I'm comparing it to other mindless adventure movies with cheesy effects. Stephen Sommers (The Mummy 1+2, Deep Rising) comes to mind, since Jackson's King Kong looks and feels alot like his movies. Adrien Brody is the new Treat Williams.

I agree with this here as I before and after, I thought that was a pretty ????? casting decision.

Also, he really didn't have alot to do in the 3rd act as Kong does everything > so his bigest part turned out to be the jungle scenes in the 2nd part.

How many times does the action hero not even have anything to do in the 3rd act.

King Kong is not a movie that contains an action hero, or more specifically, it does not revolve around an action hero. Jack is just guy smitten over a girl, who works up enough courage to try to save her. Once the scene shifts to New York everyone rightfully takes a back seat to the two real stars of the film; Ann and Kong.

And the comparisons to Stephen Sommers flicks is quite amusing, seeing as Jackson could shit out better films than that guy. The storytelling, acting and visual effects in King Kong are infinitely superior to similar elements in crap like The Mummy or Van Helsing. This is a fact and is not debateable. Please.

The fact that BennyBlanco was paid by Peter Jackson is not debatable.

Here's something I cannot comprehend for a second. Almost every review I read states that the first hour ranges from a little long to just plain boring. But the grade is still A or even A+. How?! Even Leonard Maltin said that the film is a little too long, but it's one of his favorite movies of the year. How can anyone give this film an A+ with a good heart, while saying that the first hour is too long or a little boring? We are not talking ten or twenty minutes. We're talking about a THIRD of the movie. 33%. I know no one is saying it was worthless, but when you say something is too long or boring, that usually means the grade is going to be effected. At least for me it was. I still feel bad giving this a B+, when the first hour should at least give it a B or even a B-. If we're only going to grade the parts of movies that we like, I'll give Stealth an A- (instead of the original C), and I'll give Coach Carter an A (instead of a C+).

That's because it's "cool" to give a Peter Jackson movie a good rating these days, no matter how non-sensical or contradicting it might be.

I see what you're saying. In King Kong's case, I think that the final 2/3 of the movie are so rousing and emotional that many simply forget and or forgive any possible problems they had with the first third. When someone finds a movie that truly moves them, it's easier to give it a free pass in other areas.

You've come late to the party. A few others have already subscribed to this tired and ridiculous notion in this very thread. There's no conspiracy folks! Peter Jackson has just made some really good movies over the past few years. Get over it.

The first hour was perfect. And even if you did find it slow, it's perfectly normal for the latter two hours to make up for a film. Many films *start* slow, but still end up being amazing...it's hardly a new thing.

Great post. But I think the boring stuff was more like 45%.

But, there's a difference between "starting slow" and "being too long". I find it to be the latter, while you believe it's the former. That's fine, we're all different.

Nah, I found it to be perfect. I'm just saying, if a film does start slow, that doesnt mean it cant be a solid A film...it's like my mom's car. Thing can't accelerate worth a damn, (especially with the air on), but once youre going 45, 50, 60 MPHs, its a wonderful ride and I've no problems with getting where I'm going efficiently - overall, a solid A drive. As for a first act that is "too long", I dunno. Like I said, I didn't have that problem, but if you thought the first hour should have been cut by half then I guess you have a point...that's a pretty big problem. Still, if the last two hours is the best two hours of cinema you viewed in the year, maybe it WOULD overcome such an issue.

I like the one critic who critiqued some of the critics for their comments on the first act being "slow". You need character development, folks. Jackson could have just gone with the original and jumped right into this story without any backstory whatsoever for the characters, but he chose to flesh it out, and in the end, I felt the whole movie was better for it; it actually had an emotional impact for me because I understood the characters. Ann, in particular, becomes the one of the deepest, saddest girls I have seen in film, instead of just a screaming "damsel in distress". Denham perfectly exemplifies a greedy, despicable "Hollywood" director. Even Jimmy, who could have just been an annoying little ship mate, becomes a young man struggling to define himself and what "bravery" truly is. Not to mention the character is reading The Heart of Darkness, which is wonderfully used to add depth and foreshadow in my opinion.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how much I loved this film. I enjoyed all 3 hours, and did not find the first act to be slow or simply a chunk to "cut out". Like I said in my review, I actually liked a lot of the scenes in New York just as much, if not moreso, than the one's on the island.

PEACE, Mike.

Wow is all I can say. This movie blew me away. Myself being a somewhat LOTR hater, I really wasn't expecting much from Kong, boy was I surprised. Going in I knew it was over 3 hours and I knew I should have grabbed my ass cushion. ROTK was over 3 hr and it felt like it. Kong was over 3 hr and it flew by. I simply loved everything about this movie but the CGI action sequences are what I must comment on. WETA is the best, hands down. Kong, old NYC, Skull Island are all the best CGI I have ever seen. The battle with the T-Rex's was jaw-dropping as was seeing Kong destroy the theatre in NYC going after Brody. I first hour was a bit slow but was essential to develop these characters. Once they arrived at Skull Island the action was non-stop and amazing.

Kong is easily the best movie of the year I have seen and ranks up there with the best of all time. I wish I would have seen this opening day.

A+

What would've been the exact difference?

Hear, hear!

I give this a B+. It was fantastic. The special effects were awesome. It was action packed, emotionally resonant and even humorous at times. While I loved the first and last hour, the second lagged slightly. I felt there was a bit too much action which could have been cut down to help limit the running time. Don't get me wrong, I loved all the action. It was just that the action scenes went on for a little longer than I thought they should have. Anyway, it was an immensely enjoyable experience and I can't wait to see it again.

RE: character development. I am all for character development.

The problem with the first hour of the film (and the rest of the movie, for that matter) expect for Ann and Kong, is that the character development didn´t work. Take for example the Jimmy storyline, that didn´t go anywhere. Yes, there was an attempt to flesh out that character, and others. But the thing is, It didn´t work.

Please can anyone tell me if they felt anything for the dead characters, even for the ones who were at risk? I didn´t. I couldn´t care less partly cause their "character development" was poorly scripted. And that for the ones that had a reason to be there. Others didn´t: Adrien Brody´s character could have been completely cut from the screenplay without losing anything important in the story. What was his relevance in the plot? Have a cheesy love subplot that didn´t go anywhere? (Not to mention that ridiculous moment in which he gets rid of the police so he can go to the top of the building. For what?Apparently, to be just in time for the final embrace. Yes, a really necessary character)

Even the character that was interesting, and whose interaction with Kong worked, Anne, didn´t work that much. Did we really need to know she liked the screenwriter beforehand, or that she didn´t have a penny? How did that help expand the themes of the movie, or was pertinent in any way? The problem with character development is that you have to choose the important things you want to tell about a certain person, aspects that are related to the story you are telling. That didn´t seem to be the case here.

In the end, It didn´t matter much. I even stopped caring about Ann, because Jackson seemed to be doing so, too. In its truly overlong fight with the 3 T-rex´s sequence (in fact, all action sequences in this movie are overlong), we don´t see as someone in danger we should be scared for. In my screening, people were actually laughing at those moments, at how over the top everything was. I think there were tent imes in which Ann was about to die, and that somehow made me see the scene for what It was: a puppeteer playing with his muppets, entertaining with risk after risk to the point of leaving me sedated to any risk at all. I was supposed to feel something for someone who was the equivalent of a horror movie charcter going into the wrong room with the killer waiting for him, twenty times in five minutes. Sometimes, less is more.

And I don´t even want to get into the chessy slow-mo shots and the crappy zoom-video-clipy moments with the natives in the Island... Or the fact that the tragedy of the original story is lost here: The beast loves the beauty, but she can´t love him back. Right? But here, at some point, the relationship between beauty and beast is such a love story, that when she looked dreamily in its eyes, I started thinking she was considering if that sweet ape would fit in her apartment, or how she could introduce him to her parents. Urg.

So yeah, I didn´t like the film.

Finally found the quote I was trying to find that I like in regards to summing up nicely the improvement in the relationship between Kong and Ann. From Roger Ebert:

The scene is crucial because it removes the element of creepiness in the gorilla/girl relationship in the two earlier "Kongs" (1933 and 1976), creating a wordless bond that allows her to trust him. When Jack Driscoll climbs the mountain to rescue her, he finds her comfortably nestled in Kong's big palm. Ann and Kong in this movie will be threatened by dinosaurs, man-eating worms, giant bats, loathsome insects, spiders, machineguns and the Army Air Corps, and could fall to their death into chasms on Skull Island or from the Empire State Building. But Ann will be as safe as Kong can make her, and he will protect her even from her own species.

The movie more or less faithfully follows the outlines of the original film, but this fundamental adjustment in the relationship between the beauty and the beast gives it heart, a quality the earlier film was lacking. Yes, Kong in 1933 cares for his captive, but she doesn't care so much for him. Kong was always misunderstood, but in the 2005 film, there is someone who knows it.

PEACE, Mike.

When you read this in another 10 years, after seeing another thousand movies, you will look back and laugh...

Go back to planet Xatar and leave us alone!

I'll tell you why as only BKB does BEST and to the point: The reason critics and internet fans are so generous with the rating grade of this movie is because it was made by Peter Jackson who successfully made the LOTR Trilogy and since Jackson'a name is attached to KING KONG as the Maker of the film, critics and internet fans atuomatically thought that if Jackson did this, it's CRITIC PROOF no matter how many flaws were in this movie(and there were ALOT) that they simply gave him a PASS on this movie and were in denial of the fact that deep down, they didn't want to believe that this movie just wasn't as PERFECT as it's being made out to be.. It's not.. Once again, this falls into the catagory of how my review was by simply saying that while the movie is merely GOOD, it's not GREAT by a Goddamn longshot and it deserves the grade it gets if it has this many negative aspects to it.. I absolutely refused to give this movie an "A+" or even an"A" or close to it and be blinded by doing so jujst because Peter Jackson is attached to it.. KING KONG is what it is and that's a "C+" movie at BEST..

Mike, I'm not trying to be mean when I say this, but considering you have a Frodo Avatar, I think that Jackson could make the worst movie of the decade and you'll still praise the hell out of it blindly because your a tremendous fan of Peter Jackson no matter what he does and because of that, he could make a movie with the longest running time in the world, and in your mind, his films are CRITIC PROOF and you'll blindly praise it and it's not just you, but alot of LOTR/Jackson fans that do this..

There is no proof that Kong is a great movie. There is no proof Kong is a bad movie. The only proof we have is if we see it with our own 2 eyes and judge it for ourselves. And so far... most peoples OPINIONS on the film have been... it's great... despite what the general BKB public would like you to believe

I'm not going to give a film a grade that I don't think it deserves. The problem with you and the other posters who are not fans of Peter Jackson is that you think everything is a conspiracy; that the countless number of critics and moviegoers who give this a good grade are simply "lying". It's ridiculous. I haven't once criticized your opinion whatsoever, so stop doing so with mine. They are opinions, BKB, and I very much enjoyed King Kong, so you're going to have to get over it. I have provided a review and several posts explaining why I loved it, and I think I've done so in a very detailed fashion that clearly represents my opinion. I also feel like I've stayed away from hyperbole and overexaggeration pretty well, unlike some critics, even though sometimes I just want express at the top of my lungs how much I liked this film or ANY film in history that I've liked very much.

As long as you have your own opinion BKB, it shouldn't matter exactly what other people think. Grasping and declaring all positive reviews as "lying" because you don't like the positive reception just makes you look biased and silly.

PEACE, Mike.