For three consecutive Decembers in a row, director Peter Jackson has managed to completely wow a mainstream audience with his wildly sucessful film adaptations of the "Lord of the Rings" book series.  Many wondered how the director would top himself or if that was even possible in the first place.  Well, he did.

"King Kong" is the greatest adventure film since "The Last Crusade" and is not only one of the best films of the year (possibly the best), but it may even surpass the original as the more superior version of a lost voyage and its crew's struggles with a giant ape.  One thing is for sure, though: this is certianly the greatest remake ever produced.

Now, I'm not going to go to deep into the story, as it seems just about everyone all ready knows it.  But basically, it involves a very Orson Welles-esque film director named Carl Denham (Jack Black) who is desperate for a hit.  After his latest un-finished film has a disasterous screening in front of its producers, Denham decides to (illegally) venture out on his own and finish what should be his epic on an unchartered island.

Slapping together a crew (which includes Adrien Brody as screenwriter Jack Driscoll) and a lead actress (Naomi Watts taking over Fay Wray's role in spectacular fasion), Denham makes his way to the aptly named "Skull Island."  Of course, the moment civilized man steps foot on this island, trouble begins... and so does action, adventure, comedy, a bizzarre romance, and the best giant-ape-fights-three-T-Rexes-battle ever put to film.

Much has been made concerning two aspects of this remake: the three hour running time and the casting of Jack Black in a more serious role.  Well, the running time made no difference for me whatsoever.  I saw this at a midnight showing, and around one thirty in the morning, literally just as Kong was about to appear, the projector shut off, and the lights went on.  I began to punch the hell out of the empty seat in front of me, and that's when I noticed my watch read one thirty, meaning I had been watching for over an hour.  It had felt like twenty-five minutes.

As for the casting of Black, while sometimes his more serious lines come off as a bit comedic, his overall performance is fantastic, and he brings a real sense of insanity to the very eccentric Denham.  Not to mention, the re-teaming of Black with his "Orange County" co-star Colin Hanks (who is looking more and more like his father with every film) was a fantastic choice, as the two have very good chemistry, and work off of each other well.

Probably my biggest compliment of Jackson's "Kong" is that it embraces many of the stereotypes of the adventure genre while also adding enough new material to keep itself fresh.  Take for example the casting of Adrien Brody.  What should make many on these boards happy is that, unlike the original film, the character of Jack Driscoll is no longer just your run-of-the-mill adventurer, but is instead just a screenwriter trying to get a film produced.  He may not have the looks and he may not have the physique... but he still manages to get the girl.

Speaking of the girl, Naomi Watts does a fantastic job in the role made famous by the aforementioned Wray (and the role later disgraced by Jessica Lange in the atrocious 1976 remake).  Unlike previous version of this film, the relationship is no longer has that creepy vibe associated with Ann and the beast.  Instead, this is less like Kong's ready to mate, and more like Kong just wants a friend.  The two manage to work very well with eachother.  This is of course an especially poignant point, as one is real while the other is a computer-generated effect.

But oh what an effect it is!  Andy Serkis (whom actually appears twice in this film: he is both Kong and the boat's cook, Lumpy) brings real character to this giant ape, not unlike his turn as Gollum in the "Rings" films.  When the ape eventually falls, you may just feel worse for him then the countless people that were ruthlessly murdered in its wake.  Not to mention, if there is one reason to see this film, and one reason only, it is to see the eye-popping battle between Kong and three Rexes that seem to think Ann is a snack.  Nothing I put in words could prepare you for the sheer awesomeness that is this twenty minute sequence.

Jackson has not only outdone himself, but he has crafted a film that  I would say is superior to any of the "Lord of the Rings" pictures.  He has made the ultimate remake: one so good, that it may even surpass its source material.  For that, he should be commended... at least with another Oscar or two.

Also, a quick warning: not only will the run time probably be putting the kids out, but there is also some disturbing imagery to be prepared for, especially in a pit scene that was famously cut from the original film.  The death of one of these characters is particularly disturbing and slow, and there's a good chance that despite its PG-13 rating, you may want to think twice about bringing the kids.

**** out of ****    

I haven't seen it yet, but hope to soon.  Do you think that placing this movies in the fifties (or was it the forties?) helped or hurt this movie?


Phil

Okay, first I want to say that I’m an enormous King Kong fan. I love the story. I love the 1933 film with the (at the time) groundbreaking special effects by Willis O’Brien. Fay Wray rules.

I even love the critically slammed 1976 film with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. Unlike a lot of people, I found it to be an epic love story. The special effects were first rate at the time. To a young girl in the theater in 1976, it was magical.

With that said, I can’t say how disappointed I am with the previews for the new one. I hope I’m wrong but, given Hollywood’s current climate, I’m afraid I’m right.

It just looks horrible. I’m so upset about it. It looks like they’ve ruined my beloved Kong.

The special effects just look awful. None of it looks real. Hollywood keeps bragging and patting itself on the back over its CGI special effects and they just look awful.

All the CGI Hollywood does just looks terrible to me. It’s sickening to me. It looks like a video game. Donkey Kong looked as real (okay, maybe that’s exaggerating). Kong’s weight never shifts realistically. It never looks real when he slams to the pavement. The inertia just never looks real. Old Disney animated features look more real in the movements of characters.

Okay, I’m done ranting. I feel better now.

But I have a question:

Am I the only one who thinks CGI effects just look like crap?

dogglebe, to answer your question, the film seems to be taking place as early as the 1930's, and I think it helped the movie fantastically, as the New York City scenes almost have an otherworldly feeling to them, much like the cityscape in "Sky Captain and the World of Tommorrow."

And, breanne, I can understand were you are coming from with your problems with C.G.I.  But I must say, "Kong" 2005 really pulls it off.  You mentioned shifting weight.  Whereas something like "Spider-Man" or "The Matrix" had a very non-gravitational look to the movements of some of its characters, when Kong leaps and falls and grabs and pulls and runs, you can feel the movements.  Like I mentioned, the dino fight specifically shows this off when the ape makes a twenty foot leap from the top of a cliff to the ground below.  The bass level actually caused the theater floor to vibrate.

Also, strangely enough, this is not a complete C.G.I. fest.  Whereas something like "Van Helsing" relied soley on its special effects, "Kong" relies on its special effects and its strong story as seen in the first two incarnations (though, I have to disagree with you on the '76 version).  I would say you might still want to check it out as a "Kong" fan and as someone who seems to really appreciate the magical aspect of movie making.

I am definitely looking forward to seeing this.  

I was not around to see the first two, and never really got around to it, but i know the story having read it, and cannot wait to see it.

The only problem is that my friends all want to come see it with me, so they can compare me to jack black.  god it gts annoying.

I've been looking forward to this all year.  I completely trust Peter Jackson's directing skills and I gotta say that I was impressed with Jack Black in the trailers.  I admit, the marketing campaign wasn't the best.  The action that they showed was minimal, which I think is a strategy Jackson uses because The Return of the King's trailer didn't grasp me either and I ended up loving it.

Can't wait to see this!

Quoted from Higgonaitor The only problem is that my friends all want to come see it with me, so they can compare me to jack black.  god it gts annoying.

I wasn't directly compared to Jack Black, but rather his douche bag, obsessive character who wouldn't let go of his camera to save a friend.  So, you know, it could be worse.

I was walking home from school the other day, and a crossing guard strikes up a conversation with me, he say's "You know, you look like that guy from that movie with the school, where he's a teacher."  Then I, knowing exactly what he's talking about, hearing it a few times to often respond in a monotounous voice: "you mean Jack Black?" "Yeah!  And he's in that teanacious D band!"  "yeah, yeah he is."  I then crossed the street.

You know, Charlie Chaplin once finished 3rd in a look alike contest to himself.  If everyone thinks you look like Jack, you should enter a look alike contest and make some money off of it!

I need to see this movie.  I need to see this movie.  I need to see this movie.

I'm concerned though.  With regards to your earlier post:  When the theater lights went on, was that a glitch in the theater where you saw the film?  Or was it an intermission?  

It was defiantly a glitch.  When it happened, there were many groans followed by myself shouting, "F**K!  F**K!  F**K!" while punching the empty seat in front of me and my right hand still hurts.

It'd be funnier if I was lying.

So uh...

I wasn't wowed.  I was entertained.  

It was spectacular as hell, but it was just too much.  The talent behind and in front of the camera was abundantly apparent, but this film just went off the deep end in every possible way.  It was the most bloated, ludicrous, jumped-up mess I've seen in a while...although it was damn enjoyable.

First, the...there's just too much stuff that's not Kong.  The story of the film getting off the ground is interesting and all, as is the romance between Brody and Watts, but it just didn't belong in this movie.  That said, the acting was consistently excellent, and the setup was well-written...I just didn't care about it.

On to Kong!  I guess all the time and money went into him.  Kong looked great.  The expressiveness of the face was very impressive, and the movements and small traits were excellent.  That said...the rest of the CG...well, I haven't seen that many blatant greenscreen shots since Universal sci-fi pics in the 50s.  Half of the time I couldn't believe how bad things looked...but at the same time, you know, I didn't really care, because it was all so exhilarating.  

The action...well, I was laughing all the way through most sequences, whatever that may mean.  A brontosaurus pileup?  Vine-swinging T-rexes?  I've never seen anything like this movie in my life.  Jackson pulled out all the stops, and I will say this...most of the time, I couldn't believe what I was seeing, good or bad.  I especially enjoyed the violence content; being a gore hound, I was expecting nothing, and I got lots of CG violence and some hacking and slashing of various things (including the old standby giant worms).

The story, as always, remained classic...there was just too much of it with too many characters.  The core story was the only thing that affected me emotionally in any way (as it always does...even in Mighty Peking Man, I don't believe that everybody isn't sad in the end), while the rest just sort of went on by.  The ending...for those of you that know it, was quite nicely done, I thought, but failed to achieve by any means what the '33 did.  I think this film could have easily been stripped to about 100 minutes, and become much better.  The whole thing just sort of worked out the way I thought it would...and that's fine.  

All in all?  Fun stuff, really fun...just some very poor choices made.  

Look for the Wilhelm Scream in one of my favorite uses of it...it's absolutely hilarious, I assure you.

I'll probably go see this movie tomorrow night as it's not even out yet here which is odd how you guys all got to see it before I do.

AMAZING!  A wonderful and sensational movie going experience!  The film was 188 minutes and I enjoyed every single one.

To start, I was particularly wowed by the acting.  Jack Black gives one of the best, if not the best performance of his career.  This was the perfect role for him and he nailed it as the greedy filmmaker Carl Denham, who just wants to turn a buck on his movie.  The beautiful Naomi Watts stunned the screen.  She was delicate yet brave in her role as Ann Darrow.  Adrien Brody was an excellent selection by Peter Jackson.  He's not the buff, pretty boy action hero, but he did one hell of a job on Skull Island.
The supporting cast, which consisted of the ship and film crew, also helped move the picture along.  In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a film where I enjoyed every single performance.  

Kong looked very realistic, and like Andy Serkis' Gollum, this was a creature that will steal the screen for years to come.  Kong and along with the dinosaurs, bugs, and those flying bat things, were grade A entertainment.  Unlike the 1933 and 1976 versions, the natives are SCARY!  It's hard to believe that makeup artists can make humans so bloody ugly.

For the first hour or so, it's mostly just  Carl trying to produce his movie and Ann looking for work, and eventually they agree to terms and head onto the boat where there's more preparation for the film.  Though there's not much action during this hour, it still moves along without any lag.  Once they get on the island, it's non-stop, dazzling action the rest of the way.

It is long, but I strongly recommend it.  It's easily the best remake to date and if the filmmakers had the resources in 1933, this probably would have been the final result.  I especially like how Peter Jackson created the relationship between Kong and Ann, and it was especially saddening when the army came after him.  Sad, yet amazing.

I enjoyed the film, I go for the entertainment and I stay for the acting.

Some scenes go blurry with Kong onscreen, maybe it was my theatre, maybe it was bad CGI backgrounds or just crappy transfer. Who really knows until the DVD release.

Storylines just fade out and you never find out what happens to some characters.

The whole comedic dancing and Kong laughing was a bit much, almost made me wonder if they were making King Kong or a Musical with CG Apes.

Other than that stuff and the fact Kong was deadly to three t rex's and yet some airplanes with tiny ass bullets kill him is a little too fantasy and I didn't even get a tear as the emotion coming from that chick was lame. I must say I hate skinny women who are all bone and have no character.

Two thumbs up because at the end of the day it was good.

WOW! King Kong was great. The acting, effects, story .. it was ALL there. I laughed, got scared and cried. And isn't that what a movie is supposed to do? Excite some emotion in the audience? Entertain the audience? King Kong did all that and then some.

My sister and I went to see the movie together -- I won't explain the best parts about it because I agree with everything stated above-- and after the film, for the entire ride home, we nearly screamed at our parents about it: we talked about everything we liked. We've never done that. We were never so excited about the same movie before.

I was so impressed with the CG ape and Naomi Watts, she was great.

I loved Naomi Watts in this.  Gorgeous actress with a fantastic talent.  Geez, imagine how Jackson will handle Halo!

This movie rally screws every other movie up that I've seen this year. It's more than any movie was ever meant to be. Peter Jackson is better than Steven, Lucas, and the rest of em all put together. There aint one single movie other than Lord of the Rings that could compare with this. I think they could have done without all of the cussing and sexual content. (Seeing as how Perter Jackson is a Christian.) But either way, it rocked and anyone who wants to see what a real movie is, check this out!

I noticed a lot of continuity problems with Kong himself as well.

Here's how it really went, in the theatre it was dead. For opening night it was pretty bare and I could have gotten almost any seat I wanted, people were restless at the end of the 20 minute previews and the 3 hour movie they were also acting up with boredom.

This is going to become a trend because the film medium has just become a joke.

I thought this film was up their with Lord of the Rings and some really good CG films as I cannot compare it to films that relied on good actors and not computers to generate emotion.

Oh and what sexual content? I remember a bit of language and some kissing but nothing that would be considered sexual.

I liked how, after really dangerous and dramatic sequences, there were scenes of comedic relief or scenes that lightened the mood before jumping right into the action again. Like the skating-rink scene or Ann's routine for Kong.

What I found was funny was when Ann was teaching him the word 'beautiful' and she pats her chest, and I was like, "Look, it's Koko!" (The gorilla that learned sign language.)

Even though this year's films had SO many terrible movies, there were some gems in there. Too bad that almost all of them were adapted or re-makes.

I saw this today, and I thought it was good, but the whole, hold on



*spoilers*



The whole thing with Jimmy and and the like skipper guy was completely pointless "Oh we got him as a cast away, his arm was broken..." who cares? "Dont be a hero Jimmy!"  Or do, you really don't matter.

Other than that (and my friend comparing me to jack black 'its like there are two of you!'), I thought it was really amazing, combining all themes of theatre into one great film.

Also the fact they killed Jimmy's mentor and his character basically disappeared from the film and we moved on. I guess Peter's weight loss got to his head and made him try to stick in some sub plots that really never worked.

Peter Jackson is Hollywoods best friend as he makes them all this money doing what we all hate and yet he makes such good films.

Ok, it's my turn 'cause I saw it last week or so.

Peter Jackson's follow-up to The Lord of the Rings epic is also an adaptation of pre-existing material, and while faithfulness is likely maintained to the original, the material appears to have flaws that not even the masterful scriptwriting team of The Lord Of The Rings can save.

The execution of the material makes it crystal clear that Peter Jackson knows what he is doing behind the reins of the film. The plot is followed logically and every major event happens for a sure reason so nothing runs out really unexplained. The special effects are top notch and the acting is good as well...but this film is not the near flawless perfection of Lord of the Rings.

I found multiple points in this film worth cutting out, but on the whole it worked rather well for me. I liked the characterization of Kong himself and the relationship between him and Ann. Their relationship, which is mostly shown with little dialogue, is absolutely touching to watch as they go through their trials. It is this relationship that really takes the film up several notches on the ladder of great films because it is so well done. When the Empire State Building comes, you are just glued to the screen because that whole scene is all about Kong and Ann.

I felt that the other characters were mostly well-rounded, although there was a fair amount of the gratuitious 2 dimensional death fodder which I guess is to be expected. I also think some of the subplots were unnecessary such as the kid, Johnny or whatever his name was. That was the most glaring pointles one that could have been lost to shorten up the film, but I guess Jackson has a minimum run time to live up to or something.

The most glaring thing about the film that was just unbelievable (if you were paying attention) is Ann Darrow running full speed through the jungle BAREFOOT! How bout that one rickety bidge that she crossed barefoot without so much as a cut on her perfect little feet.

I also felt that some of the actions were unnecessary and a little unbelievable. I mean, seriously. No matter how gorgeous the woman is, are you going to risk a freakin' crew to go back in there and try to rescue her from bloodthirsty natives? And even if you do that, are you going to trudge through an overgrown jungle to try and rescue her from an overgrown ape? And when the brontosauruses started running, I had to ask, why didn't they step back into the jungle out of the path of the beasts? After all, they just came out of the jungle onto that little road to start with. Sure, it made a cool sequence to watch, but it could have been easily avoided.

However, the three T-Rexes vs. King Kong? Wow. That was seriously cool. It also served an awesome purpose of solidifying the Ann/Kong relationship.

Definitely could have been shorter without any loss to story or character, and some of the plot hiccups were probably a result of the original material that was never changed when it was reenvisioned. These hiccups are ultimately forgiveable due to the awesome characterization between Ann and Kong as well as that killer T-Rex vs. Kong sequence that runs for agood 15 minutes without letting up. Overall, I enjoyed it and will probably actually buy the DVD when it comes out.

You'd think it would be awfully windy on the very top of the Empire State building. But Ann Darrow's just racing up and down those ledges. Someone pointed that out.

That was another thing I thought was odd as I watched it. Acrophobic these people are NOT. I was dizzy watching them, but she was on cliffs and buildings and all over the place just fine with it all. I don't know that I could stand on the pinnacle of the Empire State Buildnig and wave my arms like that.

Yeah, or dance around while a gigantic ape pushed you over repeatedly right on the edge of a cliff.

I was reading that Jackson wanted Fay Wray to deliver the famous last line.  That would have been a lot better than Denham just showing up for it at the end...he was completely the wrong choice.  Logically, it couldn't have been anyone else, unless Driscoll decided to be completely useless on the ground during the finale instead of being completely useless up on the building.  Still, it should have been someone other than Denham.  

Oh well all in all this one will definitely get an oscar or two.

Denham was the one to deliver the line in the original film, which I watched the other day. What I learned from watching the first one is that the "flaw" in the material actually came from Jackson's augmenting of it. In the original, the villagers are really not much of a threat to anyone. Also, the chase into the jungle is a lot more impromptu and without that super-threatening atmosphere, it actually works better. It is more believable for them to follow the strange ape off into the jungle in the original than the remake. Also, in the original, they are following Ann screaming, so they know she's alive. In the remake, they blindly run off into the jungle with no clue of her well-being.

However, the remake is better characterized than more engaging than the original. I guess them running off into the jungle easier to accept because with no characterization...who cares?

However, Peter Jackson's "fan film" version of the Lost Spider Pit Sequence was fun to watch. It was a special feature on disc two.

She still runs barefoot through the jungle though...and there's no way they'd survive that drop into the water...but I digress.

I was amazed when I saw the movie. It had everything a movie lover wants. It's beyond average, it's a masterpeice!

One thing I've been thinking about...

If Kong can climb to the top of the Empire State Building, why can't he climb over the wall on Skull Island?

Anyway, this movie rocked, and the DVD is awesome! I've watched it at least five times sine it came out. I know, I'm strange, but who cares...