James / March 7th, 2017
A review of Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005).
Tomorrow, Kongathon continues with a little bonus: Top 5 King Kong Ripoffs, and then Skull Island next, depending how soon I get to see it.
March 7, 2017 at 10:45 am
I always wanted to hear you talk about this movie. The wait was well worth it. Great review like the others. Glad you talked about the bonus features.
March 7, 2017 at 12:56 pm
For me the only 2 King Kong movies out there are King Kong from 76 and King Kong Lives. I dont care about the original or the 2005 version. I barely remember King Kong vs Godzilla but I do remember I was so excited about it as a kid but now that I watch cut scenes as an adult I think it looked AWFUL!
March 7, 2017 at 4:31 pm
I like when you, CAIN NUKE, reply to the earliest comment so your comment will be near the top…
March 8, 2017 at 10:34 am
Pretty neat trick, isnt it?? Hahahaha
March 10, 2017 at 1:57 pm
No, I wouldn’t go that far.
March 7, 2017 at 11:08 am
HAHaH Nice 😀 Peter Jackson trolled us with sequels i like this guy!
March 7, 2017 at 11:35 am
I was watching this the other day and was genuinely impressed at how well the CG has aged (aside from a few greenscreen moments, but that’s unavoidable). Kong looks great, I never thought of him as just a CGI thing on the screen, and honestly for many bits you could convince me it was a film made recently. Like people have said it’s a big indulgent, but that makes sense considering the passion Jackson has, and you can tell it on the screen.
March 7, 2017 at 1:03 pm
Lol my impressions are the exact opposite: I’ve never seen CGI age SO fast and SO bad. For a 2005 movie, it looks awful, almost like a PS2 era video game.
March 8, 2017 at 7:33 am
Final Fantasy Spirit Within aged very well. But it’s not an actor-cgi hybrid; those don’t age well usually.
March 7, 2017 at 1:12 pm
Besides all the incredible stop-motion and the attention to detail, what made the original Kong the best was that it did not make the Ann Darrow character a victim of “Stockholm Syndrome”. She was actually terrified of Kong, no matter how many times he saved her life to the bitter end of the movie. The remakes, especially the Peter Jackson version, was just silly. It made it seem like she was on a bad date. This was not supposed to be Mighty Joe Young.
March 7, 2017 at 2:00 pm
Nothing beats the classic original. But I like all three versions, they all have something interesting in them. I grew up with the 1976 Kong then I saw the original around 1997. I was a big fan of Valley of Gvangi and the original Clash of the titans so I was immediately on board with 1933 Kong. Saw Jacksons version at the cinema in 2005.
March 7, 2017 at 3:26 pm
I have extremely mixed feelings about this movie. It’s way, way too long with too many uninteresting supporting characters. The action and physics was way too cartoony for my tastes. The humor and comedic timing was totally awkward. The cgi is actually really great unless there’s direct interaction with people, then it looks horrible. On the plus side, the attention to detail is amazing. I love the faithful recreation of 1930’s Manhattan, and the period costumes are great. But the best thing I thought was Kong himself. He really feels like a living, breathing character. I think it’s still the best CGI representation of a living being I’ve ever seen. Andy Serkis should have got some sort of Oscar for his performance. Despite my somewhat negative felelings, I still watch this movie every couple of years or so. Out of all the “remakes” hollywood has been shitting out in the last 15 years, this is probably the best.
March 7, 2017 at 3:30 pm
felelings = feelings. 😛
March 7, 2017 at 4:25 pm
I agree, it’s long and indulgent but it’s a fun watch. The CGI on Kong is really good, and I’m not a fan of CGI characters. The dinosaurs were not as good and I wondered if some of the compositing was intentionally cheesy. A lot of shots during the dinosaur stampede look like rear-projection stuff.
I really liked the doc on the Kong boxed set with Jackson’s crew recreating the Spider Pit scene and how difficult it was. Gives you a lot of appreciation for those ’30s artists.
March 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm
Are you going to show any love for 2000’s Kong: The Animated Series? I remember seeing it when I worked at a Fox TV station. I guess it was re-released in 2005 to coincide with Jackson’s movie and got itself a couple of direct-to-DVD movies.
March 7, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Very nice review!
Hey, do you remember Jared Fogle? Here’s his story, featuring a politicaly incorrect song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKYs8Gfr4Q
March 7, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Too long? The original was a contemporary film and only needed to set up Skull Island. The PJ remake is a period piece and needed to set up 1933 as well as Skull island. On the special features Peter Jackson reveals the main reasons he set it in 1933. 1 he wanted to have Kong fight biplanes and 2 it was the last time that there could still be some blank space on the map. the idea of and undiscovered island after that seem highly implausible.
March 7, 2017 at 7:58 pm
Great review. I prefer the 1933 classic a thousand times.
March 7, 2017 at 8:27 pm
I actually really liked the pick of JB here for Denham…. He did really well, and it showed a break in his typecast, which is very hard to overcome for actors, I would have thought you would’ve appreciated it from that angle a bit more… other than that spot on review, I love the Kongathon!
March 7, 2017 at 11:10 pm
Hahaha having to take a piss is ALWAYS the problem with Peter Jackson movies. =P
March 8, 2017 at 7:29 am
I already liked Peter Jackson, but now I like him even more.
March 8, 2017 at 12:14 pm
I’m with you regarding “The Big Screen” of a cinema, giant monster movies really need to be seen in a movie theatre.
March 18, 2017 at 10:14 pm
It was an awful remake. Except for the CGI, it had nothing.
March 25, 2017 at 2:15 am
this was such a wierd movie
You must be logged in to post a comment.