I didn't bother to go see it. I liked the original just fine.
missludmilla disliked Kong so much she was angry and wanted her three hours back. She made no mention of chemistry or lack thereof. For her the problem came down to excess and self-indulgence. Apparently most of her coworkers laughed through most of the movie.
Also, giant monkey fighting three tyrannasaurus rexes. And the giant spider scene and Kong falling from the Empire State Building scene that were planned but didn't make it into the 1993 original. And and and. This film is one of the most loving homages to a previous work of art that I've ever been invited to share. Jackson didn't miss a trick. When Naomi Watts let out Anne Darrow's huge scream upon first seeing Kong, I was rolling on the floor laughing at how perfect it was, in pitch and volume and duration. Carl Denham is asked why he can't get Fay Wray for his picture? He answers, "She's working on a film for RKO." The lights on Broadway, the Hooverville, the fur on Kong, the dinosaurs stampeding through the gorge . . . aw, man. The film is stunning and one of the most entertaining movies ever made.
Oddly, "And and and." is the other major complaint. See above comment. "The dinosaur stampede and bug attack didn't do anything to advance the plot, the movie shoulda been 90 minutes max."
Look at '33 Kong next to any film before Kong. Comparatively it's an overwhelming visual effects assault. Peter put all those shots in the movie for the same reason that Cooper and Schoedsack put all those shots in the original: to overwhelm you with a spectacle like you've never seen before. I think it worked: if an overwhelming spectacle isn't what you want, don't see either Kong.
I haven't seen the movie, but I noticed it got a generally glowing reception from film critics, though it doesn't seem to have done the level of box office it was expected to.
I suspect that for people considering whether to go see it, the question is not so much "could you accept chemistry between the girl and the monkey?" as "do you really need another King Kong remake?" The pent-up demand wasn't there.
Comments 20
missludmilla disliked Kong so much she was angry and wanted her three hours back. She made no mention of chemistry or lack thereof. For her the problem came down to excess and self-indulgence. Apparently most of her coworkers laughed through most of the movie.
Reply
Reply
Look at '33 Kong next to any film before Kong. Comparatively it's an overwhelming visual effects assault. Peter put all those shots in the movie for the same reason that Cooper and Schoedsack put all those shots in the original: to overwhelm you with a spectacle like you've never seen before. I think it worked: if an overwhelming spectacle isn't what you want, don't see either Kong.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
"I was fearing a gratuitous King Kong poop/flatulence scene, but there wasn't one. And then I realized I was disappointed."
Reply
Anyway, that's just me stirrring it up.
Reply
I suspect that for people considering whether to go see it, the question is not so much "could you accept chemistry between the girl and the monkey?" as "do you really need another King Kong remake?" The pent-up demand wasn't there.
Reply
Pretty sure Peter made it as an art film. To be honest I didn't think they needed to remake it until I saw how well they did with it.
Reply
Leave a comment