Thread: King Kong
I went to see it last night. I'd read a review saying it was too long, but critics tend to say that of any film that exceeds two hours. I was surprised he'd managed to stretch it to over three hours though. To be honest, it could have been shorter. An hour had passed before you first saw the island, and it was an hour and half until you saw Kong. Maybe half an hour less at the start would prompt me to go and see it again tonight.
Once you reached the island, however, things started to rock. For those of you familiar with the original, everything is there...... but ON WHAT A GREAT SCALE. Expecting to see the old wooden wall, this new one blew me away. It was like, this is bigger than I expected. An the tribe were scary. Great make-up. Even lowering the sacrificial bride over the wall was done in style. And then we have..... KONG.
What can I say? He's a gorilla.... He's a bloody huge gorilla. He's not the man in monkey suit we are used to from the first film, but an Andy Sirkas (aka Smeagul) in a CGS gorilla suit. Fantastic, flawless. PJ has created a real 25 foot gorilla for us.
I had read somewhere that PJ had not put any dinosaurs in this film. How can you have King Kong without dinosaurs. Fortunately he had, and Jurasic Park eat your heart out. The brontosaurus stampede was something else, and Kong's scrap with the Tyranosaurs awesome (not one beastie but three). Some ugly moments with some giant insects too, including a particularly grizzly end to Andy Sirkas's other character as the cook.
The island was so beautiful I wasn't looking forward to going back to New York. By then Kong has been transformed from monster to something loveable. You want him to smash up New York and slay his tormentors, particularly after seeing a tender side of him playing on a frozen lake. And then there's the final stand off on the top of the Empire State building. It's sad. You know where its going to go, but you're just gunning for him to take down one more plane before he dies.
At the end of the day, if you're a shallow person like me, who can be bought for a shed-load of eye-candy, you'll love this film. If you are the type who looks beyond the special effects, I'm not sure... I didn't look beyond the special effects.
They should make you a PR, Val.
I still think though, that instead of Naomi Watts, Jane Goodall should've been King Kong's love interest. You really can't find a bigger gorilla in the mist than PJ's one.
How ironic that with King Kong, PJ tried (and succeeded) to stay as faithful and close to the original film as possible.
Are you refering to the fact that PJ didn't try to (and wasn't) as faithful and close to the original LoTR books as possible when he made the LoTR films? I don't think it's quite fair, calling it ironic..... Did you really expect him to have as much problem sticking close to another film as he did in sticking to a book? A remake will never be in the same category as an adaptation.
I am trying to decide whether or not to pay the money to go see this movie. half of me says 'not interested enough. wait till it's out on dvd' the other half says 'if you're interested at all, it'll be much better on the big screen. You already know the story; isn't it the big special effects you'd be after if you saw it?'