In Case Anyone Forgot How Bad 2005's King Kong Was

In Case Anyone Forgot How Bad 2005's King Kong Was

If you ask me, CinemaSins wasted a whole lot of time and effort putting together a 10-minute video detailing the problems with 2005's King Kong. All they really needed was this single still.

I've never finished watching King Kong, though I still have the copy that came free with my Xbox 360 HD-DVD player. The furthest I've gotten is the scene you see at the top of the post, at which point I fall unconscious. I'm pretty sure it's why HD-DVD lost the war against Blu-ray.

Why is CinemaSins picking on poor King Kong? Why, in honour of the upcoming Godzilla movie, that's why. He's a giant animal, he attacks a city — same difference. Besides, they already covered 1998's Godzilla ages ago.


Comments

    When will people realise that Peter Jackson isn't good at big budget. LOTR was good (not great)... Hobbit is pretty average at best, King Kong was horrible... but all of this films prior to the Frighteners were inspired bliss. I mean even his serial killer chick flick Lovely Bones was awesome compared to his studio projects.

      I still love Bad Taste. Don't care what dem haters sayin'.

        see below, for whatever reason it didn't reply directly.

      King Kong was good. If you consider the original material and how close he kept the story (which is pretty rediculous) he did an amazing job. I'd much rather see big budget stuff he did than someone like Michael "Your ad here" Bay.

        You can't actually compare the two... one was an indie director who got a big chance trying to turn a book into a film whereas the other was a car commercial director who happened to make some of the greatest action films of the 90's while also destroying our childhood understanding of the 90's.

        I have more respect for MB due to Bay Boys I and II, The Rock and Pain and Gain.

          Never seen Bay Boys. Is It good?
          To me it's evident he made commercials because every movie he touches is about as shallow as one. Not to mention all the products he pushes in the obligatory 2 hour slot.

            I can answer that - Bad Boys is over-long but okay. Bad Boys 2 is a monstrosity of epic proportions and is one of the worst movies ever made. It is beyond garbage and exists as a form of torture. Truly terrible.

            Bay Boys is a lot of fun. Bay has always been great at ensemble casts, when the talent is there. He's also one of the few American directors I can think of that enjoys hiring Peter Stormare other than the Coen brothers.

            Another thing about Bay is he doesn't care about peoples' opinion of his films. He makes them because he enjoys it. He's a tradesmen of a director if you will. Give him a blueprint and he will create it in the most grandiose American way possible. I still crack up when people blame him for Transformers. If you want to point blame, blame Mattel. They're the ones who pushed for a feature film, and also the ones who asked for it to be as 'open' to age groups as possible.

            I also don't really get the advertising thing people talk about. All big budget film is an advertising shit storm anyway. In none of his earlier films, nor in Pain and Gain does he make hardcore attempts to sell a product. TF on the other hand is a product so what option do you have. They were after all a toy first and foremost.

      LOTR might have lost it's luster a bit but you've got to admit the first time you watched it, it was amazing. And it's still a great way to spend a day (if you've got the time)

    oh dude Bad Taste is awesome. I just don't rate his big budget stuff... Braindead, Bad Taste were awesome. He reminds me a bit of Del Toro in that he is great at small scale intimate films (horror in their case). Sadly like Del Toro he generally misses more than hits. Del Toro nailed Hellboy 2, but the first one and Pacific Rim were just 'meh' at best IMO. go back to making things like Cronos.

      Wow... I thought Hellboy and Pacific Rim were fantastic and that Hellboy 2 was a meandering piece of garbage that completely lost the entire aesthetic of the series and was geared towards making the most bland, commercially friendly movie possible (Except for the angel scene. I felt that really worked and was really out of place given the rest of the movie).

      Not saying you are wrong, I'm just surprised that I can read your posts about Jackson's early work and sit there nodding my head and then get to that bit and think "What? Oh... god no!"

        I actually forgot to include Blade 2 in his good films as well as Pans Labyrinth. Both of those are awesome. At the end of the day if you enjoy a film, that's sweet, and I can't hate anyone for it. Someone made it with the hope that people would just enjoy.

    I enjoyed Peter Jackson's version more so than the 1976 version (it was ok, but you can compare it to what people say about Peter's version - too long, bloated and useless scenes) and its terrible, terrible sequel - King Kong Lives. And I have a huge disliking of nitpick "humour" so I'll have to pass on watching the video.

    Peter Jacksons King Kong is an excellent enterpretation of the original classic, and I do not think anyone else could of done it better. I can understand the perspective of those who've never seen the classic King Kong, and if your interested, watch the original and then re-watch Peter Jacksons version and then see what you think.

    An interesting thing to point out is the classic Hollywood tropes' of PJ's King Kong, are there on purpose. But would definietly come off as cliched to someone who didn't know why.

    Bad Taste is fun, but shite. Good for a kid and some friends making a film, but mostly boring, and that effin machine gun sound effect constantly repeated...

    Such as the dino stampede scene which is made to look like the classic rear-screen projection special-effect. The modern twist being the dynamic camera.

    The romance scenes between giant ape and regular woman were creepy and weird.

    It's not a bad movie but it'll never top the original. One of the biggest problems with the remake is that it involves stockholm syndrome which is just so wrong and the movie is extremely long which is to be expected with current Peter Jackson movies. In the original Kong was a man eating monster and the women was genuine terrified of him.

    But let's look on the bright side, at least Peter Jackson's King Kong is actually better than the 1976 remake.

    for the crappy story that king kong is, that movie was good. i dont think you can do better with that material. i really liked kong vs trex bit.

    Our Kong was better!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHLnJEUxLqk

    I thought the giant penis leech monsters would get a mention.

    Pan was brilliant. I didn't like the final scene, but the rest was great.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now