comment #1

Anonymous says ...

I saw King Kong on DVD a couple weeks ago and I was genuinely startled. The effects in the "dino run" were *fucking awful.* I couldn't believe it. The human are literally standing in the front of a green screen, their legs cut off by the bottom of the image, while footage of dinosaurs running plays behind them. In the few shots where legs *are* visible, the dinosaurs seem to be occupying the same space as the humans because the choreography isn't done right. It was embarrassing to see.

comment #2

Anonymous says ...

P.S. I had never seen it before it watching it on DVD. (I'm the poster above.)

comment #3

AH says ...

This is not a criticism but a question:

Since this has happened in the past with other movies, I am curious if its better to wait and let a movie sink in before posting a review about it. I mean things like the reaction to King Kong, initially positive and later negative.

Or is the posting of that initial feeling, regardless of how it changes over time, worth the reaction that comes when the review changes?

comment #4

Daniel Zelter says ...

I thought that chase sequence in ID4 was pretty weak, too. You could tell the explosions were on a blue screen.

comment #5

Chris says ...

1. Still haven't seen this, and my interest wanes by the day.

2. Having said that, PJ deserves all the credit he gets for the magnificent cinematic achievement that is the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

comment #6

Mathew says ...

Well Kong was basically Jackson's "reward" for the LOTR films. Wasn't he paid something like $20 million to direct? Insane considering they gave him full reign over production.

comment #7

guy steele says ...

Yes Kong was mostly boring. It was well done of course but we all know the story by heart and there were no new suprises.

There is one scene though that really made me gag. I understand one has to suspend belief go along with the fantasy and all... but really this one scene really was way wrong-headed.

The scene: When our hero, the Shuckster and the young fresh cabin boy are down in the pit of large insects our hero is covered by a bunch of large roach/cricket looking things our Shuckster is off dealing with his own problems and the wet-behind-the-ears teen picks up a tommy gun (Machine Gun) and starts to blast away the icky varmints off of our hero. A MACHINE GUN which and correct me if I am wrong sprays out bullets in an arc type pattern. Even if I am wrong and the bullets shot straight... the only things getting hit were the nasty insects leaving our hero unscathed. Maybe with a rifle and scope, perhaps even a pistol held steady... I might have brought the scene... but a Thompson Machine Gun being fired by someone who has never ever fired one before is able to save the day without nicking our hero once...

I could bring up a few other moments as well but this one took the prize for me.

comment #8

Mark Grasinski says ...

So, Jeffrey, what you are saying is that we should ignore your reviews of current movies because what you will ultimately think may change completely. I'm more prone to trust my initial reactions, but whatever works for you.....

comment #9

Timmy says ...

This makes it all the more frustrating that you gave it an enthusiastic "it delivers, rocks and rolls" review. On the basis of that, I went and saw it, and it was just as big an overdone, poorly directed piece of crap as the Rings movies were.

Jeff, you lose trust points on this one.

comment #10

Pedro says ...

"But Kong is a movie with a big heart and a stupidly exuberant joie de cinema coarsing through its veins...during the second and third acts, I mean."

You want ketchup or maybe some hot sauce to go with those words, Jeffey?

comment #11

Mathew says ...

Come on guys. Do you actually read Hollywood Elsewhere for the reviews? We come here because Jeffrey's an entertaining writer and has an insider's view into the business. Yeah so he comes off as flakey at times, we all do.

comment #12

Geoff says ...

JEFF I ABSOLUTELY LOVE HOW YOU ARE ANTI-PETER JACKSON!!! I COULD NOT AGREE MORE.

comment #13

Timmy says ...

oddDuck:

You seem to be the only asshole posting here today. No one else called a group of people assholes because they mildly criticized someone.

comment #14

Alan Green says ...

agree, kk is too too long. disagree with you re: first 70 minutes - for me this is the only part worth watching. technically, the first act is quite nicely put together.

rest of movie, however, could be cut by 60% and not lose anything

comment #15

Monty says ...

Hold on, hold on - why is Jeffrey not allowed to change his opinion on a movie? It happens to us all, people. I was very upset that I didn't like THE LIFE AQUATIC as much as I should have done the first time I saw it, but fell in love with it on second viewing.

It's the first review that makes the difference, and Jeff posted his views there and then, and I'm glad he did. With a film like KING KONG, a blockbuster film that relies on a big opening weekend, the first impression is the most important one, and Jeff had every right to post the review he did. KING KONG is not a film that I'd expect to hold up to repeated viewings, but I haven't seen it since the cinema. Thanks to this post of Jeff's, my opinions have been confirmed that it wouldn't be a decent viewing so long after the fact. His basic point in this post - you should've seen this in the cinema, but don't bother getting it on DVD.

You lose no trust points from me, Jeff. Just because you're a critic doesn't mean you can't change your mind.

comment #16

Count.Olaf says ...

Alan Green....you were going to write exactly what I was going to say.

I missed the movie in theaters and only saw it on DVD a month ago, but I was excited after the first 70 minutes. Then, when they got to the island, everything died. I mean, peril after peril....not only did I want to get up and go to the kitchen for some tortilla chips, I wanted to take a nap. I think my wife and I got caught up on some bill-paying during the dino run, t-rex fight, insect fight, general peril, of the entire time on the island.

The movie lost me then and could not get me back the rest of the time. The skating on ice was sentimental, but too late in the game. And that last time the plane comes by and hits Kong 4 times - I laughed out loud. It was hilarious...a few minutes after the "final run" and one plane comes back for a few shots and flies off...totally random. And no one seems to care about being on top of the empire state building. No fear of heights in the 30's?

I agree with the take on the Tommy Gun scene as well. The "shooter" is flailing wildly...clearly not capable of hitting the broadside of a barn. But he can clear about 6 huge insects off of Adrien Brody (including the one on his face which is doing...nothing?)

But I love LOTR...

comment #17

Anonymous says ...

er....i mean, you DID write exactly what I was going to say

comment #18

Timmy says ...

Who said that no one can change their mind? Did anyone declare that Jeff cannot change his mind, in general? I don't think anyone wrote that at all. Read slowly and carefully if you need to.

I am vexed by his initial review of King Kong. He hated the Rings movies. He so accurately summarized what is wrong with them in a way that so few people seemed able to do. He even starts to take pride in it, and then, when Jackson releases a movie that has the EXACT same characteristics--bloated and exhausting, overdone, over-the-top action sequences, forced emotion-by-numbers script, shot like porn/exploitation flicks (which works for Dead-Alive, not for LOTR and KK)--Jeff gives it a pass, when I truly believe he knew better at the time, no matter what he says now. I could be wrong; this is just my take on it.

So for almost any other movie or director, I have no problem with an opinion evolving over time. But for King Kong as shot by Peter Jackson as reviewed by Jeffrey Wells, something went seriously awry with the circuitry in his brain.

comment #19

Daniel Zelter says ...

To be fair, the original wasn't that great, either. I actually saw a re-release of it in L.A., and despite being shorter than the remake, it's almost as boring.

comment #20

Pablo Villaça says ...

C'mon, Jeff. Do you want to talk about a self-indulgent, pretentious director? What about Bryan Singer and his melodramatic, extremely boring and stiff "Superman Returns"?

I didn't pay to watch the damn thing and, still, I wanted my money back!

Pablo

comment #21

guy steele says ...

Um I might get 'flamed' for this but to me all the LOTR flicks bored me. They were very well done and Sean Astin stole the movie along with Golem. But I was bored by it all. The main reason? No suprises at all. And not because I read the books and knew what was going to happen either. Nope... it's the structure... you just knew from scene to scene what was going to happen. Everything fell into place. But you do see the $$$ that was spent. I even feel the love and respect that Jackson has for Rings and of course K. Kong. But I think he made them for himself.

And I will mention two other moments that really bothered me though not as much as the Tommy Gun gag.

1. Kong is running through the Jungle, Kong is fighting dinos, Kong is climbing, in other words Kong is one busy dude all this time he is holding Ms. Watts and she doesn't suffer whiplash, broken spine, crushed ribs or a bashed in head.

2. When Kong, Ms. Watts and the 3 count 'em 3 Dino's go over the cliff and fall they are saved by thick roped vines. Now I can understand Kong... and even Ms. Watts being saved and supported. Why? Well Watts doesn't weigh anything and Kong has the ability to reach out and grab/grasp to help himself. But the 3 Dinos are hugh HEAVY creatures with tails that are free falling and the Vines save them... heck they even fall a few more times and are saved each time.

I know... I know... you wouldn't have a movie then. You can even bring up the fact that James Bond never gets killed yet he is always captured and bested at some point and the Main Villian can't just shot him... but we let it go because it's the genre... it's the rules... we agree... the villian needs Bond alive as much as Bond needs villians to justify his life.

But in movies like Kong which is a fantasy granted scenes like these still 'take me' out of the moment. Could it be lazy writing?

I think that before a Director makes a Large scale fantasy flick he/she should study Aliens to see how it's done right... which is writing smartly!

comment #22

Nick says ...

I can only hope that this is actually a Director's Cut in the vein that Oliver Stone's DC of Alexander was actually shorter than the theatrical. I don't know if I've ever seen a movie more bloated with garbage than King Kong '05. I won't be able to handle an extended version and for the record, I did love LOTR but it isn't aging well.

comment #23

Osama bin Laden says ...

THE LIFE AQUATIC? More like THE LIFE ASHITIC

comment #24

sanddd says ...

Hum, I seem to have stumbled into the 'Pretentious Twits, Anoniemouse' Club'.

If I understand the pledge correctly, it goes like this: let me sit back and maybe stuff my face with junk food, (and probably interrupt the film numerous times for cell phone, computer stuff), and I dare the director to keep my (short) attention, and furthermore, I won't invest any psychic energy or positive spin to enter into the film, and when it fails to entertain me, I shall moan, piss, and groan with bloated, self-fulfilling dismay.

Is that about right? If the folks here fancy themselves 'film fans' then let me the hell out.

Jeff, shame on you....I gave you a pass on your 'Superman' retrenchment, but this is just plain lame. And stupid.

(Disclaimer: I liked KK in the theatre.....I thought there were some dead spots and some miscasting.....this DVD, as all DVD's, requires less attention and invites abuse.......apparently Jeff's specialty.

comment #25

Anonymous says ...

You still owe me $10 for recommending that piece of shit movie!

comment #26

The King says ...

For a man who is rarely right, Jeff was spot on with respect to King Kong (and the LOTR trilogy for that matter). King Kong was an absolute pile of turd. The special effects were crud, the action scenes were a yawn and it went on and on and on. Give me One Million Years BC or Valley of the Gwangi anytime!

comment #27

Eric says ...

I'm so glad people, like Jeff, are finally seeing what I saw in the theater. People couldn't understand why I hated that dino sequence so much, but it was a perfect example of what was wrong with the movie: overblown, and over-indulgent. And, frankly, those and the giant insects were indeed the weakest VFX in the movie. I maintain that Kong himself and Naomi Watts were stunning, but the movie should have been shaped around that relationship.

Laugh if you want, but I still enjoy the Jeff Bridges/Jessica Lange version.

comment #28

Anonymous says ...

The dino run sequence was horrible-looking the first time I saw it in the theater, I definitely can't imagine it (and several other sequences)looking any better at home. Thinking about an extended cut just gives me a really good laugh.

comment #29

BrandonT says ...

The dino run sequence was definitely horrible-looking the first time I saw it in the theater, I can't imagine it (and several other sequences)looking any better at home. Thinking about an extended cut just gives me a really good laugh.

comment #30

Anonymous says ...

People these days disgust me with their short attention-span, with the boring this, boring that, too long, etc...

comment #31

The King says ...

To the disgusted one, if you have the time on your hands and attention span to endure turdlets like King Kong then I am happy for you, you douche.

comment #32

gh says ...

The first hour of Kong wasn't bad because it was too long, it was because it was so shoddily written and directed.

comment #33

magga says ...

Compare the T-Rex attack in the first Jurassic Park to the infinite dino-sequences in this film and you see the difference between filmmaking and simply spensing a big FX budget (badly)

comment #34

Bill says ...

All movies are boring. Stop watching them, and your life will be better!!

comment #35

Karsten Meinich says ...

I enjoyed King Kong, and still do - after repeated viewings on DVD. That's it - thought I should balance this thread a little.

comment #36

Rich S. says ...

Did you notice Jeff used the Kong-with-snaggle-tooth photo that was eventually rejected? Back when, Jeff originally posted a story about how the snaggle tooth was a huge warning sign about how bad the film was going to be. A lot of readers, including myself, pointed out to him how his obsession with the tooth only mirrored his obsession with/hatred of Peter Jackson.

Now that he's doing an about-face on the film (which I actually kind of agree with, by the way) the snaggle tooth mysteriously reappears. Coincidence?

comment #37

Skip Rooney says ...

I'm glad I followed my instinct and avoided this movie altogether.

As for Jeff changing his mind... I saw "Ghostbusters" on a big screen opening day. Loved it. Rented it the day it was released on video. Hated it. And it wasn't just watching it on a small screen. I can't put my finger on it, although I think it had something to do with the hype factor. I was suckered by the hoopla.

comment #38

Jason Birzer says ...

I actually don't mind that the action was over the top, since all of it was pretty much unrealistic and over the top. I mean, if you are going to do it, be consistant.

What bothered me more, tho, what the inconsistancy of the captain character. Ok, I can understand saving Denham's ass, because he probably needs him to avoid trouble, but he risks his crew to save a blond chick who gets in trouble? Jackson never sold me on it.

I also thought the jungle stuff just went on far too long. Jackson just had all of this stuff he wanted to get into the film, but it just goes on and on.

comment #39

brad c says ...

This is a film that we were all "supposed" to be impressed with and love, much like the dreadful and boring most recent 3 Star Wars pictures.

In both cases there is a strangely distancing impact on the viewers, like hmm, interesting frame here and there, ooh, nice effect there, hmm pretty music there. What there is NOT is a coherent, involving experience.

In all the scenes on the island I continued to wonder what any of this has to do with the story, or what the story was exactly. Was this an effort towards non-narrative blockbuster? Even in Kubricks 2001 when there hardly any words we feel that there is a story line carrying the images through with a purpose.

This King Kong lacks a narrative through line, and it lacks the impact that a "blockbuster" action pic is supposed to have.

As for the dino run sequence, it is one of the most shockingly bad effects jobs in a major picture in years. It is especially bad considering the enormous assets at the disposal of the producers. There is no sense of spacial logic to it and it entirely appears to be what it is, a CG mess.

comment #40

jesse says ...

Here's a thought, and I'm not being flip: Who cares? That is, if Kong was enjoyable once on the big screen, and pretty enjoyable a second time (that's my reading of Jeff's reactions now and then), who the ef cares what happens once it gets to DVD?

I mean, I had a *great* time with the movie when I saw it in December. Better than with any of those Lord of the Rings gaze-fests. But I don't have the DVD; maybe I'll pick it up someday for cheap, if I get a better TV or DVD player, but it doesn't top my list.

I didn't rush out to get it beacuse frankly, I'm not interested in rewatching movies at home unless I really, really liked them. I'll see movies two or three times in the theaters for a variety of reasons, but if I'm watching a movie I've seen before at home, it's usually because I love it, or I'm reviewing it. I'm sure there's stuff I'd take a second look at if I got more reviewer comps, but I'd rather spend that DVD time looking at older movies I've never seen, or stuff I never got around to seeing at the theaters, than scrutinizing movies I merely liked to see if I have any second thoughts.

I know this could sound like I'm saying "hey, don't think, don't rock the boat... just smile and be happy and go with that first impression" And I'm not -- not exactly. But I'm a little sick of complaints about a movie "not holding up." How much holding up does a giant-ape movie need to do? It was damn entertaining; I trust my own judgment enough to not go back and try to affect a sterner facade. You can talk/think yourself out of liking a whole lot of stuff if you try hard enough. I've seen some of this with Superman Returns, too. I have to wonder, would KK and SR be facing as much critical or fan scrutiny after the fact had they made an extra $100 mil or so?

comment #41

christian says ...

I respect PJ as a genuine film artist, but KK was awful. There was no need for this simple fable to be a three hour epic. And the vaunted CG will be as outdated as the effects in Logan's Run soon.

However, the poster who claimed the first film wasn't anything great must leave the theater.

And Jeff has a long rich history of hyperbole followed by an amnesiac recant. It's his brand.

comment #42

jesse says ...

Christian, I really like the '33 King Kong, but I think Jackson's *is* actually better in terms of creating/modifying characters we cared about (not necessarily overall). That is, the Watts and Brody characters are more interesting than their '33 counterparts. There is a rawness to the original that I love, and the low-tech visuals are just as arresting as (if not more so than) the '05 version, but I could buy an argument that King Kong '33 is better for what shows us than its particular filmmaking craft -- which is actually often how I feel about both Jackson and George Lucas (their movies are mostly pretty literal-minded, but those minds are undeniably imaginative ones).

comment #43

Telemachos says ...

Interesting that some who don't like KONG did like the lengthy first act. That 70 minutes is partially what killed the film for me -- if you're gonna spend that much time developing secondary and minor characters, there'd better be some significant payoff. There wasn't.

I thought all the bits that actually had Kong in them were great -- kudos to Sirkis and Naomi Watts. And I got a huge kick out of the extended fight between Kong and the T-rexes... ridiculous, over-the-top, not remotely realistic, but a ton of fun. Most of the rest of Skull Island was an over-produced, over-FXed bore though.

comment #44

Rich S. says ...

jesse,

I agree with some of your points, but my issue with the '05 Kong is its unnecessary length. The Watts and Brody characters could have been deepened with just a couple of additional scenes. Even the virtuoso sequences, like the V-Rex battle, the spider pit and the Empire State climax, go on about two beats too long.

I won't berate Jackson for trying. He made the movie he wanted to make. But judicious editing could have produced something really special. (The same goes for Superman Returns and POTC: DMC.)

comment #45

Julius says ...

Is the horse not dead? Oh so many months ago when Kong came out you gave it a good review with some mixed feelings (which I agree with) but as soon as the pic underperformed at the box office you started throwing dirt on it. Now here we are a year later and you're at it again. Bad form Jeffrey, bad form. Is this the treatment you'll be giving Superman Returns when it comes out on video? Love ya, but this smells vindictive.

comment #46

c fontana says ...

Leave 'Ghostbusters' out of this.

comment #47

christian says ...

fair enough, jesse. but i don't think that 70 minutes of brody watts black deepened any characters especially within the context of a 30's style madcap comedy revue, which is how PJ directs these scenes.

the '33 kong had archetypes, but they worked. jack black can't touch robert armstrong's filmmaker explorer carl denham. and watts is no fay wray.

the raw vitality of the original's stop-motion, the individual touch to fur and latex will live forever in cinema long after the faded memory of PJ's pixels, which will look beyond dated very soon.

peace!