'King Kong' Bombing Big Time at Box Office

FoxNews ^ | December 16,2005 | Roger Friedman

[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.

[BradyLS]

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.

That's sounds about right. The weepy end was totally out of Titanic where the DiCaprio character lets go of the raft and sinks under the waves.

[HitmanLV]

I don't think any of that stuff you cite is notably PC in this film. In fact, much of it is present in the original film.

[staytrue]

I don't think any of that stuff you cite is notably PC in this film.

I agree, and I think that is what I said.

I will say that the upper class was shown with little or no redeeming value, while the lower class was never portrayed in a negative light.