My Blog! My Blog!

It might be read. :-)

  • 1

From what I've heard, and seen in commercials, Jackson's Kong contains elements from _Son of Kong_, _Mighty Joe Young_ and the de Laurentis (SP?) Kong.

You may be right. I have no idea, as I didn't see any of the other films you've mentioned.

I can't claim originality on this idea, so I'll credit Steven Barnes (SF author and screenwriter) with it - on his blog <>.

It's not a horror movie, it's a love story. With the advent of good CGI, Jackson could show facial expression on the ape to demonstrate this.

It's not a horror movie, it's a love story.

Exactly. The original *was* a horror movie--and in my opinion Jackson did the story no service by turning it into a love story.

By the way, I thought that the facial expressions on the ape in the 1933 original were amazingly good for 1933.

It was ok, not great, not bad, just ok

I went to see the film last night; I agree that it was far too long. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with a three-hour long film if something is happening and the plot is moving along (the Harry Potter films come to mind). But in Peter Jackson's version of King Kong has far too much filler and has far too many unneeded scenes. Did the giant insect scene really contribute to the plot, or did Jackson simply want to gross us out?

I would have liked to have seen more of Kong as well. Not necessarily scenes of him fighting monsters and running through the forest, though. What seems to be the most interesting part of the movie was the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. Perhaps Ann is suffering a bit from Stockholm Syndrome, but she's the only one who understands Kong and is able to stand up to him. But no, most of the film involves people being chased by dinosaurs and giant bugs. Ho hum.

Re: It was ok, not great, not bad, just ok

I agree with you, but I don't think the relationship between Ann and Kong is the most interesting part of the film because it's a great story or a great idea for a story. I think it's the most interesting part of the film because Watts and Sarkis give such impressive performances. I found myself crying when the bazooka fire destroyed their idyllic scene on the skating rink--even though I thought the whole love plot was a stupid idea from the get-go.

My Friend Joe?

There's another remake (of a King Kong ripoff, IIRC) that managed to do much better: "Mighty Joe Young" had a pretty decent CGI monkey, and as far as I remember the story worked pretty well, too. That was actually a remake the world needed. I never understood why Jackson had to remake King Kong, whose original version is still rather watchable, and which was re-made in the 70ies also... there are other movies that are in need of a remake much more...

I've read in the media that Jackson re-made Kong because he loves the original so much. As for what *I* think of that idea, see the last paragraph of my review above. :-)

Re Kong King

What an insightful critic of the movie.


Thanks! (And here I thought I was just posting to keep my friends from harassing me about not posting often enough.) :-)

Agreement plus

I agree with your observations. I, too, thought it was up to an hour too long. I especially disagreed with the need for roughly 40 minutes worth of stampeding through the jungle underfoot of the beasts. Why were there so many of them and why were they stampeding?

Just a note about the final scenes. The New York action took place in winter. I've been in New York City in Winter and went to the top of the Empire State Building. On the open 86th floor observation area I was wearing a heavy navy peacoat and dress blues plus gloves and was nontheless quite cold. The wind cut right through me. But Ann Darrow made it to the very top and stands there exposed to that wind in a low-cut light dress, but shows no signs of discomfort or fear of falling from that great height, even after Kong fell to his death. Also, the preceding scenes were clearly in the evening before midnight. So how did it sudenly become daylight (perhaps dawn)when the planes were circling above?

Having said all this, I considered the best part of the film to be the New York episodes at the beginning and end of the film. I think Mr. Jackson got so involved in the truly magnificent CGI that he lost track of the story-telling and apparently did not realize how bloated the film had become. With considerably more attention to editing, this would have been a much better film.

I liked Jack Black's role a lot. He never hit a wrong note.

Thanks for your comments.

I liked Jack Black's role a lot. He never hit a wrong note.

I agree with you, though my husband disagrees with both of us. He absolutely *hated* Black's performance. But I think that was because he hated the idea of the director character being turned into a kind of charlatan-sleazeball, just as he hated the idea of Driscoll being turned into a wimpy writer.

  • 1

Log in