Posted on 12/16/2005 6:02:01 PM PST by heldmyw
'King Kong' Bombing Big Time at Box Office Friday, December 16, 2005 By Roger Friedman
What's happened? Peter Jackson's "King Kong" a three-hour, $300 million extravaganza that wowed advance screening audiences is a catastrophe in the making.
On Thursday, Kong's take was a measly $6,295,755 off $35.5 from Wednesday's weak $9,755,745 opening day. Kong ranks now as the 21st best Wednesday opening ever a dubious distinction.
Something is certainly wrong. It could be the movie's daunting length, or even a slow middle section that would have benefited from cutting. The leads are all solid actors Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Jack Black but none of them is a star attraction. That might be the trouble, but I doubt it.
In fact, Kong seems like a no-brainer. Great special effects, and a main character the ape that is more three-dimensional than a lot of humans in movies this winter.
But there's some kind of snafu, and if Universal doesn't figure it out shortly, "King Kong" could turn into a king-sized headache.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm with you. I just got back from seeing this film at a late show - It was really good - and I thought the other King Kong's were stupid. I loved the way the ape was so expressive. I laughed and cried at this movie - and I also thought it was better than Narnia - which needed more story.
I showed the King Kong advertisement to my English class yesterday (six fanatical movie-going Japanese kids between ages 18 and 26) and asked how many of them planned to see it.
Answer -- none. No interest at all.
Lots of interest about the new Harry Potter, Yamato and the new Geisha movie, but King Kong is not even on their radar.
I can't believe how many people on this thread sound like Liberals, wishing misfortune on guys like Peter Jackson when he goes and makes a totally clean movie with no profanity, no sex scenes or nudity, no gratuitous gore, no Liberal political agenda -- in other words, a guy who makes a movie WITHOUT all the things that we conservatives complain about. You'd think that folks would be praising him for breaking the Liberal Hollywood mold. Yet there are a ton of FReepers who STILL knock the guy, which makes me think of Liberals who are just envious of others' success.
I saw the movie, loved it, and plan to go see it again. Peter Jackson deserves success because he is doing the very thing that so many of us wish moviemakers would do: produce a clean flick with no political agenda.
Well said :~D
been there done that...
didn't even like the original that much, i'm just burned out for life on godzilla type movies.
I just have to say, when my aged grandma first saw Jurassic Park, at the scene where the T-rex eats the guy on the toilet, she turned to me and yelled, "How did they train that dinosaur to DO THAT?!"
I have no desire to see King Kong, because it's three hours long, I'm very busy this time of year, and I heard it had gross scenes of people being eaten. Plus, I already saw the original King Kong.
I first saw (or at least noticed) Brody in the Pianist, Watts in Mulholland Drive, and Black in School of Rock.
I went to see these movies not because I like to go to blockbusters, but because I like what I think are good movies. The thing in common with these movies is that they are both interesting and off the beaten path.
I suspect Peter Jackson is a movie fanatic of the Spielberg mold, and that he was looking at movies such as these for casting King Kong.
Here is what I think about everyone judging KK by its "Box Office Mojo" or whatever.
I suspect Jackson did not make King Kong for the money. I think he made it for himself and for his friends. Having seen it myself now, I think it's pretty good. The first 20 minutes alone are, I think, worth the price of admission in the way Jackson captures the feel of the Depression era (remarkable in my opinion because he's from New Zealand).
If Jackson had wanted to pick name brand actors and actresses, I imagine with the budget that he had, he could have and he would have. But you would not be watching the movie anymore, you would be watching the personalities. Can one imagine Tom Cruise as Jack Denham?
I am not saying it is a perfect movie. Jackson piled it on a little too much-- he could have slimmed it down a little more, held off on some of the special effects in favor of more character development. But that's a quibble. And anyway, I don't think he made the picture as much for the audience as for himself and his friends. That's OK with me-- I think he and his friends have pretty good taste in movies.
I agree with all your assessments.
I saw the movie with my husband (who did not like it) but I did.
I'll admit I covered my face during the bugs sequence (couldn't handle it) but the rest of the movie was glorious.
I found myself paying the most attention during the scenes with Naomi and King Kong. They were beautifully filmed, directed and acted. She is some radiant actress.
I also enjoyed Adrien's performance. I am a fan of his anyway but he brought a great deal of sensitivity to the part.
Jack Black I had a little trouble with. Robert Armstrong, to me, in the first film nailed the part but I felt in some scenes Jack Black was good and in others he was not.
The supporting characters provided good and interesting acting, the young sailor and his mentor, the experienced sea captain and Lumpy, the cook. Gotta love Andy Serkis. Is there anything he can't do?
As mentioned, the special effects were phenomenal but you expect that of a Peter Jackson film. However, the acting is what sold me on the picture.
One disappointment, however, was the music - some parts of it were great - other parts of the movie I could barely hear it. Perhaps I am spoiled by the excellent soundtrack of all the LOTR movies.
Anyway, I will go see it again and I give Peter Jackson credit for tackling such a project.
I thought it was predictable and rather dull. It also seemed like every other scene involved a shot of the ape's eye's with the dame interpreting it as she wished.
I gave it a mental 6 on a scale of 10. Both my daughter and wife were teary eyed on the way out and thought it was great.
I would like to see how the boys vs. girls liked it. A lot of chick flik type scenes IMHO.
I also agree that Black is a little odd for his part. He overacts a bit. Still, I like him in general, I don't mind minor flaws (if it is a flaw-- his character, after all, is a self-promoter), and variety adds spice. Jackson is certainly aware of Black's circus-barker style and by casting him, deliberately intended his performance style to be a part of the film. Someone like Cruise or Pitt in that role would possibly sink the film IMHO...
This is the ONE movie that came out this year that I can safely take my family to see and not worry about political agendas or excessive nudity/violence.
worldwide total as of last night $149,000.000
Heck, I forgot about that movie! Strange flick but she was amazingly hot in that.
Um, this particular conservative likes his nudity, sex and gore as long as its not being marketed to 13 year olds. The complaint I've always had is that movies that subscribe solely to these elements usually end up being horrible.
psst... did you notice that Narnia took over the number 1 position yesterday?
Truly, I wish Peter well. Forgotten Silver is my favorite of his films. Heathers (haven't seen) were also supposed to be well done. LOTR and KK were two life-long dreams and are thoroughly engrossing films. Of the three Ring films, Fellowship seemed truest to the story and the rest were over-the-top, IMHO. KK was similar. Way too many effects (brilliantly done) but often to no purpose. The second and third acts were primarily action sequences and just the hint of a story. I would love to see how Jackson handles a screenplay by another author.
But in honesty, I had a friend who has turned stridently anti-Christian in the last few years. His family begged him to take them to Narnia and he reported to me how much he disliked it. He went on to gloat that Kong would eat Narnia's lunch in every respect and couldn't wait to see it. I haven't heard a word from him about Kong since the release.
I don't understand the divide between the two films either, but there does seem to be two camps that have coalesced about the the films: sympathetic red-staters for Narnia and sympathetic blue-staters for Kong.
I just saw this movie and was waiting for the Liberal agenda. I do feel there was a subtle one although the strong points of the movie overwhelmed it and made it less obtrusive.
Setting the story at the time of the Great Depression is anti business. Making the writer the hero (he is unattractive, puts his art above commercial success, etc.) is very PC. Making the audience for Kong a bunch of callous rich people is PC. Sending the heroine to a burlesque show could be pro feminism. The only non PC thing was the movie actor action hero actually comes back to save the day on the island. Also, the military looks cruel and heartless when they shoot the ape in the back (leftists hate the military).
But I did like the movie as all the PC crap was buried beneath the main story.
Straight days??? More like 14 gay days.
No nudity, true. (Though it is a bit chilly outside, at times...) Personally, I thought it was quite violent. However, the film was sanitized of the blood and gore that should accompany violence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.