Dr. DVD

So, we've got a movie getting good reviews from a bunch of critics everyone hates. I wonder how the New Yorker will view this movie, considering the role the Big Apple plays in the flick?

DodgingCars

14 for 14 at rotten tomatoes:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/

Joe Molotov

It says it's 14 to 1, but there's no sign of the lone rotten review.

DodgingCars

They ,ust have just updated. It lists the Slant magazine review as negative.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/fi...ew.asp?ID=1958

RichC2

Slant magazine is overbearingly negative toward most movies, I enjoy reading them on occasion, but never, ever follow them.

That said, they're positive on some aspects of the movie, but agree that it's too long. This tends to be pretty common with them, whereas some people still give a 3 out of 4 to overlong movies because they're "well made", Slant rates off how entertained they were, which is good in its own right, but they're a bit too strict.

raven56706

"Peter Jackson's King Kong is the most thrilling, soulful monster picture ever made. At last, it can be said without irony -- I laughed, I cried."
-- Jami Bernard, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

"This is spectacle filmmaking at its best, where a director is in tune with the story's underlying emotions and his own boyish love for adventure fantasy."
-- Kirk Honeycutt, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER

"King Kong will further Jackson's reputation as the leading visionary among fantasy filmmakers and it restores the Empire State Building to the stately glory of its past."
-- Jack Mathews, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

"What's up on screen is rarely short of staggering."
-- Todd McCarthy, VARIETY

"The movie seals Jackson's reputation: He's the most gifted big-picture artist working today, a master of epics from a human-eye view who excels at employing 21st-century technological wizardry to suit the needs of ageless, personal storytelling."
-- Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

RichC2

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...on=6.0.12.1212

^^ Peter Travers' 4-Star review. Though it sounds more like a 3.5 star review

bdshort

Ebert and Roeper give it two thumbs way up. You can listen to their review on the iTunes Podcast.

Ebert's written review gives it 4 stars and calls it one of the best films of the year.

Dr. DVD

Waits for the "Ebert has lost it " comment.

LorenzoL

Here is a link to the Yahoo site for the clips of King Kong. Be warned that the resolution of the clips sucks.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id...212&cf=trailer

scott shelton

I think complaining about the length is justified. I personally don't feel there's anything in the film that warrants a running time that extravagant. IMO, it's overkill.

And I feel most critics are losing their shit over this movie because they don't want to be left out. I'm sure they love it, but there's an element to these reviews that scream "bandwagon."

RichC2

Roeper seemed to have a few issues with the movie (too many chases, too long) but seemed to thoroughly enjoy the movie. Ebert was probably happy to wipe the memory of the '76 version out of his mind.

fmian

I wonder if I'm starting to set my expectations for this movie too high? I really don't want to be dissapointed. I haven't seen anything bad from Peter Jackson apart from (IMO) Meet the Feebles. I've loved everything else he's made bar Forgotten Silver (haven't seen it).

NatrlBornThrllr

Potential spoilers...

While I agree that a few scenes went on for a bit longer than they should have, I don't think any entire scenes should have been left on the cutting-room floor. Personally, I love the 45-minute wait to see Kong. Why do viewers feel that they need immediate gratification when they go see a movie? It's as if they sit down, watch the opening credits, then scream out, "how come there hasn't been a car chase yet? And what, does nobody's gun work? Seriously, what is this shit...I don't care about the detective's family or job history, let's blow something up already."

Personally, I think the wait makes the pay-off even greater. Without that 45 minutes or so of character development, we wouldn't give two shits about Kong's relationship with Anne. The stampede scene wouldn't be nearly exhillarating, because really, who cares if that guy Jeff, er...James? Joey...Jack, Jack! Who cares if that guy Jack gets stomped on? After all, he's only had two minutes of screentime. I won't miss him.

If you want to evoke sincere emotions from your viewers...if you want them to care for your characters, then it's an absolute necessity that you take the time to build those characters into something worth caring about, worth becoming emotional about. I chuckle when I hear critics say that the last two hours were great, but that the first hour was a bit slow. In all likelihood, without that "slow" first hour, the two hours that follow would be nowhere near as captivating.

After watching King Kong, I stood with the rest of the audience in applause. I was exhausted...having been taken through a roller-coaster of emotions. Fear, excitement, sorrow, laughter, compassion, awe. Without that first hour of character development, I'm left with laughter and awe...and all depth is gone. I don't fear for characters I don't know. I have no compassion for a character that's a stranger to me. I don't sympathize with the sorrow in the eyes of a character I haven't even been introduced to.

I know that I'm only speaking for mysef here...but without the first hour, the last two hours lose a lot of their impact. Any movie that can leave me as drained as this one did obviously got it's formula right.

-JP

scott shelton

That's simplifying things a bit too much.

It's not action that needs to be occurring right off the bat, but gripping drama. IMO, it takes KONG a while to even reach a fundamental point of viewer engagement.

Also, the "slow" first hour screws with the film's tempo, as once the story hits Skull Island, the film goes bonkers, leaving the viewer dizzy.

Again, IMO, Jackson is way too indulgent with this film, and the generosity of the artistic situation he had with KONG really went to his head.

I'm glad you could find something of merit in it.

NatrlBornThrllr

Oh, well then we just flat out disagree, because I think there's plenty going on in the first act. It may not be as gripping as the film's second and third acts, but that's the norm...a movie needs to start at a familiar place and build to a climax, not vice versa. This movie does just that. There are things happening...Anne loses her job, joins up with a man who is on the run from his employers and the law, and so forth. Sure, the drama in the first act may not be "love affair with a huge ape on top of the empire state building" gripping...but it's not supposed to be. We're supposed to see their normal lives first, to relate to those normal lives, so that when they run across dinosaurs and homicidal natives, we can sense being on the edge of severe loss. Without that first act in place to familiarize the viewers with the characters and their lives, the second and third acts lose a bit of their impact. At least, that's how I view it.

That's kind of the point, right? That things unexpectedly go haywire once they land on this crazy island inhabited by dinosaurs, two-story gorillas, and giant spiders? That their once "normal" lives are suddenly thrown into a dizzying disarray? I walked away from this movie with a deep appreciation for the fact that it was able to leave me dizzy. That told me that it moved me in a way that most films could only hope to.

Perhaps we're just searching for different things in our respective moviegoing experiences.

-JP

scott shelton

Really? Personally, I want character introductions and first acts to burn into my brain and make impressions. It can be done without action sequences. IMO, Jackson is too indulgent with the characters. The audience is way ahead of him by the Skull Island arrival.

There are certainly more economical ways of telling this story. In fact, it's already been done.


The point? Well, yes and no. Sure, the Skull island material is supposed to be mysterious and threatening, but Jackson's aesthetic is to pummel instead of invite the viewer in on the wonderment. The camerawork gets to be too much (all that step-printing makes the film look like a "Sci-Fi Original"), and Jackson's filmmaking rhythms start to fail him. He piles on layers of chaos, trying desperately to pay off too many characters (the Jamie Bell stuff was needless), and to make sure he's giving the audience their money's worth. For me, it induced a headache, not this sense of awe you speak of.

RichC2

Gotta love variance in opinion.

It's great when both a negative opinion and positive opinion get you amped for a movie. The "bombast" as it may be, is exactly what I'm expecting of the flick, generally when things quickly fall apart and go to hell, there's little time for wonderment - realistic in a way. But then again, watch me judge differently when I do get around to seeing it.

animalmystic

Can anybody confirm what trailers will be attached with this movie, here is what I am hearing so far:

X3
MI-3
Miami Vice
Poseidon
The Da Vinci Code

Can't get a definite confirmation on Miami Vice though, must MI-3 and X3 sounds definite.

NatrlBornThrllr

Fair enough...we just had different reactions to the same material. I sincerely wish, for your sake, you would've had the same reaction that I did (along with seemingly every member of the audience I saw it with). It was amazing. Maybe next time. Thanks for the discussion.

-JP

raven56706

Does anyone think this movie might have potential for a Best Picture nod?

Mr. Cinema

Absolutely. I have it getting 1 of the 5 slots.

The movie is getting great buzz and should be a big box office success. Plus, Jackson is red hot. This is the only blockbuster that has any chance.

NatrlBornThrllr

Yeah, if Fellowship got 13 nominations as the first film out of the gate (before Jackson was a powerhouse in Hollywood), this movie has as good a chance as any.

-JP

riley_dude

They also said that the weak link was Jack Black with his eyebrow acting and a couple of scenes were not meant to be funny and people laughed at him.

NatrlBornThrllr

I'd agree with that. I think he botched his delivery of the film's final line.

-JP