There’s a moment about a fifth of the way through King Kong (IMDB / Metacritic) when a young character who’s reading a copy of Heart of Darkness suddenly twigs that he’s not reading an adventure story. And then about thirty seconds later, you realise you’re not watching an adventure story either. And then the ground falls out from underneath your feet and the next time you breathe it’s about an hour later and you’re so hooked and consumed by the whole experience that you don’t want the film to ever end. I’ve never seen a movie that so comprehensively crapped on any and all opposition, that so savagely went for your throat and held you by it until you begged for mercy. God knows how it’ll stand up to repeated viewings – it’s not a short film and there are patches where you could find fault – but for the moment I can only say that there’s never been a blockbuster like this, it’s going to clean up everywhere and I’d put money on it putting years on Speilberg. Unbeatable. Amazing. Must see. Wow.
14 replies on “Kong! Kong! Kong! Kong!”
I’ve seen you make that face before, too.
I take it you liked it then.
Could not wait to catch this myself yesterday. Wow. Did you catch all the references to the 1933 version. In particular, all the native costumes from the kong-on-broadway scene were spitting images of the originals… right down to the coconut bras. Brilliant!
Wow, I hadn’t heard any comments from people yet, after reading this blog though, I’m excited to see this film!!
you thought so? i thought it was a little boring and definitely too long. the kong vs. dinos sequence was *way* too long. those tertiary chracters like jimmy and whoever were useless. a lot of the action sequences felt like they were written with the video game in mind.
the effects were pretty awesome–especially the sound design (huge improvement over LOTR). kong’s fur looked absolutely real (his teeth could have used some work). glad you liked it so much, though!
I totally agree with you – this is a new class of blockbuster and is going to take a LOT to top.
The best part for me was spotting the ‘Sumatran Rat Monkey’ cage in the ship’s hold.
Nice to see someone else enjoyed Kong. I was amazed by how emotional it was.
Its interesting to note that there seems to be a class of film developing that breaks the traditional two hour barrier in ways that do advance the story, as opposed to just indulging the director. And it seems that Jackson is the current leader in this new genre.
I just hope they think about putting table service into more theatres – and maybe a catheter
Oh, am I the only one who thinks that it was about an hour too long ?
Did you see the same film as me?
It’s difficult to describe what it suffers from, but the length of the movie is undoubtedly the biggest factor; it’s a 90-minute film crammed into three hours.
The setting doesn’t help either. The big difference between Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and this expensive re-make of a 1933 classic, is that the latter is set in the real world, whilst the former was carved from a world entirely rooted in fantasy.
It’s not a bad movie, it’s just not a great movie. Sure, Kong looks great, and the action sequences are truly marvellous (with the exception of a few dodgy shots of people supposedly running away from a dinosaur stampede, it’s almost entirely believable) – but, having watched the RKO classic only yesterday on BBC TWO, I couldn’t find a single example of where Jackson’s $200million epic improved upon the original – not even the special effects.
I doubt it could stand up to a second viewing. The dialogue was stilted, and the narrative was transparent – there didn’t even appear to be any effort on Jackson’s part to give his audience the benefit of the doubt (that dreadful Heart of Darkness reference and the scene on the ice in Central Park are the best examples).
The slow and disappointing box office start will probably pick up over the next week, because this is exactly the type of movie cinema-goers love; mindless, heartless drivel, with explosions, monsters and running.
Lots of running.
Tom, I’ve just come back from watching the movie and I agree with absolutely every single word you’ve written. Well, ok, one thing. It’s not 30 seconds later that we realize we’re not watching an adventure movie. Make it something more like 45 second. Or a minute. Other than that – yes. Wow.
I just saw the movie a third time and the reference to Heart of Darkness really struck me this time, particularly when, Jimmy, the young character who is reading the novella, asks why Marlow keeps going up the river. Why doesn’t he turn back? Not only was the answer given by the first mate moving and literate, but I carried it forward to when one of the reporters asks, “Why did he climb the building? He must have known what was going to happen.” The other reporter answers, “Nah, he was just a dumb animal. He didn’t know nothin’.”
But I had brought forward that quote from the first mate (taken here from imdb) and which may actually be a quote from Heart of Darkness: “We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign – and no memories. The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there – there you could look at a thing monstrous and free.”
I just saw the movie a third time and the reference to Heart of Darkness really struck me this time, particularly when, Jimmy, the young character who is reading the novella, asks why Marlow keeps going up the river. Why doesn’t he turn back? Not only was the answer given by the first mate moving and literate, but I carried it forward to when one of the reporters asks, “Why did he climb the building? He must have known what was going to happen.” The other reporter answers, “Nah, he was just a dumb animal. He didn’t know nothin’.”
But I had brought forward that quote from the first mate (taken here from imdb) and which may actually be a quote from Heart of Darkness: “We could not understand because we were too far and could not remember because we were traveling in the night of first ages, of those ages that are gone, leaving hardly a sign – and no memories. The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there – there you could look at a thing monstrous and free.”
I didn’t like the new version of the movie. I kept comparing my feelings with the feelings of a little girl (me again) when I was watching the first version many years ago.