King Kong (Widescreen Edition)

Peter Jackson's Tribute Remake To The Classic 1933 Movie King Kong is Incredible. Peter Jackson proves that his success from The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy was no fluke. Peter was able to recreate New York in the 1930's and some elements of the time like people who were suffering from The Great Depression and the battle between the humans and the giant bugs on Skull Island. Thanks to This Remake, King Kong is popular once again.

The 2005 version of King Kong is unmistakeably better than the 1933 original. Awesome special effects and acting. Jack Black was sensational and I really liked the bug sequence. Good picture, sound and everything else.

MPAA Rating= frightning adventure violence and disturbing images.

I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse.

The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more.

Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect):

Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes.

Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable.

Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches.

When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island.

There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film.

As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one.

Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over.

I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad.

In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong, or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it.

Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway.

Please..... This movie was absolutely dreadful. The ridiculous scenes were enough for me. Do not waste your time renting, buying or otherwise watching this terrible remake!

If you like the 1933 King Kong, this is for you. Some people are talking about who long it is and they're not kidding. I swear, this seemed endless. But the action scenes and the heart-stopping action made you think that the time had passed quickly. Now, about King Kong. Well, actually, I liked this better than Cooper's version. I mean PJ is a genuis! He added in all scenes from the old one in this and some new scenes. I mean he had the natives part, the stegosaurus part but replaced it with a Styracosaurus, he added in the brontosaurus stampede, he had the brontosaurus part in the lake but replaced it with a giant fish, he had the log scene over a 1,000 foot cliff! He had the T-rex fight but it was V-rex, a little diffrent. He took out the snake fight and replaced with giant bugs in the ravine. And Kong is taking to New York and you know the rest. So, see this, you won't be dissapointed.