Movie Talks Archives

Posted by: wildandhairy at February 10, 2006, 10:40 am

Topic: King Kong!! WOW! (Reviews) Forum: JoBlo

King Kong is pretty much out of most theatres now, and is no longer on the top ten box office charts. I've seen it twice. What will the final "judgement" on the film be? First, it is too long. While some individual scenes were okay long, in the end the thin storyline just does not support the film's length. It is not, as many have already noted, an epic storyline (although it could have been). The length is a sign of self indulgence rather than respect for the audience--PJ gave the audience what he thought they wanted to see (MORE) rather than a tight film. Second, although the effects are excellent, and King Kong very well presented, including with facial expressions, the pot bellied big ape just did not quite have the strength of the leaner, meaner original. Third, the Carl Denham character was changed into a cynical manipulator. This alone might have worked if the film had an actor with enough depth to play the role to the hilt. Jack Black, bless his heart, looked too young for the role, and just did not have the acting chops for most of the big scenes. Fourth, despite the film's overlength, there were still narrative jumps. Apart from the obvious of getting Kong onto the boat, there was why the Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody characters did not go along with Jack Black in New York, why Brody keeps working for Black after being kidnapped, etc. The script writing just was not that good or, conversely, too much was left on the editing room floor. The narrative jumps include how Black is able to rent a ship without any money etc.--the captain looked like too much of a realist to be conned. Writing problems also included the totally unnecessary attempt at humanizing the crew by showing the relationship between the first mate and the kid sailor. As everyone else has already noted, the sequences went nowhere in the end. Moreover, the kid's reading The Heart ofDarkness makes one wonder whether the scriptwriters also read it, since the Conrad novel is not on point with Kong's storyline, even remotely. Fifth, the film is, very sorry, racist. The original film presented the Islanders as people with a culture. They did not hurt anyone. In PJ's film, the Islanders are unrelenting savages who killed a crew member in a totally unprovoked attack. The natives appear as much monsters as the dinosaurs on the island. I could care less about the rationalization of PJ and his writers that the natives were driven nuts by the crazy island. Maybe they were. But what is presented onscreen is just plain racist. Sixth, the original King Kong film makers were, in the end, smart to leave out the spider pit sequence. It was self indulgent and slowed the storyline. Too bad PJ did not show the same controls. Again, the effects were excellent, and the sequence worked at the time--but, afterwards (both first and second time I saw the film) I wondered, why is this here, and why is it going on so long? Just so I can see bugs? The film was both enjoyable and disappointing. It still does not match the original for overall impact. The first told its story swiftly with respect for its audience. The remake told its story self indulgently with a whole lot of pandering to the audience. While endless battle scenes seemed to have worked in the LOTR triology (just how many "final" battles were there in LOTR, anyway?), it did not work here. And the original T Rex battle still is better, damn it!!

Shared Movies
Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows to choose from

Categories:

Harry Potter Great Movie Movie Review Adventure Movie Spoiler Film noir Movie Theater Movie News Action Movie Science Fiction Movie DVD Releases Romance Thriller Movie Favourite Movie Comedy Movie Divx Movie Movie Award Celebrities Lord of the Ring Best Movies

Links:

Forum Extractor

Shared Movies
Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows to choose from
Play movies on your computer, Home theater or TV
No Charge per movie, No download limit what so ever!