Why do most people dislike Peter Jackson's King Kong?14,021 Views18 RepliesAdd A Reply
Hey Daikaiju fans!
Recently, I watched one of my favorite movies of all time: Peter Jackson's King Kong! The movie is such an incredible remake of the original 1933 classic! It is such a masterpiece!
However, despite my love for it, many people dislike this remake of King Kong. And I have no idea why that is. It goes so much deeper into Kong and Anne's bond, and it includes a scene that was supposed to be in the original film, but was cut out because it was too scary for the time! The music is great, and the fighting scenes are so intense! The CGI is very well done, and it's just overall an amazing film. Now granted, this movie is nowhere near as spectacular as the original 1993 King Kong, but it is one of the best King Kong remake/adaption I have seen. :)
So, why do people dislike this movie so much?
"Daddy's home- cake every night,"
I never heard anybody dislike the movie before? I thought it was great:). Don't know why people would hate it? But their is always a group that will hate a movie For a stupid reason.
King Kong was alright, it wasn't bad but it was long. REALLY LONG. About a good 3 hrs and 51 min long. It was famous for about 2 years until people got bored of it, well some people. Peter Jackson's King Kong was pretty good. I would give it a 7/10.
@Zaffzilla I agree, this is news to me.
The king kong remake that I've seen people dislike A LOT is the 1977 remake with Jeff Bridges, but a lot of people liked Peter Jacksons KK. The only complaints I've seen some people have with Peter Jacksons version is the length (I personally have no problem with it, I actually love the extended version which is over 3 hours long). The 2005 King Kong is my favorite film of all time, so I'm happy to say I don't dislike it!
I honestly like PJ's King Kong.
But yes, I could do without the length. 3 hours should be left to LoTR.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Well, the 2005 King Kong has a lot of relevance to a discussion or website involving a new Godzilla film! I have compaired the two often, as both are big budget adaptations/remakes/reboots of classic monster films, but with some form of contrmporary update. Looking at how that film handled the monster, story and effects will be an excelent clue to what we can expect when we go to theaters in a mere 32 days. :)
As for the topic... Daikaiju_Danielle, I have NO IDEA what anyone could find objectionable about Peter Jackson's King Kong! People never cease to baffle me. The movie is honestly one of my all time favorite films as well, and adapts the classic tale of the original King Kong perfectly. Its effects are breathtaking even nearly a decade later, and its score always brings a tear to my eye. Best of all, however, it took the Beauty and the Beast concept from the original film and improved upon it, making Kong's death truly gut wrenching. There was a connection between Ann and Kong that was not present in the original, and was just creepy in the 1976 version. It could not have been handled more perfectly.
Peter Jackson has sited the original Kong as not only his favorite film of all time, but the movie that got him making movies himself. There was no better choice to direct the movie. Its no easy task to remake one of the greatest films of all time, but he did it, and produed what may be the best ramake of all time. I believe the success of the film was due largely to the approach the filmmakers took: the new Kong was not a remake, but rather a tribute and a thank you to the men and women who made the original possible. Its this, as well as the directing, the script, the acting (particularly the incredible Andy Serkis as Kong himself), and the breath taking effects that make the film a very special one.
Long story short: I will defend this movie until the end! :)
"Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." -Rod Serling
I hope this Godzilla rivals Jackson's Kong. Masterpiece. Beginning to end. Every character grew on you, Kong's reveal was awesome, the story stuck close to the original but wasn't afraid to do its own thing- just all around beautiful film.
I loved Jack Black's perfomance most. I've come across people who have said "Jack Black? The comedian? In King Kong- playing a serious role? I'm already turned off!" I feel awful that their capacity for film and imagination is not-so gargantuan.
It's hard to say why people don't like, but my guess is that it might make people feel uncomfortable. In the original it is just monster takes the girl, guys go in to save her, bring the monster to new york and we kill it, simple but it works. Like DAIKAIJU_DANIELLE said the PJ one goes in depth about the relationship between kong and ann. It brings people out of their comfort zone because of the genuine bond shared between ann and kong. That or some people don't know a good movie if it bit them in the butt
Kong's last moments up on the Empire State Building rank up there as one of the most emotional scenes in cinematic history
I know what Daikaiju_Danielle is getting at. Although King Kong (2005) is an acceptable movie, it's woefully self-indulgent on Jackson's part. It includes some intriguing creature ideas that only distinguishes it from the original in design. Deleted scenes from the original 1933 film were re-imagined and included in the 2005 film, not because they were important, but because Jackson is such a fan of the original film that he simply wanted to see these scenes included. They don't do much except add to an already long catalog of action, set pieces. They weren't needed.
And for all the pandering to the original material, the few changes Jackson makes to the story and characters are superfluous. Jack Black probably does some of his best work here, but only at the expense of injecting some Jack-Black-isms into the character of Carl Denham. They worked for a time, but didn't really add up to anything. The wisdom behind the line, "T'was beauty killed the beast..." doesn't seem as sincere or believable. Perhaps it would've been different had Jackson taken the risk of having Denham hauled off in a police car as he said it. That would've been interesting and more in-line with this version of Denham.
I'm also not sure how I feel about these latter inturpretations of Ann Darrow actually having feelings for King Kong... Both Jackson's version and the 1976 remake depict Kong's love interest with a resounding sympathy for him. It's interesting and different to be sure... but after 1976 I'm surprised Jackson went that route. I've always found that part of the tragedy behind Kong's death is how Ann (or her immitators) aren't sympathetic toward him, but he dies for her anyway. It's not a dealbreaker, but considering how much Jackson's film kisses the perverbial ass of the original I never thought it fit.
It's not a "bad" movie, but it has a list of issues that keep me from going back to it-- or feeling fully engaged. I'll watch the movie in pieces, but I don't think I'll ever revisit it in one sitting again...
I like the movie but Adrien Brody is just so boring. Sooooooo ungodly boring that evertime he was on the screen I would let out a disappointed sigh. Wish they picked a different actor for the part of Jack.
Had I remembered he was in the movie, I might've disagreed, but considering I forgot he was in it... that says something. And nothing good.
I absolutely LOVE the King Kong remake and as matter of fact, I like it better than the original. I have seen it at least 15 times (not exaggerating) and is one of my all time favourites. I find it strange that people would hate on such a good film. I completely agree DaiKaiju.
I honestly don't know how Adrien Brody gets work. Granted, I haven't seen all of the movies he's ever been in but every movie I have seen with him I find his character usually the weakest in the film, but his portrayal of Jack was just bad, plain bad and having such a boring person as a main role of the film definitely makes it less likable for me. Maybe that's why he's paired with Jack Black, Black bring emotions and excitement to his part while Adrien Brody jsut mumbles some words and hopes some1 out there grows attached in some weird way to his character.
@Danzilla - you can defend his version all you want, it's still crap though. And I will slate it continuosly until you give up defending it.
@Tarrellzilla - actually, if you bothered to get out from your mother's basement you'd realize that a LOT of people actually love the 1976 remake.
And why exactly did the crappy 2005 version have to go on for over THREE hours??? I turned it off halfway through and walked away. The classic 1933 version ran for 90 minutes. We didn't need to see all that extra CGI infested crap, it certainly didn't improve it in the slightest. I hate that movie so much, it's utter garbage and I can truly understand why so many peopel despise it.
I've never seen it, bu I saw the scenes with Kong vs. 3 V. rexes and the sauropod stampede. The CGI was incredible and the scenes were pretty good.
“Banana oil.”- George Takei, Gigantis: The Fire Monster
3 Reasons why I dislike Peter Jackson's King Kong
1: Jack Black. He should not have been in this movie. His goofiness really hurt the movie in my opinion. I'm all for limited comic relief but this is supposed to be a monster movie. Because of him I could not take anything in the movie seriously, which leads me to my next issue.
2: I did not care about any of the characters, particularly King Kong, which is the complete opposite of how I felt when I watched the 1976 version. I could not wait for him to die already.
3: Some of the action scene were really cartoony. Again the same problem as Jack Black. Peter Jackson tends to overuse CG in his more recent films, which just makes the whole thing look fake. I almost prefer stop motion.
It's been a while since I saw it in theaters so I can't remember all the scenes, but running in between dinosaurs legs c'mon.