and as bedlam broke loose in New York!). But I think most of the film's depth is inherent in the story and ones personal experiences. Jackson actually gives us several opportunities to not take the story seriously, especially with that first act that feels like it was written by the guy behind The Mummy Returns or something, so I'm pretty hard-pressed to say that the film has fairly earned every tear it got out of me. I found it moving but certainly not THE most moving film of the year. You get out of it what you bring to it, if you know what I mean. Same with Memoirs of a Geisha - which, imo, is a more consistently strong film anyway. (And no less moving than Kong.)
Updated On: 12/18/05 at 02:52 AM

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 11:11am

Something like Brokeback Mountain may be very moving to me, but...everything in Kong to me was just simply there because it was in the screenplay. There was nothing developing, nothing growing, so when everything fell apart in the end, it was sort of like, "Oh..well...too bad."

I was just taken aback by the team's ability to place the movie in the past. The cars, the builidings, everything. That was just phenomenal.


And ronin, I am not mad at Peter Jackson for scaring the bejesus out of me. Actually, I'm not very angry at all. Just disappointed.

Updated On: 12/18/05 at 11:11 AM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 12:45pm

Ah, well, I guess it really is a testament to how if you market something to an audience of millions and millions of people, they will have diverse opinions about it. One way or another Peter Jackson is laughing all the way to his summer mansion.

I swear, Peter Jackson is kind of the ultimate lucky dork, isn't he? I know he goes to bed every night thinking "God, I can't believe these people pay me this much money to make movies of The Lord of the Rings and King Kong..."

It's all a lead up to his imminent sequel to Dungeons and Dragons :P It'll be much more dramatic this time around, folks.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:07pm

I thought i was a good movie. Not great it. There is a problem with the fact that there is a 3 hour movie with about an hour of plot. In fact half the people in the audience left rigth after Kong fell. It was just about 30 min too long.

[mominator]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:29pm

I am not in a hot rush to see this remake of a classic. The 1933 version was just so campy, and with no computers to aid in the Kong scenes well it is amazing to watch.
By the way ..... why did the villagers need such a large gate? I mean all they used it for was to give Kong his "bride" right? If they had just put a small door at the bottom of the wall, Kong could never have gotton out. Right?

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:38pm

In fact half the people in the audience left rigth after Kong fell. It was just about 30 min too long.

Wait. After Kong falls there's like 3 minutes left. So you're telling me that the audience sat through 184 minutes but couldn't wait around for the final 3? That's weird. And as for the movie being too long, I'm awaiting the 5 hour director's cut with bated breath.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 1:48pm

Well most people are pretty lame. They ONLY want spectacle and don't give a crap about story or art.

This explains those idiots who loved Matrix Revolutions but were bored when ROTK "wouldn't end"--because like am I the only one who doesn't get like why the characters' stories should be resolved after like 9 - 10 hours of investing in their story??

[JenD512]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:14pm

I'm a huge 'Rings' fan, and my dad and I saw all 3 LOTR movies on opening night in the city, at the same theater. It was great, because most of the audience were big fans as well, and weren't going to moan about how long it was. During the end credits, most of the audience stayed an applauded each actor's name in the credits. (Andy Serkis got the most applause)

Same thing happened during 'Narnia'...I saw people leaving 10 minutes before it ended. And checking their cell phones on the way out.

Whatever. Their attention spans are certainly not my problem.

[Taryn2]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 2:14pm

It's kind of the opposite with me, because i was expecting nothing from the movie (i really did not want to see it. I wanted to go see Rent again...)so what it did offer was amazing to me.
THe CGI Kong was breath taking, but that's where all of the special effects budget went. All the otehr cgi was done very carelesssly and poorly (i'm a huge computer geek...that's pretty much where all my attention was during the movie) Jack Black's lack of facial variety was driving me mad. every time you see him, he has the exact same expression! All the scenes were a bit too long. When Kong was running with Ann through the forest and she was shaking up and down, i got it within the first thirty seconds, after that it was pointless. they did the smae with the dinosaurs, the fight, and the natives.

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 4:40pm

Ding ding! One thing I was thinking of, Mom. And such a flimsy door, too.


I loved Narnia. I found so much growth in EVERYONE and everyone just did a great job acknowledging the presence of each other. In King Kong..it was so..shallow, it seemed. Anyway, I'll just accept the fact that I"m in the minority here and go along with this:

The movie sucked. King Kong didn't.