I normally stay in a cinema to watch all the credits of any good films that i watch. It is my means of a silent tribute to those who worked on the film. However for king kong, as stunning as the new epic is, after the credit of Andrew Lesnie, exhaused by one of the slowest cuts i have seen in many a film, i walked out.

It seemed to me that with jacksons success with LOTR, Universal decided to gave him free reign with Kong. And although he delivers sequence after sequence of brilliant CG work and beautiful cinematography, the 3 1/2 hour epic is let down by a sheer lack of momentum, that is only barely made up for through development of great, multi dimentional characters(including Kong himself).

Whilst outstripping any of the previous attempts at the film i feel that leaving a bit more on the cutting room floor could have made for a truely great film that communicated Jacksons vision and narrative much more convincingly.

I as much as i am bagging it, if you are willing to sit through an epic i recomend you guys see it, far as an overall film goes I rate it somewhere between 3 1/2 and 4 stars.

I wish cinemas were fitted out with chairs that suited the epic genre a bit better.

I thought it could have been trimmed by 15-20 minutes. It didn't feel like 'one of the slowest cuts I have seen,' though.

Jackson did the best job possible while still retaining a lot of the original story and plot points.

One thing I did miss was Howard Shore's music (although it looked like he was conducting the orchestra in a certain sequence).

I loved this movie.

About an hour to long for me. I mean there were so many crappy sub plotes that had no business being in that moviel. Jimmey and the first mate for one! Man That was some cheesy ****.

A few to many dinosaur attacks. That got old after the 5th time.

it would have been a masterpiece with 20 mins cut out. Especially the ending was way too long on the scyscraper.

but oh well...its such a stunning, beautiful movie...and naomi watts was truly a beauty.

Yer, the film in comparason to LOTR did seem to miss howard shore's flair. especially in thematic development, most people reconise the music of LOTR whereas James Newton Howard produced a rather unmemorable and very typical hollywood score.

quote:

One thing I did miss was Howard Shore's music (although it looked like he was conducting the orchestra in a certain sequence).

Yeah I thought that was him as well.

shore began scoring the film but was replaced after a disagreement about the creative direction of the music with Jackson.

wait a minute, u mean after watching some 9 hours pf the LOTR trilogy you ppl couldn't stand 3 1/2 more hours of pain? cant say iblame you though, i got through all of about 15 minutes of FOTR before i started yawning off.

Meet the Feebles was a masterpiece. The Frighteners was excellent. Dead Alive made me want to puke all over myself. Bad Taste is on my next list. That is all.

A PIECE OF MOVIE HISTORY! I loved it, in case you can't tell.

I was really, really worried during the first bit, before Kong arrived. It felt so hollow, and false. I'm beginning to think that was a choice PJ made.

Anyway, it was simply marvelous. Never before have I seen so much emotion in an animated character. He felt more real than many human actors. I felt not only for him, but with him.

It's also the longest sustained action movie I've ever seen, AND it managed to keep it exciting without a complex plot for that long! It didn't feel a moment too long to me.

Didn't the entire thing feel like a little jab at Spielberg? "Hey, dude, this is how you do dinosaurs, and, man, Indiana Jones was nothing!"

I have uploaded some stills from a video I shot at the King Kong Wellington Premiere. They can be viewed here: http://chrishurn.com/kong

I saw King Kong this morning, and I have to say, I thought it was an exceptional film. Sure - there were a few effects here and there that seemed rushed etc. but as a whole, this was great.

Firstly, I can't see how people think 3 hours is too long. Honestly - if you can't handle it (what), then don't go. Simple as that. If this was any shorter, it would be far less of an 'epic', and more of a crap screen-filler. To me, this movie did not seem like 3 hours. I would hate to think that would be a good enough reason not to go/to dislike the film.

Cinematography, camerawork was superb. I really like what Andrew Lesnie, Peter Jackson and the team have done here. Excellent stuff.
The visual effects were fantastic. Peter jackson throws some great stuff in - I don't want to give spoilers but you will recognize some similar shots and ideas from Lord of the Rings. WETA and everyone have done an amazing job on the stunning effects and animation in this movie.

I found the acting overall to be great, and was pleased with all the performances. All the actors really got into their roles really well and made the whole film great. The thing I liked especially was that despite the fact Kong and many other things in the film are digital, you don't feel that they are. It's not easy acting to something that's not there, and Andy serkis has played a number of very important roles in this film, including his work with performance capture.

I wasn't suprised when I heard that Howard Shore was going to be replaced with James Newton Howard. (N) Howard has written a very suitable and good score, considering the amount of time he had. The themes arn't particulary great, but they are good and the music certainly adds another level to the film.

It is very clear to me that all departments have worked incredibly hard to get this film onto the screen. Fantastic story, great visuals, great sound & music. Highly recommended. I loved every frame of it.

-Chris

Damnit, after your reviews now I have to go spend $50 to see it.

Wow. Movie tickets are expensive in Arizona!

There is nothing wrong with a 3 hour movie when the stroy takes 3 hours to tell (schindler's list or Lord of the rings). But the material for King Kong was not 3 hours. It was 90 minutes! They just dragged out the 10 dinosaur scenes.

That's one of the things that was so amazing about it. How did he manage to create a three-hour action movie with hardly any plot that somehow NEVER felt boring or repetitive?

It's not just that I have an abnormally good attention-span either, the entire audience was riveted (at an after-midnight showing, no less) all the way through.

quote:

That's one of the things that was so amazing about it. How did he manage to create a three-hour action movie with hardly any plot that somehow NEVER felt boring or repetitive?

Finally, documented proof of the triumph of style over substance!

Substance is for losers.

Hill, have you seen the movie? It's got substance too... just not much plot. I agree, however, that style can sometimes make up for a lack of substance; while it's not a choice I'd make it does work.

quote:

Originally posted by titaniumdoughnut:
Wow. Movie tickets are expensive in Arizona!

Well it seems like that's how much it costs to go nowadays.