King Kong (2005) REVIEWS - Movie-List Forum

ZUBi · #1 12-13-2005, 05:46 PM

Advertisement

just from cinema. great remake of 1933 original movie. 3 hours goes quick. first hour is little slow, but when they came to island, then starts ... wow wow wow

... I see that some of scenes used in trailer was not in the movie, like when they start to shooting scene on the island & Naomi creams or when somekind of water snake follow them when they are on boat (in the jungle). CGI graphics on moments BLOWNS AWAY. my score is 4.5 of out 5 (almost perfect). likelly that I'm gonna buy DVD. movie is definately worth a cinema ticket. this was my little opinion (right now after I came home)...

P.S. is Extended Edition planned to be made?
(asking after seeing unused footage in trailers)

bendermac · #2 12-13-2005, 06:54 PM

peter jackson stated that the beach and the water snake scene had to be cut for running time reasons. both scenes are likely to be seen in an extended edition.

ZUBi · #3 12-13-2005, 07:06 PM

aha, so is stated (not familiar with that). so I hardly wait for EE DVD (if)...

michalz00 · #4 12-14-2005, 08:42 AM

I really enjoyed this movie. It's very well balanced. One can't say it's boring. The Skull Island is almost non-stop acion

WETA again proved they are the best so did Peter Jackson. Very good movie.

I'm also waiting for the Extended Edition DVD. I hope it will be a 5 hour cut with 48 hrs of bonus material

j7wild · #5 12-14-2005, 06:03 PM

2 years ago, right after the release of L.O.T.R., Return of the King, I heard Peter Jackson was going to direct King Kong and the actress would be Naomi Watts.

I said 2 things:

After the LOTR Trilogy, it would be hard for Peter Jackson to top himself;

and

Naomi Watts would be miscast for the role that was brought famous by Fay Wray oh so long ago!!

Now after seeing the movie, I have to say I was WRONG!!

Peter Jackson did top himself with King Kong and he deserves another Best Director and Best Picture award;

and

Naomi Watts Delivered her acting role of a lifetime;

I think she deserves to be nominated for a Best Actress award;

the several tender scenes between her and Kong were moving (and funny) and so real that there was not a dry eye in the theater;

The movie itself is everything you want from a movie: escapism (that's why we go to movies for, right?); lots of action; a good story line; suspense; scary and gross parts; humour where it counts and a moving tearjerking ending.

I give it a 5 out of 5.

What's next for Peter Jackson?

He is bringing the popular game HALO to the screen!!

Rated PG 13 (NO Foul Language, No Sex, No Nudity)

warning: this movie contains several intense graphic sequences that younger viewers under the age of 13 would find scary, squeamish and shocking.

enkydu · #6 12-15-2005, 07:59 AM

I'll keep this short since I agree almost whole-heartedly with j7wild...from initial skepticism to delite of the final version.

Although, I must admit, this film isn't for everyone. I went with two other people and although two of us thought it was pitch perfect, the third had some understandable critiques that keep her from being fully engaged in the film (e.g., Adrian Brody's character, the pacing of the first hour). Those are valid, but I guess I'm on Peter Jackson's wavelength since it all worked for me.

I leaned over to my buddy after the first major action sequence (the ones with the brontasauruses that in the trailer) and said, "you know, had that been the the best sequence of the film, I wouldn't go home unhappy. Thankfully, the T-rex sequence was f'n amazing!!

Watts deserves major recognition for her work, as does Jackson, of course.

Gaumont · #7 12-15-2005, 02:26 PM

As a 3.08 hour movie. I give it a 2/5. Max. Remove the insects crap, remove the batfight, the horrible dinosaur run (and silly dino serial crash), remove most of the voyage, remove the whole Jimmy crap, and some of the other stuff. Keep the acuall King Kong story from ´33 and u got yourself a good movie. a solid 4/5. I just dont get how this can get so much good reviews. Some ppl were actually booing in the cinema when i saw it. And i understand why.
The company should just have stepped in and done some major cuts and it would have been a good movie.

This movie only streghten my beliefe that LotR where good movies despite Peter Jackson, not because of him.

Gaumont · #8 12-15-2005, 02:28 PM

I do however agree wiht that Watts deservs recognition for her work, she did a great job.

ZUBi · #9 12-15-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaumont

Remove the insects crap

agree with U here. this was really silly sequence...

enkydu · #10 12-16-2005, 07:01 AM

Kong opened to less than $10M (domestic) on Wednesday...and with mixed word of mouth, this may be a huge tank!

WorkShed · #11 12-16-2005, 10:03 AM

Mixed word of mouth? This is one of the best reviewed movies of the year. I think the three hour running time is what kept people away from the theatres on a Wednesday night. Most people have work, y'know!

Wait for the Sunday estimates, then we'll see how much of a tank it is...

enkydu · #12 12-16-2005, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WorkShed

Mixed word of mouth? This is one of the best reviewed movies of the year...Wait for the Sunday estimates, then we'll see how much of a tank it is...

I agree, but have you read the posts above? Some of us loved it, while others really didn't like it at all. All I was trying to say is that not everyone is going to leave the theater and call their friends and encourage them to see this movie.

As for the Wednesday numbers, they are pretty bad no matter how you spin them. Most people had to work the Wednesday that Return of the King came out too...but that didn't stop that 3hr20min hour movie from making almost FOUR TIMES as much ($34.5M) its opening Wednesday.

Kong will make good money at the box office...it's too good of a movie not too. But it very well may not make as much as Narnia and certainly won't make as much as Harry Potter 4...even though the resources put into it were much greater...I think the marketing team at Universal didn't do as good of a job as they could have...though, who knows. The audience may find this movie.

Vic Mackey · #13 12-17-2005, 07:27 PM

I just saw Kong and I thought it was damn good. Not Lord of the Rings good, but good nonetheless. Really only part that I thought was far fetched was the dino stampede. They should have all been pancakes. But other than that, another in the win column for Peter Jackson. That guy is the MAN!

Kn'thrak · #14 12-18-2005, 01:32 AM

I really enjoyed it. The movie didn't seem like over 3 hours long which was really good. Not once I thought about the movie and "hurry up and end" scenes.

Trailers shown were:
Zorro 2
Fun With Dick & Jane
Chittle Little

So few 'case I saw KK in Silverscreen

st39.6 · #15 12-18-2005, 02:16 PM

well, I´ve enjoyed it as never before. such an amazing movie! really loved it. whole storyline is perfect for me, liked all the characters, CGI best ever, Kong is now my favourite movie character now (right after treebeard from LotR). I have to say: wow, thanx PJ, you got me! fckn´ amazin´!
trailers shown:
MI:III
Experti (very bad czech teenage movie /Experts/)
Chronicles of Narnia TR II
and maybe some more, dont remember. I was at midnight premiere, but friend of mine told me, that in some cinemas there was a pause in the middle (somewhere before skull island)....heh (so was in HP4)