The GHZ Forum

Peter Jackson's King Kong is perhaps the cheesiest thing to come out this year, but that doesn't stop critics from hailing it as a "masterful remake" and the like. They praise it for it's "epic" scale and length. I could say the same thing about my cock, but that doesn't mean everyone would believe me (which you should, totally). Being skeptical of the critics’ claims, I decided to see this flick for myself to see if the legend was true. I emerge from the experience asking one question: Am I the only one that doesn't get a boner for a movie just because it's 3 hours long?

Yes, you heard me right: 3 loooooong hours, most of the wasted time spent on the boat and NOT watching Kong beat the hell out of a T-Rex (though that runs pretty long too). This movie might have more impact had the makers just took a visit to the editing room.

But I suppose that's okay, 'cause I got a pretty good laugh out of it. There are a lot of "Whoa Dude!" moments is this film; the kind that are so amazingly over-the-top you'll scoff at their ludicrousy. Example: Kong fights off not one, but THREE T-rex while in a patch of hanging vines (yes, the T-rex are up in the vines) and Ann is stuck on top a T-Rex's snout while another is chomping at her (somehow it's smart enough to kick off of the wall and swing to her....). Is this fun to watch? Yes, but it's still too much to be taken seriously.

To further the guffaws, the characters are as simple and stereotypical as can be. Granted, this was part of their charm in the 1933 original, but in this modern day version it just comes off as silly. There’s a French guy (with moustache!), A Scottish guy (I think he wore a kilt at one point), A Chinese guy (Super Squinty Action!), A Black guy (SERIOUS BUISNESS), A kid who wants to prove himself (he never does), and a host of others. Not a single character did something to really ake you like them. This is actually pretty cool because you don't freaking care when they die. They're just cannon fodder for Kong and the other island creatures. I spent a lot my time during those action sequences shouting (to myself) "SCOTTY! NOOOOOOO!!!!" or "OH NO! KONG GOT BLACKIE!!! SAY IT ISNT SO!!!!" My apologies for the insensitivity but it was pretty damn funny.

To their credit, they did take Ann and Kong's characters some interesting places. I suppose that's all you need to keep watching.

Throughout the entire movie, it's hard to tell if they were trying to be serious or not. Many parts were dragged on far too long for their own good and so many others where the impact was hurt due to the length of other scenes. I mean it's a lot of movie, but perhaps too much for the script to handle.

I wholly recommend seeing it at matinee price, especially with a group of friends. The visuals are amazing; perhaps the best to date, and you'll get your moneys worth in pure action. But for those hoping for a perfect re-mastering of the classic movie, I'd say to just watch the original again.


It's said that Peter Jackson truly loved the original film. Huh, I guess love is blind.

So....was the movie any good?

Par for the course. A bogey here and there and maybe 1 or 2 eagles.

I didn't care for it, but I'd gladly watch it with my friends to make fun of it.

The first hour or so where they just focused on the sailors was the best part of the movie. For the rest, here's a cross-post of something I said at another site:

• Creepiest damn savages ever in a movie
  Most uncomfortable display of creepy-crawly bugs in a movie
  Best rowdy buncha sailors in modern cinema
  Jack Black
  Best dinosaur jaw-snapping action in a movie since Forrest Gump

But I was able to entirely shrug off the "mankind is the REAL monster" moral of the story; I was rooting for us the whole time. I actually started chuckling to myself when the planes started shooting Kong in the back. That's what he gets for not playing ball and staying in the chains. That's the real moral of the story anyway: invest in stronger chains.

And I know she had to be in order for the plot to work, but man that woman was so freakin stupid. Okay, so the big dumb monkey saved you from some tyrannosaurs, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a big dumb monkey who kills people--the best characters in the movie, at that. I'm not saying be rude or anything, but do come to your better senses already. What did you think was going to happen? Were you expecting to just frolic in monkey land for the rest of your life? What happened to your ambition as an actress? Did you fall in love with a monkey as a child or something? What the HELL, lady?

Well I thought it was neat. It was pretty good. I mean, it doesn't suck or anything. My only grip with it was that it was wwwaaaayyy to long for it's own good. You can go in an hour late, and still enjoy the movie. (Maybe even a little more.)

So...anyone seen Fun With Dick and Jane, yet? Jim Carrey almost convinced me to see it on opening day when he was on Letterman, but I had to work....

Hehe, he convinced me to see it when he was on Conan last night. I haven't seen it yet though.

The Carrey vs. Kong on the Empire State Building was cheesy, but effectively humorous.
Hey, look! It's the Brokeback Mountain boys!

But the best part was when he wished Conan a Christy-Christy-Christmas.

Yeah, I don't normally watch Conan, but whenever Jim Carrey is on it it's fucking hilarious.

Jim Carrey is, as the kids say, the bomb-diggity. I look forward to giving him my money at every available opportunity.

Eh, I was in a rather pissy mood yesterday. Sorry.. kinda overdid it with the ranting.. There really are a lot of cool things to be seen in this movie. The opening city scene, any Kong action scene, and the natives(Where the hell did they go later on in the movie anyhow?) are all definite highlights. Deep down, I did want the critics to be right in that it was going to be a milestone in Cinema history, but unfortunatly I got about what I expected. I do recommend seeing it, but only at a matinee price.

And yes the new Jim Carrey film. Must catch that over winter break...

By the way, did anyone see The Majestic? It gets a lot of flack for having Carrey star in a serious role but I thought it was pretty good.

I didn't think it got that much flack. A lot of comedians are doing serious movies nowadays.

Wait, wait. You guys didn't like King Kong but did like Fun with Dick and Jane? What?

I didn't see either, we were just talking about them. The only person that saw Kong was the Dash, I think.

And, you know, me. Hi.

..and I saw it too, god dammit.

The Light Speed wrote:I didn't see either, we were just talking about them. The only person that saw Kong was the Dash, I think.

The Dash is amused.

I was gonna type the thread starter, but then I thought what the hell and scrolled up to find who started it. I must have forgotten to erase the the. Either way I am glad I amused you!

'The' Dash wrote:And yes the new Jim Carrey film. Must catch that over winter break...

By the way, did anyone see The Majestic? It gets a lot of flack for having Carrey star in a serious role but I thought it was pretty good.

Saw it, but so long ago, I barely remember it, which is a shame because I seem to recall loving it to death.

Dick & Jane was a pretty solid flick. Really glad I saw it. Probably wouldn't be so happy about it if I wasn't so afraid the laugh-out-loud-comedy was a lost art after seeing the terrifying trite that was "Just Friends".

I saw that one for free at a promo screening and I still feel I got ripped off. Ryan Reynolds can go cram himself up the ass of an elephant with indigestion.

Yeah, you really got to be careful with the comedies, especially anything with Will Ferrel or any other Saturday Night Live actor in it. Although, some of my favorite movies have SNL origins -- particularly the Blues Brothers. Man, that movie kicks ass. So much ass. It's almost incomprehensible exactly how much ass that movie kicks. It kicks an assload of ass.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to The Producers, although I haven't heard if it's good or not.

As much as I dig Matthew Broderick, The Producers was the last movie that needed a remake.

From what I've heard, it's not too different from the original. It opened shot-by-shot near-verbatim. In my opinion, it was probably just done to permanentize Broderick and Lane's acclaimed performances in the Broadway version.

Kishi wrote:As much as I dig Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, The Producers was the last movie that needed a remake.

Gene Wilder is both Willy Wonka and Leo Bloom and no one can tell me otherwise and HOLLYWOOD STOP REMAKING GENE WILDER FILMS PLZ

Yeah, Charlie and the Chocolate factory wasn't a Wilder film, it was a book.

Did you ever read the sequel to that book? I read it back in like second grade, that was some fucked up shit!