Carl Denham needs to finish his movie and has the perfect location; Skull Island. But he still needs to find a leading lady. This 'soon-to-be-unfortunate' soul is Ann Darrow. No one knows what they will encounter on this island and why it is so mysterious, but once they reach it, they will soon find out. Living on this hidden island is a giant gorilla and this beast now has Ann is its grasps. Carl and Ann's new love, Jack Driscoll must travel through the jungle looking for Kong and Ann, whilst avoiding all sorts of creatures and beasts. But Carl has another plan in mind.Written by
The color orange was deliberately kept off-set, and in the lighting effects, because it was found to create an odd effect on Naomi Watts' piercing blue eyes. See more »
(at around 1h 35 mins) Before Kong picks up Hayes, he fires a shot from his pistol; then he is seen cocking his weapon again while he is in Kong's hands. He was shooting a semi-automatic pistol, so there was no need to cock the gun again. See more »
That's a funny one. Isn't that funnier?
See more »
At the end of the closing credits: "This film is dedicated with love and respect to the original adventurers of Skull Island: Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack, Willis H. O'Brien, Max Steiner, Robert Armstrong and ... the incomparable Fay Wray. They continue to inspire all those who follow in their footsteps." See more »
On November 14, 2006, an extended edition DVD was released with 13 minutes of additional scenes edited back into the film. Denham's party is attacked both by a Ceratops immediately upon entering the jungle to rescue Ann and by a giant fish while on rafts on a river, after which they kill a giant bird while firing blindly into the jungle (the longest addition by far). Baxter's rescue of the party is extended and finishes with Jimmy's farewell to Hayes. Kong's pursuit of the party on Skull Island and his pursuit of Driscoll in NYC are slightly extended, and there are two brief additional encounters between Kong and the military in NYC. A complete breakdown is at http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=3550. See more »
Great Special Effects But Not An Especially Great Movie
I've seen the original film before this one, and while it lacks the sophistication of Jackson's remake (remember, it was done during the Great Depression, so probably the budget was limited), at least the plot was a bit more believable, and straight to the point. No dithering over how the heroine lands a movie role after losing her job in the vaudeville, and all that jazz. Frankly, I felt like stopping the DVD after the initial half-hour of watching - was wondering when the ape and monsters would show up and start their destructive work. Only reason I kept on was to get my $3 worth in renting the movie.
Sure enough, the special effects are fantastic, and that itself might merit watching the movie, if only to amuse kids, animal freaks, and those into action-adventure-what-have-you sort of films. But still I find a lot on (scientific) inconsistencies which I am sure were also noticed even by the most common viewer, as well as the more obvious everyday ones. Like how come Kong (remember, the "King" appellation was given to him by the white men, not the natives) comes away with just a cut on the chest and without wounds on his arms after tackling 3 T-rexes, especially when one of them clearly bit him on it. And the T-rex supposedly has the strongest bite per psi of all animals. And wouldn't T-rex struggle to free itself first after getting tangled in vines, instead of trying to fight off an enemy ape or endeavour to catch its prey (Ann Darrow). Also, raptor dinosaurs were supposed to be the smartest of their kind - wouldn't it have been inane and a death-wish to be plunging into a herd of stampeding sauropods in the hope of catching one of them, instead of waiting in ambush and isolating a likely target, w/c most dinosaur experts concur is how raptors hunted? Even human or animal hunters wouldn't consider such folly.
And how come Ann Darrow escapes from Kong's clutches with hair still gleaming and untangled and her clothes unspoiled and unbesmirched with filth, having been dragged through feral humid jungle? But then, anything can happen in a movie, I suppose...
All in all, I would rate the movie as good but not especially great. Kudos to Peter Jackson for at least trying to do a modern uptake of a classic epic film. But please, no re-make of Gone with the Wind or the African Queen, please .....
8 of 11 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this