Plot
In 1933 New York, an overly ambitious movie producer coerces his cast and hired ship crew to travel to mysterious Skull Island, where they encounter Kong, a giant ape who is immediately smitten with leading lady Ann Darrow.
Release Year: 2005
Rating: 7.5/10 (172,653 voted)
Critic's Score: 81/100
Director:
Peter Jackson
Stars: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody
Storyline Carl Denham needs to finish his movie and has the perfect location; Skull Island. But he still needs to find a leading lady. This 'soon-to-be-unfortunate' soul is Ann Darrow. No one knows what they will encounter on this island and why it is so mysterious, but once they reach it, they will soon find out. Living on this hidden island is a giant gorilla and this beast now has Ann is its grasps. Carl and Ann's new love, Jack Driscoll must travel through the jungle looking for Kong and Ann, whilst avoiding all sorts of creatures and beasts. But Carl has another plan in mind.
Writers: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens
Cast: Naomi Watts
-
Ann Darrow
Jack Black
-
Carl Denham
Adrien Brody
-
Jack Driscoll
Thomas Kretschmann
-
Captain Englehorn
Colin Hanks
-
Preston
Andy Serkis
-
Kong
/
Lumpy
Evan Parke
-
Hayes
Jamie Bell
-
Jimmy
Lobo Chan
-
Choy
John Sumner
-
Herb
Craig Hall
-
Mike
Kyle Chandler
-
Bruce Baxter
William Johnson
-
Manny
Mark Hadlow
-
Harry
Geraldine Brophy
-
Maude
Trivia:
The Times Square set was built about 20% scaled down from the original. For this and most other New York sets, only the first story was built in full scale. The rest of the scenes were added digitally. Streets were also extended using digital effects, and the number of pedestrians and cars were doubled or even tripled in large scenes, using the same process applied to the battle scenes in the Lord of the Rings films.
Goofs:
Continuity:
When you first see Ann is sound asleep in Kong's arms she's facing right but when they zoom in she's facing left.
Quotes:
[first lines]
Manny:
[practicing sneezes]
That's a funny one. Isn't that funnier?
User Review
A 10-star 2-hour movie screaming to get out of a 7-star 3-hour movie
Rating: 7/10
Let me be the first to admit that there's nothing wrong with a long
movie, nothing at all. "Titanic" was a long movie that was as exactly
as long as it needed to be. "Gone with the Wind" was a really long
movie that was exactly as long as it needed to be. "Dances with Wolves"
was a long movie that I wish had been even longer when I saw it in the
theater. But "King Kong"? Phhewww...this sucker clocks in at least
30-60 minutes longer than it needs to be. While it played, I kept
inadvertently thinking to myself, "Boy, we really should be out to sea
by now...they haven't reached the island yet?...man, are they EVER
gonna find Ann?...jeez, when are we gonna go back to Manhattan
already?..." and so on. Hand to God--I actually yawned twice during the
last third of this movie. I even closed my eyes for a second before I
realized, 'hey...you can't just rewind this when you wake up!'
Sure, many scenes in "King Kong" were thrilling (e.g., LOVED the T-Rex
sequence) and, yes, I even teared up a little a couple of times. And I
must say, Kong himself was beautifully realized--he looked and acted
like a REAL gorilla (albeit a tiny bit anthropomorphized)! But I gotta
tell you...I was more relieved than exhilarated when this movie ended.
(If I saw one more flyover of the native village, I was gonna scream!)
Peter...baby...why spend so much time developing all these extraneous
secondary characters if you don't really have much closure with them by
the end. For example, the ship's captain and Jimmy...once we leave
Skull Island...pfffftttt...we never them again. Why all the backstory
scenes about them? As with the original version, Jackson should have
concentrated simply on the four main characters throughout: Kong, Ann,
Driscoll and Denham. Period.
The problem is Jackson tried to make an epic out of a thriller, when
these two approaches are generally exclusive to each other. The
original "Kong" MOVED because it was simply a thriller and content to
be so, but Jackson's remake starts and stops, and starts and stops, and
starts and stops, merely frustrating the thrillseeker in us that wants
to keep going every time Jackson establishes some momentum. But instead
Jackson pauses to "delve" or "explore" or "elaborate" a la David Lean
or something like that. One can excuse Jackson for shooting so much
material for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy--consider the rich source
material . But how anyone could have taken the 100-minute original and
nearly doubled it for a remake has far too much memory on his Mac. He
should have saved all the extra footage (and I'm betting there's a LOT
more we didn't see in the theatrical cut) for the DVD release as he did
for LOTR. Mr. Jackson's first priority as a filmmaker (well, all
filmmakers) is to present the most appropriate cut for THEATRICAL
audiences during the film's initial exhibition in theaters. In this
case, more WAS less. Much shorter movies in the past have had
intermissions!
Honestly, though I certainly enjoyed "King Kong", I really have no
desire to see this movie again--I just couldn't bring myself to sit
through all the filler just to get to the good parts. How I wish
Jackson and/or Universal would consider releasing a 2-hour DVD version.
Hey, it's happened before, so what's the harm? Inside of a year
there'll be 17 versions out on DVD anyway...what's one more? But having
to sit through a 3-4 hour DVD version someday? I'll take a pass.
Do I recommend seeing "King Kong"? Of course. You'll probably enjoy it
immensely, despite it's overlength. But if you do go, by all means lay
off the Jumbo Coke until at least 90 minutes in! You'll thank me later.
0