Sitting On Top Of The World: Is Kong Still King?

[dashboardprophet]

I am not long back home from a trip to the cinema to see ‘King Kong’. This is a film I have been looking forward to for several months now, partly because I love the original, partly because I like Naomi Watts, Jack Black and Adrien Brody, but mainly because I thought Peter Jackson could really pull off such a big-scale production without allowing the special effects and bottomless budget to swamp the story. Such was my anticipation that there was always the danger I’d come away disappointed.

What did I think? I absolutely loved it.

The film is not without its faults. I found it dragging just a little bit during one or two of the special effect-soaked sequences on Skull Island – specifically those involving the various dinosaurs. These were fine, but I just felt they were a touch too long. However, this is a very minor criticism and did not in any way spoil my overall enjoyment of the film. Jack Black is perfectly cast as the Orson Welles-esque filmmaker, and for my money Naomi Watts continues to be, alongside Reese Witherspoon, far and away the best film actor in the world today, female or male. She’s tremendous throughout the film. In the end though, nothing outshines Kong and that is the real triumph here. If I find the time, I will be going back to the cinema to see the film again.

Intrigued to know what others thought, I ventured onto the posting board of a popular film magazine. I was rather taken aback to find many negative comments, with Peter Jackson and Jack Black in particular both coming in for criticism. I thought that was a shame, but maybe it’s just me…

Anyone care to share their opinions?

[VisionGuy]

I saw this movie two days ago and I loved it. I haven't seen the original so I didn't know what to expect but my brother did and he told me it was one of his favorites as a kid.

The special effects were amazing and Naomi Watts did a fantastic job as the lead lady. I would definetly go see this movie again. Yup, I like it that much.

[goldenboy]

It's interesting that this isn't doing fantastically huge business so far in the States. It's a great movie in many ways—but there's enough material for two movies. This should be the perfect movie for a ten-year-old, yet it's almost too long and intense for that crowd. This would have truly freaked me out as a pre-teen

I love Jack Black as an entertainer. After seeing it, I'm still not sure what to think. He's got the same problem Bill Murray has had in the past with serious roles. I was waiting to cringe as he uttered the famous last line of the movie—he did better than I thought, but I can't get Jack, the comedian, out of my head. (comedians can take you out of a film very easily—it's not always their fault—just our perception of them)

Kong/Serkis was amazing, Naomi Watts was fantastic, Brody was good. Spielbergian ingenuity with the Kong/dinosaur fights. Truly gorgeous looking film. I love the muted, sort of vaseline lens look Jackson gives his films. And I was thinking—it's so strange to see a modern American blockbuster that's actually a tragedy. Refreshing. A sad ending, like so many noir films, classic Hollywood films used to be.

[Vilandra]

I think a lot of people are just sort of fed up with remakes, or they're just like "why are they remaking this?"

Personally I want to see because PJ did it and I know he'll do a good job, but at the same time I've never been a fan of animal/insect horror films. So I'm not really going to go out and spend $10.50 to see it probably.

[eponinethen]

Being a Peter Jackson fan I definitely have to see this one, but I'll probably have to wait for a while since no one wants to see it with me.. They're just staring at me when I say I want to see it, hm. Probably won't love it half as much as LOTR or Heavenly Creatures though. Ah well.

[goldenboy]

I think a lot of people are just sort of fed up with remakes, or they're just like "why are they remaking this?"

Personally I want to see because PJ did it and I know he'll do a good job, but at the same time I've never been a fan of animal/insect horror films. So I'm not really going to go out and spend $10.50 to see it probably.


This was the most reasonable explanation for the current remake and adaptation flood in Hollywood that I've read:

Strong DVD sales are generally propelled by strong theatrical box office. And what propels theatrical box office?

In most cases, nearly half of a movie's total audience turns out in the first week of release, which means there has been very little or no word of mouth motivating most of the audience. In other words, many people go to a movie without any real information about it - without even reading a review. Or, put most cynically: Most of the time, there is no relationship between how good a film is, and how many people turn out to see it.

So what makes people go to a movie? Generally, it is awareness - or now, in Hollywood parlance, "pre-awareness." Since studios cannot spend enough on advertising to buy awareness (there is so much advertising noise in the marketplace these days), there is a tendency to make movies with familiar titles, characters and stories: "The Dukes of Hazzard," "Spider-Man," "War of the Worlds," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." In the past decade, most box-office revenue has come from pre-aware titles, which includes sequels ("X-Men 3," set for a May 2006 release) and remakes ( "King Kong," Dec. 14).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/mo...l?pagewanted=1


KK does have serious horror movie elements, kinda like the alien films. But, the Kong/Ann relationship plays out a lot like the E.T./Elliot friendship...sweet, sad, funny....

[prydain]

I may watch it on DVD but I have no desire to see it in theaters. Especially since I know the story. And ending.

[goldenboy]

It's definitely worth a looksee on DVD. The plot's the same, but the behavior, attitude of Kong towards Ann--much different than the original. So it feels a lot different.