King Kong out today!

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The film is a mess, and you know it

Do I? Well no i don't think its a mess. I think you are being really hard on it. I think you have watched the wrong film because it doesn't sound like the one i watched.

I think the film is trying to show Kong not as a monster but an animal who can feel pain both emotionally and physically. I don't know if the bats would attack Kong without Ann Darrow but the scars on his body suggest he has been in countless battles with the creatures of Skull Island. But then again christ its only a movie how the hell would i know!

Did you just go into the cinema wanting to hate this film? Its sounds like you did. If you feel more sadness for Kong of 33 version well thats up to you but i find the death of Kong in jackson's version as deeply saddening and it broke my heart watching his demise. If he is such a monster in the 33 version why are people are moved by his death? I know the 33 version is sad but the way Kong has been created on the screen by jackson and WETA is truely awe inspiring.

Meriam Cooper edited out the spider sequence for good reason. The men who fall off the log in the 1933 version die when they hit the ground

Cooper actually took the spider sequence out because it scared audiences and after the film the crowd talked more of the giant spiders tearing apart sailors than Kong himself

You're right this is a fantasy movie. I rate this a fantasy on the level of The Never Ending Story. Peter Jackson might as well have given Kong wings so that he could fly away from the airplanes with Ann Darrow on his shoulder and they could live happily everafter on Skull Island.

Mate what are you on about? Ok the film is altered in parts but not all. I really don't think you watched this film with an open mind and just let your love of the 33 version cloud your judgement. I love both versions and despite the praise the new film has got it will never over shadow the 33 classic and with Jackson loving that film to death i'm sure that wasn't his intention.

I'm not going to get in an arguement about it with you but you seem not even willing to like it mate.

[Puzz3D]

Do I? Well no i don't think its a mess. I think you are being really hard on it. I think you have watched the wrong film because it doesn't sound like the one i watched.

I watched the same film you watched. That's a great gift you have to be able to dismiss the obvious problems in this film, and focus in on what's good about it. I do that as well when I watch films, but this one just overwhelmed my capacity to overlook things.

I think the film is trying to show Kong not as a monster but an animal who can feel pain both emotionally and physically.

That's what's wrong. He's just Kong the gorilla in this picture. He's not KING KONG. Jackson could have imbued his Kong with this emotional aspect without beating the audience over the head with it. If he were a good director, he would have just hinted at it and let the viewer find that quality in Kong if the viewer was looking for it.

I don't know if the bats would attack Kong without Ann Darrow but the scars on his body suggest he has been in countless battles with the creatures of Skull Island.

The bats have to attack Kong so that Jack Driscoll and Ann Darrow can escape because Kong has seen Driscoll. The sequence is backwards. Instead of Jack taking advantage of a diversion to escape with Ann, the diversion has to occur to save Jack. If Kong startled the bats by going after Jack, why do they attack Kong instead of flying away? This mechanism of something happening just in the nick of time to save the main characters occurs at two other places in the film when the captain shows up at the last possible moment before they are killed.

Did you just go into the cinema wanting to hate this film? Its sounds like you did.

No. I went wanting to like it. I can't remember disliking a film that I went to the theater to see this much in the last 10 years. Part of the problem is I took some people with me. I was disappointed that this picture was just another standard CGI action extravaganza with some sappy sentimentality, but also embarassed that I had taken people to see it. None of the people that came with me really liked the picture.

If you feel more sadness for Kong of 33 version well thats up to you but i find the death of Kong in jackson's version as deeply saddening and it broke my heart watching his demise.

I felt relief for Kong in Jackson's version. I remember it clearly because I was wondering what I was going to feel at the moment he died.

If he is such a monster in the 33 version why are people are moved by his death?

That's the striking thing emotionally about that picture because there is nothing endearing about King Kong in the 1933 movie.

I know the 33 version is sad but the way Kong has been created on the screen by jackson and WETA is truely awe inspiring.

They did an excellent job rendering Kong and his movements, although, I though he moved too fast for a massive creature in some sequences.

Cooper actually took the spider sequence out because it scared audiences and after the film the crowd talked more of the giant spiders tearing apart sailors than Kong himself.

That's right. He took it out because it detracted from the focus and flow of the picture just as it does in Jackson's version. The guys who fall off the log don't make it in the 1933 version. Jack Driscoll makes it because he didn't fall since he made it to the other side. He's then separated from the Carl Denim who made it back to the opposite side. Driscoll has no choice but to go on and Denim to go back. In Jackson's version, Driscoll is at the botton of the ravine and climbs up on Kong's side while everyone else including the courageous captain declines to go with him. They don't even give him a gun.

Mate what are you on about?

I'm on about the fact that you said the laws of physics and inaccuracies don't apply because this is a fantasy. So, where do you draw the line? A flying Kong would be ok? Everytime physics is violated or inaccuracies show up this picture is hurt by it because it's supposed to be grounded in the physical world we live in despite the fact that King Kong is implausable. King Kong is supposed to be the only implausable thing in the picture so that you can maintain a suspension of disbelief. You can't maintain a suspension of disbelief once they get to Skull Island in Jackson's picture. You have to treat it as a complete fantasy.

Ok the film is altered in parts but not all. I really don't think you watched this film with an open mind and just let your love of the 33 version cloud your judgement. I love both versions and despite the praise the new film has got it will never over shadow the 33 classic and with Jackson loving that film to death i'm sure that wasn't his intention.

I watch films with all the films I've ever seen in mind. This one doesn't even come up to the level of Jurassic Park for thrills. Part of the problem is that he's remaking the original so you know what's going to happen, but that doesn't expalin the ho-hum attitute to the picture of the 10 year old boy who was with us who had never seen the original. I don't know why Jackson tried to stick close to the original story since he tampered so much with all the main characters including Kong. I think he would have done better with an original story if he could think of one worth filming. Jackson isn't showing his love for the original picture by tampering with the character's motivations. He's even added an extra main character who mocks a scene in the original film.

Emotionally the film is confusing. From whom is Jack Driscoll trying to save Ann Darrow? From Kong who is her protector? From herself? From commiting suicide? From accidental death? How come Jack and Ann can only be together after Kong dies? Is she in love with Kong as you would love a pet or as a human? Is she mad at Jack because he wouldn't let her save Kong at the wall?

I'm not going to get in an arguement about it with you but you seem not even willing to like it mate.

I just posted what I thought of the picture. Then someone called me a fag, and you started disagreeing with me.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you? Am I suppose to agree even if i think your totally wrong and picking at a film which might have some bad points but with the good far outweighing the bad?

That's a great gift you have to be able to dismiss the obvious problems in this film, and focus in on what's good about it

I think you have a great gift in finding problems that are not even there and going on about physics that the majority of people probably doesn't care about. As I was watching Kong fight the V Rex i didn't once stop and say "Oh that wasn't right, how could those vines hold his weight?" because I was being very entertained by the movie. I personally go to the cinema for a bit of escapism not to make notes on apparent bad points and moan about it later. Call me old fashioned.

No. I went wanting to like it. I can't remember disliking a film that I went to the theater to see this much in the last 10 years.

Then mate you obviously haven't some of crap i've watched

None of the people that came with me really liked the picture.

But i'm sure alot of other people watching it did

If he were a good director

Let me guess, you hated Lord of the Rings right? Are you judging him on his past film work and taken the dislike into the cinema with you?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you? Am I suppose to agree even if i think your totally wrong and picking at a film which might have some bad points but with the good far outweighing the bad?

That's a great gift you have to be able to dismiss the obvious problems in this film, and focus in on what's good about it

I think you have a great gift in finding problems that are not even there and going on about physics that the majority of people probably doesn't care about. As I was watching Kong fight the V Rex i didn't once stop and say "Oh that wasn't right, how could those vines hold his weight?" because I was being very entertained by the movie. I personally go to the cinema for a bit of escapism not to make notes on apparent bad points and moan about it later. Call me old fashioned.

No. I went wanting to like it. I can't remember disliking a film that I went to the theater to see this much in the last 10 years.

Then mate you obviously haven't seen some of the crap i've watched over the years, of which i can name hundreds of garbage, i just don't understand how you can hate this film so much

None of the people that came with me really liked the picture.

But i'm sure alot of other people watching it did

If he were a good director

Let me guess, you hated Lord of the Rings right? Are you judging him on his past film work and taken the dislike into the cinema with you?

I watch films with all the films I've ever seen in mind. This one doesn't even come up to the level of Jurassic Park for thrills

Now that is fantasy mate

[Geoffrey S]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you?

Just to make it clear, Puzz3D in no way states that; it was Duke Dick flinging provocative insults around, and it would be much appreciated by me if he edited out the gratuitous rudeness.

Keep it nice, guys. No need to get personal over a movie. I'm looking forward to seeing it as soon as possible, myself.

[Puzz3D]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you?

I said someone called me a fag not you. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with me, but you said you weren't going to get into an argument with me about the film. So, I don't understand why you rebutted my post in the first place. You already stated previously what you thought of the film. I did the same. You're the one who picked an argument with me.

I think you have a great gift in finding problems that are not even there and going on about physics that the majority of people probably doesn't care about.

And what about the people who do care about a certain level of realism? The 1933 movie set a certain level of realism, and I'm disappointed that the new film lowered it. I know I'm in the minority in my opinion of the film.

As I was watching Kong fight the V Rex i didn't once stop and say "Oh that wasn't right, how could those vines hold his weight?" because I was being very entertained by the movie. I personally go to the cinema for a bit of escapism not to make notes on apparent bad points and moan about it later. Call me old fashioned.

I didn't make any notes, and I was trying to overlook the things that didn't strike me right. The T-Rex fight was one of the high points of the film, but there are things about it which detracted from it being believable.

First, there are three T-Rex's instead of one. Possibly they are Allosaurs which is a smaller ancestor of the T-Rex. I actually wasn't sure if there were three of four the way it was edited. Increasing the number of T-Rex's might at first seem to increase the danger to Kong, but in the end we see that they have to be made less formidable just because there are so many of them. We see this because Kong gets bitten on the arm at least twice, but it has no noticable effect on him. For me, that dissipated some of the tension in the fight because getting bitten by a large carnivorous dinosaur should be very bad.

Second, because there are multiple dinosaurs Kong can't put Ann Darrow down. This leads to even more incredulity because he has to fight multiple creatures simultaneously with one hand, and she's getting jerked around with enough force to snap her neck many times over. So now Ann Dorrow is unbelievably resilient to injury. As I recall, she even gets knocked out of his hand at one point without injury.

Third, the tension picks up when Kong gets near the edge of the cliff, but it dissipates when you realize that the vines catch all of them as they fall over the cliff. I felt cheated by this because there wasn't any real danger to falling over the cliff. In the same way I felt cheated because the T-Rex bites were not dangerous to Kong after all.

Fourth, we get the inane trapeze act between Ann and one of the dinosaurs. Maybe one snap or two would be ok, but why does it go on and on, and what is keeping them swinging back and forth without the range of the arc decaying?

Finally, we get to the part where Kong breaks the jaws of the last T-Rex, but, instead of it being the climax of defeating a very tough adversary, it's anti-climatic because Kong does it so easily. Just the same, thie whole fight sequence is probably the best part of the movie because Kong is depicted as very strong and dominating unlike the rest of the picture where he's depicted as much weaker.

Then mate you obviously haven't seen some of the crap i've watched over the years, of which i can name hundreds of garbage, i just don't understand how you can hate this film so much.

That's not the point. I'm not just comparing it to the 1933 version. I'm looking at the overall filmaking technique. It doesn't matter how many garbage films are inferior to this film. What matters are how many films are superior to it. I'm using the best films for my standard and saying this one not very good while you seem to be using the worst films and saying this one very good.

But i'm sure alot of other people watching it did.

Yes, but it's viewer rating at IMDB is dropping. It was 8.5 on Sunday and is down to 8.2 now with something like 17,000 opinions.

Let me guess, you hated Lord of the Rings right? Are you judging him on his past film work and taken the dislike into the cinema with you?

I didn't hate Lord of the Rings, but you can see Peter Jackson's tendency to resolve impossible situations quickly and easily. In the second LOTR movie when the Riders of Rohan save the day they charge down a steep embankment with the sun behind them into the orcs who have their pikes braced for the impact. I couldn't figure out how that charge could be effective with the horses impaling themselves on the pikes. I never read the Tolkien books, but someone who has explained to me the the orcs got scared and ran away. I didn't get that impression from the movie because the orcs seemed ready to receive the charge. What I got was a detailed build up of the hopelessness of the situation at Helms Deep, and then a very quick resolution. I thought it was a bit anti-climatic the way it was handled in the movie.

In the last LOTR movie, the same thing happened when the ghost army showed up. All of a sudden it was over, and the massive enemy threat evaporated in a few seconds as a green wave swept over it. For this, I did go and read Tolkien's version of this. Well, it wasn't the piece of cake that Jackson makes it out to be in the movie. As I recall, there was still a half a day's battle that went on after the ghost army showed up, and the result was in doubt until the very end.

Personally, I feel cheated of a prper climax when a director wraps up situations, which have been built up using a lot of detail to hopeless proportions, with a quick and easy gimmick.

Now that is fantasy mate

I'm serious. The scenes in Jurrasic Park with the raptors stalking the people in the kitchen and the goup of people out in the tall grass were more thrilling than anything I saw in the new King Kong.

[Dutch_guy]

I didn't hate Lord of the Rings, but you can see Peter Jackson's tendency to resolve impossible situations quickly and easily. In the second LOTR movie when the Riders of Rohan save the day they charge down a steep embankment with the sun behind them into the orcs who have their pikes braced for the impact. I couldn't figure out how that charge could be effective with the horses impaling themselves on the pikes. I never read the Tolkien books, but someone who has explained to me the the orcs got scared and ran away. I didn't get that impression from the movie because the orcs seemed ready to receive the charge. What I got was a detailed build up of the hopelessness of the situation at Helms Deep, and then a very quick resolution. I thought it was a bit anti-climatic the way it was handled in the movie.

In the last LOTR movie, the same thing happened when the ghost army showed up. All of a sudden it was over, and the massive enemy threat evaporated in a few seconds as a green wave swept over it. For this, I did go and read Tolkien's version of this. Well, it wasn't the piece of cake that Jackson makes it out to be in the movie. As I recall, there was still a half a day's battle that went on after the ghost army showed up, and the result was in doubt until the very end.

just to comment on these paragrahps.

As for the first one, just to clear things up :

the orcs were blinded by the light and Gandalf's white light so they lifted their spears, which would have otherwise definatly impaled the horses and riders.
Thank god for Gandalf and the sun.
They could have extended the movie, by letting the fighting scene continue, but the point was made.. the orcs were destroyed and the besieged were victorious.

As for the second part, I agree, I still have not forgiven PJ for letting the ghost army help at MT...that was one of the major movie breakers, in an otherwise great movie.
HAve no idea why he did that, certainly it would have been more exiting to let the people themselves fight and win... instead of cheating evil with a ghost army ;)

THough if PJ would have done this, he would have had to ad lot's of extra scenes and movie time, to make it clear for the audience what purpose the army of the Dead had...which was to kill the corsairs - not the orcs and evil men at MT.

Well this certainly didn't add much to the King Kong good vs King Kong bad discussion, but at least it is out of my system

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm serious. The scenes in Jurrasic Park with the raptors stalking the people in the kitchen and the goup of people out in the tall grass were more thrilling than anything I saw in the new King Kong.

Not for me mate. I wanted the raptors to eat those kids, but then you knew those kids wouldn't die, would spielberg allow those little demon children to be eaten? No of course he wouldn't. So i wasn't thrilled or scared by any of it. I got bored by the raptors fast as well, and as for the second and third films well the less said the better as it was raptor overkill after a while.


I didn't start any arguement with you, i simply stated you were harsh on it then you went off one with the "The film is a mess, and you know it" crap

Yes, but it's viewer rating at IMDB is dropping. It was 8.5 on Sunday and is down to 8.2 now with something like 17,000 opinions.

Do you really care what IMDB has to say? I go on it sometimes but some of the crap those people talk about in the forums benumbs me. So Its dropped abit on the IMDB ratings, does anyone really care? Dude i couldn't care less


I also don't like the Ghost army going on the rampage at Minas Tirith either mate so we are in agreement on that one but as for your verdict on King Kong i think you are very wrong to be honest and really being overly critical and judgemental upon it

The 1933 movie set a certain level of realism

Where and when? A Man eating "brontosaurus"? The point when there is only Carl Denham and JD left after the Log incident and Carl shouts across the chasm "Hey Jack, Jack Driscoll!". What other bloody Jacks would be on the island, Jack Kong maybe? Also in the original you never really felt Kong was in any danger. You might have but i didn't

Dude the first film had alot of faults as well but i can look past that, why can't you look in the same way for the newest release?

And what about the people who do care about a certain level of realism?

This is a film based on an island full of pre-historic monsters, huge killer insects and a 25 foot ape, what realism do you want exactly mate?

[Puzz3D]

Do you really care what IMDB has to say? I go on it sometimes but some of the crap those people talk about in the forums benumbs me.

No I don't, but it does indicate that not everyone thinks it's good. I'm not the only person who thinks the movie has lots of problems.



[QUOTE=The Blind King of Bohemia]Where and when? A Man eating "brontosaurus"? The point when there is only Carl Denham and JD left after the Log incident and Carl shouts across the chasm "Hey Jack, Jack Driscoll!". What other bloody Jacks would be on the island, Jack Kong maybe?
There could have been other sailors named Jack. The man eating brontosaurus is really bad.

Also in the original you never really felt Kong was in any danger. You might have but i didn't.

The dinosaur and that snake like creature seemed to pose Kong some danger. Otherwise, he was dominating which is the way he's supposed to be. Bats certainly didn't pose him any danger, and he easily defeated the flying dinosaur which seemed right. Come to think of it how did Kong defeat the giant bats in the new version? As I recall, Jackson doesn't show how he did it.

Dude the first film had alot of faults as well but i can look past that, why can't you look in the same way for the newest release?

There are fewer issues to look past in the 1933 movie. As I said, I got to my limit in the new movie. It happend around the time that Ann and Kong go ice skating. It starts with the fast getaway by the Venture and continues with it hitting the rocks without being damaged beyond repair. The film crew heading for the rocks in the lifeboat to an impossible landing spot only to suddenly be walking on the island is a good indication of the way Jackson is going to handle practical situations throught the film. How did they get the lifeboat into those high seas in the first place without swamping it?

There is another part that really cheats where the native comes to abduct Ann from the ship. In the 1933 version, Ann is standing with her back to the ship's rail and a native puts his hand over her mouth to she can't scream. Two natives then lift her over the side. In the new version, one native pole vaults over rought waters to the ship and goes to her cabin. You see a closeup of Ann's face, but you don't know what she's looking at. There is no reaction shot. The next thing you see is the native swimming to shore dragging Ann. Jack Driscoll goers to her cabin and sees it's disrupted as though there was a fight there. This isn't good film technique because there is too much the viewer has to mentally construct and you can't really do it because you don't know where the other people on the ship are located. I specifically looked for a rope coming off the side of the ship, and I didn't see one. So now I have to imagine that the native fought with Ann in her room and no one heard anything. Then he carried her through the ship's corridors without being seen and pole vaulted back using that thin pole while carrying her. Either that or he jumped into heavy seas and swam back while dragging her along.

The 1933 movie skips things as well, but compare for example the transition to New York after Kong is subdued. In the 1933 version, it's clear that Kong is captured not killed. Carl Denim says "Go get some tools boys, and we'll build a raft" In 3 months, well be on broadway. We'll be millionares. I'll share it with all of you".

In the new version, the 10 year old I was with, who has never seen the 1933 version, though Kong was killed in the cove. We see Ann crying and Kong possibly expiring. Then the movie cuts to New York. We don't know how Kong got to New York. We don't know how much time has passed. What happened to Kong's leg wound? Why are Jack and Ann no longer together? The 10 year old didn't know what happened. It's was just a big discontinuity in the picture for him.

This is a film based on an island full of pre-historic monsters, huge killer insects and a 25 foot ape, what realism do you want exactly mate?

I don't want to be subjected to things like Ann and Jack grabbing the leg of a bat and that bat just happens to be the right size to allow them to use it as a glider not so big to fly away with them and not so small as to plummet. It's just right as in Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Admittedly, the fall in the 1933 movie wouldn't be survivable, but I almost burst out laughing at the bat escape. I didn't go to see King Kong to see a comedy or a soap opera, but that's what Jackson has made with some roller coaster action sequences thrown in. Parts of this movie are very good, but it's not a good example of how to make a movie unless it's just intended to be a kiddie movie.