KING KONG Reactions

Message

AndyDursin · #1 Post by **AndyDursin** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:42 pm

I have to put a review together so I will keep this short, but I had mixed feelings...the attention to detail, the look, the atmosphere, were all terrific...but goodness it's too long. It shouldn't take nearly half the movie to get to Kong. Nearly every scene felt like it could have been trimmed -- from the spider pit sequence, to the climax on the Empire State -- and the characterizations of Denham and Jack were formless. Is Jack the hero? He certainly doesn't come across as one. Denham's character was even more off-kilter -- is he the comic relief? A crazed villain? Neither, or both? The movie can't seem to figure out what it's trying to do with them, and as a result, I didn't have an emotional investment in any human in the movie.

Naomi Watts looked lovely, the animation of Kong was tremendous, but I look forward to Jackson's Director's Cut -- which ought to be about 45 minutes SHORTER. There was no reason for this movie to last nearly as long as it does. That whole subplot involving the kid on the ship and the Captain was the VERY thing you expect to find in a deleted scenes supplement on a DVD -- it had no function being in the finished cut whatsoever.

I also can fathom why Newton Howard was brought onboard. I'm guessing he came in to "lighten" the beginning of the movie, which has a playful, almost comic musical tone for the first 30 minutes or so (until they get on the boat to Skull Island). Shore has never been known for writing that kind of music, and I assume they also wanted a Thomas Newman-like, low-key sound for the scenes between Ann and Kong. To be fair, JNH's music worked well enough there, but it fails TOTALLY at the end of the movie -- the music ought to leave you saddened, heartbroken, or at least shaken that the film is over...instead it really peters out with a forgettable assembly of cues. It's just bland, for lack of a better word. Max Steiner, John Barry, it isn't...and the movie itself...in all honesty, I think most of my critical brethren have been drinking the kool-aid, at least in terms of it being a 4 or 5 star film.

AndyDursin · #2 Post by **AndyDursin** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:54 pm

Also I found it curious the theater was half-empty for a 7pm show...something confirmed in the mediocre opening day numbers:

12-14 Daily Grosses
Film/Studio/Number of Screens/Total Gross/Per Screen Average/Total Gross

1. KING KONG UNIVERSAL 3,567 9.7 million 2,715 9.7
2. CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, THE BUENA VISTA 3,616 3,440,000 951 77,666,000
3. SYRIANA WARNER BROS. 1,752 810,000 462 16,102,000
4. HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE WARNER BROS. 3,728 590,000 158 246,049,000
5. WALK THE LINE UNIVERSAL 3,034 445,000 147 78,481,000
6. PRIDE AND PREJUDICE FOCUS FEATURES 1,335 290,000 217 27,348,000
7. AEON FLUX PARAMOUNT 2,608 255,000 98 21,188,000
8. JUST FRIENDS NEW LINE 2,464 245,000 99 27,173,000
9. YOURS, MINE & OURS PARAMOUNT 3,210 205,000 64 41,459,000
10. RENT SONY 1,971 135,000 68 27,411,000

That actually puts it 21st on the list of top Wednesday openings, behind even CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and the first POKEMON movie

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/da ... wed&p=.htm

You have to figure Universal is disappointed right now...it'll make a decent showing but I just have this feeling it will have nowhere near the appeal (or repeat viewing) of LOTR, and that audiences will feel the way a lot of people did (grumbling and outwardly expressing disappointment) at the showing I attended.

romanD · #3 Post by **romanD** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:19 am

more exciting than the movie is really how well it does!

so far, I knew only 3 people who saw it, 2 hated it, one said it was decent.

and besides them I dont know anybody who even wants to see it!

I'll see it on tuesday, because then it is cheapo day at the movies...

AndyDursin · #4 Post by **AndyDursin** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:53 am

romanD wrote:more exciting than the movie is really how well it does!

so far, I knew only 3 people who saw it, 2 hated it, one said it was decent.

and besides them I dont know anybody who even wants to see it!

I'll see it on tuesday, because then it is cheapo day at the movies...

It's not a terrible movie by any means -- but it's probably the movie in most need of trimming I've ever sat through in a theater. It's one thing to be 3 hours long, but there is NO NEED at all for the length of the movie. I meant it: you could literally slice every scene in half (especially from the time they leave for Skull Island), and the movie would be improved.

The somewhat unfocused characters like Jack and Denham, though...not sure you could do much about them at this point...

Musically, my solution would have been to bring in John Williams, pay him buckets of cash, and do his own score from scratch. Not very practical, but the movie needed a truly EMOTIONAL score that would have brought the house down at the end...something like E.T. The film itself wasn't strong enough to make it happen, but maybe with a dynamic score it certainly would have helped.

As it is, I sensed relief from the audience that the film was FINALLY over -- the very end is so un-moving, it's shocking.

romanD · #5 Post by **romanD** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:11 am

I thought James Horner would have been a good choice... he certainly would have written a more emotional score than JNH and still got the action right, as he proved with TROY that he even doesn't need much time for that. The score wouldn't have been very original, but at least moving. Something I think JNH's score lacks completely.

But I guess Horner was busy, doesn't need this sort of stress anymore and well, he did one Kong score already... lol...

still can't believe why JNH got a GG nod and Patrick Doyle didn't...

AndyDursin · #6 Post by **AndyDursin** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:45 pm

romanD wrote:I thought James Horner would have been a good choice... he certainly would have written a more emotional score than JNH and still got the action right, as he proved with TROY that he even doesn't need much time for that. The score wouldn't have been very original, but at least moving. Something I think JNH's score lacks completely.

But I guess Horner was busy, doesn't need this sort of stress anymore and well, he did one Kong score already... lol...

still can't believe why JNH got a GG nod and Patrick Doyle didn't...

Very true, Horner likewise would have been an excellent choice. The one thing that this score needed was a very warm, melodic sound. Howard Shore has never been known for that -- JNH, for the most part, hasn't really written anything too effective like that either (he's more of a solid "Action" composer, some of his early works -- like MAN IN THE MOON -- notwithstanding).

The movie has its problems but could have been appreciably more effective with a score that really worked -- alas, it didn't get one, apparently from either composer.

mkaroly · #7 Post by **mkaroly** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:50 pm

Nice designs on the site Andy!!

I just saw the movie- firstly, I want to say that your review brings up a lot of excellent points. The movie is too long, and it does spend a lot of time on unnecessary characters and minor plot points/character developments. Those moments did seem like they were "Director's Cut" add-ins and that what I saw was what was supposed to have been released on DVD next year! The spider pit sequence is too long and Carl Denham is let off too easy by the film's end. Your comments about Jack and Ann are also good comments.

I cried int he theater- and several others were crying as well by the film's climax. Naomi Watts did a fantastic job with her emoting (again, good point in your review). And while all the other characters were either here or there, Kong completely held my attention. And any film that can make me cry over a CGI character will get good marks from me.

Kong is the movie's heart and soul (and his love for Ann)- those points were well developed to me. JNH's score wasn't as bad in the film as I was led to believe: the action music was somewhat dialed-down and the more soft and romantic music (if you want to call it that) was dialed-up and was effective for me (especially during the Empire State Building scene before the airplanes). The Central Park scene was sweet and moving; I don't really know why I have so much affection for Kong but I do- but the story is simple and the emotions are basic and real.

So the bottom line is that I enjoyed the film much more than I thought I would. The positives outweighed the negatives for me, and while Jackson should have trimmed the movie down to about two hours or so, his respect and adoration/admiration for the original really shined though. I guess you don't get many chances to remake a film that so greatly influenced you. Despite its flaws, I really liked it.

AndyDursin · #8 Post by **AndyDursin** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:27 pm

mkaroly wrote:Nice designs on the site Andy!!

I just saw the movie- firstly, I want to say that your review brings up a lot of excellent points. The movie is too long, and it does spend a lot of time on unnecessary characters and minor plot points/character developments. Those moments did seem like they were "Director's Cut" add-ins and that what I saw was what was supposed to have been released on DVD next year! The spider pit sequence is too long and Carl Denham is let off too easy by the film's end. Your comments about Jack and Ann are also good comments.

I cried int he theater- and several others were crying as well by the film's climax. Naomi Watts did a fantastic job with her emoting (again, good point in your review). And while all the other characters were either here or there, Kong completely held my attention. And any film that can make me cry over a CGI character will get good marks from me.

Kong is the movie's heart and soul (and his love for Ann)- those points were well developed to me. JNH's score wasn't as bad in the film as I was led to believe: the action music was somewhat dialed-down and the more soft and romantic music (if you want to call it that) was dialed-up and was effective for me (especially during the Empire State Building scene before the airplanes). The Central Park scene was sweet and moving; I don't really know why I have so much affection for Kong but I do- but the story is simple and the emotions are basic and real.

So the bottom line is that I enjoyed the film much more than I thought I would. The positives outweighed the negatives for me, and while Jackson should have trimmed the movie down to about two hours or so, his respect and adoration/admiration for the original really shined though. I guess you don't get many chances to remake a film that so greatly influenced you. Despite its flaws, I really liked it.

Michael, thanks for the kudos -- it's nice to write through the snow, isn't it? Alas I can't take credit for writing this program per se, but I have to admit, it's a nice touch for the season and was worth the few minutes of code editing and uploading I had to do

Even better is that next year I can just press a few buttons and it'll show up without any further headache!!

Excellent points all Michael. The movie's effectiveness is naturally going to vary from one viewer's personal preference to another, but there's no debating that Peter Jackson's intentions were in the right place -- his heart and soul and love for the original movie were there, no question about it. I really thought Naomi Watts did an excellent job, particularly given how little dialogue she had with Kong -- that aspect of the movie worked for me.

romanD · #9 Post by **romanD** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:45 am

so far the movie doesn't do well... even overseas it only made 8 million...

how exciting to see the final result on Monday, but I guess some heads will roll...

Im not surprised, as I really don't know many people who really want to see it, despite the raving reviews. A movie about a giant ape in love with a blonde bombshell... seriously, who is interested in that?

Even me who liked the original (though I find it heavily overrated) and so far enjoyed all PJ movies (and watches nearly every crap! lol) rather goes to the movies tonight and will watch MOUNTAIN PATROL, a great chinese movie about some poachers in the tibetian mountains.

AndyDursin · #10 Post by **AndyDursin** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:56 am

romanD wrote:so far the movie doesn't do well... even overseas it only made 8 million...

how exciting to see the final result on Monday, but I guess some heads will roll...

Im not surprised, as I really don't know many people who really want to see it, despite the raving reviews. A movie about a giant ape in love with a blonde bombshell... seriously, who is interested in that?

Even me who liked the original (though I find it heavily overrated) and so far enjoyed all PJ movies (and watches nearly every crap! lol) rather goes to the movies tonight and will watch MOUNTAIN PATROL, a great chinese movie about some poachers in the tibetian mountains.

As much as I hate to say this, Roman, I had a better time watching GODZILLA FINAL WARS on DVD the other night! Sure KONG is aiming for a far, far higher degree of artistry than GODZILLA, but I have to plead guilty that the B-movie was more entertaining for me.

KONG certainly won't come anywhere near a $100 million weekend...in fact it will be highly fortunate (over the 3-day span) to get half of that. Universal is probably on the edge of their seats right about now, but I feel the same as you: I personally didn't know many people who were THAT interested...and it's not a very kid-friendly movie, with the running time and depressing ending (not to mention a few scary scenes) making it tough for kids. I also see repeat viewing being very, very small.....either way it's not doing TITANIC numbers! (as if it ever would have -- that hype was ridiculous).

Carlson2005 · #11 Post by **Carlson2005** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:11 pm

The $8m overseas figure on boxofficemojo is very misleading. Their overseas tracking is very slow and only takes into account limited markets: the actual overseas figure for Wednesday was just under $9m, but it didn't open in several territories until the thursday or friday. The overseas total as of friday is an estimated $27m, but those figures won't be clearer until after the weekend. So far it's more or less doing dollar-for-dollar business overseas.

I would have seen it this week (it opened here Thursday), but I can't shake the flu at the moment, so the only thing I'll probably end up seeing this side of Christmas is Joyeaux Noel/Merry Christmas, and that only because I doubt it'll still be playing after Christmas! (The US gets it in March, which seems typically perfect timing for a movie about the Christmas Truce!

)

AndyDursin · #12 Post by **AndyDursin** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:26 pm

Carlson2005 wrote:The $8m overseas figure on boxofficemojo is very misleading. Their overseas tracking is very slow and only takes into account limited markets: the actual overseas figure for Wednesday was just under $9m, but it didn't open in several territories until the thursday or friday. The overseas total as of friday is an estimated $27m, but those figures won't be clearer until after the weekend. So far it's more or less doing dollar-for-dollar business overseas.

I would have seen it this week (it opened here Thursday), but I can't shake the flu at the moment, so the only thing I'll probably end up seeing this side of Christmas is Joyeaux Noel/Merry Christmas, and that only because I doubt it'll still be playing after Christmas! (The US gets it in March, which seems typically perfect timing for a movie about the Christmas Truce! )

KONG is the closest we'll ever get to watching a test screening being released as a final cut. The more I think about it, the more I feel the film was completely bloated, as if they hadn't cut anything out of it. When you watch it, after the first 30 minutes, see if you can find a sequence that wouldn't have worked better literally being cut in half. Even the "money" action sequences are overlong...and the entire Jack Black character was a total wash.

I have to give Jeff Bond credit as well -- as he noted, the scene in which Adrien Brody waits for the elevator in the Empire State building pretty much sums up his entire character. Almost entirely superfluous...

mkaroly · #13 Post by **mkaroly** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:58 am

[/quote] KONG is the closest we'll ever get to watching a test screening being released as a final cut. The more I think about it, the more I feel the film was completely bloated, as if they hadn't cut anything out of it. When you watch it, after the first 30 minutes, see if you can find a sequence that wouldn't have worked better literally being cut in half. Even the "money" action sequences are overlong...and the entire Jack Black character was a total wash.

I have to give Jeff Bond credit as well -- as he noted, the scene in which Adrien Brody waits for the elevator in the Empire State building pretty much sums up his entire character. Almost entirely superfluous...[/quote]

I think the external characters are supposed to be superfluous (awesome word Andy!)- the more I thought about it, the more I felt that Jackson doesn't really care about the other characters since he put every emotional characteristic into Kong and Ann. I think he loathed Denham et al and just relegated them to one-dimensionality (if that). Granted, the lack of character development between Ann and Jack really undermine the believeability of their final hug- he was worthless! I think that makes the film more tragic- the one character who showed more heart than anyone else (who in his simplicity had more depth than the humans in their "complex civilization" around him) is killed only to have his love go to such a wimp and emotional zombie as Jack Driscoll? How depressing is that????? It makes me want to cry...

Anyway, I have no idea how Jackson looks at the other characters- just thinking out loud here..... Naomi Watts is probably the most beautiful Ann Darrow ever. She certainly is the best KONG female human to me- Jessica Lange as DWAN was awful.....

Eric Paddon · #14 Post by **Eric Paddon** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:17 pm

Kong 76 is a flawed film in many ways, but not IMO because of Jessica Lange. I think her performance holds up very well given the kind of character she was being asked to play (plus she looks so great in the native costume). I think of all the Kong 76 leads, Bridges was ultimately the weakest link.

I need to see Kong 05 later this week. I'm not surprised the hype isn't being met overall because IMO no one can make this story run three hours effectively on the big screen

AndyDursin · #15 Post by **AndyDursin** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:11 am

Eric Paddon wrote:Kong 76 is a flawed film in many ways, but not IMO because of Jessica Lange. I think her performance holds up very well given the kind of character she was being asked to play (plus she looks so great in the native costume). I think of all the Kong 76 leads, Bridges was ultimately the weakest link.

I need to see Kong 05 later this week. I'm not surprised the hype isn't being met overall because IMO no one can make this story run three hours effectively on the big screen

It's a tough call Eric, I'll be interested in your take. Michael loved the movie, I was disappointed with it for a number of reasons I listed in my review -- though there's no question it was made with its heart in the right place. I suppose if you can overlook enough of the problems and have a direct attachment to the material you will find it fully satisfying in spite of its excessive length.