I haven’t seen KING KONG yet — but Ken Levine has.
What movie did the reviewers see? It was at least an hour too long. The
first hour. Wait for the DVD, skip to “they arrive” and start there,
keeping your finger on the ff button at all times. Trust me, by the
giant insects you’ll be pressing it as if it were a morphine drip.
We were told this was Peter Jackson’s homage to movies. We weren’t told it was his homage to all of them.
I think I’ll wait for the DVD.
9 thoughts on “King Kong”
If you were okay with the length of the Lord of the Rings, you’ll be okay with the length of King Kong.
1st rule of figh club: Ignore the newspaper reviewers and go see the frelling movie!
It’s a must on the big screen.
Don’t listen to that dude. The movie was awesome. Sure it was three hours, but it could have been even longer and not everything would have been covered. The bugs were creepy and that would be one thing I’d fast forward through when I get the DVD. Otherwise the rest of the movie was great. It’s your choice though. Spend the money at the theatre or wait for the DVD. Either way it’ll be well worth your time and money.
The biggest jolt is the realizing that Peter Jackson has only made a good movie, not the great one that the fanboys were expecting.
With all due respect to Ken Levine, King Kong is really a movie that’s meant to be seen on a really big scene, not on DVD. Yes, the movie could have been trimmed down a bit here and there and no, its not the best movie of the year either, but its definitely worth paying $12 to see it in a theater.
I too would urge you to see KING KONG in the theater — it’s dazzling, and while it could easily have been half an hour shorter, the spectacle is worth it.
Oh, how I miss the Arclight…
I can now say I have seen a remake of a classic film that was not an insult to the original.
Now that it’s free for WGA members, maybe I’ll see it. If I can find the three hours.
I liked it. But I have to admit Kong’s performance was the second-best in the movie (after Jack Black).