Gorilla falling off Empire State Building...

Dec 17, 2005 09:35

So yes, we went to see King Kong for Cat's birthday.

Somehow I had high expectations- it is Peter Jackson after all, but somehow I have lost faith in most large motion pictures like this, so I had only a vague idea of what to expect.

Bum number - vague spoilers )

Leave a comment

Comments 11

(The comment has been removed)

elanor_sarah December 17 2005, 13:21:24 UTC
In places, yes, because it was too long.

Too much on the Island- if they'd have halved that, cut out some near the beginning before the Island and then skipped a load in New York at the end then it would have been a lot better.

Reply


sweden_girl25 December 17 2005, 13:50:26 UTC
Told you a few scenes was freaky lol but I lvoed it totally anyway he he

Reply

elanor_sarah December 17 2005, 14:26:14 UTC
I thought it was patchy- good was very good, but it dragged

Reply

sweden_girl25 December 17 2005, 15:08:59 UTC
yes it felt a bit long at time I felt it in my legs lol

Reply


sweden_girl25 December 17 2005, 13:51:29 UTC
And agree it was a really long movie think the original only was 1:40 or somethign the one from 1933

Reply


foofee25 December 17 2005, 16:25:11 UTC
PJ should totally have spent more time editing. The Jimmy/Hayes subplot should have been cut and the bug scene wasn't totally necessary. Still, I loved it. It's definitely in my top three favorites of the year, if not number one.

Jamie Bell was the best actor in my opinion.

Wasn't that the kid? Really? Best actor in the movie? Interesting. Not that he wasn't good, of course. But if I were to go with a minor character, I would have gone with Hanks or Serkis for sure.

When you say under 30s, do you mean people under the age of 30 wouldn't like it? Because the movie seems geared towards people under 30. Not to say that it's limited to that age group, but I think a lot of younger people will love it. I sure did.

Reply

elanor_sarah December 17 2005, 16:28:54 UTC
I meant it as a sarcastic pun that the age rating was too low.

As a minor charactor I enjoyed his story, perhaps I phrased that wrongly. Serkis was the best overall for me.

Reply

foofee25 December 17 2005, 20:07:36 UTC
Here, the only choices for this movie would be PG-13 and R. Limiting it to people only over 17 would have been a bit much, but 13 seems a little young to me. Do you have more...in-between ratings where you live? I think 15 or 16 and over would have been more appropriate. I mean, seeing someone get eaten by giant worms is kind of disturbing.

Reply

elanor_sarah December 17 2005, 20:14:28 UTC
We do have 15

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

elanor_sarah December 17 2005, 22:17:18 UTC
Yes Yes YES

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

elanor_sarah December 18 2005, 09:40:29 UTC
NO I haven't...

Reply


Leave a comment

Up