उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

WELL...Certainly very few FILMS can boast 3 different BIG BUDGET VERSIONS!!! The EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE!!!

But BEFORE diving in.... FIRST LET US FOCUS on this TITLE's CONTENT & CONTEXT:

In 1956, when I was 8, I saw the original version (1933) of King Kong for the first time. It impacted me very much! ....Although the film tripled me in age, its special effects were the best I had ever seen, without a doubt! The director of King Kong (2005), Peter Jackson (Trilogy: Lord of the Rings), says he saw the original version at age nine and that was what inspired him to become a film-maker. This new version is perhaps one of the best cinema remakes of recent years!

BUT ... (and it is a very BIG "BUT"!) The simple fact that it is not an original story involves many limitations, at least, in my opinion! However, for a few minutes, I'll try to continue this review taking into account that the vast majority of you have never seen the 1933 original...

KING KONG (2005) has many things going for it and against it! Despite this, any film, and King Kong in particular, is much more than a summary and analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. It is, basically, an indictment of just how the modern world destroys everything that is good and innocent for its insatiable appetite for massive and rampant commercialization......Of course, if one so wishes to interpret it that way.

For many, KING KONG will probably seem like a surreal time machine ... first, leading you to the City of New York, at the beginning of the 30s. It is worth commenting that Jackson' recreation was nothing short of absolutely spectacular. Perhaps the best recreation and atmosphere of someplace in the past, without a doubt. Then, when once they get to "Skull Island", we are in a prehistoric world, forgotten millions of years ago. I would say it also qualifies as the best cinematic representation of its type that has appeared in films until 2005, however, not by much, but rather, just barely.

The real charm of the film is its very believable emotional relationship developed between Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and the digital image rendering of KING KONG himself. The strangest thing about this relationship is the apparent peculiar inversion of roles between Ms. Darrow and King Kong. A very special relationship between a dog and its master is very common, where a number of qualities are seen clearly, like love, affection, friendship, mutual respect, platonic love, loyalty, and being able to spend time together sharing activities. In addition, a master offers his pet special care and affection.

What happens here is that King Kong is the master and Ann Darrow, by her own volition, assumes the role of pet. Of course, both these terms are used here in the best possible sense!

Another great achievement of King Kong is the awesome reality represented in its title character. Previously, I think Lord of the Rings' Gollum, also directed by Peter Jackson, was the most realistic CGI character image. But King Kong, you can say, is the first digital character that seems real in almost every scene of the film. Above all, the depth of emotion expressed in the eyes has no equal. If for no other reason than this, it makes it all really worth it!

There are some other negatives that caught my attention. Jack Black is a comedian of great merit. I was somewhat disappointed with his portrayal of Carl Denham, the eccentric and very egocentric producer responsible for organizing the expedition film. He should learn, as did Jim Carrey, to leave the extreme mugging for comedy.

Also, I imagine this kind of film probably appeals to many children 9, or under. King Kong, unfortunately for them, has a couple wildly violent moments that you may not find suitable for them. Too bad, because 95% of KONG is great for kids!

This film lasts three full hours. The last two are full of action, but in the first hour, there are some lethargic moments. Perhaps Mr. Jackson could have cut some 15 or 20 minutes, no problem.

My last complaint has to do with the famous phrase: "Suspension of Belief". In 2 or 3 scenes, digital images maintain a level of frenetic action so exaggerated, so prolonged, it's a little hard not to drop the famous phrase as in, "Oops! There goes my Suspension....!"

But all in all, I think kudos are in order for Peter Jackson and the vision that he has shown with his version of King Kong. For three decades, Steven Spielberg was the king of Hollywood. There seems to be a new King. Long live the King! Long live Peter Jackson! Long Live KING KONG!

Any comments, questions or observations, in English, o en Español, are most welcome! ........................

The eyes have it. Of all the multi-million $ visual illusions created for King Kong, the most critical to the film are the prehistoric, 25 foot Gorilla's eyes. However breathtaking the CGI generated action sequences, and they are superbly filmed and edited - it is the real sense of a primitive creature forming a meaningful attachment to a single human being around which this frankly preposterous story pivots. The importance of the eyes as a means of conveying 'innerness', thought, personal identity is a cliché of cinema acting. Quite how the eyes, even seen through the camera lens, communicate this sense of 'another' is a phenomenon as subtle as it is genuinely profound.

The Kong of the original 1933 movie and this faithful remake is essentially anthropomorphised, especially in the thrilling, CGI choreographed fight scenes with other pre-historic animals. The haymaker swings and punches are very exciting but hardly I would have thought gorrilla-like. This isn't a nerdy complaint: the dramatic effect of the breathless chases and titanic battles is all that matters - and it works. But the achievement of a sense of individuality for Kong is conveyed with a subtlety that really puts the more crash bang wallop of CGI action in the shade. Without a sense of Kong as a kind of individual, protecting the human to whom he has formed a unique attachment - there is no movie. With all these acutely observed anthropomorphised behavioural signals in place, we then 'read' genuine emotion, even pathos, into those great eyes. It is worth noting that the close-up in movies places us within the most private, intimate space of a character, gorilla or not, only achieved in real life in very special conditions of personal intimacy. Part of the unique power of the eyes in movies perhaps. And the basis of its inescapably voyeuristic quality.

Peter Jackson is a frustrating movie-maker. He can brilliantly set up a mis en scène of 1930's New York in 5 minutes of economical editing and evocative cinematography, then drag out getting to Skull Island and the first appearance of Kong for another 40 minutes or so. Learning from Spielberg in Jaws, Jackson builds up tension before Kong appears, its just that the intervening 40 minutes is pretty dull and uninspired. However, while the unbearable, cumulative tension of Spielberg's movie virtually evaporates as soon as we see the clunky metal reality of the phoney shark, Jackson's Kong stands up to every scrutiny and never disappoints. But Jackson's movie-making sprawls across the screen, in this case taking 187 minutes to cover essentially the same story, in a sense the same film given its faithfulness to the original, which came in at 104.

Jackson's editing willpower seems to desert him with CGI footage. Instead of being an immensely powerful means to achieve a dramatic effect, it simply becomes an end in itself. This tendency began with the LOR trilogy and persists here. At least KK only has one ending. As Jackson piles impossible thrill upon impossible thrill in the second hour of the movie, one at times begins to suffer from astonishment fatigue. So many creatures, so many battles, so many shocks your brain jams with overload. And this lack of pacing makes an already pretty average script clunk even more than it should. LOR and KK despite their amazing and highly entertaining strengths, share the same inherent weakness - a lack of cadence. Their narrative seems to have only two speeds - slow or flat out. Only late on with the scenes with Naomi Watts sharing the beauty of a sunset with a 'contemplative' Kong does the movie achieve a kind of stillness that allows the illusion of an impossible relationship to breathe a little credible life.

Casting is patchy. Naomi Watts is good in an impossible part and deserves an Oscar for the longest unbroken sequence of reaction shots in movie history. Jack Black just can't seem to make off-the-wall entrepreneur-come-filmmaker Carl Denham quite fit and despite a good crack at writer Jack Driscoll, Adrien Brody looks miscast. The rest do a good job with pretty cardboardy characters to work with including a confident Jamie Bell in an add-in part. But the heart and soul of the movie of course is Kong and the credibility Watts just about manages to convey of an affection and empathy between impossibly disparate species. (I'd leave any psychoanalytic concepts in the car for this one by the way). The third star of course is CGI. A star who many Directors are beginning to discover, is becoming far too big for his boots, prohibitively expensive and starting to suffer from the law of diminishing returns.

The end result is an at times breathlessly exciting movie whose subtext morality tale plays no better nor worse than the original - which is pretty marginally. And Kong reigns absolutely supreme as the most realistic cinematically generated creature in movies so far. In his faithfulness to the original it is a pity I think that Jackson leaves himself open to the same criticism levelled against the first film's portrayal of the native people of Skull Island. Why oh why are aboriginal people always portrayed in such a crass, ignorant, farcically stereotypical way? Leering, filthy, witless, pitiless 'savages' just there as fear fodder. It may seem a bit precious to refer to this in a review of an old-fashioned adventure yarn movie and I'm not talking from political correctness, but this story could have been enhanced not harmed, by a more intelligent portrayal and use of this aspect of the story.

Well worth a visit. But be warned - the 12A certificate is yet again misleading. I would think twice about accompanying any child under 12 to this at times graphically scary movie. Like the latest Harry Potter, KK demonstrates that the 12A certification needs serious re-thinking as it is misleading parents into taking too many too young kids to too many too scary movies.

Let me just say that with all of the remakes that have been coming out, King Kong may have been the most deserving and the most in need of being remade. I could not think of a better director for this type of film than Peter Jackson.

King Kong stays pretty true to the original. Naomi Watts plays Fay Wray's Ann Darrow perfectly. Right down to her emotional connection with Kong, which is helped by the fact that Kong is pretty darn lovable when he is not ripping apart dinosaurs.

Adrien Brody plays a great Jack Driscoll as well. Brody is truly a gifted actor and plays a good hero.

Even Jack Black did a good job as the rebellious director Carl Denham. Usually I am annoyed by Black's performances, even though they are mostly in comedies. Surprisingly, Black kept his character serious and the movie is better for it. I though for sure he would be the one to ruin this movie for me but, again, I stand corrected. The comedy seemed to be reserved for Kong, himself, and did a wonderful job.

I can not express how much more I enjoyed this movie without the "guy in the suit" special effects. Kong was very appealing visually, as well as the other dinosaurs. I do not say this too much in reviews. In fact, I doubt I have ever said it but King Kong has turned out to be a masterpiece which will raise the bar for many years to come. 10/10

Typical Peter Jackson, however gonna watch the even longer extended 3 hours 20 minutes edition in 4k, not watched in years but the picture is epic apart from it being too warm for my liking. The sound is the unusual DTS-X high def sound and already is gorgeous!

However enough of the technical borefest hahaha... this film for me is stunningly shot... some of the shots of the city are incredible. It really is a grand film and for me better than his LOTR trilogy which I may well resist soon.

However its the cinematography and sets that set this film apart from most films... integrated so well with XGI which even in 4k is holding up well... stunning is all I can say, actually old school filming with modern techniques!

Classic tale and story that recreates the original for the modern era. Even Jack Black is watchable but the stunning Naomi Watts is very very watchable hahaha.

This film doesn't get the recognition it deserves!!! As an achievement in cinema alone its a 10/10. You want blockbusters that have a story and a smidge of empathy with the characters with possibly the greatest ending of all monster films ever... this is how you do it.

Marvel and DC and all the other nonsense need to take a step back!!! This is how you combine live action, real sets and CGI into an epic tale...

If a movie is three hours or longer, that usually means it already has two negative points against it. But even as the three hours and seven minutes passed, I didn't take my eyes off the television. If the "Rings" trilogies weren't enough to persuade you, now is the time for everyone to agree that Peter Jackson is one of the most imaginative individuals to ever hold the director's chair. This movie belongs to a unique class. Everyone who attempts to replicate "King Kong" should be imprisoned in a rubber room.

Then, you cram this classic remake with moving humanity, astounding amazing effects, and a ton of unforgettable imagery, and you do it all so flawlessly that it's bound to become a classic as well. In a word, Jackson's "King Kong" is amazing, fantastic, beautiful, and spectacular. I'm afraid I can't put it into one word.

Maybe I'm blinded by nostalgia but I adore this movie.

It's one of the few movies for me that is truly and action movie and not just a movie with some gun fire and general badassdom. The action sequences are captivating, electrifying and operatic in their scale and execution.

On top of this, the sense of adventure as we travel from a vivid (and probably fake) evocation of 1930s New York to the eerie island forgotten by time is realized with an artisanal attention to detail and an artist's spark and passion (though of course all movies are art).

A lot of people felt it took a while to get going. But I like local color and characters that make this feel all the more vivid. They do it with verve when so many other monster movies spend too much time on humans when they only know how to write the monsters.

The love story angle part might have been a tad much but I like Ann, I like Jack, I love to look down my nose at Carl and Hayes and the boy are a sweet addition too.

You will fear and in time come to love this endling ape who reigns as king of the forgotten world but but rules it alone. When Naomi Watts described it as a love story I dare say it might have been the most inciteful thing an actor has ever said about one of their movies that they didn't write in an interview. It's no an erotic love but in the bleak world of giant sabre toothed leach eat giant sabre toothed leach, sometimes moments of tenderness between the most unlikely pairs becomes possible.

And then we get back to New York and words do not do it justice. They kind of slapped a Christmas/Winter aesthetic in the final act because this movie released in December and I am so happy to go along with it, maybe because of that score.

Overall, one of the few remakes of a good movie that is justified since it managed to recreate for modern audiences what the original would have been at its time.

I agree, some scenes maybe are a bit too long. But what do you expect from a 3 hour movie? That it is short?

You know how the duration before you start watching.

I was thinking give it an eight or a nine. I chose nine. Because overall this still is a great adventure movie for sure.

The more recent Kong: Skull Island is a fun watch as well, but more like a fast paced action movie of it's time.

This Peter Jackson version has it's fair amount of action and still pretty good effects and tells a better and more complete story.

I remember watching this at around 8 years old and not getting past the hour and 20 mark because I got so scared. As an adult, who's since attended film school, I can watch it in it's entirety and be completely blown away. It's a surprisingly emotional movie, and the CGI still holds up 17 years later, which lends itself to incredible set pieces and an emotional connection with Kong. It really is a tragic movie, and on that I think could be released today and no one would bat an eye at the special effects. They're that good.

I was rather sad to see they had cut so many scenes on the DVD that were actually in the movie. The scream on the shore that first caught Kong's attention. The writer stopping the actress in the passage way, and saying "I have something to show you", this was one of many scenes left out. Suddenly they were in his room? My wife had not seen the original movie, she thought the movie was sort of jumpy. You can't deny the special effects, wonderful. I know that they are planning on releasing a 2nd copy within the next 6 months and calling it extra scenes for the director. It's a shame to cut such a fine film for the sake of making more money.

Don't get me wrong here, I liked this film. It was spectacular, it had considerable emotional resonance, it wasn't a travesty.

Of course in reality a 25ft silverback gorilla would collapse under its own weight, and in many ways that's what has happened to the movie.

As others have noted, it is on the long side and would have benefited from resolute scissoring throughout. Just because you have the resources to show a 10-minute dinosaur stampede doesn't mean you actually have to do it, particularly when a 30-second scene would have told the story just as well. Throughout the movie, time is stretched in order to fit in all the effects - at one point several minutes pass between someone being struck by a spear and hitting the ground.

In addition I remain unconvinced by CGI generally. OK, this probably looks better than any other CGI movie so far, but I don't think we're in any danger of confusing it with reality yet. Rather, we have a spectacular and detailed cartoon.

It's ironic that while one of the central characters here is a combination of PT Barnum-style showman and Werner-Herzog-type visionary obsessive taking his cameras into the jungle, this "King Kong" itself is as far away from Herzogian 'realism' as it's possible to get. Not only do the CGI effects themselves (with the exception of Kong's facial expressions) fail to convince, the filmmakers also have people surviving unsurvivable falls, hanging onto logs and creepers in conditions where any human being would fall, etc. I know this is a Hollywood action movie staple, but it still jolts me out of any suspension of disbelief. OK, CGI is the only way we can have dinosaurs or giant gorillas, but keeping things as real as possible otherwise would help no end with the human side of the story.

Any time a film-maker puts a film-maker into his story it's necessary to consider the relationship between the two. On the one hand we have the studio-bound CGI-nerd making a movie about a seat-of-the-pants explorer-director. On the other we have the "showman" side of Carl Denham, as Driscoll points out, destroying that very "wonder" he sets out to capture by reducing it to vulgar spectacle. You have to ask yourself if that resonance wasn't at least in Jackson's mind when he wrote the theatre scene.

On the plus side, all the themes of the original are here and amplified, from the "we are the real monsters" (with added "Heart of Darkness" reference), through strong hints of ecological parable, to the genuinely tragic love of Kong for Darrow which leads directly to his capture and eventual downfall. The sadness in his eyes throughout is something to behold - as the last of his species he is doomed in any event, ironically it is his compassion which hastens his demise.