King Kong{2005} Appreciation Thread

[Tempest19]

I might be the only one here... but, my top two favorite Peter Jackson movies are 'King Kong' and 'The Frighteners.' Don't get me wrong, I like the LOTR films- I just like 'King Kong' and 'Frighteners' more.

Also I'm one of those that love Kong 33', consider it to be a classic- but, like 05' Kong more than 33'.

 

[The-Dark-Knight]

The film was awesome, i shouldwatch the dvd i have it, yet not watched it.

 

[CBGB]

The extended edition is so cool! and the special features are awesome

 

[The Dark Defender]

I might be the only one here... but, my top two favorite Peter Jackson movies are 'King Kong' and 'The Frighteners.' Don't get me wrong, I like the LOTR films- I just like 'King Kong' and 'Frighteners' more.

Also I'm one of those that love Kong 33', consider it to be a classic- but, like 05' Kong more than 33'.

I love Kong more than Fellowship and Two Towers, ROTK is ahead of it though.

 

[The Dark Defender]

It did it better than scarface at least The film isn't great nor is it crap, it simply miss the point of the monster movie by trying to hard to make it respectable especially with all the useless subplots.

It elevated itself well above a simple monster movie with a great story about human nature and the most moving relationship ever captured onscreen between two characters. Great is putting it mildly.
Other than Jimmy (who has all about of 5 minutes of screen time that's actually about him anyway), there no useless subplots.
Jackson yet again showed his ability to blend visual spectacle with heartfelt emotion like no other can; and the V-Rex fight is one of the greatest fights ever. This movie pretty much defines epic (and having to defend her from a family of V-Rex's is more intense than a single one).
Kong 33 and 76 are really, really good unintentional comedies; but really, really bad movies.

 

[DACrowe]

King Kong was a good movie. Flawed in that it was too long and needed to be a good half hour shorter. Self-indulgent is the word to best describe its shortcomings. But a good movie it still is.

It is probably the best blockbuster since its release which is considerable (and I liked Spider-Man 3! But all the other movies this summer and last and in between have been complete rubbish). Just a very good movie. I odn't think it defines epic (not with titles like The Godfather, Lawerence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, Bridge on the River Kwai, Patton, Ben-Hur, Gone with the Wind and yes, the LOTR trilogy)...but still a good movie.

First class filmmaking that remmbers to keep the characters first. I wouldn't say it has the strongest relationship ever put to film. Not close. But it's probably the strongest relationship between two characters in a summer blockbuster (even if it was released in December) of the last 3 years or so.

A good movie that ages better thatn viewed upon inital release.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. King Kong (1933) is AN AMAZING MOVIE. Not a bad comedy. I would say despite its simplicity it reaches the level of classic. Something I wouldn't bestow on either remake.

 

[Darth Elektra]

great movie, one of my all time favs

I agree.

 

[Spidey Rules 2]

I enjoyed the second half of the movie (when Kong finally appears; it was way worse than the Hulk). My only other complaint (besides the boring first half) is why did Peter Jackson have to end his movie the way the other two movies did. Why couldn't he just have Kong gased (again) and taken back? I don't know, maybe it's the kid inside me that wants to see more Kong especially when it comes to fighting other monsters. Hey, there's an idea, while they are attempting to take him back to Skull Island they mistakingly take him to Monster Island instead.

 

[co2]

I enjoyed the second half of the movie (when Kong finally appears; it was way worse than the Hulk). My only other complaint (besides the boring first half) is why did Peter Jackson have to end his movie the way the other two movies did. Why couldn't he just have Kong gased (again) and taken back? I don't know, maybe it's the kid inside me that wants to see more Kong especially when it comes to fighting other monsters. Hey, there's an idea, while they are attempting to take him back to Skull Island they mistakingly take him to Monster Island instead.

I'm trying to figure out if you are kidding or not.

 

[DieSmiling]

I love Peter Jackson's King Kong. I think it's phenomenal.

 

[Dr. Fate]

I will confess that King Kong 2005 turned out to be more enjoyable than I thought it would be.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'd like to see Peter Jackson do an original movie sometime.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I definitely enjoyed King Kong. Yes, it was three hours long but I found it much more entertaining than LOTR. A giant ape I can tolerate, all of the mumbo jumbo of LOTR got old pretty quick.

Oh yeah and it had Naomi Watts.

 

[Sam Fisher]

I loved Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. And reading this makes me really want to purchase that extended cut that I have been putting off for quite a while now it seems.

Yeah, get the EE. It's not that much longer but it has much better extras than the original 2disc release.

 

[The Chris]

This is the best King Kong as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Wolverini]

This was a great King Kong movie. It WAS a bit too long though , but the effects , story and character interaction was GREAT!

Peter Jackson nailed this one.

 

[Kmack]

I saw this film 3 times in theaters I kinda think it doesn't get the credit it deserves. . .could be because of Jack Black's involvement

 

[Morg]

I loved Kong....and the extended version was even better.

Yep, the extended one was much better

 

[Darthphere]

Did the whole Jimmy subplot go anywhere in the extended edition?

 

[The Dark Defender]

Not really (that's easily the worst thing about the film, but easily overlooked since not much time was devoted specifically to him anyway).
There's a nice scene of him putting on Hayes' hat when he finds his dead body though.

 

[The Dark Defender]

P.S. King Kong (1933) is AN AMAZING MOVIE. Not a bad comedy. I would say despite its simplicity it reaches the level of classic. Something I wouldn't bestow on either remake.

It's a classic example of an amazingly bad film that unintentionally becomes a comedy, EVERYTHING about it was horrible. People dump praise all over it because they like clinging to nostalgia.

Stupid as hell characterization choices (making Ann nothing but a greedy *****, she cares about nothing but how much money she can make when Kong is put on display in NY, Kong himself is just a big dumb brute, Ann is simply scared to the death of him and there's nothing significant between them...awful movie; and other than the ones Jackson directed, none of those films come within a football field of Kong's epicity).
Any 1 scene between Kong and Ann in Jackson's film has 100x the quality of that entire piece of **** original, not that it'd take much.

As for the relationship between them in Kong 05, which consists of more than a greedy ***** being carried around by a growling, vapid action figure, not only is it the best, no two or three others combined really come close.

 

[Sentinel X]

Puleeeze I decided I was going try and be nice but some people need to be *****-smacked into place. It has nothing to do with any ******ed sense of duty to say Kong '33 is better than the remake, it simply is, if you know anything about film. We now need to anaylse this phrase and give nubs like yourself a proper understanding of it. However... Let me illuminate to you something... I've seen King Kong (33'), Mighty Joe Young ('44), King Kong Vs. Godzilla, King Kong (76'), King Kong Lives (87'), and King Kong (05'). I also have Son of Kong on my shelf... So I am a fan of Kong as well as have seen almost all the iterations of Kong. (All right so I haven't seen Escape of Kong or the lame cartoon so sue me )

King Kong 33' is the first special effects bonaza, to say it's the first monster film(as I said before) is incorrect considering that German Expressionism was happening a good ten years prior. However, it's the first film to have a monster of this caliber and have it be all special effects. This fact is what makes it important, it was the first to do it thus opening the doors for everything to come. However was Kong 33' a perfect film? Far from it, the characters are so hollow it's pathetic, however that's the point, everyone wants to see the monster and the end is poetic.

Now let's flash forward a good 13 years to the makers of King Kong's third entry into big ape films, Mighty Joe Young. A HUGE IMPROVEMENT, the stop-motion is exceptional, the characters and acting is equally good, all in all it does things better, however is it truely better? The reason it's a better film is that it's no longer right at the beginning of the sound age as well as having the foresight and pressure to have something other than the monster. It's an improvement due to the fact that it wasn't first.

Flash forward 80 years and the same could be said of this King Kong... It has the benefit of drawing from so many different adaptations of Kong that it's too little, too late. I mean there's nothing miraculous about doing something better than the original, when it's been done 7 times before you. Let's not forget all the other monster and Kaiju films that have come out during that time. So for those of us "who know **** about film" we realize that what Jackson did was simply take the original kong story, add in a bunch of useless subplots, and film it with an updated look... WHoopie-de-****ing doo! DOn't get me wrong, I think Kong 05' is a wonderfully crafted film, just look at Kong himself however it's nothing groundbreaking.

No one is giving all the credit to Jackson, we know its a remake and its not his original idea. As far as I know Kong has been remade twice (77 and 05) and the other films are sequels or spinoffs.
I just realize that a lot of people hate this film and say it is FAR worse then the 33. I love the 33 original btw, I've seen it like twice and its an incredible film for the time period but I think Kong 2005 exceeds it because they have much better technology, the story was given a lot more emtional depth as well. In 33 Kong I didnt care much for Kongs charecter because I saw him as just some horny monster, but in 2005 Kong, Kong isn't some monster hes an actual charecter.
There is no question that 1933 King Kong is MUCH more important to the film industry and is a masterpiece (Really good for 1933) but I think PJ's Kong improved on the story more.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Indeed, more influence on cinema doesn't automatically equal a better film; many ignorant film snobs that need to be smacked into place of course don't reailize that.

What Jackson did was create a relationship between an actress (who makes her interaction with a character that wasn't even there during filming 100% believable, the single greatest lead actress performance ever) and a special effect that's so good that 20 minutes or so of it blows away the emotional impact of most entire good films; which he did through brilliant visuals AND storytelling.
Yes, he did indeed use inspirations from the past...to make a far better film than the ones that inspired him. Films inspiring other, better movies down the road is hardly unheard, since not everyone insists upon clinging to nostalgia and isn't afraid to admitt that newer films can surpass their source material.

Kong 33 of course had the ignorant brute that growls at everything, shows no emotion other than "me big ape! me angry, growl! roar! *break, smash, stomp!*" and the screaming ditz female lead that did nothing but establish the dumb scared little damsel and distress cliche that would be featured in many films to come, none of which were anywhere near the quality of PJ's Kong, the only genuinally good version of the story.

 

[Rez]

I know this is an appreciation thread, so I won't rag on it too much, but I will say that I really dislike Jackson's Kong. I enjoy the dinosaurs simply because I love dinosaurs, but if I had a thing for giant sharks over prehistoric monsters I would have thought the film to have absolutely no redeeming qualities.

Far, far too long. I love a good long movie(just off the top of my head, the Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut), but so much of this film feels completely useless. The only thing it really changes from the original is Darrow's attitude towards Kong. In the original she's just as terrified as everyone else, in this one she loves him. I enjoy the even more tragic version of Kong being completely misunderstood. Kong 33 for me all the way, and I'm a big supporter of remakes.