King Kong - view/thoughts - WOW
 

King Kong (2005) - 5/5

Absoloutely brilliant. :D
Even though you have to wait more than an hour for Kong to appear, its' more than worth the wait, the film never gets boring - even though it may be too long (does that make sense?) - and delivers some stunning set pieces, starting with the attack by the hostile natives of Skull Island and continuing with a dinosaur rampage. I also liked seeing Kong taking on dinosaurs (when he does appear, he is a true wonder to behold) and a terrifying tribute to the lost Spider Pit sequence from the 1933 original.
Andy Serkis really brings Kong to life IMO, I felt really sorry for him :(
He does a fine job of potraying a tortured soul, a la the Beast in Beauty and The Beast, or Gollum in LOTR, wonderfully.
Naomi Watts is appealing and I liked the humor in the film brought by Jack Black's movie producer, and Lumpy the Cook (Andy Serkis again), and the references/in-jokes.
Fantastic movie :D

the action was WAYYYY too cartoony. Everything was so improbable like in a Looney Tunes cartoon, i.e. falling then bouncing off a ledge then catching a vine, falling off the vine, falling onto another vine, etc. etc.

The result is ACtion OVERLOAD and I found it all to be exhausting. I liken it to being stuck at the point just before orgasm.... only for two hours straight. It's all so unnecessary.

The saving grace of the movie was Naomi Watts. Brilliant actress and her scenes with Kong were very heartwarming.

3.5/5

Fair enough :) That aspect of the action didnt get to me, its' not supposed to be that "realistic" IMO, it is a fantasy after all :)

Hello, search.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=447642
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=442978

amen! like you think this movie wouldn't be discussed to death by now?

I've just heard of this. When is it coming out? I 'll bet it'll bomb.

I don't think it'll bomb, but it'll probably JUST break even (gross-wise) in the domestic box office (so about a $215m or so) and be considered a "big disappointment" just the same.

I mean, it's Peter Jackson, so I know it'll be entertaining as hell and have an emotional hook. I doubt it'll pick up a whole lot of Academy Awards but it'll probably clean up at the Golden Globes, those Hollywood Foreign Press guys love giant apes.

Hey, I bet the DVD of this will be a real kicker though, it might be out in March from what I hear! I also think that worldwide Kong will make back its budget in its first week and a half but because it doesn't perform in America, be considered a "big disappointment" as well. Afterall, who can label any movie that makes a lot of money from the overseas market a legit hit. Certainly not the mega-flop Troy which only netted $389 million worldwide, or Last Samurai, which only managed close to $400 million.

Give the guy a break, he's from England ;)

I agree with Grimm_tales the movie was fantastic, the best film of the year.

meh. movie was boring. about an hour to long. way to cheesy. tried to hard to humanize kong and establish a connection between him and ann. cgi was nice except for the dinosaur stampede, which was horrible. overall, probably worth a one time viewing but nothing special.

It's no Congo, that's for sure. ;)

-JP

boring?, Chessy? no way It succeeded big time in the realationship between kong and ann. excellent job making you care about Kong.

meh, i think it tried to hard. i mean they went ice skating for christs sake. that wasn't cheesy?

wow, i sure got pwned, lol.

Congo is a better movie than King Kong but both aren't no Dunston Checks In.

Yes, but <i>Dunston Checks In</i> is no <i>MVP: Most Valuable Primate</i>.

<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000053GTB.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg">

I genuinely wish that King Kong's tagline was, "He's driving everyone bananas!" That would have been so awesome.

Why is this thread still open?

And everyone knows that "Ed" is the superior anthropomorphic primate movie.
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5458/rvw144uv.jpg

Yeah, but none of those movies are as good as the original Planet of the Apes.

...wait, I think I messed up.

-JP

I agree, I cared about Kong and Naomi Watts probably deserves an Oscar for her role - especially since most of the time she's acting with something that isnt really there.

She had Andy Serkis acting opposite her most of the time. The moments where she was on her own consisted mostly of the scenes where Kong was carrying her around and whatnot...and those were mainly just her screaming and being terrified. She was good, no doubt, but I don't think she deserves an Oscar, especially not in a year with performances like the ones Felicity Huffman and Reese Witherspoon gave.

-JP

Did Serkis do ALL the motion capture? I thought he just did some of the stuff where Kong was moving around/beating his chest or doing monkey stuff :D I really liked the heart in his performance though.
Kong has quite a bit in common with the Beast in Beauty and the Beast IMO, in the way that even the most "beastly" characters have warm and human qualities to them.

Serkis was responsible for the human characteristics seen in Kong throughout. Well, he and Peter Jackson, I suppose.

-JP

Serkis was responsible for the polio vaccine and the Atkins diet.