In Reply to: terrible, terrible movie. twice as long as it should have been posted by Mali on December 24, 2005 at 15:18:01:
Totally agree. This kind of excess is everywhere to be found in the film. Why there had to be 50 brontosaures when two or three would have done just fine, and produced a much more credible scene ... why there had to be two or three phases of the insect scene, and so many types, when, again, judiously picking the most effective elements and throwing out the rest would have allowed the film to move along at a much more effective pace (there's a word I'll come back to) ... why there had to be so much ado about the ship arriving at Skull Island when all Jackson had to do was get us on shore ... these are questions the new KK left MANY of us asking.It almost seemed at times as though the teacher had left the room and the special effects cut-up went crazy ... or that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, that Jackson tried to eclipse almost every special effects blockbuster he could find, as though putting a viable new version of King Kong on the screen wasn't ambition enough. The ship scenes had to outdo Cameron's Titanic ... the dinosaurs had to outdo Spielberg's Jurassic films ... the bug scenes had to outdo Indiana Jones, and so on.
I admire this film greatly, and enjoyed much of it. Jackson has accomplished something wonderful in taking the primal Kong of the original film and turning him into some kind of architypical romanic figure, and at times, the film soars.
But Jackson's Kong is an undisciplined film by a director who saw so many trees that at times he forgot he was in the forest. And it is precisely because of this undisciplined, self-indulgent tendacy that many consider Kong "bloated," "too long", and "straining credibility." I think the most important casualty of the new Kong, to return to my earlier thought is "pacing." Pacing, the ability to tell a story in a way that the action gains momentum, in a way that is efficient and direct, something the original had in SPADES, is sorely lacking here. And I think it's THE reason that some folks are disappointed in the film.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: "twice as long as it should have been" - halfnote 22:36:08 12/24/05 (5)
- Twice as long as it should have been and half as good. - Dalton 08:20:03 12/25/05 (4)
- Kong's ride back to NYC was conveniently left out of the original, too. - LesF 15:01:36 12/28/05 (0)
- Re: Twice as long as it should have been and half as good. - halfnote 15:09:59 12/25/05 (2)
- Re: Twice as long as it should have been and half as good. - Dalton 06:57:55 12/26/05 (1)
- Re: Twice as long as it should have been and half as good. - halfnote 15:39:37 12/26/05 (0)