There is room for concern when one faces the prospect of watching a 3 hours and 7 minutes film about an overgrown monkey. Yes, haha, it’s an easy joke, but seriously, even fanboys like me have to leave a little room for concern, especially since it’s a remake of a 72-year-old black and white film, which I’ve personally never seen, but which has King Kong look more like a stop-motion novelty, a relic from a long gone past, than a movie monster icon.
Add to that the fragile legacy of having done something as staggering as The Lord of the Rings, it is hard to not be a little concerned that the facade would crack and show the real face of the Peter Jackson underneath, wallowing in his own newfound idolism, churning out Warner-length vanity pieces; remakes of his favorite films… Hmm.
Thankfully, Kong marks the return of the king (haha).
Getting Your Moneys Worth
Rikke and I arrived early at Imperial and stocked up on as much candy, Coke and popcorn as we could carry. We hunkered down at a table near our entrance, from which we could hear the distant rumbles of Kong’s fight for his life in the final act of the show before ours.
We were treated, about a dozen times or so, to the Narnia PR tape (sans audio), which reminded me, that while I am looking forward to it, it feels like little more than a stepping stone between the Lord of the Rings and an eventual release of The Hobbit, complete with Richard Taylor and New Zealand backdrops (both of which I will never tire from).
We eventually boarded the cinema; and then something happened, which I hadn’t expected. After we had sat through all the commercials (Stimorol can roll up and die), an employee at the cinema walked on-stage and welcomed us to Imperial, the best cinema in the north, spoke briefly about King Kong and then — and this is the kicker — let us know, that they would be on-call if they were needed.
Having been to a couple of films where punks pretty much ruined the experience for me (okay, so there’s not a whole lot to ruin in Doom), this was very comforting indeed, and a sign, that my money had been well-spent.
A New Era
I’m not a complex guy when it comes to movies. I could care less about the vast majority of the latest indie flics, emo-pics and quirky fringe-of-society human stories (right up until I see one of course, after which I’m usually totally sold). This city wasn’t built on rock n’ roll; it was built on Star Wars, Indy, Time travelling Deloreans and a T800 with an affinity for Harleys.
I was born and bred by spectacle cinema.
Which is one of the reasons why I love Spielbergs movies (though The Terminal was perhaps not his finest hour). In my eyes he’s still one of the greatest directors in the world, though there is one period in particular which holds a special place in my heart.
Running from 1975, with the release of Jaws to 1982 with the release of E.T., in which everything he touched — with the exception of 1941 of course — turned to magic, seemingly without any discernible effort (not that I’d know; I was born in 1978 after all). Along with Star Wars, this heralded the era of the blockbusters. Large, fly-by-your pants, effects-ridden tales of adventure.
That, to me, is the most magical time period in cinema (helped along by the fact that John Williams also happened to write his best scores in this period, if you ask me), and I hold it very dear. These are the movies that have stuck with me throughout my childhood, teens and early twenties (27 is the new early twenties, didn’t you hear?). The period leading out of the 80’s was primarily lead by James Cameron, who took the baton in 1984 with The Terminator, and ran with it until 1991, with the release of T2.
But, quite honestly — and I like Quentin Tarantino, the Wachowski Brothers (let’s not get into that whole debacle) and Pixars films — the 90’s weren’t so much ‘lead’ by anyone in particular (and I love Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List as much as the next guy/gal). Everyone was trying out different things, going this way and that.
And that’s great as well, but I have a longing for the proverbial ‘old days’ of going to the movies and coming out fulfilled. And I think Peter Jackson and his team in New Zealand may be the ones to bring those days back. Hell, they already have.
On With the Review Already!
I will go right ahead, and proclaim King Kong my best movie of 2005. Many of the reviews I’ve read complained — at length, ironically — over the length, though honestly my ass wasn’t numb at all afterwards. At just over three hours, it’s a perfect saturday night movie for me, and I can guarantee you, I will watch it many times over.
I will say this though: There are scenes on Skull Island I could have done without, which in a perfect world I would have exchanged for more scenes onboard the Venture. While it was a freaky scene in itself, the creepy-crawly ‘underworld’ our band of damsel-seeking mend find themselves in after their meeting with Kong, is perhaps a bit out of place. As is the second rescue by the dear captain (in my mind they should’ve perhaps kept this rescue, or one similar to it, and cut the first one where they rescue them from the natives).
What wasn’t out of place however, in the heart of this 13-year-old, was the absolutely relentless layering of ‘oh you think that’s something? Then check this out!’. Particularly evident as Ann runs through the forest, ‘escaping’ from Kong, and runs into some sort of dinosaur, which gets killed by a V-Rex, which then chases her, and then there’s another V-Rex. And another. And then Kong fights them. And then they go over the cliff. And then they get caught in the vines. And… and… and…
I was laughing my ass off; but in joy. In utter child-like glee! If Lord of the Rings was the passing of the torch from George Lucas (bless his soul, the new Star Wars trilogy just wasn’t what we had hoped for), then that fight was the passing of the torch from Spielberg’s Jurassic Park to Kong himself.
Jurassic park had one single V-Rex? Is that supposed to be scary? Our protagonist beats the living crap out of three! How ‘bout that?
And that’s really where King Kong is at its best; in those defining moments. The arrival at Skull Island, the offering of Ann to the Kong. The V-Rex fight(s) and of course the slaying of Kong at the top of the Empire State Building.
And for me, those key moments overpower the weaker points of the film. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
As I mentioned, I would have liked a bit more action on the boat. Some more falling-in-love scenes between Ann and Driscoll would’ve been good, and perhaps a less out-of-context introduction to the ‘Heart of Darkness’ theme. In fact, the scene in which the young Jimmy says to Hayes “It’s not an adventure, is it Mr. Hayes?” felt entirely out of nowhere to me. Not that it wasn’t in the right place, because I think it was, but it just had this weird awkwardness to it. Suddenly Hayes, who to me seemed like a rough-and-tough, but trustworthy smuggler-type character to me, starts reciting what I’m guessing is a segment from Heart of Darkness… Lines that would have seemed natural in Driscoll’s mouth, but coming from Hayes they seemed a bit off to me.
What I did love though, was the look of the Skull Island jungle. I remember having heard someone describe it as if they had simply gone to the 1933 King Kong jungle and shot it with better camera’s, and they hit that pretty spot on. It has a mysterious prehistoric feeling to it, as if anything could be living in there. And of course anything does.
Same goes for the lizards. These aren’t your National Geographic dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, these are prehistoric monstrosities, complete with spiked backs and rows of teeth sticking this way and that. Straight out of pulp novels — only pulp novels by and large aren’t very good, only the distilled idea of them are. And that’s exactly what makes King Kong hit home with me.
It’s not perfect, but in my humble opinion it easily takes the price as movie of the year. And it is a sight to be hold, from start to finish, with Kong himself being absolutely everything you could hope for. Again, we look at Star Wars, and we wonder just how they could fall that far behind all of the sudden. But apparently WETA, Jackson and Serkis are just that much better, and you do not doubt for a second that Kong isn’t very much alive and real.
And while that may have become everyday business for the movie-going crowd of today, it most certainly cannot have been an easy task to accomplish.
Though, on the topic of special effects, I must mention the CG water, which is not entirely up to par with Kong. It just doesn’t feel real yet, and it is ever so slightly off-putting. Not that it’s a major eye sore, and it probably won’t even show up on the DVD, but it was something I noticed nonetheless.
And now that we are getting slightly picky, Jack Black might have been slightly mis-cast. I love Tenacious D and his over-the-top humor, but I did sometimes catch myself waiting for him to launch into a rant about inwards singing and the wonders it will do for rock n roll.
The Score
Another thing, which I personally didn’t find was entirely up to par, was the score (SoundtrackNet’s review). Now there’s a little story hidden here, and I unfortunately don’t know the full set of details surrounding it. But what happened was, that Howard Shore — who of course did Lord of the Rings — was replaced by James Newton Howard (Waterworld, Signs, Batman Begins) in October. At this point, Howard Shore had allegedly written about an hour of score, which we probably won’t see anywhere soon.
Now I liked Waterworld, in fact it was one of my favorite scores for some time, and I love Signs, though Batman Begins I could really care less for (he’s done lots of other scores of course, I’m just handpicking). And let me just say that I have full understanding for the fact that he had to write a 3 hour score in 5 weeks, which is a lot, all the while never having met with Peter Jackson once before the premiere of the film!
But even so, I do think the score is by far the weakest link in this otherwise virtuous movie. It feels pretty bland to me, and even out of place in some scenes. For a movie like King Kong, I had imagined in my minds ear, something far more organic and romantic. Instead the score is quite harsh and, dare I say, mechanical at times. I can’t even remember the number of tracks on the soundtrack album, which begin with an orchestral thunderclap and then proceed into what feels to me, like quite ordinary action pieces.
Maybe I’m being a bit harsh, but the point remains; the score is unfortunately the weakest part of the movie.
The Verdict
But when all is said and done, any flaws in King Kong, are by and large miniscule and lost in the midst of the spectacle of a love story between an ape and a girl. And if you skipped the above monster-review, suffice to say, King Kong is the best movie of 2005. Go now.
PS: I know it’s ape, but I’m testing to see how many will flame me for writing monkey, without having finished reading the review.
It’s an ape. just kidding! I saw the end of the post. So do you think this movie will break any box office records like some were saying?
PS: I like the blue look you can activate on the about page.
Surely you jest!
Cyberdyne Systems, Model 101 – the model normally seen driving harleys arounmd in the mid 80’s and early 90’s – was a T-800. The T-1000 drove a police bike. The T-600’s were easy to spot, because they had rubber skin.
Tut-tut ;)
/utterly sad geeky moment
I saw this movie last night, and I loved ever minute of it. For me, personally it’s one of the best movies I’ve seen in my 20 years, definitely the best this year. I was amazed how real they made Kong, instead of being “the Big Ape” he was a major character that the audience could connect with, and at the end, I found myself hoping for the best. :(
I’ve recommended this movie to so many people, it’s probally starting to get old. But seriously, people reading this. See this movie, you won’t be disapointed. When I saw the previews for this, all I could think was Epic, and it delivered nothing less than that in my opinion. Good review Mike.
P.S. – I think we all know he had the upperhand against those T-Rexs, I mean, all those fights against Godzilla. They didn’t stand a chance.
I haven’t seen Kong yet, so I’m not going to read the review, but you have a couple errors in the first part:
Dozen instead of dusin.
I couldn’t care less about the vast majority of the latest indie flics
Well, I will jump on the geeky-pedantic bandwagon here and point out that Kong did not, in fact, fight a single T. rex in the movie. He fought three V. rex.
Here’s a link to the collectible from WETA: V. rex
As far a the movie goes, I absolutely believed that Kong was alive. They did an absolutely AMAZING job with the big ape, and no doubt that Andy Serkis’ performance made the imagineers’ job that much easier.
RE: Gregory
That’s some insane knowledge.
I have to say that I’m, frankly, quite startled by this. How anyone who’s a serious fan of cinema—spectacle cinema specifically or all cinema in general—can a.) have never seen King Kong (1933), b.) have seen King Kong (2005) without having first seen King Kong (1933), or (say nothing about and) c.) have the audacity to review King Kong (2005) without having seen King Kong (1933) is beyond me. And then to call the ’33 Kong a relic more than an icon…
It is undeniable, I think, that the five most important special effects films ever made are Metropolis (1927), King Kong (1933), Citizen Kane (1941), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), and Star Wars (1977). I’m not trying to be argumentative here, but it surprises me that anyone would attempt to critique any of the “spectacle” films made in the post–Jaws (1975) era, without a foundation of awareness which includes all of those films. All of the films you mentioned are informed by the ones I’ve mentioned. It’s like getting into serious literature without a solid awareness of Shakespeare or the Bible.
Great review Michael! Blast you for having enough free time to post such a lengthy review… grrr
Minor pet peeve, you spelled dozen as ‘dusin’ – sorry, had to mention it
;-)
grey, while I can appreciate your stance, I think you may have had you head in a vice if you don’t think anyone can possibly review this King Kong without having seen the 1933 King Kong. Sorry, but that’s just plain dumb.
As for me not having seen it, I try to get around, but I can only cover so much territory.
I have more respect than you know (apparently, since you go and write something like that) for the stop motion that made the old King Kong come alive, and when I write “which has King Kong look like more of a stop-motion novelty; a relic from a long gone past than an icon among movie monsters. A leftover from the so-called pre-Star Wars era.”, then it is not something to be taken as a stab at the movie’s importance or heritage.
In other words: Jeez, calm down dude.
Craig, thanks for the heads up on the V-Rex, hadn’t caught that one. And dude, thanks for the book! I got it today; what have I done to deserve that!?
Yeah, I knew I was gonna come off as a big movie snob even though I didn’t want to. I have a sneaking suspicion that I actually am one, though, so I guess that’s hard to avoid.
But here are my real points:
1. No one should expect to have their review taken seriously if they haven’t seen the original first. This movie simply does not/cannot exist on its own. It is too important — and, of course, its source material is far too important — for anyone to view it as existing in a vacuum without its predecessor. I haven’t yet seen the 2005 version, but if it turns out that it’s great enough to step out of the shadow of the original (and that’s a big damned shadow), no one could possibly appreciate that fact without having seen the original first.
2. My biggest thing is that I’m shocked that you specifically, Michael, haven’t seen the original. Didn’t you just go to see Metropolis in a theatre? I’m surprised that you didn’t find a copy of the original Kong to watch in your build up to seeing this new version. Doesn’t it drive you nuts that you will now never see the all-time classic, 1933 version of King Kong without Peter Jackson’s 2005 version playing in comparison in your head? There’s a shiny, new 2-disc DVD of the original available in Region 1; I don’t know if it’s out over there, though.
3. Speaking of that DVD, I just rewatched the original a couple of weeks ago in preparation for this new version (which I’m very excited about, by the way), and I was surprised (again, I’m sure) at how much one grows to believe that that’s a real, living ape on the screen. Moreso than many of the wooden, lifeless, human characters even. As it is, I think that puppets/miniatures/stop motion characters have, to date, almost all been more believable than CG characters in movies. They’re just so much more organic. Consider the new Star Wars films vs. the old ones. I’ll take Empire Yoda over Sith Yoda any day. Twenty years from now, I’d expect that CG Yoda will be more of a relic than stop-motion Kong, hands down.
But, anyway, just go watch the original Kong, dammit. You’ll love it, I’m sure. And, actually, now that I’ve said all this, I’d be very curious to hear what someone who saw the Jackson version first thinks of the original anyway. So, see it and then write it up for us, would you?
Nice review Michael, but I have to disagree with you on the score. At some times it was’nt great – but it has great moment. The scene where Adrien Brody & Co are being attacked by the bugs has great music, it’s very minimalistic (if you didn’t pay attention you might have missed it), but its brilliant. Low-volume gospel begins, and builds up and finally explodes when the captains comes to rescue the day.
And please do tell, did you cry when they drugged Kong? It was a beautiful scene.
What do you mean by “with the exception of 1941 of course”? I’ve always thought that 1941 was Spielberg’s greatest movie — I am not even kidding.
Anyway, nice review. Looking forward to see it.
I concur with your review, which I read most of before I went and finished after. Didn’t want to run into any spoilers!
Anyway, I thought the score was okay. Generally I do pay attention to the score, but in this movie the ambient sound was more important, imho, and they did a great job with that – especially where bugs and leeches are involved. Ick.
I do have one complaint: they never showed how they got Kong on the ship. I have always wondered about that, and I don’t think the original (not the crappy 80’s version) movie ever showed it or mentioned it. I did see it, but it was a long time ago. Anyway, just the logistics of getting a three ton creature on a ship that looks like it barely hold Kong would have quite a spectacle.
I did spot some technical goofs – in the scene where Kong and Ann are looking at the sunset, twice you can see a blue halo in Ann’s hair, despite Kong being right behind her, and of course he’s not blue. Seems lazy to me especially when all they would have had to do is desaturate that area. I also thought that the scene in New York where Kong is throwing around train cars looked like miniatures, even some of the flying cabs looked kind of fake.
However, I was absolutely giddy with the dinosaur chase scene and of course the v-rex scenes. Absolutely the coolest action scenes I have ever seen, including all of the Star Wars movies. The original Star Wars is still my fave movie of all time, for shear ground-breaking goodness if nothing else, but this damn near replaces it. One thing about Peter Jackson is that he doesn’t forget that it’s all about story. CG is nice, but without great casting and acting, it just doesn’t move you. The expressions on Kongs’ face, his laughter especially, are not something easy to forget. Even Jack Black did a great job, he overdid it of course, but that’s the kind of guy Carl Denham is – plastic, greedy, and over the top. People like that do exist.
It’s funny you were born in 78 – about the time I went to see Star Wars, at the theatre no less, as a nine year old kid. It’s funny because you describe this time period as magic, and I definitely agree – the golden age of cinema in my opinion. I agree that Jackson is the new hope to enter that age again. Tarantino is over in my opinion. Kill Bill sucked…you can’t make a good movie out of a concept.
I would throw a few more important movies for special effect. Jurasic Park was the big hit for Animation, Matrix of course took action and digital filming to a whole new realm and I think I would even add Crouching Tiger in there a bit too which introduced many people to Ballet Action Asian movies. Backdraft was pretty impressive, fire even in its simplest form is complicated to work with. Polar Express was a film that added motion capture for many facial expression and really added something new to CGI. hmm I was even thinking that the original Terminator was pretty good for its day. Todays movie have copied those to the Nth degree.
Question here. There was a scene in War of the Worlds where Tom Cruise was racing down the highway in the minivan and having a freak out conversation with his kids. The camera work on that was amazing, first your view is in the van and pan out, around the vehicle then back right in. Anyone know how they do that?
Gosh, so envious. Course I’m used to seeing them before they come out. I read half the review (as I don’t want any spoilers). I’m hoping to catch a show tomorrow, and I’ll write my review and leave it here as a comment.
@ Grey: In my mind you can definately write a review of Kong without having seen the original. It just represents one of the many angles from which you can approach this movie.
If one approaches this as “a movie” michael’s review makes perfect sense. If one on the other hand approaches this movie as part of cinematic history, then your point of view: seeing the original first, knowing the inspiration and source material and such, is fitting.
In my mind it would be like saying that one cannot review the LOTR movies without having read the books. A movie is a movie. It HAS to stand it’s own ground.
Regarding Kong…..I dunno. I’ll have to watch it again.
@ Poulsen: Yeah, I sort of came to your ‘many angles’ conclusion by the end of my writing there. I’m really curious to hear what someone who sees them in reverse order thinks of the original now.
But, in reality, movies don’t stand their own ground. No art does. Everything is informed by everything else, and each individual’s experience of each work of art is altered according to what other works they have previously experienced. I’m just surprised that anyone who cares about such things would let their eventual experience of a classic be tainted by a newer, derivative work like this when it’s so obvious that that’s what would happen.
I don’t think that’s right, though, about the LOTR book vs. movie comparison, though. A movie is required to stand on its own, to some degree, in comparison to its literary source material. That’s the whole point of adapting one artform to another. It’s more like saying that one cannot review the Cliff’s Notes of Lord of the Rings without having first read the book. And I think that’s certainly true.
Of course, I should also mention that I’ve never seen any of the LOTR movies because I haven’t yet read the books, and I don’t want my experience of them tainted by the movies.
Michael did speak
What did you do to deserve that? Well, let’s see…hmmm…only a couple of little things, like Kubrick and K2. :^)
Just my way of saying “thank you” for your hard work and dedication to a project I have enjoyed following.
Merry Christmas to you and Rikke!
grey, the way I see it, a review is basically an opinion. Opinions are still free, and as a result, so are reviews.
Well King Kong may have been a big thing to you and the ‘circles’ you frequent. But to me it never reached that status. I want to see it, because I have a natural curiosity about modern cultural heritage and movie history.
I of course could counter with asking how you can possibly live without having seen Lord of the Rings?!
I personally can not subscribe to the idea of having to rethread the shoes of all the source material, what ever the media it may have its roots in. The only thing that invariably leads to is a chicken and egg situation :)
Though of course, if one is in love with movies, one should do whatever one can to get the full overview of the medium.
I’m going to have to go with Mike on this. If you haven’t seen Bakshi’s animated Lord Of The Rings it doesn’t mean that you can’t review the new trilogy. And while one is animated and the other isn’t, Tolkien purists will always site it as the first, definitive Lord Of The Rings film. Plus the rotoscoping is amazing.
Well, that’s easy. Because it’s far more important to me to get the full experience of reading its source novel than it is to be able to say today that I’ve seen the movies. And I see it as a possibility that once I’ve read the book, I might not want to see the movies at all, out of fear that that experience will wipe away my memory of the book as its own thing. Or, perhaps, I’ll find the book too slow-moving and hard to get through, give up the endeavor of reading it, and watch the movies instead. But, it’s important to me that I leave my options open.
You’re right, Michael, opinions (and reviews) certainly are free, and at this point I guess I find your opinion to be sort of interesting because you hadn’t first seen the original. I shouldn’t have said anything about your reviewing the movie. That’s really up to you, and you did disclose that you hadn’t seen the original, so we all had that information with which to inform our perception of your review. I guess, like I said, that I was just surprised that someone who’s specifically into “spectacle cinema” would choose to watch the Jackson version first. But, I’m definitely curious about your impression of the ’33 version, once you see it, having seen them in this order.
@ Matthew Good: That’s not the same thing. The Jackson films aren’t remakes of the animated Lord of the Rings, they’re new adaptations of the Tolkien novel. It’s like the Soderbergh Solaris vs. Tarkovsky’s Solyaris, or Spielberg’s War of the Worlds vs. Haskin’s The War of the Worlds, or Baz Lurhmann’s Romeo Juliet vs. Zeffirelli’s (or any of the other versions of) Romeo and Juliet, and on and on. The source material obviously informs each adaptation to a much larger degree than do the other adaptations.
I have to say… I HATED IT. im now scared of wild animals and have a phobia of insects.
I finished watching King Kong just a couple of hours ago. I’m pleased to admit that it’s a good flick overall. However two things struck me immediately: the almost complete lack of visible character’s damage (gettng bitten by a V-rex or three, struck by a harpoon and shot with all sorts of amo Kong doesn’t bleed too much, if at all. If I ever doubted in Kong being real, it was just then. On the other hand, my wife, who’s kind of allergic to the bloody imagery didn’t mind that at all. ;)) and the disregard to the law of physics (fun as it is, the skating scene is totally implausible. BTW, Clownfunny i don’t think King Kong is a three ton creature, it’s more like a thirty ton monster.)
ET was released in 1982, not 1984. Just saying, is all.
Aye, ‘tis true. Don’t know where I got the ’84.
What do you mean by “with the exception of 1941 of course”? I’ve always thought that 1941 was Spielberg’s greatest movie — I am not even kidding.
I second that – you can’t write off 1941. The comedy value alone rates it amongst the top movies of all time. The cast was amazing and any film with a naked chick wrapped around a periscope with a japanese mariner shouting “Horrirood!” is ok by me.
1941 tanked at the boxoffice. Tanked! There’s a reason Spielberg never made another comedy.
Spielberg just sort of pretends the movie never happened.
Hook (1991), Catch Me If You Can (2002), and The Terminal (2004) are all comedies. And Catch Me If You Can is a really good movie. The other two have their merits as well, but I suppose that’s true of pretty much all of Spielberg’s work.
I’ll have to disagree on that one. Hook is the closest any of those movies come to comedy, and that’s still only half-n-half. The Terminal is not so much a comedy as it is a human story with small pieces of pseudo-funny thrown in here and there (and might I add, his worst movie in recent years). Catch Me If You Can isn’t a comedy at all… AFAIC.
I agree with many of your points Heile, however, it is too long. There could be cut off little under 1 hour without significant loss as far as I’m concerned. Although loads of these scenes are really great (such as the scenes in the start of the movie and on Skull Island), they just dont add enough to justify including them. But I’m not saying that its a bad movie, even with its pacing problems then I still found it entertaining as a whole. I just think that a really great director should know when to minimize instead of just keep adding. Its funny because Jackson’s work on the LOTR movies show pretty much the opposite, where you can hear him on the extra material going on about scenes that really hurt to cut scenes out in favour of a smooth pacing, but then he knew he could have it all in the extended editions, so hmmmh :)
Hook is a family-adventure-comedy, The Terminal is a romantic dramedy, and Catch Me If You Can is a crime dramedy (and based on a true story, no less). Ya know how you can definitely tell that Catch Me If You Can is part comedy? The score (one of Williams’s recent bests, in my opinion). But, the vast majority of movies are either Drama or Comedy or both. Pulp Fiction is a comedy, for the sake of Pete. The thing about 1941 is that it’s the closest thing to a pure comedy that Spielberg has ever made.
One other thing: while I don’t disagree that The Terminal is a pretty weak Spielberg film, it’s better than War of the Worlds. Of course, about ten minutes before War of the Worlds ended, I wouldn’t‘ve said that, but, alas, those last ten minutes do exist.
Grey, have you read the WotW book?
Hi, Poulsen. Yeah, not recently, but yes, and that’s certainly a factor in my reaction to the movie, but I would’ve hated part of the ending either way, I’m quite confident. Why?
I saw King Kong today. I think it’s the best movie this year. Also very well rounded, with action, romance, a little comedy, and a little horror.
@ Grey
I don’t know where you are coming from with your “a movie can’t stand on it’s own without it’s source” .. because King Kong is doing pretty well, and I bet there are tons of people who haven’t seen the original. Same goes with Lord of the Rings.
As for me, I saw 2005 Kong, and I probaly won’t see the 1933 Kong. I live in 2005, I watch the 2005 version. Simple. If I saw the old one, even without seeing the 2005 one, I’d probably not like it. I’ve grown up in a different age, and I except too much FX from a movie such as Kong. I’m sure people who use Windows don’t want to use version 1.0, but then again, who likes Windows anyways?
I just got back. I really liked this movie. The length was no problem (I had snacks and a soda). I never saw a movie with Jack Black before – so I could accept him in the role, where others could not. I have no heat at my house – so this movie was a wonderful distraction. Really worth the money!
@ Grey
I don’t know where you are coming from with your “a movie can’t stand on it’s own without it’s source” .. because King Kong is doing pretty well, and I bet there are tons of people who haven’t seen the original. Same goes with Lord of the Rings.
Sigh. Didn’t we finish having this argument like three weeks ago? My point isn’t that movies can’t stand on their own, without their source material, it’s that they don’t. It doesn’t matter in the least little bit how well Kong is doing or how few of its audience members have seen the original. The fact is that every moment of it represents a choice that Peter Jackson (and/or Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) made which was directly effected by the 1933 version. And I don’t think the argument can be made that a moviegoer’s experience of the new version wouldn’t be enriched by an appreciation of what those decisions were.
This whole Windows comparison is pretty frigging weak. That’s like saying that The Beatles aren’t worth listening to because they couldn’t record in stereo or with 128 tracks. Or that, because we live in 2005 and we don’t use words like ‘victuals’ or ‘thither,’ we shouldn’t bother to read Mark Twain or Shakespeare. Please.
Having said all of that, I just saw the Peter Jackson version today, and I’d have to say that the effects in the original hold up quite well. There’s just something about the organicity (it’s a word; I looked it up) of pre–CGI special effects that makes the willful suspension of disbelief that much easier. I definitely found myself today noticing how fake the dinosaurs looked or how obvious it was that their little boat wasn’t really in those waters, things like that.
Kong, himself, on the other hand, is a revelation. If you ask me, Andy Serkis should be receiving award nominations for his performance in this film. 83 extra minutes and Kong is still the best-drawn character in the movie (though he probably should be). The human characters do get some of their own development here, but I still cared more about that giant ape than any one of them.
I can’t see that this is the best film of the year, though. It certainly is flawed. Now, I’m a person who enjoys long movies. I tend to feel gypped by all of the 90-minute fluff that is put out these days. But there is just no way in the world that this movie should be 187 minutes. There’s nary a scene in the film which shouldn’t be shorter. We linger — everywhere — for too long. And the action scenes… The dinosaur orgy has to be that long? Kong has to fight three V-Rexes instead of just the one (there’s one of those choices)? Even Kong’s death takes too frigging long.
Having said all that, I definitely enjoyed the picture, and I was certainly affected by its ending, even more so, probably, than the original. That says something.
Of the 2005 movies I’ve seen so far, here’s where I’d rank it:
1. Millions
2. Sin City
3. Brokeback Mountain
4. Batman Begins
5. Syriana
6. Good Night, and Good Luck.
7. King Kong
That’s still higher than movies like Revenge of the Sith and certainly War of the Worlds and even Crash (so overrated, IMHO), though.
Bit off topic from Kong.
Millions was a decent movie for sure. I was fortunate enough to see a Press Screening in San Francisco which Danny Boyle attended. He was talking a bit about his next project a sci-fi flic which sounded pretty interesting. I think its dubbed as the Sunshine Project or something. Waiting to hear more about it.
For some reason I was pretty dissapointed with Syriana, although I did like Alexander Sidig and Clooney as the overwieght CIA agent. I know Syriana was supposed to have a disconnected story and puposely made it difficult for the audience to connect the dots. hmmm Maybe I was looking for more conspiracy.
I also saw the Matador, kinda liked this movie. Piece Brosnan was hillarious as a run-down assasin. Gotta check this one out.
I think the thing about Syriana is that no one can connect the dots. Not even the characters in the story. The dots are too far apart, they’re too big, they’re too small, they’re too interconnected. I think that’s the point. Jeffrey Wright was excellent in it as well.
I’m pretty excited about The Matador, but it hasn’t hit theatres in my neck of the woods yet. A friend of mine is pretty closely related to Hope Davis, so I tend to pay attention to her films, but this seems like my type of movie either way.
There are a bunch of other movies which are still on my checklist for the year: Munich, Match Point, even The Constant Gardener and A History of Violence. All told, it looks like 2005 was a pretty decent year for movies.
A few other good ones I saw which were all pretty decent.
Kinky Boots
Dear Wendy
Ong Bak
Tae Guk Gi
Serenity
Shooting Dogs
Pride and Prejudice (2005)
Tom Yum Goong
Nightwatch (Russian Sci Fi)
Immortel (French Sci Fi)
Agree with you on Syriana. Even the title doesnt make sense. ;)
(The Beatles did record in stereo though… A bit too much so even)
(Yeah, that’s all very confusing with the Capitol versions and the Parlophone versions and the Vee-Jay versions, and the fact that there were mono versions and stereo versions. I was taking a stab there. My mom had all the mono records when I was a kid — I guess they were actually cheaper than the stereo versions — so that’s what I always listened to. But I guess my point is still clear.)