WARNING: I am trying to avoid spoilers, but including a warning just in case.
I highly recommend seeing King Kong 2005 on the big screen. It is a very good movie. However, be prepared to sit for a very long time. The previews started at 10:30 PM and by the time I climbed into my car, it was 2:00 AM. If you are like me, I recommend going off liquids for 3 days before going to see this movie, otherwise, you are not going to make it through without a restroom break.
I've seen all 3 King Kong movies, enjoyed all 3 for different reasons and the order of favorites:
1. King Kong - 1933. 2. King Kong - 2005. 3. King Kong - 1976.
What they got right in 2005:
1. Top notch performances from everyone.
2. Decent script.
3. The best special effects I've ever seen for dinosaurs and giant gorillas. If you were scared by Velociraptors and T-Rex's in Jurassic Park, you will be terrified even more watching this movie.
4. The Skull Island scenes are the scariest in this version.
Naomi is my favorite Ann and Adrien my favorite as Jack. I loved Colin Hanks as Denham's assistant, Jamie Bell as Jimmy (this actor was Billy Elliot) and Evan Parke as Jimmy's mentor.
However, I prefer Robert Armstrong in the original as Carl Denham. I found both Charles Grodin (1976) and Jack Black (2005) as somewhat over the top caricatures of the original. In fact, Jack Black is just plain creepy with that crazy stare he gets in his eyes. I found him to be the weakest among the leads in the 2005 version, although I thought he was better than Grodin in 1976.
Some things that could have been done better-(SPOILER WARNING):
1. It took too long to get to see Kong.
2. Once the special effects started rolling, the movie over-dosed on on them and never returned to some of the quiet story-telling that was at the beginning of the movie. The film lacked dramatic balance and left several story-threads hanging once the special effects kicked in. Back-loading the second half of the movie with mostly special effects left me tired and drained at the end of 3 hours.
3. There was one too many creature encounters on the island that could have been cut. All of the Kong fight scenes were outstanding though.
Also, at the end, there were too many scenes of Kong climbing yet higher and taking more swipes at the planes. Enough is enough, already.
4. The film made a "too abrupt" transition from leaving the island to the spectacle in New York. In the process, several story threads were suddenly severed and they were picked up only with passing comments later. This created a rather choppy feeling. It appears as if once they determined the movie was too long, they didn't take enough care in what got cut but simply cut in favor of the special effects and damaged the continuity of the film.
It was obvious a lot happened on the boat ride home, but we never got to see it and had to figure it out with only a few hints amidst bodies and cars being hurled about by Kong as he was being attacked by cops and army guys. In other words, the film lacked balance, with all of the quiet moments,dialog and story-telling at the beginning, and then after Kong came into the picture, it switched to nothing but special effects until the end. The directors/editors/producers took the easy way out by focusing on special effects. It is the lack of balance and choppy story telling that makes this a very good movie worthy of a rating of 7 or 8, instead a really great classic worthy of a rating of 9 or 10.
A few positive notes about the special effects: The scene in Central Park on the ice is a welcomed and all too brief reprieve from relentless blasts of violence that dominate the screen for nearly 2 hours. Also, the scenes of Kong's final moments are the best of any version.
It took me a few days to formulate why I liked the movie, but didn't feel that it deserved some of the rave reviews I've read. That said, it was a fun experience and definitely worth the price of a first run ticket.
I highly recommend seeing King Kong 2005 on the big screen. It is a very good movie. However, be prepared to sit for a very long time. The previews started at 10:30 PM and by the time I climbed into my car, it was 2:00 AM. If you are like me, I recommend going off liquids for 3 days before going to see this movie, otherwise, you are not going to make it through without a restroom break.
I've seen all 3 King Kong movies, enjoyed all 3 for different reasons and the order of favorites:
1. King Kong - 1933. 2. King Kong - 2005. 3. King Kong - 1976.
What they got right in 2005:
1. Top notch performances from everyone.
2. Decent script.
3. The best special effects I've ever seen for dinosaurs and giant gorillas. If you were scared by Velociraptors and T-Rex's in Jurassic Park, you will be terrified even more watching this movie.
4. The Skull Island scenes are the scariest in this version.
Naomi is my favorite Ann and Adrien my favorite as Jack. I loved Colin Hanks as Denham's assistant, Jamie Bell as Jimmy (this actor was Billy Elliot) and Evan Parke as Jimmy's mentor.
However, I prefer Robert Armstrong in the original as Carl Denham. I found both Charles Grodin (1976) and Jack Black (2005) as somewhat over the top caricatures of the original. In fact, Jack Black is just plain creepy with that crazy stare he gets in his eyes. I found him to be the weakest among the leads in the 2005 version, although I thought he was better than Grodin in 1976.
Some things that could have been done better-(SPOILER WARNING):
1. It took too long to get to see Kong.
2. Once the special effects started rolling, the movie over-dosed on on them and never returned to some of the quiet story-telling that was at the beginning of the movie. The film lacked dramatic balance and left several story-threads hanging once the special effects kicked in. Back-loading the second half of the movie with mostly special effects left me tired and drained at the end of 3 hours.
3. There was one too many creature encounters on the island that could have been cut. All of the Kong fight scenes were outstanding though.
Also, at the end, there were too many scenes of Kong climbing yet higher and taking more swipes at the planes. Enough is enough, already.
4. The film made a "too abrupt" transition from leaving the island to the spectacle in New York. In the process, several story threads were suddenly severed and they were picked up only with passing comments later. This created a rather choppy feeling. It appears as if once they determined the movie was too long, they didn't take enough care in what got cut but simply cut in favor of the special effects and damaged the continuity of the film.
It was obvious a lot happened on the boat ride home, but we never got to see it and had to figure it out with only a few hints amidst bodies and cars being hurled about by Kong as he was being attacked by cops and army guys. In other words, the film lacked balance, with all of the quiet moments,dialog and story-telling at the beginning, and then after Kong came into the picture, it switched to nothing but special effects until the end. The directors/editors/producers took the easy way out by focusing on special effects. It is the lack of balance and choppy story telling that makes this a very good movie worthy of a rating of 7 or 8, instead a really great classic worthy of a rating of 9 or 10.
A few positive notes about the special effects: The scene in Central Park on the ice is a welcomed and all too brief reprieve from relentless blasts of violence that dominate the screen for nearly 2 hours. Also, the scenes of Kong's final moments are the best of any version.
It took me a few days to formulate why I liked the movie, but didn't feel that it deserved some of the rave reviews I've read. That said, it was a fun experience and definitely worth the price of a first run ticket.
Tell Your Friends