BatSTUD said:

I got some flack for posting a new thread about my dislike for this horrible, horrible movie, so I figured I'd post my REVIEW from MySpace in this thread:




Here's where we begin when it comes to my opinion of King Kong (2005): Avoid this movie at all cost.

Seriously, it's that bad.

Don't listen to the critics. Like my good friend Josh pointed out, even the Crying Game got great reviews and a lot of awards and that's one of the worst movies ever made.

Don't waste three hours of your life.

It's HORRIBLE.

Why?

OK, well, let's start with science and physics, because this movie discounts them entirely.

I can go along with the whole native tribe on an unknown island full of dinosaurs and a big gorilla, but hey, that's coming close to pushing it.

But the giant insects that seem to be amalgated forms of real life insects that only wanna eat and attack humans but not each other?

Or how about the GIANT VAMPIRE BATS that I thought I saw in that other disaster known as Van Helsing?

I'm not kidding.

Giant vampire bats...

And did you know that humans can keep pace with AND outrun Brontasaurs, Velociraptors, and King Kong?

Cuz I didn't know that.

Or how about the seemingly superhuman strength of all the human characters:

Apparently falling sixty feet doesn't kill people in King Kong's world. And of course, King Kong's hand must permeate some sort of invincible chemical concoction, because you can be thrown around from hand to foot or even travel in one of his hands as he uses it to walk without getting so much as a bruise!!!

Amazing, huh?

Or how about the part after 17 men (on a crew and boat that looked like it housed only 12) died, and the remaining crew of maybe ten subdue Kong with ropes (yeah, ropes) before the movie cuts to New York...explaining in NO WAY how they got Kong to this boat or even how they got him in the boat and then kept him restrained long enough to get to New York???

Freaking ridiculous.

I can suspend my disbelief pretty well. But Jackson just kept pushing and pushing.

But let's move on to the CGI.

The CGI for Kong is incredible, but apparently that's where the money all went because the CGI for everything else is absolutely atrocious! I'm talking worthy of jail time that they even tried to pass it off as real.

What about the length, you ask?

TOO FREAKING LONG. And I'm a fan of long movies!!!

But this movie was too full of completely unnecessary scenes, retarded exposition that only seeked to keep us away from the star of the picture, and drawn out, often boring sequences.

I mean, I own all of the Extended Editions of the Lord of the Rings movies, and this was still too freaking long!

Bottom line: This movie is the product of what happens when a successful director get's too much power. No one at any stage was willing or felt comfortable to tell Peter Jackson: NO. And just like the Wachowski Brothers (the Matrix Trilogy) and George Lucas, Peter Jackson is a victim of his own success. He bloats the movie with too much. Everything is over-the-top and ridiculous. Other directors that have tried this tactic with much better results such as Stephen Sommers (the Mummy) and Michael Bay (the Island) get critisized for this, but Peter Jackson the director who put New Line Cinema back on the map and created movie magic with the Lord of the Rings trilogy??? Why, he's celebrated with over-the-top reviews!!! Makes sense, huh?

Witness what happens when creativity goes too far...

And the sad part is that, just as it is in the movie, it is Kong who suffers and is for all intents and purposes, raped of what he truly is. Because the only parts that are any good in this movie, the only parts that actually work and that have any true value to them is the parts in which Kong is in. And believe it or not, those parts are few and far between. Who would of thought that in a movie called KING KONG.

It's funny because I feel sorry for Kong. Not only for what happens to him in the movie but because of what has been done to him with this movie. The character they revived in this movie from the original 1933 film deserves much better than this.

BatSTUD said:

I got some flack for posting a new thread about my dislike for this horrible, horrible movie, so I figured I'd post my REVIEW from MySpace in this thread:




Here's where we begin when it comes to my opinion of King Kong (2005): Avoid this movie at all cost.

Seriously, it's that bad.

Don't listen to the critics. Like my good friend Josh pointed out, even the Crying Game got great reviews and a lot of awards and that's one of the worst movies ever made.

Don't waste three hours of your life.

It's HORRIBLE.

Why?

OK, well, let's start with science and physics, because this movie discounts them entirely.

I can go along with the whole native tribe on an unknown island full of dinosaurs and a big gorilla, but hey, that's coming close to pushing it.

But the giant insects that seem to be amalgated forms of real life insects that only wanna eat and attack humans but not each other?

Or how about the GIANT VAMPIRE BATS that I thought I saw in that other disaster known as Van Helsing?

I'm not kidding.

Giant vampire bats...

And did you know that humans can keep pace with AND outrun Brontasaurs, Velociraptors, and King Kong?

Cuz I didn't know that.

Or how about the seemingly superhuman strength of all the human characters:

Apparently falling sixty feet doesn't kill people in King Kong's world. And of course, King Kong's hand must permeate some sort of invincible chemical concoction, because you can be thrown around from hand to foot or even travel in one of his hands as he uses it to walk without getting so much as a bruise!!!

Amazing, huh?

Or how about the part after 17 men (on a crew and boat that looked like it housed only 12) died, and the remaining crew of maybe ten subdue Kong with ropes (yeah, ropes) before the movie cuts to New York...explaining in NO WAY how they got Kong to this boat or even how they got him in the boat and then kept him restrained long enough to get to New York???

Freaking ridiculous.

I can suspend my disbelief pretty well. But Jackson just kept pushing and pushing.

But let's move on to the CGI.

The CGI for Kong is incredible, but apparently that's where the money all went because the CGI for everything else is absolutely atrocious! I'm talking worthy of jail time that they even tried to pass it off as real.

What about the length, you ask?

TOO FREAKING LONG. And I'm a fan of long movies!!!

But this movie was too full of completely unnecessary scenes, retarded exposition that only seeked to keep us away from the star of the picture, and drawn out, often boring sequences.

I mean, I own all of the Extended Editions of the Lord of the Rings movies, and this was still too freaking long!

Bottom line: This movie is the product of what happens when a successful director get's too much power. No one at any stage was willing or felt comfortable to tell Peter Jackson: NO. And just like the Wachowski Brothers (the Matrix Trilogy) and George Lucas, Peter Jackson is a victim of his own success. He bloats the movie with too much. Everything is over-the-top and ridiculous. Other directors that have tried this tactic with much better results such as Stephen Sommers (the Mummy) and Michael Bay (the Island) get critisized for this, but Peter Jackson the director who put New Line Cinema back on the map and created movie magic with the Lord of the Rings trilogy??? Why, he's celebrated with over-the-top reviews!!! Makes sense, huh?

Witness what happens when creativity goes too far...

And the sad part is that, just as it is in the movie, it is Kong who suffers and is for all intents and purposes, raped of what he truly is. Because the only parts that are any good in this movie, the only parts that actually work and that have any true value to them is the parts in which Kong is in. And believe it or not, those parts are few and far between. Who would of thought that in a movie called KING KONG.

It's funny because I feel sorry for Kong. Not only for what happens to him in the movie but because of what has been done to him with this movie. The character they revived in this movie from the original 1933 film deserves much better than this.

hulk33 said:

Wow! This is one of the most stunning movies I have ever seen. Peter Jackson yet again proves he is the best director of our time by bringing us the best movie not only of 2005 but also one of the best movies ever made. I love the 1933 version it is an instant classic. However I did not connect emotionally to Kong in it. In Jackson's remake you really connect and feel sad for the beast.

Over all the movie is amazing. The best remake ever if you ask me. The effects are top notch (Only complaint is during parts of the brontosauraus stampede you could tell it was fake) Other then a few bad effects it was awesome. WETA really proves it is better then ILM in every way here.

Jackson's directing is amazing. The guy really knows how to direct and he does a damn good job of it. The acting is also amazing. I was a little skeptical about Black playing this role but I think he did an outstanding job and Watts as Ann was great.

All in all this is an instant classic and better then any movie I have seen this year. Deserves tons of awards but probably won't get them.

**** out of ****

BatSTUD said:

I got some flack for posting a new thread about my dislike for this horrible, horrible movie, so I figured I'd post my REVIEW from MySpace in this thread:




Here's where we begin when it comes to my opinion of King Kong (2005): Avoid this movie at all cost.

Seriously, it's that bad.

Don't listen to the critics. Like my good friend Josh pointed out, even the Crying Game got great reviews and a lot of awards and that's one of the worst movies ever made.

Don't waste three hours of your life.

It's HORRIBLE.

Why?

OK, well, let's start with science and physics, because this movie discounts them entirely.

I can go along with the whole native tribe on an unknown island full of dinosaurs and a big gorilla, but hey, that's coming close to pushing it.

But the giant insects that seem to be amalgated forms of real life insects that only wanna eat and attack humans but not each other?

Or how about the GIANT VAMPIRE BATS that I thought I saw in that other disaster known as Van Helsing?

I'm not kidding.

Giant vampire bats...

And did you know that humans can keep pace with AND outrun Brontasaurs, Velociraptors, and King Kong?

Cuz I didn't know that.

Or how about the seemingly superhuman strength of all the human characters:

Apparently falling sixty feet doesn't kill people in King Kong's world. And of course, King Kong's hand must permeate some sort of invincible chemical concoction, because you can be thrown around from hand to foot or even travel in one of his hands as he uses it to walk without getting so much as a bruise!!!

Amazing, huh?

Or how about the part after 17 men (on a crew and boat that looked like it housed only 12) died, and the remaining crew of maybe ten subdue Kong with ropes (yeah, ropes) before the movie cuts to New York...explaining in NO WAY how they got Kong to this boat or even how they got him in the boat and then kept him restrained long enough to get to New York???

Freaking ridiculous.

I can suspend my disbelief pretty well. But Jackson just kept pushing and pushing.

But let's move on to the CGI.

The CGI for Kong is incredible, but apparently that's where the money all went because the CGI for everything else is absolutely atrocious! I'm talking worthy of jail time that they even tried to pass it off as real.

What about the length, you ask?

TOO FREAKING LONG. And I'm a fan of long movies!!!

But this movie was too full of completely unnecessary scenes, retarded exposition that only seeked to keep us away from the star of the picture, and drawn out, often boring sequences.

I mean, I own all of the Extended Editions of the Lord of the Rings movies, and this was still too freaking long!

Bottom line: This movie is the product of what happens when a successful director get's too much power. No one at any stage was willing or felt comfortable to tell Peter Jackson: NO. And just like the Wachowski Brothers (the Matrix Trilogy) and George Lucas, Peter Jackson is a victim of his own success. He bloats the movie with too much. Everything is over-the-top and ridiculous. Other directors that have tried this tactic with much better results such as Stephen Sommers (the Mummy) and Michael Bay (the Island) get critisized for this, but Peter Jackson the director who put New Line Cinema back on the map and created movie magic with the Lord of the Rings trilogy??? Why, he's celebrated with over-the-top reviews!!! Makes sense, huh?

Witness what happens when creativity goes too far...

And the sad part is that, just as it is in the movie, it is Kong who suffers and is for all intents and purposes, raped of what he truly is. Because the only parts that are any good in this movie, the only parts that actually work and that have any true value to them is the parts in which Kong is in. And believe it or not, those parts are few and far between. Who would of thought that in a movie called KING KONG.

It's funny because I feel sorry for Kong. Not only for what happens to him in the movie but because of what has been done to him with this movie. The character they revived in this movie from the original 1933 film deserves much better than this.

Harry Pothead said:

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with some of you again. The bats and bugs added NOTHING to the plot. I actually found myself sitting there during the scene where Adrian Brody goes to rescue Anne, and Kong is fighting the bats. I sat there PRAYING!! "Please don't jump onto a bat and fly away, that would be the worst idea on the face of the earth." Well.... if you've seen the movie, you know how I felt about that scene. But all in all, I don't see what is nit-picky about his review. Nit-picky is saying "I could tell that wasn't Keanu Reeves in that one fight scene in the Matrix, it was his stunt double". THATS nit-picky. But being bothered by TOTAL nonsence in a movie about a giant gorilla IS something to be worried about. I mean, obviously if I'm walking into a movie about a giant ape, I know Im watching fantasy, but if something within that fantasy world is THAT far off and unbelievable, than it means it was done poorly. Cuz say in Star Wars, Jar-Jar Binks turns out to be a sith lord. That would be so wholy unbelievable that even the most DEDICATED Star Wars fan would say "F YOU LUCAS!" To me a bunch of killer bugs (who don't kill each other) and giant vampire battarays that fly people to safety on one wing, is TOO far out there. You have to stay within the realm of what you're working on. And that my friends, was FAR outside the realm of a giant loveable gorilla. So don't call other people's opinions nit-picky just because you chose to overlook it. And btw, WETA has got NOTHING on ILM I don't care what you say. As someone said to me in the movie "someone needs to kill Jack Black's character" and I turned back and said "No, someone needs to kill the team over at WETA" Want proof? Look at the Dinosaur stampede in Jurassic Park 2 (closest to this movies stampede) and compare it to Kong's. At no point in JP2 does it look even remotely fake, in this movie in no way does it look even remotely real. And I used a crappy movie to compare that to. THAT'S how bad a job WETA did (However Kong himself did look stunning) Of course, I've already said all this in my review up top. Just thought I'd reiterate it.

Harry Pothead said:

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with some of you again. The bats and bugs added NOTHING to the plot. I actually found myself sitting there during the scene where Adrian Brody goes to rescue Anne, and Kong is fighting the bats. I sat there PRAYING!! "Please don't jump onto a bat and fly away, that would be the worst idea on the face of the earth." Well.... if you've seen the movie, you know how I felt about that scene. But all in all, I don't see what is nit-picky about his review. Nit-picky is saying "I could tell that wasn't Keanu Reeves in that one fight scene in the Matrix, it was his stunt double". THATS nit-picky. But being bothered by TOTAL nonsence in a movie about a giant gorilla IS something to be worried about. I mean, obviously if I'm walking into a movie about a giant ape, I know Im watching fantasy, but if something within that fantasy world is THAT far off and unbelievable, than it means it was done poorly. Cuz say in Star Wars, Jar-Jar Binks turns out to be a sith lord. That would be so wholy unbelievable that even the most DEDICATED Star Wars fan would say "F YOU LUCAS!" To me a bunch of killer bugs (who don't kill each other) and giant vampire battarays that fly people to safety on one wing, is TOO far out there. You have to stay within the realm of what you're working on. And that my friends, was FAR outside the realm of a giant loveable gorilla. So don't call other people's opinions nit-picky just because you chose to overlook it. And btw, WETA has got NOTHING on ILM I don't care what you say. As someone said to me in the movie "someone needs to kill Jack Black's character" and I turned back and said "No, someone needs to kill the team over at WETA" Want proof? Look at the Dinosaur stampede in Jurassic Park 2 (closest to this movies stampede) and compare it to Kong's. At no point in JP2 does it look even remotely fake, in this movie in no way does it look even remotely real. And I used a crappy movie to compare that to. THAT'S how bad a job WETA did (However Kong himself did look stunning) Of course, I've already said all this in my review up top. Just thought I'd reiterate it.

Darth Tritium said:

BatSTUD and Harry you two are just as bad as George lucas you keep complaining about the CGI when what really needs to be appreciated is the story.

I for one thought this was the Best Movie of the Year right there with Serenity. The Cinematography was excellent and as odd enough as this is to say you could really feel that Anne truly cared for Kong. The T-Rex fight was a great homage to the 1933 version and i really like the line where Carl asks if they can get Fay to play Anne's character. Overall this is an amazing movie that i reccomend to eveyone the ending was amazing and had me in tears.

****** out of *****

Auburnfootball said:

[Ok it's fantasy dude, just about anything could happen. What would you have done to change to movie. Make both of them fall and die instead of grabing on to a bat's wing. What would you have said. BTW, there was a big huge gorilla that wants to kill a major character. Are you just going to let him run in between Kong's legs and get out of there because that is worst than grabbing a bat's wing.
And what you said about the bugs and why don't they eat each other. How is that unbelieveable. You can find stuff like that in every fantasy movie. And like I said, what would you had done if you where peter jackson. He did a great job even though they could have edited some things out. He knew that not everybody would like how he did the movie but he still did a great job.

Harry Pothead said:

Darth Tritium said:

BatSTUD and Harry you two are just as bad as George lucas you keep complaining about the CGI when what really needs to be appreciated is the story.

I for one thought this was the Best Movie of the Year right there with Serenity. The Cinematography was excellent and as odd enough as this is to say you could really feel that Anne truly cared for Kong. The T-Rex fight was a great homage to the 1933 version and i really like the line where Carl asks if they can get Fay to play Anne's character. Overall this is an amazing movie that i reccomend to eveyone the ending was amazing and had me in tears.

****** out of *****

First off, how can you say all I do is complain about the CGI? Go back and count. 8 SENTENCES is all I spent on BOTH of my posts combined. So don't tell me what I'm doing. But on the other hand, why SHOULDN'T I complain about the CGI? In a movie so heavily reliant on CGI, don't you think they should at least do a good job? And I agree with you, the story is the most important part. But they IGNORED the story. You felt for Anne and Kong? So did I, but I also felt for that kid that kept getting into trouble for an hour and a half of the movie. What happened to him? We never find out. I cared about Jack Black's character and wanted him to get some kind of penalty for all the chaos he caused. What happened to him? We never find out. What I have qualms about is the fact that they couldn't keep their minds focused on anything. They built up a bunch of story lines, wasting about an hour of my life, and didn't do anything with those story lines. If the movie was about Kong and Anne's relationship, then they should have just kept the focus at that. It would have made it more enjoyable for me. And just so you get a sense of what kind of movies I like, I agree with you that Serenity is one of the best movies of the year. And I never even watched Firefly. But this movie just jumped all around and left to many plotholes. If the important part of the story is Anne and Kong, then make me feel even MORE for them, not for everyone else around them.

Auburnfootball said:

[Ok it's fantasy dude, just about anything could happen. What would you have done to change to movie. Make both of them fall and die instead of grabing on to a bat's wing. What would you have said. BTW, there was a big huge gorilla that wants to kill a major character. Are you just going to let him run in between Kong's legs and get out of there because that is worst than grabbing a bat's wing.
And what you said about the bugs and why don't they eat each other. How is that unbelieveable. You can find stuff like that in every fantasy movie. And like I said, what would you had done if you where peter jackson. He did a great job even though they could have edited some things out. He knew that not everybody would like how he did the movie but he still did a great job.

ANYTHING would have been better. They've already shown that these people can outrun Kong and a pack of wild dinosaurs stampeding, so why couldn't they just run out between his legs? But seriously, that too would suck. But just a whole reimaging of it all. They find a small tunnel that Kong can't fit into and get out that way. That's a lot better than grabing an injured bat's one wing and flying to safety. But of course this is just off the top of my head. I'm sure with a production team of 50 people next to me, I could come up with something much better than that. As for the bugs not eating each other... That's what bugs do, they eat each other. Especially giant ones like that. But in a fantasy anything can happen? Well if the T-Rex and Kong are fighting, then why aren't the grasshoppers and scorpians fighting? Like I said, it all goes back to a sense of continuity and working with the fantasy world you have created. It's to contradictory. And never once have I questioned Peter Jackson's ability as a director. He did an amazing job directing. I'll give him that hands down. But so is Steven Spielberg, yet he keeps turning out crap like War of the Worlds. This was just PJ's WotW.

Darth Tritium said:

BatSTUD and Harry you two are just as bad as George lucas you keep complaining about the CGI when what really needs to be appreciated is the story.

I for one thought this was the Best Movie of the Year right there with Serenity. The Cinematography was excellent and as odd enough as this is to say you could really feel that Anne truly cared for Kong. The T-Rex fight was a great homage to the 1933 version and i really like the line where Carl asks if they can get Fay to play Anne's character. Overall this is an amazing movie that i reccomend to eveyone the ending was amazing and had me in tears.

****** out of *****

Auburnfootball said:

And maybe the grasshoppers and scorpions are friends and don't wnat to fight each other. Maybe there are some deleted scences that show the grasshoppers and scorpions being friends.

dparker said:

Right you don't know me and I am a movie fan (anything) Peter Jackson has done a remarkable movie. King Kong is one the most powerful and emohe movie tional movie of all time. It had me in tears 3 times. 3 TIMES. I don't care if you don't see Kong on the boat to New York, cause I don't want to it will look stupid to see King Kong on the boat so Peter skipped it. Peter Jackson cannot be pushing too much as at the start was all about the characters then for at least 45 minutes later the CGI of King Kong and others and actions. That movie ended me in tears three times and give me humour after the first time I cried. I don't care if anyone says is that guy a p*** or is he.... whatever. I don't judge people neither dierctors or actors. I went to see King Kong for excitment and to enjoy throughout the movie. If you don't like or think it was stupid then why bother coming in this thread and ruin everyone who enjoyed the movie. If you do not like King kong then don't bother making excuses about the movie, just move on go on a different thread. Let the people in here to talk and enjoy and share their good reviews and advantages about King Kong.

Harry Pothead said:

Auburnfootball said:

And maybe the grasshoppers and scorpions are friends and don't wnat to fight each other. Maybe there are some deleted scences that show the grasshoppers and scorpions being friends.

LMFAO!!! You know what, it wouldn't surprise me, wouldn't surprise me at all. And you think THAT would make it all ok too I bet...