Just a few thoughts (most of them already posted in a completely different thread):

- It's WAY too long (I could have easely cut an hour) - the original is 100 minutes long, and besides, if they're going to make a (much) longer film at least don't cut it immediately to New York when they capture Kong, just like in the original.. I don't know...

- Naomi Watts is great as usual and her scenes with Kong are really good and even emotional at times, which is incredible, considering she was interacting "alone" most of the time, I guess..

- Jackson's direction is almost impecable... almost.. I was so annoyed with THAT camera movement..

- The effects are some of the best I've seen, there are alot of breathtaking sequences -even if some tend to run a little too long, and it's technically perfect, or almost perfect - which leads to point #5;

- James Newton Howard has done much better than this - he should have won last year with The Village. The score is decent and adequate but easely forgettable - maybe because Howard didn't have too much time to work on it, but still - a Golden Globe nom?

- Did I say it was way too long?

- Somewhat decent performances from the rest of the cast, but ironically one of the best supporting performances (Jamie Bell) should have been left out on the cutting floor, because the entire subplot envolving that character leads to nowhere, except when it comes in handy (i.e., seeing land and killing bugs)... And did he survive? 'Cause I don't even remember.. and I actually love the actor since he had that breakthrough role 5 years ago..


Having said all this, I liked it - apart from the fact that it was too long and other minor quibbles..

But it really needs a "shorter version" and not an extended one.. in that case, I'm ready to buy the dvd, because other than the running time problem, it's almost perfect...


a 7/10

Then please grace us with a review...

Also, if you look at the poll results, THIS MOVIE HAS 40 A'S. 40! HOLY SHIT!

I am willing to wager that I hated the LOTR movies more than anyone on the face of this Earth... I still to this day have nightmares of being forced to watch the movies and will never forgive my wife for dragging me to the theater.

However, I liked Kong and would give it an A-. It's not perfect, but it was a fun movie. Much, much, much better than those LOTR movies.

For about an hour and a half, the film is excellent. Really a stand-out classic for those 90 minutes. But then you have another 90 minutes that really don't sit well with me. Like Loyal, I thought the slo-mo stuff was bad. Horrible. The first hour almost kills the rest of the film (but the action and adventure that follows redeems the film from being a wreck). For the remaining two hours, there's a few slow spots, and when the slow spots arrive, it's like the entire movie comes to a screeching halt.

But, the special FX, the action, the adventure. It's all incredible once it kicks in. The acting is pretty good for the most part, but no one stood out. I don't think Naomi Watts is particularily Oscar-worthy for wearing a confused stare for an hour, and a stare full of pity for another hour. I think she's great, but great rarely means Oscar-worthy. Has to be a slow year for great to equal Oscar. I actually liked Jack Black in the movie. I was willing to believe that he could do a good job in Kong, and he did. Surprising, since the choice was pretty much the same as putting Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller in the same role. Don't know how the others would fare, but Black did good.

I would give the other 90 minutes a solid A, but I can't let it slip that an hour passes by and mini-development for characters is crammed in, but we don't learn anything substantial about anyone. There are three leads (four, if you include Kong), and none are really explored enough. Since the film clocks in at three hours, I think there should have been part of the time devoted to more development. I'll give this a generous B+. It's still 60-90 minutes that end up being slow. I can't give an A just for the other 90 or so minutes of awesomeness. Realistically, it's a B, but to avoid getting into a fist-fight, I'll go with my original B+.

Very nearly flawless. Very. In fact, the only thing I can point out was the phenomenal score was not phenomenal enough. Easily the best 'pure' American, 2005 film of the year (2nd of 2005 behind only a 2004 Korean film.)


I really loved this movie.


PS, the slow-mo was fantastic, luzrs.

In due time..Ahmed The Magnificent is struggling with a grade..having expected an excellent movie, it confounded The Black Steel by being absolutely fucking brilliant! It was like the best bag of sweets ever

I liked the Kong and Ann slow-mo, for example Bye Bye Blackbird sequence.

But the typewriter scene and native attack. No no no.

The slo-mo was used to great great great effect in the frozen pond scene, not so much the others.

The normal slo-mo worked great, it's the overexposed Ridley Scott style that didn't.

Speaking of Bye Bye Blackbird, which version was shown in the film?

I agree that some of the slow-motion shots were cheesy (same can be said about the LotR movies; I don't understand Jackson 's obsession with those... what is he trying to accomplish?).

I think you're trying to defend something that cannot be defended. That part was silly as hell, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as those Kong haters would have you think.

I wouldn't call myself a hater, but that was just inexcusable sloppy filmmaking. When something is so easy to do right, why do it wrong?

I don't know, and it certainly isn't worth talking about any more. I agree it is a flaw, an example of stupid filmmaking, but it is completely meaningless when you take the whole movie into perspective.

Oh come on!! Your struggling with the grade cause you know I called you out on it in predicting you'd give it an "A+" and I'm right, especially after you just said it was Brilliant.. Just get it over with and give it an "A+" so I can be proven right..

Exactly what I think too.

Also, he will be left holding the bag when the hype wears off in a couple of months and everyone sees it for the mismade movie it is. Once the DVD comes out and even the most ardent fan finds it hard to put it in the player more than once (except as a cure for insomnia) - all those A+'s are goin' look awful silly...

You know?? I find truth in this statement and best of all, the 1st hour or so will be worth fast forwarding through all the nonsense.. I'm also sort of sorry I didn't wait 6 months or so to post my Poll Question on which film had the better FX?? KONG or JURASSIC PARK?? Cause right now, it was pretty obvious that KONG was fresh on every Jackson lover's mind and was a given to dominate that Poll, but when the smoke clears and the dust settles, JURASSIC PARK still had the more realistic FX that was a blend of both Animatronics and CGI that made it seem more real and actually there VS 100% Pure CGI in KONG that at times, looked photoshopped in the movie..

another truly masterpiece from Peter Jackson. King Kong is one of my top 3 favorite movie of this year. well although the first hour is abit boring, but nevertheless the next 2 hours is fantastically amazing. it almost hold my breath for every minute. the movie totally glued me to my seat. i don't want to put my eyes away from the screen before the movie ends. the SFX was top notch. two way thumbs up for WETA. every cast of the movie also performing their best. i gave King Kong an absolute A+

A good C, just like most of the other Stephen Sommers movies.

interesting POV > though I think Naomi Watts' performance rasied it alittle higher than just a standard action picture.

****************

seeing GM post here, I was thinking where is andaroo???

Okay, I'll bite - What's the connection between King Kong and Stephen Sommers...

I am guessing that he is comparing it to movies like the Mummy.