 |
The biggest problem most people had with King Kong was its length, so there's no surprise that reaction by the general public to the release of an extended edition of another 3 hour-plus Peter Jackson film was almost the equivalent of a collective groan. The surprise is that everything added to the Extended Edition of King Kong should have never been cut. More dinosaurs and more creatures and more action on Skull Island only improves the film, and one wonders if these scenes were cut mostly for time and pacing, why wasn't a little bit of the 51 minutes of pre-Skull Island snipped or perhaps a few overly drawn scenes of Kong and Anna gazing into each other's eyes? The more noticable scenes are that of a rampaging Ceratops and a fun scene of an underwater monster attacking Adrien Brody and Co. while they are rafting down a river. A bit more character development with some seedy behavior by Carl Denham (Jack Black) and heroic deeds by Jack Driscoll and the shipmates add a bit of flavor to the male characters literally overshadowed by Kong in the film. The spider pit sequence is also a bit lengthened with some more lines by Jack Black. Overall, a worthy 13 minutes of added material, but the film still feels too long in the last act. The special features to this extended edition are the special features that were missing from the first release of the Kong movie, including a commentary from Peter Jackson and extensive behind the scenes features, describing the making of Kong from concept artwork to the screen a la the performance of Andy Serkis. I enjoyed the extended cut, but I don't know that this lengthy movie is better served with added material. It's not like the LOTR films where the additions enhance your viewing and understanding of Tolkien's world. But hey, I am not going to complain about more dinosaurs and the raft sequence I was disappointed was missing from the original cut.Read full review
Peter Jackson makes good movies and King Kong is no exception. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson also makes long movies and King Kong is no exception. I suppose it's hypocritical of me, but the length for the LotR trilogy seemed appropriate. An epic tale deserves an epic. Kong, not so much. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but did have a few minor issues with it. 1. Casting. I love Jack Black and Adrian Brody, but I found them a bit distracting for some reason. They didn't seem to "fit". Naomi Watts, on the other hand, was perfect. 2. Effects. Stunning on the big screen, but the minor flaws (strangely enough) were magnified on the small screen - most notably the dinosour stampede. Overall, the effects are top-notch and will have you on the edge of your seat. 3. Run-time/Pacing. The first 45 minutes should have been 20 and another 20 or so could have been judiciously trimmed throughout. Even with those issues, King Kong is a tremendously entertaining movie. It's a big screen blockbuster that we "poor" folks will just have live with seeing on our 27 inchers.Read full review
This remake of King Kong, I felt was very good. It starts out slow but I believe that in order to make it unitque but the same was to offer a broader story plot to what has been told down through the years. You gave you a look into what life was like at that time. Making the story line just that much more believable. The effects in this movie were, to say without a doubt, the best I have ever seen in any King Kong movie.Only one area where I felt that they could have did something a little more believable was when they went out to kill King Kong. They were blowing up building and area that were people populated without any concern for the people. This wouldn't have been done. Just to unbelievable. The funny thing is, I still cry at the end when King Kong is killed.
There are astonishments to behold in Peter Jackson's new "King Kong," but one sequence, relatively subdued, holds the key to the movie's success. Kong has captured Ann Darrow and carried her to his perch high on the mountain. He puts her down, not roughly, and then begins to roar, bare his teeth and pound his chest. Ann, an unemployed vaudeville acrobat, somehow instinctively knows that the gorilla is not threatening her but trying to impress her by behaving as an alpha male -- the King of the Jungle. She doesn't know how Queen Kong would respond, but she does what she can: She goes into her stage routine, doing backflips, dancing like Chaplin, juggling three stones. Her instincts and empathy serve her well. Kong's eyes widen in curiosity, wonder and finally what may pass for delight. From then on, he thinks of himself as the girl's possessor and protector. She is like a tiny beautiful toy that he has been given for his very own, and before long, they are regarding the sunset together, both of them silenced by its majesty. The scene is crucial because it removes the element of creepiness in the gorilla/girl relationship in the two earlier "Kongs" (1933 and 1976), creating a wordless bond that allows her to trust him. When Jack Driscoll climbs the mountain to rescue her, he finds her comfortably nestled in Kong's big palm. Ann and Kong in this movie will be threatened by dinosaurs, man-eating worms, giant bats, loathsome insects, spiders, machineguns and the Army Air Corps, and could fall to their death into chasms on Skull Island or from the Empire State Building. But Ann will be as safe as Kong can make her, and he will protect her even from her own species. The movie more or less faithfully follows the outlines of the original film, but this fundamental adjustment in the relationship between the beauty and the beast gives it heart, a quality the earlier film was lacking. Yes, Kong in 1933 cares for his captive, but she doesn't care so much for him. Kong was always misunderstood, but in the 2005 film, there is someone who knows it. As Kong ascends the skyscraper, Ann screams not because of the gorilla but because of the attacks on the gorilla by a society that assumes he must be destroyed. The movie makes the same kind of shift involving a giant gorilla that Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977) did when he replaced 1950s attacks on alien visitors with a very 1970s attempt to communicate with them (by 2005, Spielberg was back to attacking them, in "War of the Worlds"). "King Kong" is a magnificent entertainment. It is like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film. Computers are used not merely to create special effects, but also to create style and beauty, to find a look for the film that fits its story. And the characters are not cardboard heroes or villains seen in stark outline, but quirky individuals with personalities. Consider the difference between Robert Armstrong (1933) and Jack Black (2005) as Carl Denham, the movie director who lands an unsuspecting crew on Skull Island. A Hollywood stereotype based on C.B. de Mille has been replaced by one who reminds us more of Orson Welles. And in the starring role of Ann Darrow, Naomi Watts expresses a range of emotion that Fay Wray, bless her heart, was never allowed in 1933. Never have damsels been in more distress, but Fay Wray mostly had to scream, while Watts looks into the gorilla's eyes and sees something beautiful.Read full review
Peter Jackson has done it again! King Kong is an excellent movie, and it owes this not so much to the superlative special effects (they do play SOME part in making this movie top notch, of course, but not as much as you may think), but to the performances of the actors, which are just as superlative. First, I would like to say that when I first saw the movie, I was a bit skeptical about Jackson's choice of Jack Black as a main character. Don't get me wrong, I think he is quite funny and I enjoy the comedies that he is in, but I wasn't sure he could pull of a non-comedic role ... I was dead wrong. Black is a very convincing as Denham, and yes he IS a little over the top, but not to the extent that it undermines the integrity of the role. He may look somewhat different than the original actor, but he nails the performance. Naomi Watts was outstanding as Ann Darrow; Fay Wray would be proud. In addition, Thomas Kretschmann was a perfect choice to play Captain Englehorn. At times, one could swear that Jackson had simply colorized footage from the 1933 film. The other actors were excellent also, but I won't review any other performances, in the interest of time. The special effects were nothing short of breathtaking, especially Jackson’s vision of 1930s New York, and all in all the film is an impeccable homage to the film that inspired it. Jackson's painstaking attention to detail, his use of some of the original music, and his dedication at the end of the credits to the deceased actors from the original Kong all show how much the 1933 film inspired him. If you haven’t seen this movie yet, don’t let the colossal running time of 187 minutes daunt you; it doesn’t feel that long, and I am pleased to say that there aren’t really any times that I can think of where the movie drags. I highly encourage you to rent it, and there is a good chance that once you’ve seen it you’ll want to buy your own copy. I’m sure you’ll enjoy Peter Jackson’s King Kong; I know I did!Read full review
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Best Selling in DVDs & Blu-ray Discs
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Save on DVDs & Blu-ray Discs
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- You may also like
