Yuku free message boards

Yes, the boat voyage drags on far too long, however I still find the 2005 film  a  mostly satisfying visual feast after the Venture approaches Skull Island; and a compelling fantasy offering. 

Here's just some of the elements I like:

Skull Island looks wonderfully surreal, studio-made, and NOT shot on location  [in keeping with the '33 version].

The jungle scenes look what they are: hand-crafted, with some obvious miniatures adding a delicious sense of unreality. The longshot miniature set of the native side of the wall is delightfully fantastical and non-realistic. Some dertactors claim KONG 2005 'looks like a video game' but I personally appreciate the mixture of pixel CGI characters  against a backdrop of  hand-made studio jungles: there's a good sense of unreality here, and  although not nearly as mystical or mysterious as the KK '33 glass paintings etc, PJ's approach seems well suited to the more fluid camerawork in the 2005 version. 

KONG himself: he has arms like Popeye in some shots, and looks pretty cool in extreme facial close-up: his features are more mobile than was possible in the '33/'76 versions.

The flies buzzing around KONG [who probably seldom bathes]; unseen in '33 or '76

The other Monsters on Skull Island: the V-rexes especially look fanciful and based on 30s-styled  designs , augmented with 21st Century technology.

The relentless pace of the seemingly non-stop chase scenes, after and including the Bronto Stampede: real rollercoaster stuff,  the occassional greenscreen flanging in the Bronto shots adding a crude charm to the proceedings.

The cold ambience on Kong's clifftop lair at night as he sleeps, holding Ann: great atmosphere, and more fully-realized than the O'Brien version. [regretfully no pterodactyls are seen in this Skull Island, though.

The impossible physics as Ann is hurtled around from Kong's paw to feet, during the epic V-Rex brawl: often slated as 'too improbable', I have always seen Kong as a mythical fantasy phenomenon, I have never really wanted Kong to be Earth-bound, and governed by boring rules like gravity and physics, etc---I'm prepared to grant old KONG some leeway here, though evidently PJ went a bit too far for some tastes. so I'm fine with impossible feats---just so long as KK doesn't start 'Puttin' on the Ritz' with top-hat or something.

The skeletal remnants of Kong's ancestors/family, which suggest he is probably the last of his family line,

The entire Empire State Building finale, which supercedes even the original in many respects. Flawless recreation of 1933 NYC skyline [yes, I wasn't around in '33, but how many on this board were?]

The fantastic soundscape in this movie, created by the WETA team  [I think they got the Oscar for this--they sure deserved it] Although KONG '33's limited sound range can be 'beefed up' to a degree thru large speakers, it will always reflect the early talkie period, and nothing wrong with that. The KONG phenomenon is enhanced greatly with modern sound techniques, though. I'm not even sure if the De Laurentiis Kong is in basic stereo, though it's soundtrack is evocative and memorable.

I could easily list more elements I enjoy from PJ' s Kong, but this list was my basic 'primer'.

Most films have boring bits in them--it's quite natural. A 3-hour movie is almost guranteed to have even more boring passages, and in the case of KK 2005, I feel these occur during the first hour, which I usually skip, as they are Kong-free. I have no real desire to keep watching Jack Black's acting prowess repeatedly, when I have the option to skip ahead to the events of battling beasties later on, which I am happier to watch repeatedly.

I often skip the first 40 minutes of the 1933 KONG, not that the early scenes aren't good, but it's the King I really want to see, not flesh-and-blood actors. But yes to watch an entire film is the most honest approach--- but life is too short [for me] to repeatedly watch 3-hour movies on any subject ---even KING KONG, my favorite fantasy movie creation-------I'm afraid.I have more important things to do than watch repeated padding in long movies. I WILL watch the good bits, though-----I see nothing wrong with cherry-picking the best bits out of films. As a fantasy film fan, I will gain nothing from repeatedly watching flesh-and-blood actors talk endlessly on a long boat voyage: that's more for those who appreciate acting, which doesn't include me------- it's the events on an uncharted prehistoric island that captivates my interest, not the build-up, although the '33 version of the build-up  is pretty tolerable compared to the most recent one, which would have benefitted from a lot of pruning.


I only set out to state the bits of the film I did like, not the bits I didn't , [many others have done that already on here, and I do agree much of the early scenes are less than riveting] which is clearly set out in the above posting.

Watched KK '33 at least 500 times over almost 30 years. Full-length about 300 times, but this is a very rough estimate.

Watched KK '76 about 25 times, usually full-length, same with the Toho movies.

I repeat I have neither the time nor inclination to fully take in a 3-hour movie on any subject, it's beyond my capabilities, comprehension or patience, even something extremely serious like the Holocaust documentary SHOAH [9 hours] is impossible for me to fully appreciate in one sitting [I did watch it in chunks] sorry guys it ain't gonna happen for me...... hope the next KONG outing ain't a 4-hour job, going by past form. What does this tell us about the movies put out by Hollywood today?

If I deliberately miss out the first 40 minutes of KK '33, [although I've watched the full version at least 200 [possibly 300]  times, not bad for someone who doesn't appreciate acting]  does this mean I appreciate the work of O'Brien, Delgado and others any less than others on here? This work is almost non-existant in the opening 40 minutes. I know every line of dialog in KK '33, but it's the visuals, not the dialog, that attracts me. My job is pro cartoonist/strip artist so naturally I'm a visual person who is attracted to fantasy. I can't help it if I appreciate SPFX instead of acting technique, it's the way I'm made. I openly admit I apprciate SPFX over acting, even a highly-revered actor like Brando bored the ass off me,* and I own none of his movies, not one!

.I don't see anything clever in watching actors go through the same motions   hundreds of times, when a modern invention like  DVD means this same  time can be spent appreciating the work of stop-motion animators or the WETA team's efforts....Tim: do you think it will enhance my viewing pleasure watching Brody and Black going through their actions hundreds of times in future? It's not a prospect that especially appeals to me, why should I do this, as I see no attraction in this idea? In fact it sounds a crazy waste of time to me! There is simply no incentive.....it's more pleasurable and enjoyable watching Kong and the other creations, using flesh-and-blood actors merely as props . That's all they are in these movies--who seriously watches Harryhausen flicks for the actor's performances? I'd be very interested to hear from anyone on here who watches this type of work to see the non-fantasy elements, like actors and  non-fantasy art direction. 

PS: over the two hours of KK '05 do watch, I've grown to appreciate the less-than-perfect greenscreen flanging , which seems to be the equivalent of the ghosting seen in the Dunning Process used in KONG '33.

* not literally, as far as I'm aware