Listen to the score for Batman Begins. Hans Zimmer collaborated with James Newton Howard and during some of the slow moving orchestral music you can hear themes from the soundtrack for King Kong. It really bears testimony to the fact that "Art is never finished, only abandoned."
BBFC: “Contains moderate violence, frightening elements & frequent peril.” Yeah the 5 minute sequence with all the bugs & spiders & worms fits that lol
Director Peter Jackson’s take on the iconic Universal film is well organised, well acted, well characterised & is overall A stylish & well crafted reboot. (84%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
The original wasn't just a major film, but a major event. The levels of subtext in the film are a lifetime study. It SO much better than any remake that I can't even fathom it. CGI can never replace heart and imagination.
@@thecinematicmind lol not even close, the LENGTH of the movie gave the film its grand EPIC cinematic filmmaking style and immersive world from its narrative as you spend so much time with the characters and the vibrant world that which they’re in FROM its runtime in the length. Simple as that! This movie IS a fantastic film and the length of the movie REALLY contributes to it all! Not at all “tOo dAmN lOnG” in the slightest AT ALL, as it’s MORE than just “enjoyable”, it’s absolutely fantastic!
I personally love this movie, but I understand most people don't like it because it's length. But like Mark said " I feel like I'm getting my moneys worth." If I'm going to spend 10 to 20 dollers of a film I want to get as much as I can of it. Plus Jackson gave it a heart that the original didn't have and that was creepy in the 70's version. It's not a perfect movie but I understand what jackson was trying to do and enjoy it for that.
I’d easily say it IS a “perfect film” for what it’s trying to do entirely so! The LENGTH of the movie gave the film its grand EPIC cinematic filmmaking style and immersive world from its narrative as you spend so much time with the characters and the vibrant world that which they’re in FROM it’s runtime in the length. Simple as that! This movie IS a fantastic film and the length of the movie REALLY contributes to it all!
I'd like to point out that facial motion capture was flawed science when this film was being made and alot of the character of Kong was done by the animators and not much of serkis's performance came through facially.
The movie is too damn long, but I still like it. Took too long to get to the island, would have liked more of Kong/Ann on the island, and the dino stampede had laughably bad CGI.
It was a good thing, but I do wish he made it under 3 hours... because at around the 3 hour mark I stopped caring, which is not a good thing to happen.
Evidently, Jack Black's experience put him off serious acting. He's just stuck to the same pantomime gurn that worked for School of Rock, but not any more.
I agree it was technically well done. The non-action effects were very well done, but the action animation was not well done at all. It was so much in-your-face stuff with the Watts character being drown around like a rag doll. Any human being would have died from all that abuse.
I remember seeing this in the cinema. Coming up to the end of it, my arse was sore and I was desperate for a piss. Looking back I not only wish I hadn't waited til the end but left during the intermission, gone home, and taken a piss in my own bathroom. I think Peter Jackson gets way more respect than he has earned.
3 hours long, do we need to have ONE HOUR on the fricking boat? If was an extra hour of dinosaur fights and action maybe. Who wanted to see more stuff on the boats. Also how could Peter Jackson, make the CGI in LOTR look great (if mildly dated today) make the dinosaurs look so rubbish? The CGI in the prequels look better and more realistic. And Simon was right that ice-skating thing was the dumbest thing, its Taken 3:Takin the Micky level stupid.
The CGI in the prequels looked better? Seriously? Look, CGI can only go so far. The reason the dinosaurs didn't look real has a lot to do with the fact that nobody has ever seen a live dinosaur before. We have no proper frame of reference for how these creatures moved. So, no matter how good the CGI is, our brains will never be truly convinced. That said, the CGI is very well done with proper lighting and textures. It's just the movements that throw you off. FAR better than the CGI in the prequels, which was overly polished and lacked any depth.
Yes CGI is better but the story is all over the place not forgetting it being an unnecessary length being a trilogy an all. They were tonally all over the shop to, here is an awesome piece involving the white council fight off ghosts in Dol Gur Dor to protect Gandalf and now here is a childish bit involving a scruffy bloke dressed as a women with melons for boobs.
Peter Jackson should re-release King Kong 45 to 60 minutes shorter. First scene to go is the frozen pond. And when Kong first sows up he beats his chest.. for ever! All right I get it, he beats his chest, enough already. The natives on the island were too ugly, dirty and creepy. The bugs freaked me out bad, BUGS!!! but they should stay. My point is that it could be an awesome movie if it was shorter.
I am SHATTERED to discover Mark liked this movie. I think I have never more painfully wanted out of a cinema in my life that when I sat through that giant piece of garbage.
I have to disagree with Kermode here. It really is a terrible movie. WAY too long, too much puppy eyes between Kong and the Watts character. Jackson seems to try way too hard to make it authentic. He focuses too much on sub plots and uninteresting scenes (action and non-action). To me the original treats the material perfectly by not taking it too seriously and not being too long.
Must have been 13 when this came out, by then I'd pretty much gotten over all of my childhood squeamishness but those worms still freaked me the fuck out.
Watched this with great anticipation and was totally disappointed. It felt contrived and plastic and it doesn't have anywhere near the heart of the 1975 movie which featured Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange and nailed the emotional highs and lows so much better maybe because it wasn't relying on computer graphics and an annoying Jack Black.
Its alright, Im not mad on it, I just think its too straight forward and quite simple really. And sorry but I just didnt find the bits with the bugs scary at all, u dont see anything in terms of detailed violence. I mean Jurassic park for its time, managed to hav a level of violence and at PG rating I think it really did hav its moments.
well I had it at hand so I thought why not share with my good ol mates from YT a few of my valuable inputs? and thats how I ended writing my well based and articulate opinion that hopefully didnt upset you too much
Really hated this movie and the original is one of my top 5 movies I adore. And it's not because it's a remake of a movie I love. They can work. "Postman Always Rings Twice', or 'The Thing (from another world)', very definate direct remakes and all 4 movies quite wonderful (but please, please, please can Arrow do the decent thing and get both Postman movies out on Blu). The movie was overlong and self indulgent. And this from a guy who thought 'A Brighter Summer' and 'It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' positively zipped by, and considers 'Stalker' possibly one of the greatest pieces of cinema. And if you think it's not self indulgent I put forward 'The Hobbit' trilogy. A truly ghastly piece of studio money making directed by a man with an obvious love of the source material. Jackson is a good, potentially great, director, but he does not know how to, or even want to, cut the excess fat. Have King Kong and a lone Hobbit (without the weird 120fps) both just hitting the 2 hour mark and you'd have a totally different experience. It's why directors cuts (usually longer)don't always work. Oliver Stone's cut of JFK is still a very good movie, but the original cut is far superior. And with a decent edit KK would lose the ice rink scene, possibly one of the most cringeworthy, vomit inducing, pieces of cinema evr put to film (digital sic). I never disagree with Kermode except when it comes to the utterly dreadful King Kong. People, including me, love the original. Can anyone seriously, hand on heart, say they love the remake?
Just here to point out that, after making a mint, this film sank without trace into the depths of obscurity and we would not even be thinking about it unless the new 'Skull Island' film was out to make a quick buck and then vanish into the same place.
For once, I agree with Mayo: Black's delivery of "that line" was dreadful. "That line" was overrated to begin with; to stretch it out to that extent (like everything else in this beached whale of a film) was absurd. And the ice-skating scene was utter rubbish as well. Spectacular? Moving? It was LONG and BORING!
It would be brilliant if King Kong had more elements of The Crying Game. For example. Kong's reaction when he finds out Naomi Watts' little secret. I'd like to see Serkis nail the range of emotions on Kong's face.
I usually respect Kermode's reviews and opinions but i think he is completely off the mark on this one. His statements about Jackson infusing his King Kong with genuine emotion is ridiculous.His changes to the original in terms of plot and characters are pointless, such as making Jack Driscoll a writer rather than the 1st mate for example, adding superfluous uninteresting characters like "Jimmy" and his "mentor"(are we really supposed to care about them?!!) etc... they seem to have more to do with padding the film out to "epic" running time level needlessly.I agree that the character of Kong is realized brilliantly but is undermined by the completely over the top, overblown cartoon level of the "action" sequences which ruin or at least greatly challenge one to maintain suspension of disbelief (Kong-Fu anyone?!!) Finally the schmaltsy shamelessly contrived "relationship" between Ann and Kong owes more to the cheesy 70's remake than the original classic and rings quite artificial as does the love interest between Brody and Watts as they have zero chemistry.Could have been a genuine classic had it stuck more faithfully to the spirit of the original.
The music was an absolute masterpiece too.
Listen to the score for Batman Begins. Hans Zimmer collaborated with James Newton Howard and during some of the slow moving orchestral music you can hear themes from the soundtrack for King Kong. It really bears testimony to the fact that "Art is never finished, only abandoned."
I agree the music for King Kong 2005 is Brilliant and moving! I agree with Kermode Peter Jackson invests everything with a real heart
One of the best scores of all time. The opening theme is perfect for a monster film.
@@fujivillan oooooooo
@@fujivillan my fave sound track, batman begins and star wars new hope.
BBFC: “Contains moderate violence, frightening elements & frequent peril.”
Yeah the 5 minute sequence with all the bugs & spiders & worms fits that lol
Director Peter Jackson’s take on the iconic Universal film is well organised, well acted, well characterised & is overall A stylish & well crafted reboot. (84%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
And I don't fucking blame him, this has to be the best remake ever alongside with "Scarface".
The video game went hard too
The original wasn't just a major film, but a major event. The levels of subtext in the film are a lifetime study. It SO much better than any remake that I can't even fathom it.
CGI can never replace heart and imagination.
Felt the same way about Andy Serkis as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings. Best thing in it.
Lord of the rings in general is just a fantastic movie and a phenomenal film series as a whole!
Such an excellent review.
Can't agree more with Mark. This was a great film, an absolute blast.
It is. Just too damn long. Still enjoyable.
@@thecinematicmind lol not even close, the LENGTH of the movie gave the film its grand EPIC cinematic filmmaking style and immersive world from its narrative as you spend so much time with the characters and the vibrant world that which they’re in FROM its runtime in the length.
Simple as that! This movie IS a fantastic film and the length of the movie REALLY contributes to it all! Not at all “tOo dAmN lOnG” in the slightest AT ALL, as it’s MORE than just “enjoyable”, it’s absolutely fantastic!
@@Gadget-Walkmen So you liked it?
@@doodooswaggy3825 Loved it, actually started to appreciate it more and more as time goes on!
I personally love this movie, but I understand most people don't like it because it's length. But like Mark said " I feel like I'm getting my moneys worth." If I'm going to spend 10 to 20 dollers of a film I want to get as much as I can of it. Plus Jackson gave it a heart that the original didn't have and that was creepy in the 70's version. It's not a perfect movie but I understand what jackson was trying to do and enjoy it for that.
I’d easily say it IS a “perfect film” for what it’s trying to do entirely so! The LENGTH of the movie gave the film its grand EPIC cinematic filmmaking style and immersive world from its narrative as you spend so much time with the characters and the vibrant world that which they’re in FROM it’s runtime in the length.
Simple as that! This movie IS a fantastic film and the length of the movie REALLY contributes to it all!
@@Gadget-Walkmen Copy and paste this more
@@doodooswaggy3825 Is this sarcasm or are you for real? can't tell.
haha i like that quote "move the eyes and not the eyebrows". good advice for a comedian trying to play the straight man.
King Kong on ITV2 right now. Love it.
from 8:50 to 9:00: Amen, thats what i love about Pete's films
Best version of the Kong franchise. John Williams' score still haunts. Peter Jackson is the best
What
I'd like to point out that facial motion capture was flawed science when this film was being made and alot of the character of Kong was done by the animators and not much of serkis's performance came through facially.
'Gribbly's'. What a great word
Just saw it, thought it was great. The last line was cheese though.
At least it's good quality cheese.
keep up the good work badhead
Kong is King.
Do you have any recordings of Kermode talking about The Lord of the Rings films?
The movie is too damn long, but I still like it. Took too long to get to the island, would have liked more of Kong/Ann on the island, and the dino stampede had laughably bad CGI.
King Kong is good, but it could've been great if it was much shorter.
i thought this review was spot on,some of this movie blew me away,the length didnt bother me
Boy!
It was a good thing, but I do wish he made it under 3 hours... because at around the 3 hour mark I stopped caring, which is not a good thing to happen.
Mark used to talk so fast wtf
@TulseLuper That episode is uploading at the moment.
why does he say 'it was beauty killed the beast' and not 'it was beauty THAT killed the beast'?
The Oscars suck because of this and many other things.
look at sarcasm while you're at it, I know my comment wasn't articulate or well argued but a fella can dream, can I?
hahahahahaha its cheese
Evidently, Jack Black's experience put him off serious acting. He's just stuck to the same pantomime gurn that worked for School of Rock, but not any more.
I agree it was technically well done. The non-action effects were very well done, but the action animation was not well done at all. It was so much in-your-face stuff with the Watts character being drown around like a rag doll. Any human being would have died from all that abuse.
He loves them, but he thinks they sag at times, especially in the case of Return of the King.
How come they had enough food for him on the ship? Where did he poo?
I remember seeing this in the cinema. Coming up to the end of it, my arse was sore and I was desperate for a piss. Looking back I not only wish I hadn't waited til the end but left during the intermission, gone home, and taken a piss in my own bathroom.
I think Peter Jackson gets way more respect than he has earned.
i lose interest in watching it if theres only audio
The scenes in New York were fantastic. The scenes on the island were overdone to the point of exhaustion. Excellent CGI though. ***stars.
I would definitely do away with the dinosaur scenes, they're totally unnecessary. But great movie nonetheless.
Lose an hour- yes; an hour- and this would have been a very good film.
3 hours long, do we need to have ONE HOUR on the fricking boat? If was an extra hour of dinosaur fights and action maybe. Who wanted to see more stuff on the boats. Also how could Peter Jackson, make the CGI in LOTR look great (if mildly dated today) make the dinosaurs look so rubbish? The CGI in the prequels look better and more realistic. And Simon was right that ice-skating thing was the dumbest thing, its Taken 3:Takin the Micky level stupid.
The CGI in the prequels looked better? Seriously? Look, CGI can only go so far. The reason the dinosaurs didn't look real has a lot to do with the fact that nobody has ever seen a live dinosaur before. We have no proper frame of reference for how these creatures moved. So, no matter how good the CGI is, our brains will never be truly convinced. That said, the CGI is very well done with proper lighting and textures. It's just the movements that throw you off. FAR better than the CGI in the prequels, which was overly polished and lacked any depth.
Yes CGI is better but the story is all over the place not forgetting it being an unnecessary length being a trilogy an all. They were tonally all over the shop to, here is an awesome piece involving the white council fight off ghosts in Dol Gur Dor to protect Gandalf and now here is a childish bit involving a scruffy bloke dressed as a women with melons for boobs.
Peter Jackson should re-release King Kong 45 to 60 minutes shorter. First scene to go is the frozen pond. And when Kong first sows up he beats his chest.. for ever! All right I get it, he beats his chest, enough already.
The natives on the island were too ugly, dirty and creepy. The bugs freaked me out bad, BUGS!!! but they should stay.
My point is that it could be an awesome movie if it was shorter.
I thought King Kong was really poor, oh well. Maybe I just don't care about herds of dinosaurs falling off cliffs.
I am SHATTERED to discover Mark liked this movie. I think I have never more painfully wanted out of a cinema in my life that when I sat through that giant piece of garbage.
I have to disagree with Kermode here. It really is a terrible movie. WAY too long, too much puppy eyes between Kong and the Watts character. Jackson seems to try way too hard to make it authentic. He focuses too much on sub plots and uninteresting scenes (action and non-action). To me the original treats the material perfectly by not taking it too seriously and not being too long.
for me Jacksons kong is possibly the worst blockbuster directed by an important director in history. I truly disagree with kermode on this
Not a fan of this film.
Terrible film
Ahhhhhh, King kong, I remember seeing King Kong in the cinemas with my Dad age 6, I don't he quite new the amount of violence
Must have been 13 when this came out, by then I'd pretty much gotten over all of my childhood squeamishness but those worms still freaked me the fuck out.
Ah, tourettes.
@@malcolmgerald He said “fuck” once, you fuck.
@@malcolmgerald
?
"The lake" is not a problem at all: how can you complain about the lack of scientific accuracy in a film where a giant ape fights dinosaurs?!
This is the best remake I have ever seen. Far better than the original.
this has got to be one of his most positive reviews.
Gotta love a Giant Weta!!
Watched this with great anticipation and was totally disappointed. It felt contrived and plastic and it doesn't have anywhere near the heart of the 1975 movie which featured Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange and nailed the emotional highs and lows so much better maybe because it wasn't relying on computer graphics and an annoying Jack Black.
Its alright, Im not mad on it, I just think its too straight forward and quite simple really. And sorry but I just didnt find the bits with the bugs scary at all, u dont see anything in terms of detailed violence. I mean Jurassic park for its time, managed to hav a level of violence and at PG rating I think it really did hav its moments.
well I had it at hand so I thought why not share with my good ol mates from YT a few of my valuable inputs? and thats how I ended writing my well based and articulate opinion that hopefully didnt upset you too much
Visually stunning but as a film it's an overblown mess with contrived and phoney emotion, a big disapointment over all.
'Stunning' is right. You get whacked over the head again and again and then wake up later on with no memory of what happened.
Funny how wrong he was about the film 🤣🤣🤣
@MrKeepitunderyourhat Oh sorry, I see what you mean, the original original. Got you.
I think the ice-skating scene was one of the best scenes in the film.
Do you have his Munich review?
Really hated this movie and the original is one of my top 5 movies I adore. And it's not because it's a remake of a movie I love. They can work. "Postman Always Rings Twice', or 'The Thing (from another world)', very definate direct remakes and all 4 movies quite wonderful (but please, please, please can Arrow do the decent thing and get both Postman movies out on Blu). The movie was overlong and self indulgent. And this from a guy who thought 'A Brighter Summer' and 'It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' positively zipped by, and considers 'Stalker' possibly one of the greatest pieces of cinema. And if you think it's not self indulgent I put forward 'The Hobbit' trilogy. A truly ghastly piece of studio money making directed by a man with an obvious love of the source material. Jackson is a good, potentially great, director, but he does not know how to, or even want to, cut the excess fat. Have King Kong and a lone Hobbit (without the weird 120fps) both just hitting the 2 hour mark and you'd have a totally different experience. It's why directors cuts (usually longer)don't always work. Oliver Stone's cut of JFK is still a very good movie, but the original cut is far superior. And with a decent edit KK would lose the ice rink scene, possibly one of the most cringeworthy, vomit inducing, pieces of cinema evr put to film (digital sic). I never disagree with Kermode except when it comes to the utterly dreadful King Kong. People, including me, love the original. Can anyone seriously, hand on heart, say they love the remake?
Just here to point out that, after making a mint, this film sank without trace into the depths of obscurity and we would not even be thinking about it unless the new 'Skull Island' film was out to make a quick buck and then vanish into the same place.
I don't understand why so many seem to dislike this film. It was truly epic filmmaking with great effects, great acting, thrilling and emotional.
Because it was bad
It went on a bit. I wanted to like it, but it takes too long to get going and then it's over the top in a boring way
@@doodooswaggy3825 if it was bad , it would not have been liked by film critics and fans. Saying its bad is your personal opinion NOT A FACT
For once, I agree with Mayo: Black's delivery of "that line" was dreadful. "That line" was overrated to begin with; to stretch it out to that extent (like everything else in this beached whale of a film) was absurd.
And the ice-skating scene was utter rubbish as well. Spectacular? Moving? It was LONG and BORING!
It would be brilliant if King Kong had more elements of The Crying Game. For example. Kong's reaction when he finds out Naomi Watts' little secret. I'd like to see Serkis nail the range of emotions on Kong's face.
I usually respect Kermode's reviews and opinions but i think he is completely off the mark on this one. His statements about Jackson infusing his King Kong with genuine emotion is ridiculous.His changes to the original in terms of plot and characters are pointless, such as making Jack Driscoll a writer rather than the 1st mate for example, adding superfluous uninteresting characters like "Jimmy" and his "mentor"(are we really supposed to care about them?!!) etc... they seem to have more to do with padding the film out to "epic" running time level needlessly.I agree that the character of Kong is realized brilliantly but is undermined by the completely over the top, overblown cartoon level of the "action" sequences which ruin or at least greatly challenge one to maintain suspension of disbelief (Kong-Fu anyone?!!) Finally the schmaltsy shamelessly contrived "relationship" between Ann and Kong owes more to the cheesy 70's remake than the original classic and rings quite artificial as does the love interest between Brody and Watts as they have zero chemistry.Could have been a genuine classic had it stuck more faithfully to the spirit of the original.
Honestly, Mark Kermode, I mean, normally I like your stuff, but who really cares how well a movie of King Kong establishes New York?
god this movie was awfully long and boring...probably would have been better without that horrible cheesy music in the background constantly