Worst film: K K. (spoilers and spam at will, avoid flaming)

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:48 pm

Ok.

So I go to the movie after the excelent Goblet of Fire thinking about King Kong as a potential failure, and I see I was wrong.

King Kong is a disaster. Peter Jackson is the reason of the disaster. Complete and total disaster, just like LOTR 2 and 3. Yes, the movies are really bad. With exagerated scenes. And extremely long romantic, sad or death sequences. That gets old too quick ond both KK and LOTR (trilogy).

SPOILERS, MAN, DONT READ THIS IF YOU'LL SEE THE MOV-AY.You've been warned.

Ok. The film begins with the 30's crisis, everybody is poor, the streets have starving people, that is cool. The scenario is ugly, the actors act poorly, but it is passable and it gives you a sensation of "it is gonna come. But, however, anyway, Peter Jackson manages to make you start to get bored in the first part of the movie, which is empty, and involves people starving, someone trying to make the actress become a prostitute, and a failed director trying to film the movie of his life on somewhere with someone else's money. Pretty clichê, pretty obvious in the moment you see the characters. That was expected.

Unlike LOTR, there's not a strong story. So, PJ tried to keep this up with long emotional sequences, and with including characters that could add to the movie but as soon as they're described by some of the ship crew members, they vanish in the story. There's a pseudo failed writer, a sound professional who is part of a joke witht he pseudo failed writer and disappears, a boy that is mentioned to "have come from nowhere he could tel us" that lets not a second of his own background come forth even after being saved countless times (forgotten) and there's an innexpressive actress who seems to be tired of acting and makes the same nice expression every 10 seconds she's on screen. She's forgotten too, cause she wont talk much. That was for the better, I guess, cause with her mouth shut she was a poet. Not a good actress, though.

And there's the monkey. Who slips on a frozen lake. Who throws everyone up. Who rips the lady of a rope without breaking her arms. Who jumps and takes bullets every since the first second of the movie. Who kills THREEE <insert a certain colorfull word here> TIRANOSSAURS with his BARE HANDS and win without effort, killing the last one by destroying his cranium opening his mouth, without being scratched by the teeth of the animal. Oh, have I mentioned he eats the tiranossaur's tongue? yes. it does. Also, he takes TONS of bullets (monkey hide seems to be made of kevlar) and destroy trees in his path, and in the end he resist bullets from mounted cannons on jeeps and dies on the hand of pathetic airplanes. Its pathetic. There's a stupid scene where mr monkey dies slowly. I was begging for it to end by that time, and that actress kept making that face, and PJackson insisted on putting some stupid music and pretending it was Frodo being stabbed by the dark whatever from mordor once again.

Oh did I mention there's a chase under the feet of herbivorous dinossaurs who're being chased by velociraptors? And canibals who disappear also?

Peter Jackson is the master of disappearances in this movie. ARRRG!

I'm disappointed, and this is a rant.

I'm disappointed, and I want my money back.

I'm disappointed, and I'll never see a Peter Jackson Emo movie again.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:30 am

I thought it wasn't a bad movie actually, if you chose to ignore all the little plotholes.

Isn't the sound guy the first one to die? That's not really disappearing. You're right about the lack of background for the boy though.

I thought Kong himself was very well done. Couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for him.

Oh, and Jack Black's last line - bleurgh!

We had a conversation on the way home from the cinema about who would win a fight between a giant gorilla and a T-rex (or three!), and I was rather won over by the argument that the silverback gorilla is incredibly strong anyway, and has pretty thick skin, so a giant gorilla might well have skin thick enough to repel bullets and only be scratched by T-rex teeth and be strong enough to snap the head of a T-rex. Mind you, the T-rex might have had more chance if it didn't have those silly little arms...

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:17 am

[QUOTE=Georgi]

Oh, and Jack Black's last line - bleurgh!

We had a conversation on the way home from the cinema about who would win a fight between a giant gorilla and a T-rex (or three!), and I was rather won over by the argument that the silverback gorilla is incredibly strong anyway, and has pretty thick skin, so a giant gorilla might well have skin thick enough to repel bullets and only be scratched by T-rex teeth and be strong enough to snap the head of a T-rex. Mind you, the T-rex might have had more chance if it didn't have those silly little arms...

[/QUOTE]

Oh and he was trying to burp philosophy over the crowd... arr! That amost made me vomit.

I agree that the gorilla has very powerfull arms but after being beaten by two at the same time and holding a girl (made of rubber I supose) both on his hand and at his feet and fighting as if he was Jackie Chan? Blah!

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:45 am

Hey this is a story about a giant ape that is fighting dinosaurs and having a crush on a human female about 20 times smaller than him... and you expect logic and realism?

Well each to his own tastes, but since I liked the LotR trilogy and you didn't like 2 & 3, soppy little me might just like this movie since you don't like it*.

Alas soppy little me probably won't be near a movie theatre in the coming three months, so soppy little me suspects it won't playing anymore when back in Europe.

Soppy little me is now going to cry a little in the corner...

* well, I actually also read some fairly good reviews of the movie.

Kipi · Post by **Kipi** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:01 am

Okay, saw it last evening, and here are my opinions:

First, I must agree that the beginning was kinda boring, just waiting when the action is really going to start.

The island -part was verry nice, lots of interesting effects. It was especially good situation where those dinos were tumbling each other

Damn it looked funny.
Also that 3 T-rex vs. K.K. was very nice

The ending, well, it had to be there, after all it was remake of the original film. It was okay, I think.

blake · Post by **blake** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:14 pm

It could have been a lot better in my opinion. The girl overacted it seemed, and Jack Black was great, until that last line. I loved Adrian Brody (sp) like always. I was angry that the Gorilla didn't kill more people, I mean... all of a sudden he's a big wuss...

Kipi · Post by **Kipi** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:49 am

Yes, that was a small disappointment, since as far as I noticed KK ate only one person, most of the time it just decided to throw them away...

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:17 am

Do gorillas eat people?

dj_venom · Post by **dj_venom** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:30 am

When they grow that big, they have to eat something...

moltovir · Post by **moltovir** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:32 am

Gorillas are herbivores, so I suppose giant ones are too.

I didn't think the movie was that awful: what you have to keep in mind while watching it is that Peter Jackson didn't have the pretention of making a wonderful plot with developed character backgrounds and realistic scenes, all he wanted to do was remaking the original king kong from the ' 30s. You have to watch it as if it were a B-movie, but one with the intent of being a B-movie. I loved the wonderful "innocent '30s" atmosphere of the movie, where people could believe in uncharted islands, giant monsters, undaunted seamen with a mysterious past etcetera.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:34 am

[QUOTE=moltovir]Gorillas are herbivores, so I suppose giant ones are too.

.[/QUOTE]

There goes a bah for you:

BAH.

Nice Bah, huh? its Italic. Yes, from Venice

Now yes, that was another thing that worries me. And he wont eat it: he will just spit his head off after cutting it from the neck without a bite from the incisive teeth but from the molars. Argh!!! that oughta have crushed him. And where was the <insert colorfull f word here> blood?

I wanted blood! Tons of it! Not even when the bullets hit him, its just like a teddy bear being shot.

Her white dress (at the end) should have a lot of blood on it.

Damn mov-ay.

moltovir · Post by **moltovir** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:41 am

Admit it Louis, you didn't think the story was bad, there simply wasn't enough violence in the movie to please you

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:58 am

[QUOTE=moltovir]Admit it Louis, you didn't think the story was bad, there simply wasn't enough violence in the movie to please you

[/QUOTE]

No, I dont think there was no violence, but a damn tyranossaurus jumps on a monkey arm and bites it and not a single drop of blood falls from it! The monkey then, jumps and open the t rex jaw open. He bites the tongue. No blood on his face!!!

tis just like magic! :laugh:

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:59 am

Never mind Luis *Gives Luis several phials of stage blood* You can add it yourself

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:02 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]Never mind Luis *Gives Luis several phials of stage blood* You can add it yourself

[/QUOTE]

*grumble grumble*

Lizards biting a monkey without blood is like Terminator without bullets and the California Governor.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:37 am

Surely lack of blood = lower certification = a fun film for all the family?

I don't know what certificate the movie has elsewhere, but here it is a 12A, meaning parents can take under 12s to see it if they want, it's up to them. So of course, the cinema was full of families with quite young children, and I have to say, I really didn't think the movie was suitable for under 12s, with parents or not... I am specifically thinking of when the crew member gets eaten by the giant worm thing, although there were probably other moments.

But this really all goes back to the stupidity IMO of the 12A certificate. If it's suitable for under 12s, make it a PG; if it's not, a 12. The idea that parents can be trusted to make a responsible decision on what is and isn't appropriate for their small children to be watching is ridiculous.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:11 pm

It's not that bad, I think Jackson did about as well as he could really, it was a fun silly movie, not exactly great cinema but then I don't always want to watch three hour Kurosawa epics!

I think it's quite ironic that Jackson started out his career with schlock horror movies such as Brain Dead which features more blood than almost any other film I've seen, there's a particularly bizarre scene involving a flymo, to go from that to 12A softcore violence with no blood at all seems quite strange.

I think there has been more and more of this type of dumming down of realism for a while now and I'm getting quite tired of it, if something should be a fifteen then I think that's exactly where it should be, the blood and effects shouldn't be dummed down to suit a lower audience, that's just wrong.