|
我也爱收集负面评论
可以叫MOP那人滚了
Over Hyped, 10 January 2006
Author: flame2ie from Ireland
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
This has to be one of the most over-hyped movies of all time, a veritable 'King Kong' of a movie deflated to Bubbles the chimp stature with its wooden acting, naff sequences, contrived plot and extreme length. As the saying goes 'its not how big you are but how you use it!" Unfortunately Mr. Jackson feels the need to release onto us the Bigger, Longer and Uncut version from the get go.
To wade into this movie is to find yourself in a jungle but in the end having sifted through everything all you get is a monkey-nut. To begin with its one basic flaw is that its too long by far, over an hour too long. Jackson feels the need to show us all Ann Darrows workmates at the theatre one by one. He develops them to a point where you're thinking they're going to be integral to the story and then he swiftly moves, he does it with the crew of Venture. Lots of scenes with them, pointless in the end especially when they die, they just seem like cannon fodder for our amusement. There is just too much of everything in King Kong. Too many characters to begin with, too many natives, too many monsters, Kong fights off not one, not two, but three t-rex's at the same time. Denham and Driscoll are not attacked by one or two big bugs, but a gazillion of them. At this point I was shaking my fist at the screen Its as if Jackson sat in a suite at Weta, like a kid in a candy store and said, I'll have two those, ten of those, seven of those and twelve of those etc etc. Too much, quality not quantity Mr. Jackson. There are some cringe worthy moments too, especially in the dinosaur chase scene, with Adrien Brody punching, yes punching a Velociraptor (Steven must be laughing extremely loudly) in the face all the while not trying to get stamped on by some brontosaurus , gimme a break.
The scenes between Ann and Kong begin funny, but turn stupid as Jackson has some how turned the beast of Kong into a docile and almost human like character, I was half expecting the pair to get down to some frantic love-making by the end of it, cringe, cringe cringe.
I could go on and on and on, oh I could, but the most glaring contrivance occurs at the very beginning when we are cheated out of an explanation. Denham played by Jack Black is trying to convince his film financiers to give him more money, but having seen his rushes they're not convinced. However, Denham pulls from his pocket a map no less, of Skull Island, a map nobody else has, annnnnd thats it. No back-story, no 'where did he get that map' no dodgy Asian guy in a pawn shop, no mystic Mr. Miagi, no cults, no Nazis, no nothing. Denham just has the map, the map on which the whole movie rests, a poor downtrodden director has this map, where did he get it!!!!!! Is that to be saved for King Kong 2: Son of Kong, I guess so, but I'll be in no rush to see that, but I was in a rush to leave the theatre to avoid the 17, yes SEVENTEEN minute end credits.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 out of 85 people found the following comment useful :-
editor needed quick!, 17 December 2005
Author: Daan Bolder from Amsterdam, Netherlands
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
OK, I'm a heavy smoker. After more than 2 hours my mind switches to a serious urge for nicotine unless something is really entertaining me. Although we can smoke everything we want in the Netherlands, there is a pretty strict no-smoking policy in cinema's. And even in 3+ hour movies we don't have a break! But still, I survived LOTR pretty well, so why not try the King-Kong-big-sit.
I was pretty familiar with the story & time-line. I already knew they are gonna take Kong back to the city. After a 2 hour adventure on the island the only thing I could think of was: "oooh, and they STILL have to go to the city...". The setting and the effects are amazing, but just like an amazing painting it's not gonna entertain me for hours. I've seen the ape, I knew the story and I was in serious need for my cigarette.
The funny thing is, you CAN actually go out and smoke a cigarette. Nothing important is gonna happen. When a scene starts, you can be sure you won't be late for the next scene if you go out for a cigarette. I'm not saying the movie was boring, it's just too much showing the possibilities of cgi & beautiful settings. The story is obviously not Jacksons priority in this movie.
Jackson showed us he isn't the "artist" people suggest he is. Give the man a bag of millions, a group of the best cgi-effect people and you get King Kong. Too bad there wasn't any money left for a decent editor. The movie didn't surprise me, didn't contain anything new and was just a display what is possible with unlimited finance. The only creativity were the cgi-creatures. (It's actually an animated movie, roger rabbit style) Jackson, cut a movie like this to a maximum of 2 hours, and it WILL be entertaining. Leave the ape on the Island, or shoot him of the tower in less then 30 minutes PLEASE !
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
The most overdone movie of 2005, 7 January 2006
Author: nerojones from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
When I saw the previews of the movie I thought the movie was going to be absolutely spectacular. I loved Lord of the Rings and I thought Jackson would do a good job with this one too. Boy, was I wrong. This movie is so overdone and stupid it is unbelievable. The beginning of the movie is VERY drawn out and includes characters that have no point in the film. Not only that, you get backstory on these characters. Usually when you build characters up, they have a purpose in the story. Sometimes Mr. Jackson, we want to know what happens to characters if you build them up. Then once they get on the island it is pure chaos. How anyone could plausibly survive that island is beyond me. The natives are gonna get ya. If the natives don't get ya, Kong's gonna get ya. If Kong doesn't get ya, the dinosaurs will get ya. If the dinosaurs don't get ya, the bugs are gonna get ya. If the bugs don't get ya, the bats are gonna get ya (if they don't decide to attack Kong first). My favorite scene in the movie is when Adrian Brody fights all of the above and then goes after Kong with no weapon. Hmmmmm...that's a good decision. I just nearly lost my life to natives, dinosaurs, and giant bugs, but I don't need a weapon for a giant angry gorilla. Right. At this point in the movie I was waiving a white flag in the theater. "You got me Mr. Jackson. I give up! You can have my ten dollars! Just no more picture! No more picture! (sobbing). I haven't even mentioned the ridiculous love story between Naomi Watts and Kong. But if you enjoyed all that over-hyped overdone madness that you've seen up to that point, I'm sure you would enjoy that too. I recommend this movie to people that don't like plot or any sense of reality or reason in their films. The special effects are good, but what a waste! Peter Jackson, I beg you, PLEASE DO NOT REMAKE ANY MORE FILMS! In any case, I cant wait for the unrated version to come out on DVD.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
KING of overlong, indulgent monster disappointments, 3 January 2006
Author: IDs_Ego from Los Angeles
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
To save your time: BORING BORING THE KING OF BORING! Now for the rant: BORING...except when those neat-o CGI-wrought effects sequences happened. But though they looked cool, they looked completely fake, which detracts.
Anyway, this was BY FAR the biggest disappointment of the year for me, and I SAW The Island. But this time I was expecting something that wasn't so God-forsaken and overly long, and it's purely the acclaimed PeterJ to blame, and he may yet take Oscars(TM) for this boring dullfest.
I mean it. I have never checked my watch or rolled my eyes as much as I did for this 3 hour of film. Part of this is due to the hype. Shows you how well the Hollywood machine is doing. (Just fine.) I typically rate films as they deserve, but if they have the hype and blind-sided enthusiasm of instant or undeserved glorification (like too many) I will notch it down a few points, typically two. This deserves three for it's indulgence such as: 1) trying to be novelistic, with I'm-film-but-I'm-literature references to Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", and such time-slurping expository stuff (let's skate over that) that drag the hour more so than progress story 2) even more lame analogies and references, like the writer-in-the-cage and Fay-Wray-on-another-film kinda malarkey, 3) The visionary fat-head genius-conniver-ultimately humbled Lord-of-the-Moov Director, played by Jack B for Peter J's carefully conducted, bogus humility. 4) Forget about continuity, skate to dawn... etc) There's plenty more. I rolled my eyes. Checked the the time. More than any other film. Even the worst ones.
Wondered when it would end. kept wondering.
Peter J, take a lesson from Seuss: The story need not be longer than it is to be a good story. (Or, if I were a Hollywood suck-up, "Can't wait to read your approved draft of the Lorax, Petey!!!")
Kong did not show up until the film was half over. A three hour film. I'm just still glad it's over.
It gets a two because it must be pulled down from that pedestal, like all new over-hyped films are. But on a good day, I'd give it a five, unless it were edited for... time. Then it might not suck for two more hours.
Thus, I would recommend kind IMDb viewers to just rent the DVD. The CGI stuff is the only thing that's worth it, every other theme ("Beautiful" "artistic endeavor" "how to make a good 100 minutes be a boring 180") must be saved for hardcore blindsided film dorks, and their girlfriends who will fall asleep to this indulgent, time-consuming, overwrought boring remake.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
Save your money and your time, 2 January 2006
Author: clashchick88 from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
For the record, I loved the Lord of the Rings Series. I love long, heavy movies. The length of most movies doesn't bother me - as long as it is worth it. And King Kong is not worth it.
First of all, there were many plot holes that totally lacked explanation. How/when/where did Jack Black's character obtain that map? And why didn't he seem up set when he lost it? It was winter in New York City and Naomi Watt's character was walking around in an thin gown and we don't even see her breath? She doesn't so much as shiver as she stands on the top of the Empire State Building. And why didn't the pond that King Kong slid around on so much as creak? The army just "showed up" minutes after King Kong escapes? And then starts blasting apart the city? If King Kong had really fallen from that height there would have been bits-o-monkey everywhere. That or he would have smashed through the street and screw up the sewer system. How could they have kept King Kong sedated the entire trip back? The movie makes it seem like it took months to get there, but only a week end to get back.
Another thing that bothered me was that Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody had no, and I mean no, chemistry whatsoever. None. I didn't understand their supposed "attraction." The dialog between them was so phony and speaking of dialog what was with the part with Andy Serkis after they find the tracks in the jungle saying, "Only one creature could have made those tracks, the Abominable Snowman." Was that supposed to be funny or something? Or what about Jack Black's last line in the movie, "It was beauty that killed the beast." What was with that? Was it supposed to be clever or moving? Well, it wasn't. There's more but frankly, I don't even want to think about it anymore. Long story short, save your money and your time.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
King Wrong !!, 6 January 2006
Author: Mark Solanki from London, England
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
I've recently reviewed many movies which take someone else's story or idea and re-created in the directors own imagining, usually if you have the right director & cast along with an original screenplay you can get something like Oceans 11 (vastly superior to the original) other times things can go wrong even with a good director like Tim Burtons Planet of the Apes!
Sadly the case for King Kong is the latter, Peter Jackson is used to taking someone else's story and putting his touch on it, from his Lord of the Rings experience we know he can do it. But King Kong is NOT A Lord of the Rings. The entire movie runs at a lethargic pace, plodding from the main plot line of recruiting a cast & crew for Jack Black's character (a Director) to our heroine's love triangle played by Naomi Watts between her idol screenplay writer & the big ape. They don't even set foot on the island until about 1 hour & a half of the movie, and the whole trip to the island is like watching a cut down version of the Perfect Storm. When they finally do arrive on the island, its like we've suddenly switched on Starship Troopers, with the audience shown many battles between King Kong, the characters of the movie, dinosaurs, Big Bugs (ala Starship troopers) and the jungle itself.
The main character Ann Darrow (Watts) is a down on her luck actress who is persuaded to go on this boat trip to make it big in her career, her performance has to be said is quite poor but this maybe due to the poor dialogue she's given, but her calmness in front of the ape upon realising she's been captured is just too convenient for my liking. During his whole piece on the island we are meant to believe the stupid ape has soft spot for the leading lady as he grows more & more attached to her, but this is not well conveyed. I think people will feel he is more like a big kid who has lost his toy and wants it back, the Toy being the rather lame Mrs. Watts. I can only say the convincing acting comes from Jack Black as the un-relent us film Director looking to make a few bob on this mission to bring the Ape back to New York.
Another major problem I have with this movie is the big gaping hole they leave in this film in account of how Kong gets from the Island to New York, maybe the director thought it wasn't important, but showing us a ship stuck between two rocks and giant bats attacking people was important to see to the storyline. How they manage to get a 25 foot Ape onto the ship is not just interesting but I feel essential to the story as it would have allowed the audience to better understand the struggle Naomi Watts character was going through seeing this tortured beast who saved her life numerous times on the island, and it would have created more friction between her human & ape lovers. This was just a poor hole in the scrip and a bad decision by the director not to show this.
The scenes with the Ape in New York make a good action yarn but suggestions for this movie to receive accolades as a love story and "you should be crying at the end" are laughable, as you feel nothing for this big stupid CGI Ape except THANK GOD ITS FINALLY OVER
Peter Jackson should realise just because his last 3 movies were over 3 hours doesn't mean they all have to be, a poor re-make with a stuttering storyline lengthened unnecessarily. Watch Jurassic park you'll have more fun, if you want to see a romance just watch Sleepless in Seattle!!
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
What a terrible movie (spoilers), 28 December 2005
Author: kierangaffney from United Kingdom
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
This movie is terrible. The original was all about beauty and the beast it was smutty and sexy and full of lust. This was portrayed powerfully by Fay Wray and her co-star. Peter Jackson has turned the film into a cross between a horror movie (the tribe are indistinguishable from orcs?) to a Jurassic park rip off and a cheesy gorillas in the mist - aren't gorillas smart, mishmash. The film utterly lacks direction and is the worst kind of Hollywood pulp - mash it all in, there will be something for everyone.
Don't get me wrong I love Hollywood action movies and cg stuff, I loved spider man 2 and the Matrix. I also loved some of the actors; Adrien Brody from the Jacket (which was great), Jack Black and Jamie Bell. But this movie was terrible.
Useless characters: Hayes (Evan Parke) Jimmy (Jamie Bell) Bruce Baxter (Kylie Chandler) whose only role seemed to be to validate the (lets face it) not beautiful hero Anyone else who was on the ship - the Chinese guy and his 'buddy'
other than the pointless characters and relationships, subplots just disappear. There are also numerous ridiculous events; for example what carnivore would stop eating lunch to chase some other lunch around? (Happens three of four times) and do T-Rex's really hang out in a gang? Would the stupid and utterly pointless scenes with the brontosauruses (?) running away from 6 tiny Velociraptors and ending up with most of the brontosauruses falling off a cliff really happen?
Badly cast: the two main actors weren't up to it. Jack Black (who I love) is just useless as the showman producer. Naomi Watts while playing her sentimental role well was no where near sexy enough
People who say Peter Jackson is the new Spielberg are clowns; he should get a bullet to the back of the head for ruining this classic.
Movies are supposed to suspend our disbelief and the one problem with the original these days is that Kong himself isn't real enough. So what do they do, make Kong real but almost everything else utterly fake!
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 out of 172 people found the following comment useful :-
Pure cheese and corn; hard cheese on audience., 14 December 2005
Author: maria_ines from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
This movie is unjustifiably long and occasionally boring, especially in the first hour. And it's just too easy to eat an entire tub of large popcorn while viewing it, since it takes three hours to sit through it all. Boy did I have a stomach ache!
I expected a clichéd, over-budgeted movie, so my expectations were not very high, but I gave it a view just to see if the Dinosaur scenes were any good. In the end, I sat through an exceptionally long, painfully corny movie that felt like a silly video game.
The first hour seemed mostly unnecessary, since the characters are no more fully drawn or sympathetic when they finally set out for Skull Island. And it's not until the second hour that they arrive there and we get to see the Dinosaurs, or King Kong, which are really the reason to see the movie.
The much touted recreation of 1930s New York is not to be appreciated, as the camera sweeps quickly past each scene, never allowing the eye to take in the details. This, in combination with odd camera angles, makes the action feel disjointed. You do not really get a sense of place.
The film throughout knows no moderation in scope or execution. There are too many high cliffs, weird scary natives, and way too many giant bugs. There are too many chase scenes, too much violence, and not nearly enough Dinosaurs. The camera rarely lingers long enough to absorb the action. It is all fatiguing rather than thrilling. And most scenes employ the usual visual and aural clichés of big budget movies, and since this movie is so long, there are lots and lots of them. The excessive use of the dramatic close-up is particularly cloying, especially since one of the stars is Jack Black. There just is no there, there.
The Skull Island sets are absurdly fantastic rather than intriguingly imaginative. The corn isn't just in the dialogue, unfortunately; often the palette of the movie is pure cheese too. In one particular scene, King Kong, atop his aerie on the island, takes in the sweeping grandeur of the landscape. He sees not a view of sublime nature, but rather a sunset straight out of a Thomas Kinkade landscape, all garish and on fire.
I do think a giant gorilla should have moved more ponderously, rather than hopping and flying around like Kong does in this movie. Maybe Peter Jackson misspent his youth playing too many games of Donkey Kong?
The soundtrack is blatantly expansive, portentous, and cutesy. It isn't entirely intrusive, though, but perhaps this wasn't by design, as what is played is apparently a last minute replacement.
In all things prehistoric, Jackson reveals himself as the artistic heir to Spielberg, who has perfected the art of film as Amusement Park. Only Spielberg did it first, and did it better. These scenes are not the only ones that feel familiar, and I imagine Jackson sincerely flatters a lot of other directors with his imitations.
The Central Park scene with King Kong and Watts is so absurd and corny, it was simply painful to watch. I couldn't stifle a giggle I was so embarrassed, but I think most of those sitting near me were enthralled, so there you have it. Actually all the poignant scenes with Watts and Kong are just plain embarrassing, especially when she performs the soft shoe for him. I wonder why all the good actors played only relatively minor roles, and most of them died, when we had to endure Jack Black, the relentlessly doleful Adrian Brody, and the annoying Naomi Watts until the bitter end?
When King Kong finally falls from his perch atop the Empire State building, the inherent tragedy of the scene is unfortunately blunted by the spinning view of the poor creature's free fall. The effect was genuinely dizzying rather than deeply moving. Jackson and his crew seem too busy trying to show off their high tech graphics, and in this scene and throughout the entire movie they sacrifice visual narrative for superficial dazzle. The results are not as impressive as advertised. The computer generated visuals are often clumsy and unconvincing. Maybe Jackson should do a remake of Earthquake and bring back Sensurround instead.
The adventure and tragedy of the story is not entirely lost in this film, but it is too frequently overwhelmed by its excess and artifice, and juvenile attempts at humor. Although the movie was conceived, shot, and edited on location somewhere deep in the backwaters of the Antipodes, it suffers tremendously from good old Hollywood bloat.
Perhaps Jackson and his collaborators have become inebriated with delusions of their own genius, and the excessive power and wealth their previous movies have afforded them.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
148 out of 284 people found the following comment useful :-
Makes Jurassic Park look like Barney's playground!, 15 December 2005
Author: pastormark from United States
Don't get me wrong, I still love Jurassic Park, but the technology there is now twelve years old. Peter Jackson's KING KONG is the experience for which movies were invented. The CGI was incredible, the casting appropriate (this wasn't supposed to be an actor-driven, big-star film, after all), and the flow was satisfying. Even the somewhat slow build-up had a huge payoff once you see Kong running through the jungle with Ann in his giant hand. Is it a flawless movie? Probably not. But it Is a perfect example of why we go to movies in the first place-- to see things that we will never see in our real lives. When I walked out of the theater and was making my way through the deserted lobby, I had an odd feeling. Every poster I saw for an upcoming film kind of made me feel like all those movies were probably just going to be a waste of film next to KING KONG.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
"Not good", 5 January 2006
Author: Mark from St Helens, England
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
I'll be honest.
I liked LOTR, and I was "looking forward" to Peter Jackson's next movie in which he borrowed from someone else. I saw the commercial and it looked promising.
But, after sitting through 3 hours of this movie, I would recommend against it. Not only has Jackson added some seriously pointless scenes, he also missed out a fair few. The New York scene at the start is quite good, and builds up well, but a 70 minute delay before Kong is seen? Too far.
Another missing scene is the part in which they transport Kong back to the USofA. I understand the whole chloroform idea, but a black screen followed by Kong being in New York? Unless I blacked out in the cinema, this was also a gaping plot hole.
Even when Kong is atop the State building in the infamous battle with the planes, it seemed as if the plane that delivers the final blow to Kong ran past giggling. The last line? Stupid! In conclusion: A classic movie which is ruined.
8.3 rating on IMDb? How?, 17 December 2005
Author: dafalias
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
-- CAUTION King-Kong-sized spoilers ahead ---
The Lord of The Ring trilogy being a true masterpiece, one could expect Peter Jackson to remake this classic with state-of-the-art SFX, well defined characters brought to life by well cast, capable actors and a fast, modern adaptation of the original story.
One couldn't be more wrong.
1. The film is way to long. Unlike any of the three LOTR movies, there is just not enough storyline to support a runtime of over three hours.
2. Too much "let's Tolkienize the King Kong story". Our heroes, who we could not care less about, despite the one-hour-introduction, stumble from one bizarre danger into the next.
3. The island looks like a mixture of Minas Tirith and Mount Doom. Every stupid rock is a creepy sculpture of either an ape or a scull. Who is supposed to have made all these artworks? The primitives living on the island? Come on!
4. The natives look like rejects from the Orc army, and they behave like that.
5. Too many unresolved questions. Despite being so long, neither the origin of Carl's map nor the fate of the "wild kid" nor the whereabout of the creepy natives after the ship's crew shoot around a little. How did they get Kong on the ship?
6. The only thing as dense as the storyline in the LOTR trilogy is the presence of plot holes. How large is the crew of this tiny freighter? How can a petite woman like Naomi Watts ever survive being held in Kongs hand while fighting three T-Rex or running at about 50 mp/h through a dense jungle? Why doesn't Kong bleed at all after being bitten by T-Rex's on his arm to the bone several times? Why did Ann and Jack split up after having arrived in New York? It goes on and on ...
7. Bad CGI. Aside from the ape himself, it looks often times just like an X-Box 360 game.
8. Our "heroes" resolving impossible situations like thousands of creepy giant insects or scull lusting natives by the captain and his endless supply of men showing up at the last second shooting around a bit.
9. Jimmy not being able to hold the MP steady shooting insects off Jack without hitting him at all.
10. Too much time on the island, too many never ending actions scenes (I never imagined I could get bored during an action scene), too little time to resolve. After Kong is captured, it is cut to New York, obviously months later. What happened in between? What happened to the captain and the remainder of his crew? Who cares?
11. The best dialog of the whole movie was between Kong and Ann:
Kong: Groaaaar!
Ann: Iiiiiiiiiii!
Kong: Groaaaaar!
Ann: Iiiiiiiiiiiiii!
Kong: Groooaaaaaar!
and so on ...
12. The producers thinking the audience to have an I.Q. below 50. Too cheesy scenes between the ape and the girl saying "they like each other", "really!","i'm serious!", Carl repeating his plot line "beauty killed the beast" so that the most stupid viewer gets the clue "oh, the movie WAS intended to make sense".
There are a few things I liked however, but they are not nearly enough to save the movie.
1. Jack Black gave a surprisingly serious performance, not caricaturing the character at all.
2. Kyle Chandler however did exactly that, very entertaining and very memorable.
3. Naomi Watts was very credible as her character, very beautiful and endearing and obviously had developed a very tender relationship with the blue screen, which is always admirable.
4. Andy Serkis & the Weta animation people did an equally marvelous job on Kong as they did on Gollum.
5. The fight between Judo Kong and the three Tyrannosauri Rex was awesome!
But still only 1 out of 10, because I am angry that they had me pay 10 Euros and then shamelessly waste my time. I just wish I had seen it on DVD, finger always on fast forward and skip buttons.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132 out of 237 people found the following comment useful :-
Huge Disappointment ... too dumb for words, 16 December 2005
Author: redoddball from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
HUGE SPOILERS...................................................
One hour of exposition to start the film doesn't work, especially after the movie degenerates in to asinine, over-the-top CGI action. This movie really never knew what it wanted to be. Jack Black played his role as cheesy as possible and that hurt the film at every turn. Besides Ann, none of the characters were fleshed out even with the long introductions. I was truly disappointed in the way the story was told.
Still, you don't go to a monster flick for the plot, even the "king" of all monster flicks. They spent hundreds of millions on a CG budget and wasted almost every penny. Despite the big budget, does it get any worse or any more "greenscreen" then that preposterous and downright awful Brontosaurus stampede? Why the need for the gross-out giant bug valley scene? Does Kong get attacked by giant bats at his home every night? Those same bats would rather attack a giant ape then eat the two humans standing right there? That whole escape scene was beyond bad. Did I really see our two heroes ride a giant bat like a glider down to the river below? Oy. This went even beyond James Bond type implausible stupidity. I'm all for the suspension of disbelief, especially when dealing with 30 foot tall apes, but some of this stuff was too stupid to believe. Worse, most of these antics didn't register as real to the minds eye…poor use of modern CGI if you ask me. Good construction and technology but poorly used by Peter Jackson. Plot holes were everywhere. Why did grabbing a taxi (a 1930s mule to boot) and getting Kong to follow help anything? The destruction was still wide spread. It's a good thing that the chase ended on the street where the Ann character was waiting, beautifully back lit. It obviously wasn't very cold in winter back in 1930s New York because there was hardly a breeze or a chill on the very top of the Empire State building. I could go on but why bother? Why do they think we'd care about this giant ape who brutally murders multiple humans during the course of the film? Any critics that say this has emotional resonance are just fooling themselves. Kong fires the black guy (Jimmy's mentor) off a cliff, throws multiple people off a log bridge and then bites a guy in two right before he gets KO'd and we cut to Ann crying? Huh? Are we suppose to feel sorry for Kong? I'd have felt sorry for me as a movie ticket buyer if it hadn't been for the Tyrannosaurus Rex vs Kong stuff, however. Those 15 minutes or so almost saved the movie for me. Almost.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79 out of 132 people found the following comment useful :-
How did they make it so boring when there's so much action?, 16 December 2005
Author: Richard_V from Sweden
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
For the first hour I was seriously bored. The acting was laughable, the characters were unbelievable cardboard cut outs, and the situations were overlong and just plain tedious.
Things changed when they (at last) reached the island. They stopped being boring and started being nonsensical. There are the island natives who kidnap Ann and stake her out for Kong. Why? In the original, the sacrifice is necessary to appease the monstrous ape... but that can't happen in THIS version because the ape is our hero and has a gentle soul...
At least there's enough action that you won't be bored as a series of ever-larger dinosaurs start chasing people through jungles, stopping only occasionally to fight Kong. Mind you, the action HAS to move at a huge pace because otherwise you'd start to think how ridiculous it all is. All the characters should have been dead within the first few minutes, but since we know that the "principles" have to survive for the ending, all that is of interest is seeing the ever-more grisly ways thought up for eliminating most of the minor characters. The guy being devoured by the giant leeches just caused laughter throughout the cinema.
But I think the most disappointing aspect of a very disappointing film was the sentimentality. This starts on Skull island when Ann does her vaudeville routine and juggles for Kong. But it reaches its nadir when the action moves back to New York. All of the scenes before Kong reaches the Empire State Building are bad. But when he goes skating with Ann in Central Park! Honestly, you couldn't make it up - well actually you could because someone did, but you SHOULDN'T! No more laughter in the cinema - instead there were people walking out. If a character is *TRULY* lovable, the audience will react appropriately - the added schmaltz just shows that even the people who made this film realised that they hadn't succeeded in the task of making us love Kong.
So we can't love Kong as a character, and he is no longer portrayed as a monster, and in the end we don't care whether he lives or dies.
Actually that's not *quite* true. I cared about him after he died - I cared that he fell from the top of the Empire State Building to the street below and his body seemed intact. I mean, he SHOULD have splashed everything up to the 6th floor or so with a thin puree of skin and blood, but because he's the hero his corpse has to look noble.
Badly acted, confusingly directed, appallingly scripted, meaningless, nonsensical garbage. But the CGI is good - in parts.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72 out of 119 people found the following comment useful :-
Monkey-lover!, 19 December 2005
Author: waynesjohn from United Kingdom
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Essentially the same movie as the 1933 version, but spun out to 187 minutes as opposed to the original 100 minutes. So what do we get for our extra 87 minutes? Absolutely nothing. It must be somewhat embarrassing for Jacko (who can't help but make big, fat, 3 hour plus movies) that the 1933 version is so much more exciting, precise and well made. The 2005 version will disappear into history as a flabby, over-emotional pile of rubbish whilst Fay Wray et al will remain a classic of the cinema forever. Could have been a great remake, but turned out to be a self-indulgent, CGI-heavy bore-fest. Pack it in Jacko, you can make movies of 100 minutes or less and they can be good!
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 out of 57 people found the following comment useful :-
Avoid this movie if you possibly can. It will ruin your day., 2 January 2006
Author: Dessek from Netherlands
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
As I am writing this, I am still struggling to come to grips with the sheer magnitude of this movie's failure to be anything it pretends to be. Not just on the level of its marketing campaign, hailing it as Peter Jackson's latest triumph of movie-making, but almost on the level of it being a movie at all. I will seriously try to avoid any comments on realism in this movie because I understand that a film about an 8 meter ape isn't going to be very realistic, and it has a different point altogether. Even so, the best thing that can be said about this film comes directly from the script itself:
Carl: "Monsters belong in B-movies."
Clearly the incentive for this film was given by today's Hollywood trend of remaking old movies using new techniques, most importantly Computer Generated Imagery. There's one problem with this trend and that is the fact that it recycles old scripts; its "new" value lies entirely in the way it looks. Everybody hopefully already knows at least the basics of the tale of King Kong: we know it's a huge monkey, we know it's going to fall in love with the actress, and we know it's going to go on a rampage in New York and die. Since we already know what's going to happen, there is no way in which any suspense can be brought into the film; there is no element of surprise, and the characters have to be overwhelmingly convincing to make sure we sympathize with them even though we know what will happen. Therefore, a good "recycled" movie in this Hollywood trend should be utterly outstanding in two fields in order to be worth watching: one, its graphics must be amazing, and two, its characters should invoke compassion by good acting, good scriptwriting, and a convincing plot.
King Kong has nothing of the above. In fact, on most points it has the opposite.
Reading other reviews here makes it clear that opinions on the CGI of this movie vary widely. Personally, I am of the "it sucked" persuasion, especially when compared to Jackson's earlier LOTR trilogy. The computer generated images of this movie were all, without exception, obviously made by computers; they suffer from added blurring and superfluous lighting which does nothing for realism and (along with several obvious downright flaws in the CGI) in fact makes it more obvious that the background is fake. Not for one second during the entire movie did I believe that King Kong was actually a living creature; in fact I pitied those poor actors in the movie who had to pretend it was. I felt how hard it must have been for Naomi Watts, who plays the female lead, to pretend to be with a giant animal even though there was nothing there but a blue screen. Her performance as an actress was quite all right, if it weren't for the fact that she was chained to a ridiculous plot and worthless CGI. An acting performance of "quite all right" is way above the average achieved in this film, most of the characters being ridiculous caricatures who die in a predictable order.
The script was so riddled with clichés that it was almost unbearable to hear most of the dialogue of this movie; the action scenes were stolen from other movies down to a fault. When you're watching this movie you may find yourself thinking you're looking at fragments of other movies mashed together illogically by cliché sentences uttered by cardboard characters, because that's exactly what you're seeing. I don't even need to go into any detail on this point either, it is perfectly clear that nothing in this movie is original.
Worst last, a convincing plot. "King Kong" not only lacks a convincing plot, it has a terribly unconvincing plot at some points, whereas at other points it openly admits that it has no plot whatsoever. Examples of the latter include: -There is no explanation for Kong's arrival in New York, even though it was obvious that the ship used by the main characters couldn't hope to transport him. -Whenever the main characters were in trouble, the captain of said ship showed up followed by men with guns to save the day. No explanation for this coincidence is ever given. -A native tribe of rather cunning and savage Kong worshippers disappear suddenly from the movie. No explanation given. What is even worse than these obvious plot holes is the fact that the main plot, the story of Kong and the actress, is not convincing. In the end the entire movie depends on whether we, the audience, can understand why the actress wants Kong to live, and why Kong dies for love of the actress. If the audience doesn't understand why this is so, it cannot feel sympathy for either party, and if it cannot feel sympathy the movie has no point. This version fails gloriously on all counts of convincing, because there is simply NO reason made apparent to the viewer as to why the actress would feel any form of sympathy for the ape (who likes to push her over for his amusement, laughing at her pain). Looking at a badly enhanced CGI sunset together with a large, undoubtedly stinking, noisy, brute of an ape is not anything like a bonding moment to me. But naturally because the creature is obviously lonely and protects his prize against vicious Tyrannosauruses (who, apparently, do not have any strength in their jaws or teeth in their mouths) we are supposed to believe that she is charmed by him. Please make up your own mind as to why a petite blonde girl smitten by an inconspicuous literary type would be attracted to an 8 meter tall monster of a gorilla who abuses her.
Avoid this movie if you possibly can. I wish I had.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 out of 88 people found the following comment useful :-
The Peter Principle, 19 December 2005
Author: Gary
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Not content with lecturing us on class and colonialism, Peter Jackson wants to make The Passion of the Kong. It wasn't beauty that killed the beast, he wags his finger at us, but you the audience, in the name of entertainment for the price of a ticket. The crucified ape!
Beastiality the only escape for Anne Darrow from a world of venality, weak men and rough traders.
This gives rise to not only a problem of drama, but many choice moments such as the crew risking their lives to save 'beauty' and all she cares about is Kong. "No! Don't shoot him!" She protests, while all and sundry are being crushed by the behemoth. How's that for gratitude? They should have chucked her into the sea and told her to swim to the boat.
Critics have lionized Jackson's 'skills as a story teller', but I've always found the results autistic and cartoon like. Artless. But this was the same style used in Lord of the Rings, which plenty of ordinary punters liked. Kong ultimately collapses under the sheer weight of so many back to back miscalculations and revisionism. It politically corrects itself out of any suspense or drama, aside from the punishing length.
It is not as big a disaster as Ang Lee's Hulk, a movie that should never have been released in that condition, but it is dreadful.
Recently I saw The Guns of Navarone again, which coincidently has a scene in which a boat tries to navigate treacherous rocks, and was struck just how modern cinema has lost that ability to simply tell a moral story coherently and involve us in the characters.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63 out of 105 people found the following comment useful :-
I need to rent "Showgirls" to get the bad taste out of my mouth ..., 15 December 2005
Author: Ted K from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
So, the girlfriend and I went to see Peter Jackson's magnum opus tonight, and we spared no expense. Went to a theater with a 120 foot screen. Smuggled a couple of Chipotle burritos for a meal. We were prepared for a cinematic extravaganza of epic proportions.
Why did it all go horribly wrong! "King Kong" is the most bloated, ridiculous, vertigo-inducing trough of garbage I've ever seen. Okay, okay - so Peter Jackson knows how to use CGI. ASTONISHING! Computer generated animation and graphics?!? NO WAY! Who'd have thunk it? Okay Frodo Jackson, listen carefully. CGI can really help a picture, but pay attention to the words; I said "HELP a picture," not "BE the picture." Okay, the scene with the people running with stampeding brontosauruses and conveniently not being squished? Very, very believable. They are lumbering, wild beasts, not ballerinas. That was the first time I laughed during the movie. Sadly, it wasn't the last.
It appears Peter Jackson doesn't have even a basic grasp of the laws of nature. First off, what was the point of the three - that's right, THREE - T-Rex's and the ape squaring off? I also loved the fact that the girl was always JUST out of the reach of danger throughout the movie. Skull Island also happens to be a place where the strongest vines in the world thrive, capable of supporting a 20 or 30 ton gorilla and a 15 or 20 ton dinosaur (oh, wait, actually two dinosaurs) as they writhe and battle with each other while suspended in a ravine by vines. Fascinating, Peter, fascinating. I also loved the scene with the ape throwing the fallen-tree bridge around; I was amazed to see just how strong men can be as they cling to a tree trunk as it falls 100, 200, 300 feet? Of course how could I neglect to mention the countless scenes of people falling 20, 30, 40 feet and not being injured. Guess what Peter: a 20 foot fall is enough to kill a human or at least put them into shock, but apparently Adrien Brody is a super-man because nothing stops him, not even numerous falls like that. The best was the scene with Naomi Watts climbing to the top of the Empire State Building in NYC ... in the middle of winter ... wearing only a silk dress. She sure didn't act very cold, which seems a bit peculiar for being 100 stories up in the middle of winter. Then again, it's hard to tell what she's going for given the fact that she has exactly two facial expressions: the "I'm enthralled" and the "I'm enthralled ... and sad." Next, who could forget the part with the ape and the girl lovingly sliding around on a frozen river. Again, Peter, this isn't the Matrix; there are still laws of nature. No way in hell that river would have sustained a frickin' ape sliding around, not when a small mortar shell from a pre-WWII jeep-mounted cannon was enough to obliterate the thin veneer of sheet ice.
Listen, I'm all for the "suspension of disbelief," but there has to be a shred of truth or reality, otherwise how do you relate to characters! I mean, how can you relate to a movie where even the basic laws of physics don't apply?! And it wasn't even a movie with wizards and magic! Naomi Watts was wooden. The CGI was great, but the problem wasn't quality, it was quantity. I thought the rendering of NYC was pretty amazing, but it became too much. Also, Jack Black may be the heir to Jack Nicholson's creepy eyebrow abilities, but his character was little more than business-card stock thick. Sadly, he was one-dimensional as the latter-day Captain Ahab chasing his great white whale. Sadder still is his character was the one with the most substance! Ah, and his delivery at the end of the movie of the classic line ... wretched. Just wretched.
So, here's a word of advice for everyone. You'd get more value keeping your $8 or $10 in your pocket, sitting at home and hitting yourself in the head with a tack hammer over ... and over ... and over again. What bothers me the most is how everyone is fawning over this crap! I went into the picture highly anticipating the movie, wanting to see a good re-telling of a classic tale about beauty, communication, love, greed, and tragedy. What I got was a pile of CGI fireworks masquerading as genuine entertainment.
No wonder the Golden Globes barely recognized the film. There was only one character worth recognition in that movie, and I don't think the Academy wanted to run the risk of having a computer give an acceptance speech.
Just my opinion, like it or lump it.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
117 out of 214 people found the following comment useful :-
Simply jaw-dropping, 15 December 2005
Author: jonfriedman from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
It would be easy to go on and on about this film, yet I'll try and keep it short and simple. My jaw was literally dropped through most of the film. The special effects and realism in every facet are simply beyond belief - and absolutely MUST be seen on the big screen for the first time. I think "animation" no longer seems to be an appropriate term for this kind of thing. "Digital Creation" may be more fitting - because Kong looks like he was created by the almighty himself. Don't be fooled however - this is not just a run of the mill action blockbuster. The story itself is remarkably poignant - so the closest I'll come to giving a spoiler is by saying Kong turns out to be the most civilized character in the film. If I HAD to criticize the film in some way - and to be perfectly honest this didn't detract from the film one iota for me - Jack Black was simply adequate for the role. Nearly every other lead was flawless. There were also a couple of times when I thought to myself, "no way someone gets out of that alive" (though I think that's really stretching myself to make criticism). Either way, Peter Jackson has set a new standard in film making and created an instant classic in the process. It is also in my mind, without any question - the greatest remake of all time. Wow...
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
Sign of things to come..., 6 January 2006
Author: johnhoneyman from United Kingdom
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
I went to see this film because I wanted to go and see an amazing film. It is and for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. You can argue about the acting if you want - I thought it rather ordinary, but given that the actors had a limp script and a blank CGI background, I thought they did as well as they could.
The script was notably lame - poorly written and with little to work with as it suffered from the same problem that everything else in the film suffered from: it was a promotional video for a computer game. This is the first time I have seen a film that was driven by the need to sell a computer game - which explains why the editor was told to go and have a long coffee while the editing was *not* carried out. It would have been a passable one and a half hour film - possibly even exciting. At 2 hours 45 or thereabouts, it was agonising.
Each scene as it happened looked just like the computer game will (or already does?). Five minutes of running in a ravine with dinosaur legs around you. Five minutes of Kong falling down a ravine and having to climb up the hanging twines. Five more minutes of this or that - each scene lengthened to show you how cool the graphics are. Moving camera shots that had no reason other than to look really cool and make the viewer feel slightly sick. Where it was effective admittedly was the shots that induced vertigo - amazing stuff. Where the camera raced around for no reason simply induced my dinner to attempt reentry.
I have no problem with computer games - they are amazing, wonderful exciting etc etc. I can also see the logic in creating games from movies - and that's my point. Games FROM movies - this was a movie from a game.
Somewhere along the way, telling the story got lost. But then again, with our rapidly decreasing attention spans - who has the time or inclination to watch a story unfold. Far better to have five minute sections of a video game that you can pause at each level...
What a miserable shame.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73 out of 128 people found the following comment useful :-
I want my money back, 17 December 2005
Author: Escher from United Kingdom
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
I had read several very positive critics, including The Independent, so I thought "It should be a very nice movie". There is something nice about it: the reconstruction of New York City in the '30, and... not much more.
The first part is long, and full of pathos. Peter Jackson takes himself very seriously. After Lord of The Rings he is admired like a semi-god, and probably he thinks he has an important message to deliver. All these close-ups on intense expressions, especially the director Denham. It seems all a bit over the top and one thinks: it is going to be justified by what follows.
However, the second part on the island cannot be taken seriously. A huge amount of special effects to show off, just to show what can be done. Boring and completely gratuitous. Not to count that one T-Rex scene is exactly the same as in Jurassic park.
Many characters are bad or useless. The captain is a parody - but this movie is not supposed to be a parody. Or is it? but then the first part full of pathos? The relationship between the black sailor and the young Jimmy (who reads Conrad) is again completely gratuitous - ah no, sorry there is an important message to deliver: hence Conrad.
When they return to New York, what has happened to the captain and the young Jimmy who reads Conrad? They have disappeared. The director Denham delivers his important message "it was beauty killed the beast". Ah!
I could go on, but I'm just angry that I wasted my time and money. I would like to talk to the critics I read. What movie did they see? My local supermarket says "We are happy to refund products that are not up to the standard you expect". I wish cinemas did the same.
What movie did the reviewers see?, 21 December 2005
Author: mismanager from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
It was with much anticipation that I waited to see Peter Jackson's take on the 1933 King Kong. After all, it was his favorite movie, right? Then most of the first reviews were glowing. I rearranged my weekend to make time to see this movie I have been waiting a year for.
I came out of the the theater numb! So long, so unbelievable, so poorly cast, so long, soooo bad. Would they ever get to Skull Island? How many extra characters can you add in? How can I make a basic horror story "meaningful"? Once on the island the abuse of the original continues. Kong looked good, but who cares? He was never scary, I never got the impression Ann was in danger (other than having her neck snapped from being tossed around like a CGI doll without a bruise while Kong fights off the three T-Rex). The dinosaur stampede was a joke, the bugs too long, the T-Rex fight too... EVERYTHING WAS TOO LONG and just TOO...
Back in NY, why did everyone look like they were sweating in the winter? Perhaps so the preposterous Ice Skating scene could be added in? I estimate it would need to be -20 for the ice in central park to get thick enough to hold the weight of a 5000 lb ape, but Anne runs around in skimpy dress without shivering even on top of the Empire State building. However, I did like the scene of Kong clawing his way up the theater balcony at Jack Driscol.
Wait for cable or the 15 director's cut CD.
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 out of 91 people found the following comment useful :-
Zzzzzzzzzz......, 20 December 2005
Author: Chimera-5 from Last House on the Left
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
Where to start... First off, you don't have to force yourself to like this movie just because Peter Jackson directed it. I am really tired of people licking his balls. He is simply NOT a good filmmaker! Any idiot under the sun can adapt already existing material (a book or an old film) and make it a "good" movie if given the right budget. This is not rocket science. Wake up, people! He needs to make a good, original film that is not 70 hours long to truly impress me.
This film, this film! My god, why stop at three hours? Heck, why not go for four? You already bled each and every scene and plot point to death, and used slow motion and that idiotic "sad" chorus that you did in all the LOTR films to try and force the audience to feel pity, what harm is adding another 53 minutes to this film? Apparently studios would open their veins for you just because you're you, so next time be sure to ask. You need to own the world's record for the longest, most tiresome film ever.
You know, I really liked to scene where you had Kong fight two T-Rexes instead of one. Kinda made it more interesting (depsite the fact he fought them with one arm, ridiculous!). But when you threw in the third T-Rex, it just made it look like you try too hard sometimes. Siiiigh...
Rumor has it John Woo and Peter Jackson are competing for most overrated director to use slow motion the most.
Over-hyped, Overlong, Over-indulgent, 11 January 2006
Author: deronny66 from United Kingdom
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
From a conversation with a friend, I have decided it is unfair to judge a film such as King Kong differently from a film like the Shawshank Redemption. A lot of people had said 'This is supposed to be an entertaining film, stop being so critical' but I think thats a very poor way to judge. Why shouldn't I expect such a high calibre film in the first place? King Kong stumbles at many points before it falls completely head over arse. Given the sheer weight of Kong himself, you can see the comedy value of this, but I don't give films credit for being unintentionally humorous.
Firstly, I admit that the film is very well set up. The 1930's vibe is given perfectly by the introduction, and when we are introduced to Jack Black's character the whole buzz and excitement of shooting an exciting film is captured. From this however, the film begins to sag due to several factors, starting with two that contradict each other.
The problem is with King Kong that not a lot actually happens. Secondly, a huge problem for this film is that far too much happens. This probably makes no sense, so let me explain. The film has three main chapters it can be broken into, New York, Skull Island, back to New York. Whilst the first as already stated is impressive enough, the second is quite a painful adventure to say the least. The film feels like it has been artificially extended with filler material, or putting it another way its like ordering a huge steak only to find its mostly gristle. What the audience is treated to is a number of boring CGI sequences and chases that occur one after another, most of which is not relevant to progressing the plot in the slightest. I am fed up of CGI sequences in films, they just make you instantly think 'I'm watching a film'. Jurrasic Park was far more convincing, and it still is, not to mention Jurrasic Park is over ten years old now. One chase scene involving running dinosaurs in a canyon has the ever increasing in number party weaving through their legs. Not only was I embarrassed at this, but I couldn't help thinking if the scene wasn't so over the top it could of been far more dramatic (ala the jeep chase in Jurassic Park). On the other hand, this chase has one of the most unintentionally funny moments in film history, which is when the dinosaurs fall over on top of one another. Think those 'funny' home movie shows showing people falling over on an ice rink set to epic 'lord of the rings' music, and you might get the same sort of idea of 'Trying to be epic / exciting' but failing miserably.
Remember when I said 'Too much happens?', well this is what I meant. It's like the film 'xXx', just one long continuous mind numbing stunt. Too much of just about everything is forcibly crammed into the long 3 hours that makes you care far less about the outcome. Imagine a horror film with someone dies a 'gruesome' death every 3 minutes. Not nearly as suspenseful or scary as a film with hardly any deaths is it? A case of 'less is more' was needed with this film, and Peter Jackson failed to realise that.
The film is filled with many horrible continuity errors which add to the disappointment of this film. For a starter, how many people can they fit into those two rowing boats they journey to skull island on? More and MORE people keep showing up to have some boring / gruesome death. You can almost pick out who is going to die from the start as well. The whole 'captain' and 'prodigy' relationship is painfully predictable. Also, where the hell did the natives go? All disappeared apparently.
I guess my biggest problem with the film is that is the one which is most obvious. If you can't tell already, its an incredibly boring film that could be easily cut down to under the 2 hour mark. Its purely self indulgent of Peter Jackson to string it out so long when there was so little to say. I was almost screaming "Why wont you DIE?!" at the screen in its final sequence, which is strung out so long I discovered I had in fact grown a beard by the time it had finished.
Speaking on its behalf, its fair to say when back in New York, I did have a fair bit of sympathy for Kong when he was chained up, and I did get the feeling that man was the true monster after all. So something went right when this movie was made. However, this is nowhere near enough to save it.
Over-hyped, overlong, over-indulgent are just some words I would use to describe this film. I guess one thing can be said about this film to sum it up: This film would of been canned by the critics if it wasn't a remake.
You have been warned...
Was the above comment useful to you? (Report this) |
[复制链接]
狗仔卡
发表于 2006-2-3 19:39:45
变色卡
显身卡
发表于 2006-2-3 21:41:58
楼主
发表于 2006-2-3 23:23:36
