Jack didn't believe she was dead, if I recall.

Neither did Carl. In one scene he even says that she is alive.

Jeff, did you actually see King Kong?

The visual clue that Jack and Carl and the rest think she is alive is when they find all the remains of the sacrificed villagers with their necklaces, and then find her new necklace and no Anne corpse/remains. It gives fuel to Jack's thinking that she is still alive (he didn't need much!).

The rest all think she's probably dead and say so a few times.

So what you're saying is that people who don't like KK have A.D.D.?

Amoung other things.

It is because the sheer brilliance of said review would



BLOW YOUR MIND

BKB


Anyway why are you getting so worked up?? surely you don't want another positive Konga review to taint your eyes?

Heh.

Yes.

And I hated it. And I do think Carl though she was dead. In fact I'm certain he did.

I don't. I still don't see what the link in your post had to do with french man's review. Apparently not what I have assumed originally, but what then?

Carl opened his mouth and said that she is alive.

Judging by their actions and the way they interacted it seemed to me that they feared and/or believed her to be dead.

It's a review. Personal opinion.

the french man posted his review under header "First real review". bradley thought apparently that tfm disregarded all other reviews, and posted his as "first real review", more important than other.

That's why narcissist link.

Misunderstanding.

Think that's it.

Ahhh...thanks. I thought the narcissist part refered to the review itself.

Are you sure you saw the King Kong made by Peter Jackson, and not the porno King Dong.

No.. What would BLOW my mind would be for you to give this movie anything besides the predicted "A+" I had you pegged doing and THAT'S why you haven't bothered to post your review of it cause I called you on it right down the middle and you know it.. How many times have you seen this movie now???

Is there a problem with giving an A+?

There's a quite a bit of backstory to the discussion between BKB and Ahmed...

Well, believe it or not, I saw King Kong again! I had to see if my eyes, ears, and heart were fooling me the first time. I had to see if my dislike for Peter Jackson was blinding me to this remake's merits.

Well, I have to admit, I can understand why people are responding to the original storyline - it's a classic tale. Unfortunately, it is told in the most juvenile manner in this adaptation. Yow! And the special effects... they are just as bad as I witnessed the first time I saw them - sure Kong's face and movements are good, but his character rarely blends with the background, and anytime he is shown holding Ann and moving - it is quite literally laughable.

So while I can understand tolerating the overblown telling of a great story, I have to believe that one day soon, people will awaken from their trance and see the FX for what they are - shoddy.

Of course, the 3+ hour length is inexcusable, even moreso now that I've tallied 6 hours on this snorilla. The fact that the acting is even mentioned in the same breath with the Academy Awards is boggling - I may not be able to continue believing in Oscar if any of these performance are nominated on January 31st.

IMHO, this is a very poor movie.

1 out of 5. (no change)

This coming from a 99 year old from Planet Xatar...

...trumps an 18 year old from a Hyrule...



(Say hi to Link for me!)

Hey Andaroo, promise I will reply to you, but It is going to be a long post so I may not have the time to write it till New Year.

But just to answer your last points:

1. There is enough Kong destruction in the movie. At the 2 1/2 hour mark, I don´t think we really need much more of that.

2. We do not need Driscol to be a hero. We don´t need him at all. You know what I think It´d have been beautiful? Ann hearing about Kong´s rampage and going to him to try to calm him down. Ann would have had something to do, make a coherent decision (More of that in my next post, hopefully) and again, we don´t need Driscol : proof, his completely marginal and stupid role in the end

3. Ann has seen the skeletons in the island, those who were given to Kong for sacrifice. She has seen him killing sailors. She may have not seen it herself, but she is not that oblivious.

What the hell, I´ll go for it now...

It is true that 1933´s Kong was a one-sided relationship. As I have said before, It´s the beauty and the beast, and the beauty It´s understandably so, scared of the beast, and the beast is a real tragic figure, unable to have his "love" corresponded. What Peter Jackson was trying to tell is something different, a love story between Ann and Kong. But here´s the thing: He does that with exactly the same plot point and story development than the original. And that It when all stops making sense.

In the original, Ann is rescued and is happy to be freed from Kong. Here, she is in love... so why does she leave? And then, she doesn´t want anyone to harm Kong... but how? She is torn inside? But what does she do about it, apart from screaming?

In the original as well, Ann does nothing for Kong while in NY, and understandable so, cause she is scared of him. But here, she is fond of her, but what does she do? Nothing. Not telling anyone it´s dangerous, not trying to convince anyone of anything. Only that, when he comes, ahem, knocking on her door, there she is, looking like a perfume ad. And she goes with him... why? If she really wanted to be with him, to help him, why didn´t she do anything about it? In the original, It made sense. Here, It didn´t. And we are missing that important information about Ann, what she was feeling when Kong was put on the boat, when she knew what they were going to do with him, why did she leave Driscol... again, that wasn´t in the original cause there, she didn´t feel anything for the monster? Here she does, but by following so respectfully all those original plot points, we are losing that.

Of course, another problem is that, by then, the movie is looooong. Too long. So all these aspects can not be explained, or developed. Same with Ann and Driscol. You can tell me that he let her go because she was thinking of Kong (What? That´s what you get for saving her? ) but that is you filling the plotholes for Jackson. Again, that is not explained cause It wasn´t explained in the original, either. You can not tell a completely different thing using exactly the same story (only overlong). Also, Driscol didn´t know Ann wasn´t performing with Kong? Even if they were a few blocks away? Are you seriously saying that Driscol knew Ann couldn´t get over Kong? (And, by the way, having a character in a play tell the whole feelings of another character, who is the writer of such play, is not brilliant screewriting: is cheap exposition. Clumsy as hell. Just like the "Heart of darkness" moment. I didnt know the movie could get so obvious)

So, all this relationships could have been developed if the movie wasn´t unnecessarily long. And that is, IMO, because of the first hour, in which only a few scenes are really needed. Thing is, the first hour could have been done in 20 minutes and nothing significant would have been lost for the rest of the movie. That is not a sign of great filmmaking.

It could also have more time to develop Ann and her feelings in the end, if every action scene didn´t run longer than three times what they should. Example: Jimmy shooting the bugs that are attacking Driscol. There was a similary goofy scene in "True lies", when Tom Arnold was hidden behind a lampost that protected him from enemy bullets. But that was funny, cause It lasted for 30 seconds and It was a comedy. Here, It seems to last for five minutes, It doesn´t make sense and It´s not funny. It´s just... too much of nothing. Like many things in the movie

So, just to wrap things up:

- Telling the same story of the original but with different character development... but also following all the original´s plot points. A big mistake, IMO, reminded me of the whole Vanilla Sky/Open your eyes situation. You can not use the same plot points if want you really want to tell is completely different.

- Telling the same story was twice as long, failing to develop one single charcater apart from Kong and Ann.

- Overlong action sequences that do not add up to the story and, as the rest of the film, could have been told in half the time.

Sorry if I sound too harsh on the film. The more I think about it, the more I hated it. Probably cause I saw some brilliance in it, cause I think It could have been amazing, but... Of course, this is just my opinion, and I am just envious of all of you guys who actually enjoyed the film that much. I wish I could say the same thing.

Yeah, the movie is simply NOT "A+" material and the only reason folks are giving this an "A+" is because Peter Jackson made it who just happened to be responsible for the success of the LOTR films and the folks who gave it this grade are blinded by the overhype and their love for anything Jackson does.. 6 months from now, this movie will be a blip on the radar and a 100 Million in 12 days is downright embarrassing for a film like this that garnered this much hype and so much, that Universal Execs called in sick or made up that bogus excuse that theirn on Vacation because their humiliated that Disney's NARNIA is clobbering it....

I don't get it. Isn't everyone entitled to his own opinion? And since when does boxoffice=quality? Anyway, its boxoffice isn't that bad, it'll make its money back easily.

People aren't loving this because of Peter Jackson, I hated the LORD OF THE RINGS movies and loved KING KONG. I gave it a 9/10 (A-). So your logic is stupid and you're an idiot

dar, I will respond in PM.