I saw King Kong tonight, and maybe you can help me out here...- Page 2

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:26pm

I just saw the movie, and the lasting impression is: "Wow, those special effects were F-ing awesome!" Honestly, though, I didn't EXPECT more than that, so I was pretty satisfied when it done. THe movie SHOULD have been cut by at least a half hour - and that could have easily been done by A)cutting some of that LONG opening (though I actually did enjoy much of it) and B)not holding all the shots in the movie FOREVER.
I got up to go to the bathroom just as Ann was being dragged off the boat by the tribal people (OK, big soda + long movie = bad idea) -- I came back a good three or four minutes later -- and she was tied up and 30 seconds later Kong appeared for the first time. I asked my friend what I missed -- "Absolutely nothing," was the answer. This was the problem with the movie -- things just take TOO DAMN LONG to happen in unnecessary places.

Still, the scenes with the dinosaurs were some of the best action sequences I've ever seen...

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:32pm

I would much rather things take too damn long than be subjected to a barrage of insanely fast cutting that makes it impossible to focus on anything though.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:33pm

Anyone else notice that the screenplay stopped speaking at the halfway point? I realize that action sequences take over, as they must, but the film talks itself into a corner during the first attenuated act (NY and ship), and then we get non-stop close-ups of Watts and Kong, and then Black and (fill in the blank). There was a repetitive rhythm dictated by those reaction shots. And everytime Black spoke, he just buried deeper into a caricature of the soulless producer. Couldn't he have any redeeming value? Any dimension? People are blaming Black, but he was required to play the same bug-eyed schemer from start to finish.

Only Watts (and, curiously, Jamie Bell as the tortured Huck Finn) had the semblence of a role -- Norman Desmond one.

I was never bored, but the film's artistic ambitions exceed its achievement.

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:44pm

Auggie,

I admit I'm guilty of blaming Jack Black of a 2-D character. I know he's supposed to be..just very cruel, selfish, piggish, but I just wanted to SEE more dimension, and I could see it partly at the end. But it just wasn't enough to redeem him.

And it was long. And very pretty. But that's it. I felt no emotion that others claim to feel.

I feel as if this movie really did sort of achieve having something for everything, but that's the way it tore itself apart. When you chase two rabbits...

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:45pm

popcultureboy - you're right in terms of action sequences, of course -- I'm talking specifically about the NUMEROUS times the camera just stays on Ann and Kong looking at each other. I'd be curious just how much time is spent on JUST those shots...

And while we're talking about the movie - that theater in NY where Kong was being shown off -- was it just me, or was it HUGE??? The only place I can think of even remotely that big is Radio City...

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 6:48pm

And pop, I didn't know if you were talking about the action sequences or not. But the action sequences, yes, were long, but the scenes themselves just moved so quickly sometimes, it was hard to focus on. It moved a little too quickly at times, so it made it very dizzying and hard to focus on.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 7:26pm

I'm talking about movies like this in general. I'm tired of watching less than one dimensional characters that I couldn't give two figs about get killed off in sequences that have been edited with a lawnmower and then stuck together with crazy glue. That Jackson took SO much time to build as much of the cast as he could into believable characters you cared about (or wanted dead in a ditch, in Jack Black's case. I wanted Kong to fall from the Empire State Building ON to him) and then an equal amount of time putting you on a thrill ride is an acheivement that should not be overlooked.

Now, I'm not saying that I want Poseidon or Mission Impossible III to be 187 minutes long or anything (though I wouldn't mind if Poseidon were) but if all the "popcorn" movies coming up invested their films with half as much heart as Jackson has put in to King Kong, then the summer would be a much richer place for it, cinematically speaking.

Updated On: 12/18/05 at 07:26 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 9:19pm

If only the thrills peaks on the ride truly justified the length. Sorry, an hour to establish Jack Black's motivation? We got it, early, and saw his desperation, greed. We're a step ahead of him and all of them. And then Black has no significant scenes that would deepen him. Why not show him on the boat, with the drugged Kong? To see something else? Sorry, I enjoyed a lot of it, but it's exhausting. EXHAUSTING. Even with the heart, which I loved (the Central Park part -- lovely).

[roquat]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 9:31pm

I just feel no great necessity to see it. It just looks like another "classic" potboiler pumped up with the kind of CGI effects I hope people are finally tiring of. Besides, I know the ending.

Speaking of endings, I had a great time at "Return of the King", but the entire theatre (me included) started groaning around ending number 6. Even the "Lord of the Rings" fanatics.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 9:32pm

The best part of KING KONG has nothing to do with the special effects.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 9:55pm

Well, then roquat, you fools weren't aware of how the story really ended. And, I don't believe for one second that anyone who read the books had a problem with the ending to ROTK--unless they wanted MORE. :P

I think KK is fab, and couldn't disagree more with most of these "criticisms".

[roquat]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 9:59pm

MORE endings to "Return of the King"? It was already well into double digits. They would have needed their own additional movie.

[Craig]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 10:00pm

Back from Kong and I'll be brief with my commentary

I thought it was OK. Nothing amazing, and not something I would tell all my friends they HAD to go see it.

I too thought it was overbloated. I didn't think there needed to be the 30 minute Jurassic Park segement. We got the point in 5 minutes.

Honestly - I thought the special effects were horrible. Well I'll correct myself. Anytime a special effect had a living person in it - it was completely ineffective. Matting, blue screens, etc were all PAINFULLY obvious - as was the CGI when real people were involved. The shots with Kong or the dinosaurs themselves were fine.

I enjoyed Jack Black in the role but couldn't help wonder if their first thought was to cast Oliver Platt - who I think would have done even more with the sleeziness of the role.

That's all I'll comment on - like I said.. it was "ok" - it just wasn't what I went in thinking it was going to be... at all...

[OddExoticCreature]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 10:23pm

I'm afraid to see this movie because I think I won't stop crying. Just seeing the trailer makes me teary. I'm just very...moved...by humanistic portrayals of animals (as apes actually are like that). As a kid the only movies that I ever got emotional over were animal movies: Homeward Bound, Free Willy, Black Beauty, Andre...lol.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 10:33pm

Are we more critical of films by people with great pedigrees than we are of ones that are technically worse, but considered underdogs?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/18/05 at 11:21pm

Well I had the total opposite reaction as you -- I was incredibly moved by the film -- but it may have been the surprise that triggered the tears. I find that when I go into films expecting to cry or be moved, I rarely am.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:04am

Let us not forget that this film's cousins are the remakes of GODZILLA and MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. Yes, Peter Jackson did the austere LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but KING KONG is first and foremost a monster movie. I think its emotional reach is a bonus.

were it not for the strange slapstick that characterized the film's first act

Yes! Finally, someone sees it too. I think a lot of the first hour of KING KONG is an homage to the kooky dialogue of the original film. Much of the overwrought foreboding of the first hour is lifted almost right from the original 1933 movie.

I enjoyed the film immensely, but I'll agree it's too long (and that has probably affected its box-office potential). I think it was crazy for Universal to agree to Jackson's proposed cut, because there is obviously some fat here that can be trimmed. I found the Jimmy-Mr. Hayes storyline superfluous; yes, there's added punch when someone dies on the island, but we're chiefly interested in Kong and Ann Darrow, and Jackson should have simplified the plot to focus solely on them. Much of the ship's voyage footage could be cut, and the scenes with the natives could have been trimmed down to one scene, rather than have Ann kidnapped from the ship.

I wouldn't trim a frame off of those action sequences, though, because I thought they were golden. (...Except maybe the brontosaurus stampede. I thought the Oliphaunt charge in ROTK was done better.) The film may be excessive, but that's a lot better than having a film whose highlights are wanting.

I'm probably in the minority of people who really liked Jack Black's performance. I found him believable, energetic to watch and at home in the 1930s capitalist world. I didn't think he or his character was a cardboard cutout at all.

I think Jackson's KING KONG has more in common with the zombie gorefest films of his early career than the serious poetry of his LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Speaking of which, the prolonged ending of ROTK is admittedly problematic, but I think it has more to do with the editing than anything else (after all, the story and its themes really must end with Frodo sailing off to the Undying Lands).

I don't know why Jackson decided to fade to black so often, but the main issue is maintaining dramatic tension. If, when Frodo woke up from the bed, it was clear that something was still wrong all the way up to the Grey Havens scene, then the audience would have clued in that the film wasn't over yet, and still had one unresolved conflict. But as the ending is currently cut, you don't find out that Frodo isn't well until after the footage of Sam's marriage.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:34am

I liked Jack Black. He really made me hate him, and he's Jack Black (a hard actor to hate). I think he brings a lot to his characters, most of all a sense of humour. You never really know if he takes himself seriously or if he's in on the game too.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:34am

If you didn't like the special effects in this film then maybe you don't like special effects in general, because the CGI in KING KONG is hands-down amongst the most accomplished, ever.

CGI hasn't reached photo-realism yet, but it's damn close in KING KONG (just check out the scenes in 1930s New York, for example).

[Aigoo]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:38am

Bluewizard-

the CGI may have been one of the sole REASONS I enjoyed King Kong. I was THOROUGHLY impressed at what they had acheieved in being able to make 30's, 40's New York just...a seamless transition. And Kong was magnificent. Hard to believe that he was mere graphics.

At times, I could notice where they had gotten careless, but it was something that you would only be able to notice if you were really looking for it.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 1:47am

Don't worry Aigoo, my post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at someone further down the line, who complained about the special effects. If someone is going to complain about CGI, they better complain about a long, loooong list of movies before they get to KONG.

Besides Kong himself (perhaps the first genuinely photo-realistic CGI character created, even better than Gollum), I was completely bowled over by the recreated 1930s New York. The opening sequence, with shots of the traffic on Brooklyn Bridge and the skyscraper construction, is slap-across-the-face realistic, and I was surprised with how liberal the camera angles were in capturing the street scenes.

[bongoboy]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 7:00am

I thought this King Kong was a masterpiece. I was completely blown away and not ashamed to admit I was balling like a baby at the end.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/19/05 at 6:58pm

If you're referring to me, BlueWizard...

I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to. It may indeed be a masterpiece, but I'll never know--and I'll live.

Big, noisy, effects-driven movies don't impress me (see my post on "2001-A Space Odyssey.") Movies made to be "impressive" instead of "enjoyable" don't impress me. Third-time remakes which you're supposed to see because they're big and long and expensive don't impress me. And CGI, with a few exceptions, REALLY doesn't impress me. It usually reminds me of screen savers and bad videogames--while watching the "Spider Man" movies, I had to keep reminding myself I wasn't actually PLAYING the videogame.

This is all personal taste and not meant to be a reflection on anyone who saw and enjoyed the new "King Kong."