Is there any possibility that I, a guy who gave Kong a B+, can say that the film had its flaws and not have people upset that I didn't give it an A?

I'm with you, Kong was a good film with many flaws and cheesy moments, a simple drama in the end, nothing complex truely about it, everything was laid out.

You can give it an F for all I care, if you have a post with interesting thoughts about topics and subjects related to the film being discussed in this thread. The only thing that people should care about is the value that people bring to their posts by discussing their thoughts and opinions about the film.

Everything else is just garbage. I've been guilty about paying too much attention to the garbage too.

But my break in the last week had a great deal to do with the impression that I couldn't engage in discussion about King Kong or Brokeback Mountain or maybe even Munich without having all this extra "fanboy" and misc. garbage thrown at me or other people. When you can't talk, or don't feel free to express yourself on the site, then what's the fucking point of any of this.

And is there any possibility that I can talk about King Kong without being labelled a "lying fanboy" who is pretending to like the film, and that I'm full of it?

You can understand the frustration, then.

PEACE, Mike.

It goes with the territory. If you're going to defend a movie on every single level, tell others they are blind for not seeing the possibilities of Kong being priased and looked at as more than it actually is, and gush over the film with words like "brilliant" or "masterpiece", you need to be a hell of a lot more understanding than you are when anybody comes at you with the F word.

If somebody wants to call me a fanboy because of loving the Fantastic Four as much as I did, they can do it all they want. There is no insult attached to the word, but I'm not going to deny any flaws or try to subtlely build it up as an Oscar film just because it's my #2 favorite film of the year. That's what MANY fanboys on the net are trying to do, which includes the David Polands of the world. Fanboys obviously exist in many circles, not just on internet messageboards.

The movie has flaws. Glaring flaws. You call it "brilliant". That doesn't sound like the comments of anybody that wasn't more than willing to sweep flaws (or talk of flaws) under the table, wouldn't you say?

king kong was brilliant, despite its flaws : )

Kong was brilliant, despite the first 2 hours of the movie.

now you're starting to understand.

NO! cause PJ is GOD in form of a human being and walks on water, so you're kinda the anti-christ

I love you all, you know that.

Just got back from my third viewing (this time with Christine).

She enjoyed it but wondered how Ann's arms weren't broken when Kong tore her from the ropes. She also liked Jack Black (which goes back to us stalking the cast and crew of Kong last winter in NZ).

I've decided that though the 3 hour running time doesn't bother me, in fact, it doesn't feel like 3 hours at all, I would like to know what scenes in particular people would like to see gone.

For me, the stampede is towards the top of the list. It doesn't move the story forward AND takes up a bit of screen time.

That's exactly what I have been thinking all the time as well.

the ONLY thing I wouldntve mind being cut was the short little thing where that kid draws on the posters of that actor.

Moreso, when Kong shook her in triumph, her neck should have broken.

I'm also not a fan of the bloodless bullets. Up until the biplanes, the film suffered from the PG13 bullet syndrome. The native that was shot and killed before he could kill Carl, no blood. Heck, no entry wound. The raptors, no blood, no entry wound. I'm trying to recall if the bugs splattered when shot or simply fell apart...

That lasted what, 30 seconds (from the time he passed Jimmy in the hall).

yeah, i know. i'll have to watch it again, before i can say if there's anything else that wasnt needed, but i dun think so.

Because you people mean so much, I'm going to try and go see Kong again. Gonna let you know what's good, what's bad, and what's for dinner. Oh, that's right. Ape's for dinner.

I said a long time ago that how on Earth could KONG hold Ann in his one hand and not crush her while fighting a T-Rex, er, I mean, V-Rex and why he simply didn't just set her down to avoid killing her?? As for your critique on the non-existent blood issue, it's because they probably would've had to of made it Rated-R if there were blood.. You know how the MPAA when it comes to this stuff..

I still think of this quote out of the blue in the middle of my day and break out laughing - thanx for the lift, MikeQ!

Well, it was far from brilliant and far from crap. It was very entertaining in the middle when they reach skull Island and it was sad when he dies. But the first hour is quite a snoozfest and when they bring him to NY, it is also quite a snoozefest. The middle with all the action almost makes up for the other crap, but ultimately, the film is a modest failure. I would rate it about 6.5 out of ten. The middle is a definite 9/10, but the rest brings it down.

http://www.worldofkj.com/reviews/Schade/kingkong.php

Possibly my most controversial review ever.

First real review...

[font=Century Gothic][align=center]King Kong[/align][/font]
[align=left]Directed by Peter Jackson[/align]
[align=left]MPAA Rating PG-13 (for frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images)[/align]
[align=left]Running Time 185 minutes[/align]

Peter Jackson in the minds of many is a revolutionary director, heir to Spielberg and Lucas, unparalled in his achievements in cinematography and mind-boggling CGI. In the many months before the film's anticipated release, critics knocked Jackson for going back to a remake after spending over 5 years on adaptations. Many cried for fres new material, rather than rehashings of old novels or movies. But the truth of the matter is, Jackson took a bigger risk remaking one of the most memorable American classics than he could have doing any other movie. One only has to look at Kong from the 70's to see the backlash that can occur when one tries to re-do a classic. Most Americans who were familar with the 1933 version weren't calling for a remake, satisfied with an old outdated film that invented the American monster movie.
The difference here is that Peter Jackson was not recreating Kong for the money. (He has plenty of that!) He had grown up idolizing this film as a child, and forever was it his dream to remake the movie that jumpstarted his interest in film making. Many years and many Oscars later, he finally was able to realize his dream and make it a true reality.

....The three hour epic starts us off in depression-era New York. The few rich inhabitants enjoy a lavish lifestyle, while much of the population is too occupied begging for food, or using the nearest park bench as their bed. Ann Darrow, an unsuccessful comedic actress, has just seen her play shut down, which has been scarcely attended. In desperate need for an acting gig, she coincidentally meets director Carl Denham, a cocky stout man who badly is in need of a leading actress for his new movie. Denham, Darrow, screenwriter Jack Driscoll, and many shipmates and assistants board a cramped boat in search of Skull Island. Most of the crew is kept in the dark about their actual destination, while Darrow and Jack believe they are going to film the movie in Singapore.
Although amusing, I have to say the boat ride from New York to Skull Island may run a bit long. It does effectively develop the characters in the film, but many scenes from the trip seem unnecessary. The only truly effective objective the boat ride accomplishes is building the already huge suspense for the adventure and disaster awaiting them on the island.
Skull Island is a cinematic masterpiece in terms of its appearance. The natives are disgustingly savage, and a few gruesome deaths ensue after the group is ambushed. Everything here is done very well, but I did find two things I wasn't exactly thrilled about in these scenes. Jackson uses a blurry slow motion tactic when the natives are attacking, making things look borderline cheesy. Thankfully this camera technique does not last for long. Secondly, during this time and in following events, many crew members and friends are killed. With the exception of one person, barely no remorse is shown for the people who have been brutally killed, extinguishing any kind of humane feelings the viewer has for the victims or those who survived them. Denham in these cases is intended to be an arrogant man who is only worried about his success, so Black's portrayal in these situations works well, even if it is in a cruel manner.
The sacrificing of Darrow to Kong, and the many dinosaur and gut-wrenching bug battles that ensue, are done extremely well. This is where Jackson's skill as a visual director shines. The moment we see Kong, we realize he is as realistic as his human co-stars, and his eyes are key to his emotions. Any kind of sympathy felt towards Kong can only be recognized if the character itself gives a powerful performance, and this is what makes the movie spectacular. Jackson actually makes us relate to and feel sorry for a 25-foot tall gorilla, that can't speak, and who kills anyone for simply coming between him and his affection for Darrow. His almost-human eyes, and facial expressions make him a true character, and not just a CGI prop.
The brontosaurus stampede, and the battle Kong faces against not one, not two, but three Tyrannosaurus Rexes are done magnificantly. The CGI looks great, and the dinosaurs' realism rivals that of Spielberg's. One minor downfall from these scenes are the small dinosaurs (possibly velociraptors) that weave in and out of the stampede. They are entirely unrealistic, and do not offer a sense of danger because of how fake they appear to be. The many other creatures make up for this mistake, and the raptors are also only in the movie for a minute or two. A positive statement that can rarely be said about a film is that even though it has its negative moments, it ensures that they do not last long and do not affect the theme or general feeling about the movie overall. They do not detract at all, but are just recognizable enough that you notice them.
The many battles with giant creepy crawlers that occur in the jungle are extremely stomach churning, but exciting as always. My personal feeling is that these scenes could detract from the movie's success, because they are the only ones that really make this movie graphic, thus possibly keeping the youngsters and females away. A couple of unbelievable moments occur in this time of panic, and because we are so caught up in the action, we partially ignore them.These ideas do hit us after a moment, and could make one say "That was just so rediculous!" Although I appreciated this part of the movie, it actually may have helped to keep them out of the film, seeing that they have little to do with the plot itself.
During this whole time, Darrow has been with Kong, whether it being protected from the dinosaurs, or having time for a late-night snuggle in his furry hands. Their relationship builds after a rocky start, and Kong's feelings toward Darrow are obvious. He is the last of his kind, and has finally found one who can return affection and love. His valiant defense of her shows how caring the big ape really is, and turns him into a misunderstood sweetheart in the eyes of the viewer. Many times Darrow and Kong are found staring into each other's eyes, unable to communicate through words. This may become monotonous to the average moviegoer, but these moments show us how close two people can become, without ever speaking a word to each other. By the time Kong is captured, the two have a unique bond, while Jack Driscoll has now become a wasted love interest for Darrow (the reason why their romance was not even mentioned earlier, because it is incoherent for the time being).
An important thing to note is Brody's performance, which is actually very good. He is a confused man who feels like he has finally found a true love, only to have her torn from him immediately after they meet. He bravely searches for her at Skull Island when no one else is willing to, and eventually "saves" her. After arriving in New York, they presumably do not speak again, and it is evident he is torn over his feelings for Darrow and the fact that he never took advantage of a good situation when he had the chance. She now seems like a lost possibility for him, and his depression is present in the dialogue of his famous plays. Brody was probably the wrong choice for this role, because what Kong really needed was a strong attractive actor to make any kind of romance between the two more plausible, and encourage the audience to root him on during his rescue attempt. As I mentioned earlier though, this does not draw from the film itself, it only shows that it could have been better.
In New York, Kong has become a slave to the public, and is shown off at theaters by Denham, turning in a huge profit for the sly, evil devil he is. One memorable line from Black's mouth that I can recall is "You can trust me! I'm a movie producer!" This was a line that had me chuckling. Back to Kong, he clearly misses the presence of his only friend, and is now subdued and depressed. During the loud confusion and celebration at the theater one evening, Kong breaks free, and searches the streets of New York for Ann, destroying anyone who is in his path. Kong picks up every blonde he sees, inspecting them in hopes of finding Darrow, and after discovering they are not her, tosses them aside like an unwanted Christmas present.
Kong and Darrow are eventually reunited, and the final scenes of the movie are handled wonderfully. His protectiveness over Ann is inspiring, and the scenes atop the Empire State Building made me teary-eyed. The relationship between the two becomes more realistic than the short-lived one of her and Driscoll, or any other that comes to recent mind.
In wrapping up this extremely gargantuan review, I would like to mention the performances of the actors not yet described fully previously. Jack Black is surprisingly impressive in his role; devishly unrelenting and unaffectionate, yet somehow gets others to feel symptahy for him when he needs it. He provides a couple of much-needed comical moments that lighten up the often dreary story. Naomi Watts gives a believable performance that possibly could be Oscar-worthy. Being able to appear so caring towards a giant primate is not an easy job, and she accomplishes this while using words sparingly, an impressive feat. Colin Hanks deserves recognition for looking much better than his debut in Orange County (which also starred Black), and although he is not a required character, he gives his part some meaning. All the crew members and other characters do fine in their roles, and help the trip go along smoothly. Andy Serkis deserves some major attention, for making this Kong the most memorable by far. Kong looks spectacular digitally, and the expressions and body movements provided by Serkis help make the creation of the gorilla one of the best CGI creations of all time.
All in all, King Kong is an extremely recommendable movie. It has its moments of disbelief, bad dialoque, and slow-moving scenes, but all-in-all is a must see experience. It can only be fully revealed in its greatness on the big-screen, and i feel great pity for any fan of cinema who misses this opportunity. Jackson finds success again, cramming both action and emotion into a three hour thrill ride worth every penny. December may not have been the best release for this movie, only because Christmas is not always a good time for the depressive feelings the film can evoke at times.

The bottom line B+

.

Now what the fuck is that supposed to mean?