I went to see the film last night; I agree that it was far too long. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with a three-hour long film if something is happening and the plot is moving along (the Harry Potter films come to mind). But in Peter Jackson's version of King Kong has far too much filler and has far too many unneeded scenes. Did the giant insect scene really contribute to the plot, or did Jackson simply want to gross us out?
I would have liked to have seen more of Kong as well. Not necessarily scenes of him fighting monsters and running through the forest, though. What seems to be the most interesting part of the movie was the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. Perhaps Ann is suffering a bit from Stockholm Syndrome, but she's the only one who understands Kong and is able to stand up to him. But no, most of the film involves people being chased by dinosaurs and giant bugs. Ho hum.
I agree with you, but I don't think the relationship between Ann and Kong is the most interesting part of the film because it's a great story or a great idea for a story. I think it's the most interesting part of the film because Watts and Sarkis give such impressive performances. I found myself crying when the bazooka fire destroyed their idyllic scene on the skating rink--even though I thought the whole love plot was a stupid idea from the get-go.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It was ok, not great, not bad, just ok
I would have liked to have seen more of Kong as well. Not necessarily scenes of him fighting monsters and running through the forest, though. What seems to be the most interesting part of the movie was the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. Perhaps Ann is suffering a bit from Stockholm Syndrome, but she's the only one who understands Kong and is able to stand up to him. But no, most of the film involves people being chased by dinosaurs and giant bugs. Ho hum.
Re: It was ok, not great, not bad, just ok