IMDb user comments for
King Kong (2005) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 257:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

2563 comments in total

---

460 out of 706 people found the following comment useful :-
A 10-star 2-hour movie screaming to get out of a 7-star 3-hour movie, 17 January 2006

Author: ccbaxter-2 from Los Angeles, California

Let me be the first to admit that there's nothing wrong with a long movie, nothing at all. "Titanic" was a long movie that was as exactly as long as it needed to be. "Gone with the Wind" was a really long movie that was exactly as long as it needed to be. "Dances with Wolves" was a long movie that I wish had been even longer when I saw it in the theater. But "King Kong"? Phhewww...this sucker clocks in at least 30-60 minutes longer than it needs to be. While it played, I kept inadvertently thinking to myself, "Boy, we really should be out to sea by now...they haven't reached the island yet?...man, are they EVER gonna find Ann?...jeez, when are we gonna go back to Manhattan already?..." and so on. Hand to God--I actually yawned twice during the last third of this movie. I even closed my eyes for a second before I realized, 'hey...you can't just rewind this when you wake up!'

Sure, many scenes in "King Kong" were thrilling (e.g., LOVED the T-Rex sequence) and, yes, I even teared up a little a couple of times. And I must say, Kong himself was beautifully realized--he looked and acted like a REAL gorilla (albeit a tiny bit anthropomorphized)! But I gotta tell you...I was more relieved than exhilarated when this movie ended. (If I saw one more flyover of the native village, I was gonna scream!) Peter...baby...why spend so much time developing all these extraneous secondary characters if you don't really have much closure with them by the end. For example, the ship's captain and Jimmy...once we leave Skull Island...pfffftttt...we never them again. Why all the backstory scenes about them? As with the original version, Jackson should have concentrated simply on the four main characters throughout: Kong, Ann, Driscoll and Denham. Period.

The problem is Jackson tried to make an epic out of a thriller, when these two approaches are generally exclusive to each other. The original "Kong" MOVED because it was simply a thriller and content to be so, but Jackson's remake starts and stops, and starts and stops, and starts and stops, merely frustrating the thrillseeker in us that wants to keep going every time Jackson establishes some momentum. But instead Jackson pauses to "delve" or "explore" or "elaborate" a la David Lean or something like that. One can excuse Jackson for shooting so much material for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy--consider the rich source material . But how anyone could have taken the 100-minute original and nearly doubled it for a remake has far too much memory on his Mac. He should have saved all the extra footage (and I'm betting there's a LOT more we didn't see in the theatrical cut) for the DVD release as he did for LOTR. Mr. Jackson's first priority as a filmmaker (well, all filmmakers) is to present the most appropriate cut for THEATRICAL audiences during the film's initial exhibition in theaters. In this case, more WAS less. Much shorter movies in the past have had intermissions!

Honestly, though I certainly enjoyed "King Kong", I really have no desire to see this movie again--I just couldn't bring myself to sit through all the filler just to get to the good parts. How I wish Jackson and/or Universal would consider releasing a 2-hour DVD version. Hey, it's happened before, so what's the harm? Inside of a year there'll be 17 versions out on DVD anyway...what's one more? But having to sit through a 3-4 hour DVD version someday? I'll take a pass.

Do I recommend seeing "King Kong"? Of course. You'll probably enjoy it immensely, despite it's overlength. But if you do go, by all means lay off the Jumbo Coke until at least 90 minutes in! You'll thank me later.

---

640 out of 1073 people found the following comment useful :-
Too much, too long, too bad, 18 December 2005

Author: Andrew Irwin from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

With the technology available for special effects, this could have been a great movie. Unfortunately, it wasn't. Sadly, this movie just proves the point that good effects do not a good movie make.

What happened here is that a film with enough plot to last for the time of the original was stretched out to try fill 3 hours of screen time, and the result is disastrous. In addition, it's pretty clear that CGI nerds and video game designers had way too much input into this atrocity.

It can all be summarized with a top 10 list of the worst scenes/mistakes of the movie:

10. The time wasting, overly long, irrelevant plot line surrounding Ann Darrow, the old man, and the theater getting closed down. Not pertinent to the story.

9. The CGI nerd focus on the spinning airplane wheels on the fighter planes. Someone said "Isn't this the coolest thing you've ever seen?". It only lasted a few seconds, but it was there only because some GIGANTIC nerd wanted it in. Guess what? It's NOT cool.

8. The plot line surrounding Jimmy and Mr. Hayes. Unnecessary, irrelevant, and ultimately unresolved. Why was Hayes protective of Jimmy? Did Jimmy go on to make something of himself? We never know. Why did anyone have to know he read "Heart of Darkness" or any of the other nonsense that was discussed between them? Total waste of time, stalls the story.

7. Kong violently shaking Ann around after he gets to his home turf, and her suffering no ill effects. She'd be not only injured, but dead. Kong was supposed to be gentle with Ann, duh. Totally missed the point.

6. The time wasting, overly long, irritating scenes where Kong repeatedly roars for no good reason. CGI nerds/effects people are responsible, I'm certain. They obviously took over the whole movie. Probable discussion: "Isn't the roar the coolest thing you've ever seen/heard? Let's use it 47 times!"

5. The completely ludicrous scene where Kong smashes the stolen taxi but Driscoll (inside) isn't even scratched. Guess what? That's right, he'd be dead. Come on, you can at least TRY to make this thing believable.

4. The completely awful scene where Kong fights 3 T-Rexes while holding Anne in his hand. For the love of God, she'd be killed instantly. At least the original had the sense to have him put her down to fight the tyrannosaurus, a key element ignored in the remake, here and elsewhere in the movie. They also miss the point about the planes holding back when Kong is holding Ann, see above. Point missed.

And the top 3…

3. The incredibly preposterous and insulting scene where Jimmy shoots all the CGI nerd created insects off of Driscoll. Shuts his eyes while firing, and hits all the bugs. It wasn't just reminiscent of Jar-Jar Binks in the big battle with the gun stuck on his tail, it WAS Jar-Jar Binks in the big battle with the gun stuck on his tail. Totally unacceptable.

2. The even more preposterous and more insulting and asinine Brontosaurus stampede scene. This one almost takes the cake for worst scene in movie history, if not for the next one. Beyond ridiculous, totally unbelievable, video-game quality. Graphics cheesy and unrealistic. CGI nerds were probably slapping high fives seeing how many asinine near-miss, "Raptor almost gets the character before being stomped by the brontosaurus", Tom and Jerry scenes they could create. Asinine beyond belief.

1. The horrible, horrible ridiculous scene where Kong and Ann et all are falling through the vines, getting caught repeatedly by new vines swinging out, not getting injured, falling again, caught by another swinging vine, not getting injured, etc. Vines pendulum-like swinging with the monster almost gobbling Ann up, only to be just out of reach, repeatedly. This didn't belong in "King Kong", it belonged in "Donkey Kong Jr.".

If you removed all this irrelevant nonsense, what would remain might not have been that bad. It would probably be quite good, in fact. Sadly, it was left in. It's hard to imagine how insufferable a DVD "Director's Cut" could be.

On the positive side, Naomi Watts was excellent, as was Jack Black. The acting in general was a positive, no real complaints there. And the animation of Kong himself was excellent. Very well done.

Sadly though, very little of the movie involved acting. It was all about making it a big video game and putting in all the effects. The effects are not themselves the movie, they are there to support the movie!

To summarize, there were a lot of good pieces, but there were also a lot of bad ones. Ultimately too many were used, and a lot of them did not belong.

---

633 out of 1070 people found the following comment useful :-
Truly A Masterpiece!, 15 December 2005
Author: BigHardcoreRed from Calimesa, California

Let me just say that with all of the remakes that have been coming out, King Kong may have been the most deserving and the most in need of being remade. I could not think of a better director for this type of film than Peter Jackson.

King Kong stays pretty true to the original. Naomi Watts plays Fay Wray's Ann Darrow perfectly. Right down to her emotional connection with Kong, which is helped by the fact that Kong is pretty darn lovable when he is not ripping apart dinosaurs.

Adrien Brody plays a great Jack Driscoll as well. Brody is truly a gifted actor and plays a good hero.

Even Jack Black did a good job as the rebellious director Carl Denham. Usually I am annoyed by Black's performances, even though they are mostly in comedies. Surprisingly, Black kept his character serious and the movie is better for it. I though for sure he would be the one to ruin this movie for me but, again, I stand corrected. The comedy seemed to be reserved for Kong, himself, and did a wonderful job.

I can not express how much more I enjoyed this movie without the "guy in the suit" special effects. Kong was very appealing visually, as well as the other dinosaurs. I do not say this too much in reviews. In fact, I doubt I have ever said it but King Kong has turned out to be a masterpiece which will raise the bar for many years to come. 10/10

---

580 out of 1006 people found the following comment useful :-
Wow, 5 December 2005

Author: EvilAdam from Jersey City, NJ

This film is simply amazing. The best remake I have ever seen, expect nothing but aces in the drama and action department in this film. Peter Jackson manages to helm one hell of a movie, and what is destined to be 2005's top film.

Never have I seen a CG Character garner so much emotion. If you thought the first film is heartbreaking, this one down right makes it tough to not shed at least a tear by the end of the film.

By the way, once the action starts in this film, it NEVER let's up. A beautiful yet sad film, I can't wait to see it again.

Those who are afraid that this film might do anything to take away from the original, do not worry. The time and setting of this film really keeps the original's spirit intact, while carving some fantastical new ground of it's own. Though some of the actual scenery here and there may look a bit fake, you will never ever think that about the main ape himself.

---

459 out of 767 people found the following comment useful :-
A roaring success, 9 December 2005

Author: Elliott Noble from London, England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Uh-oh, 45 minutes in and no sight of the gorilla. It's 1933, and to make his movie masterpiece, producer Carl (devious) has lured actress Ann (fetching) and screenwriter Jack (heroic) onto a ship bound for exotic climes. The crew - grizzled captain, philosophical first mate, grubby cook, callow cabin boy - reckon that Carl is leading them into trouble. And so he is.

So far, so Titanic. But fear not, for as soon as the boat slams into the mythical Skull Island, all hell breaks loose. First, hostile natives snatch Ann because she'd make the perfect sacrifice for their simian god. Enter the big fella... he's 25 feet of ladykilling silverback, and boy does he take a shine to Ann. Then it's a hair-raising, bone-jarring race through the uncharted jungle for both Kong - who's desperate to hang on to his blonde prize - and the rescuers, led by Jack.

Never mind Never Land, this is Never-Go-There Land. It makes Jurassic Park look like Wimbledon Common. Apes aside, the place is swarming with angry and enormous beasts causing snapping, flapping, stomping, chomping, falling, squalling, creepy-crawly carnage. But amidst it all Carl (clearly mad) has a great idea. Why not capture Kong and take him back…?

Quite simply, this is the most spectacular, exhilarating and marvellously sustained hour of action adventure I've ever seen... But is there anything left for the final act? Hell, yes.

One wrecked theatre and a little mayhem on Broadway leads us up the Empire State building for the dizzying, chest-beating climax. It won't do anyone with a fear of heights any favours whatsoever - and everyone else's fingernails will be burrowing through their chair arms as they will Kong to hang on.

Technically, the production is spectacular on every level, from the wilds of Skull Island to the bustle of 30s' Manhattan. But Jackson's handling of the bond between Kong and Ann is equally impressive. It's a key element, and what could have been laughable is actually something that even cynics could buy into. That's because as much care has gone into Kong's character as his presence. His expressions gel wonderfully with Naomi Watts' committed performance - and she's so much more than just a swooning damsel-in-distress. Fay Wray was a game gal and all, but she never had a giant centipede crawl in her mouth.

So what if Jack Black isn't quite Machiavellian enough to convince in his role and that the first hour is slightly draggy and prone to daft speechifying? One bit of miscasting and a deliberate beginning are but tiny scars on what is a truly magnificent creature.

I'm still dumbstruck. Kong's awesome. Kong rules. Bravo, Peter Jackson, bravo.

---

204 out of 300 people found the following comment useful :-
King Bomb, 16 January 2006

Author: jack_thursby from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Where oh where did it all go wrong? You had a $200 million budget, special effects wizards up the wazoo and Peter "LOTR" Jackson directing a bona fide classic that could only benefit from a modern retelling. However, the end result -- a bloated, melodramatic, self-indulgent dog's breakfast of a movie -- proves the maxim that sometimes, "less is more." King Kong is a very simple story, in fact, its almost a parable or fable, and the drama and excitement is all in how you tell that story. The original Kong (1933), despite its dated effects, still remains a gripping, moving experience because of the way the story is told through the magic of the cinema. Peter Jackson obviously hasn't watched the original for some time because his version takes all the magic out and replaces it with boring special effects and long running sequences that badly need editing. Why Jackson decided to stretch this simple movie to over 3 hours is a question only he can answer.

There's so much wrong with this disaster, that it would take a King Kong-sized review to describe, so I'm just going to list some of the lowlights:

1) At over 3 hours, its far too much movie for far too little story. So we get tons of sequences that run well past their expiration date and bog the movie down. At least 45 minutes to 1 hour could have been cut and you wouldn't lose a thing.

2) Too much melodrama between Kong and Ann Darrow. If a love story between a gigantic ape and a woman makes your socks roll up and down then you won't mind the endless scenes of Ann and Kong staring deeply into each others eyes, but if it doesn't, you'll be rolling your eyes and looking at your watch as I was.

3) Too much melodrama concerning King Kong. Jackson's King Kong loves sunsets, jokes and ice skating. He so makes us want to feel empathy and love for Kong that he beats us over the head with it and then beats us some more. King Kong is a monster Peter, not a lovelorn single looking for a potential mate. The transformation of Kong from king of the monsters to misunderstood metro-sexual turns the movie into sentimental rubbish.

4) Shoddy CGI sequences that run on and on and on and on.... but you get the idea. CGI Kong looks great, except for when he's fighting, but the rest of the CGI, especially the green screens are amateurish. For a high budget effects movie, some of the effect sequences really are dismal and detract from the viewing experience. "Jurassic Park" is over 10 years old and its effects are better than Kong's and that is not a point in King Kong's favor.

5) Rampant stupidity. In the original, Kong fights a T-Rex who has threatened Ann, and defeats it an fantastic fighting sequence. Jackson has Kong fight 3 T-Rexes utilizing a variety of martial arts moves, it was almost like watching Neo-Kong from the Matrix. To top it all off, the T-Rexes bite Kong but cause no damage. No wonder Kong wins, when your opponents can't hurt you the outcome of the fight is obvious.

6) Poor character development and story arch. Ostensibly there is a love story between Ann Darrow and Jack Driscoll, but Ann's love for Kong is so strong that it overwhelms whatever relationship she had with Driscoll. So why keep it in the movie? Given the changes Jackson made in the core relationships, he should have changed Ann and Jack's story as well, because as is, its utterly idiotic. And that's just one example, the movie is full of this kind of bad scripting and characterization.

---

437 out of 775 people found the following comment useful :-
A Monumental Success of a Movie, 18 December 2005

Author: pyrocitor from Ontario, Canada

If it had been announced that a remake of the classic "King Kong" was being made without the name Peter Jackson attached to it, there is no doubt audiences would have been outraged. But after the enormous success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it would seem that the general public has learned to trust director Peter Jackson. After watching his remake of King Kong, I would have to say that their trust was well placed.

Jackson now firmly cements his name as a master filmmaker, the kind that all aspiring directors want to be. The attention he pays to the most minute details, the sheer class he shows in terms of production and scale, the amount of skill he has in manipulating our fragile emotions... the man is clearly one of the most talented directors in film history. And Jackson certainly brings his considerable skill and flair to show here in 'Kong'. While a different director likely would have sped up the story to the crew's arrival on Skull Island, Jackson takes his time with a nice, leisurely build up to their arrival, giving us lots of time to really get to know these characters, and also providing time for a slow and genuine romance building between the characters of Anne and Jack. This romance does lead to the very few and seldom weaknesses of the film... the romance scenes can seem a bit cheesy and contrived at times. But when that's literally the only complain I can make, it's a pretty damn good sign for the movie!

The visual effects are an essential part of the movie, and they really needed to be done well here to properly sell the idea - safe to say that they were still good enough to surpass my already unrealistically high expectations! Safe to say, even in today's computer saturated film industry the special effects in King Kong will still succeed in blowing you away. And Jackson seems to have an almost uncanny skill in manipulating his audience's emotions - you will cheer, you will laugh, you will cry, you will really be on the edge of your seat and you will be truly and thoroughly disgusted in at least one part of the movie - watch out for a cave full of giant insects on Skull Island. It seemed only fair to post a warning considering how profoundly well done it is...

The cast is pitch perfect, right down to the most minuscule parts. (the natives on Skull Island are even more terrifying than any orcs or evil creatures in LOTR) Naomi Watts gives a heartwarming and wonderful performance as the innocent Ann Darrow, the "beauty who killed the beast". And indeed, performance aside, Watts hasn't looked this beautiful for quite a while! While everyone had their doubts about Jack Black's casting a while back, he proves to be just what his character needed to be truly believable. Black harnesses his trademark manic energy, and instead of playing it for laughs, expels it through Carl Denham's passion for the film industry, and his lust for providing a show for his audiences - sometimes at the cost of his morals. I must admit, I have never been a fan of Adrien Brody, but even he managed to win my sympathies, and proves surprisingly convincing as heroic screenwriter Jack Driscoll. And then there's Andy Serkis... the man is so underrated, since his best performances have been overshadowed by masks of admittably impressive CGI, but result in him losing credit he so desperately deserves. Serkis, while utterly convincing as an enormous silverback gorilla in terms of movement and vocalizations, still manages to bring a surprising humanity to Kong. I'm hard pressed to remember the last time an animal protagonist has managed to capture our hearts and emotional involvement as much as Kong does, and Serkis definitely deserves accolades for re-creating such an iconic character in a beautiful fashion only through movement and body language. He also takes a hilarious supporting role as the grizzled and trigger-happy Lumpy the cook.

Overall, I think it is safe to say that King Kong succeeds on a level completely lost to most productions these days. Rarely are our emotions manipulated with such ease, rarely do we find ourselves getting so engrossed in a story that a 3 hour running time seems to have gone by far too quickly and we yearn for more. King Kong is an odyssey of a movie, and the most genuine and compelling output seen since... well, the Lord of the Rings. This is classic storytelling at its peak - don't miss out on it!

-10/10

---

176 out of 259 people found the following comment useful :-
Beauty Killed the Beast, 10 January 2006

Author: nycritic

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

If the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy cemented Peter Jackson as a director of the highest order and made him the new king of the world, KING KONG seals his position as a Director and eliminates any trace of doubt that he may have been a one hit wonder.

Bringing what has to be one of the most known and greatest adventure story into a new configuration, and doing so successfully, is a tremendous gamble. Dino de Laurentiis tried to do so thirty years before, and while the film is watchable, it was considered a major disaster. An unrelated sequel, KING KONG LIVES, proved even worse. Peter Jackson, who has called KING KONG the reason he decided to get into film-making, wanted to make this film before LORD OF THE RINGS was thrown into production, but circumstances prevented this in happening, and thus his career went into high gear as we now know. Maybe it's just as best that things went this way: the sensitivity and emotional power that his saga of Middle Earth makes its way into the Modern Age and elevates this incredible action-packed adventure into the spiritual heights that its climactic sequence requests.

The argument, which resembles a massive Stephen King novel in epic proportion and in the way it introduces each of its characters, is as follows: Carl Denham (Jack Black, channeling Orson Welles) is trying to get his movie off the floor, but producers aren't quite backing him up with his latest project which is to be set in the distant Skull Island. On top of this, leading ladies are scarce, and one who would have been available (Fay, in a nod to the late Fay Wray) is working for an RKO production. Ann Darrow (a radiant, multi-faceted Naomi Watts) is a vaudeville performer who is nearly destitute: the theatre where she works has closed and she is practically stealing to eat. Darrow and Denham cross paths in the Depression era Times Square, and envisioning her as his muse, he convinces her to join his production team as his lead actress. At the same time, Denham bamboozles playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to join his team as screenwriter, and with Captain Englehorn (Thomas Krestchmann) on helm, off they sail to Skull Island (while the entire crew believes they are heading to the more exotic location of Singapore).

As they arrive they get glimpses of the island's forbidding nature: stone faces in the style of Christmas Island's, but savage and menacing, are all over the place, and the island at first seems deserted. A little girl catches their attention and in trying to ingratiate themselves to her they are assaulted by bloodthirsty savages that all but decimate their crew and capture Darrow for the purpose of sacrificing her to (whom they believe to be) the ruler of the island, a twenty-five foot gorilla named Kong (a brilliant Andy Serkis). Not wanting to leave Ann abandoned in the island the crew comes back to rescue her and in the process discover that Kong is the least of their troubles: the island is infested with prehistoric life.

It's at this point when KING KONG bursts into non-stop action and Peter Jackson pulls out every hat trick into an hour of chase sequences and truly gory moments involving gigantic insects and man-eating worms. The only moment when the action in the forefront seems somewhat divorced from the background is the sequence where the entire crew faces a stampede of brontosauruses and raptors, but even then it is mind blowing in its sheer scope and is only the set-up to what will be the film's finest hour and the very reason moviegoers know Kong: the return to New York City and the inevitable, symbolic climax atop the Empire State Building in which the New World clashes with the Old World.

Even so, KING KONG is equally excellent in establishing its mood in four quiet moments. Who could have thought Ann could charm a beast like Kong? Here is the fulcrum of the story, not a love story but a story of kindred spirits. Ann, after fighting Kong, wins him over with her vaudeville act seen at the film's introduction. Witness his facial and body language: Kong is not a beast but an overgrown child full of wonderment and laughter at seeing her dance. Later, after a physically exhausting moment when Kong fights off three T-Rexes, both share a sunset atop a cliff, mirrored in the sunrise they witness, together, at the Empire State Building later on. But by far, the most magical moment is one in which Kong, in New York, slides through a frozen lake in Central Park, Ann in tow, both laughing. Genius at its best. Kong at his most tender.

KING KONG is a testament to movie magic that action films, even those which remake classics, can benefit from an emotional center. In reconstructing what was a one-dimensional story from its 1933 version with his evolving Ann Darrow's relationship with Kong from hostage to friend and even kindred spirit who sees the beauty within the beast, his version is the more complete, and its length brings the rewards of a fascinating film. I only imagine what he would do in re-creating the world of THE WIZARD OF OZ despite the shrieks of purists who would see such a thing as celluloid blasphemy, forgetting that remakes are necessary, and if done with an expert vision, can create transcendental beauty. And this is absolute beauty.

---

172 out of 253 people found the following comment useful :-
Over Hyped, 10 January 2006

Author: flame2ie from Ireland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This has to be one of the most over-hyped movies of all time, a veritable 'King Kong' of a movie deflated to Bubbles the chimp stature with its wooden acting, naff sequences, contrived plot and extreme length. As the saying goes 'its not how big you are but how you use it!" Unfortunately Mr. Jackson feels the need to release onto us the Bigger, Longer and Uncut version from the get go.

To wade into this movie is to find yourself in a jungle but in the end having sifted through everything all you get is a monkey-nut. To begin with its one basic flaw is that its too long by far, over an hour too long. Jackson feels the need to show us all Ann Darrows workmates at the theatre one by one. He develops them to a point where you're thinking they're going to be integral to the story and then he swiftly moves, he does it with the crew of Venture. Lots of scenes with them, pointless in the end especially when they die, they just seem like cannon fodder for our amusement. There is just too much of everything in King Kong. Too many characters to begin with, too many natives, too many monsters, Kong fights off not one, not two, but three t-rex's at the same time. Denham and Driscoll are not attacked by one or two big bugs, but a gazillion of them. At this point I was shaking my fist at the screen Its as if Jackson sat in a suite at Weta, like a kid in a candy store and said, I'll have two those, ten of those, seven of those and twelve of those etc etc. Too much, quality not quantity Mr. Jackson. There are some cringe worthy moments too, especially in the dinosaur chase scene, with Adrien Brody punching, yes punching a Velociraptor (Steven must be laughing extremely loudly) in the face all the while not trying to get stamped on by some brontosaurus , gimme a break.

The scenes between Ann and Kong begin funny, but turn stupid as Jackson has some how turned the beast of Kong into a docile and almost human like character, I was half expecting the pair to get down to some frantic love-making by the end of it, cringe, cringe cringe.

I could go on and on and on, oh I could, but the most glaring contrivance occurs at the very beginning when we are cheated out of an explanation. Denham played by Jack Black is trying to convince his film financiers to give him more money, but having seen his rushes they're not convinced. However, Denham pulls from his pocket a map no less, of Skull Island, a map nobody else has, annnnnd thats it. No back-story, no 'where did he get that map' no dodgy Asian guy in a pawn shop, no mystic Mr. Miagi, no cults, no Nazis, no nothing. Denham just has the map, the map on which the whole movie rests, a poor downtrodden director has this map, where did he get it!!!!!! Is that to be saved for King Kong 2: Son of Kong, I guess so, but I'll be in no rush to see that, but I was in a rush to leave the theatre to avoid the 17, yes SEVENTEEN minute end credits.

---

239 out of 396 people found the following comment useful :-
I just could not suspend that much disbelief!, 18 December 2005

Author: Ren Kessler from Las Flores, CA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I agree with most of you that the effects were spectacular, but judging a film on this single criterion makes one a shallow viewer. You must judge the story on its completeness, the characters must be judged for their depth and believability (and yes, I found Kong to be a believable character, but found most of the others to be very shallow, indeed). The cinematography was interesting but typical of modern films, the costumes not correct for the period, same with the hairstyles. The New York exteriors were contrived, and some obviously shot on the Universal back lot.

As I sit and think hard about the film I am having trouble finding anything very positive to say about it, except the special effects. The Kong character was spectacular, but the rest of the effects were no better Jurassic Park's effects, especially given the advancements in CG technology over the last 12 years.

That said, I could have overlooked any shortcoming if one major flaw did not exist.

A film must be believable on certain levels, in order to get me to suspend my disbelief on other levels. There must be enough believable elements for me to see through the obviously unbelievable ones. This film failed in a major way in believability, and I'm not referring to the Kong character.

Some examples: How did the main characters constantly elude death at every turn, when it was clearly obvious that they should have died many times over? How did seven men get Kong into the boat? How did they keep him subdued on the voyage, and indeed right up through the curtain going up in the theatre? Why weren't Ann's hands ripped off (or at least her wrists broken) when Kong ripped her from her rope bindings when he first took her? That must have hurt! Why weren't Ann's feet cut to shreds as she ran through the jungle? Why didn't Ann get dirty and her dress ripped to shreds during her ordeal in the jungle? Why did her hair stay nice and neat and her dress clean and white? How did she end up with only a minor facial scratch after being thrown around the jungle over and over? Why didn't Ann's skull get bashed in, or her brain jarred loose as Kong swung her violently during her capture and the scenes with the T-Rex.

How could Carl, and other men survive a fall from such a great height when Kong knocked them off the log? Why weren't they crushed to death as the log came tumbling down on top of them? Why didn't Jack and Carl and the others get absolutely crushed to death by the dinosaurs as the beasts overtook them running through the jungle? Why didn't they get crushed to death as 10 or 12 dinosaurs all fell down all at once on top of them? Why wasn't everyone dead by this point in the film? Why wasn't Jack hit by a single bullet fired by Jimmy, even though every spider swarming over Jack's body was blown to smithereens, as untrained Jimmy fired blindly with his eyes shut? Why didn't the bats kill Jack and Ann, even as Kong was swarmed and mauled by them? Why didn't Jack get the least bit hurt when Kong flipped the taxi he was driving 20 feet into the air, doing a 360 and crushing the vehicle? Why didn't Ann freeze her @ss off when she met Kong in a skimpy in the middle of winter in NYC? Why didn't Ann freeze when she and Kong were ice skating? Where did all the people go during the Central Park scene? Why weren't they running around screaming, trying to save their lives? Where did they all disappear? Why would anyone in his or her right mind climb to the top of the Empire State Building, even for love (I was squeamish even in the comfort of my theatre seat)? Why would any woman kiss Adrien Brody on top of the Empire State Building after having had such a great relationship with a real man, King Kong? This represents only a few of the unbelievable elements.

At every turn in this film the unbelievable overwhelmed the believable. It would have been very easy to not go so far over the top, tone back just a little, so the suspension of disbelief could have been as natural in this remake as it was in the original.

The sunrise and sunset scenes were quite nice. At least I found something good to say.

---

---

Page 1 of 257:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history