<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: King Kong: Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/</link>
	<description>movie review and news blog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:45:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Lost World (1925) - Review</title>
		<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/comment-page-1/#comment-51186</link>
		<dc:creator>The Lost World (1925) - Review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/#comment-51186</guid>
		<description>[...] “King Kong” may have had that sappy love story (that wasn’t even really done justice until Peter Jackson’s remake), but “the Lost World” had twice as many dinosaurs. And I love me some [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] “King Kong” may have had that sappy love story (that wasn’t even really done justice until Peter Jackson’s remake), but “the Lost World” had twice as many dinosaurs. And I love me some [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phoenixrealm &#187; Filmsy Relaunched</title>
		<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Phoenixrealm &#187; Filmsy Relaunched</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>[...] Just look at this paragraph stolen borrowed from the review on King Kong: King Kong trumps its 1937 predecessor in every way. Unless you are a die hard fan of clay apes fighting clay dinosaurs, it is a no-brainer that this movie has made the great artistic leap forward. And whereas the original film had to remind us that there was, perhaps, a moral to the story, Peter Jackson’s monkey-film constatnly holds a sign up to our face in case we are too stupid to see the theme of beauty &#38; the beast. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Just look at this paragraph stolen borrowed from the review on King Kong: King Kong trumps its 1937 predecessor in every way. Unless you are a die hard fan of clay apes fighting clay dinosaurs, it is a no-brainer that this movie has made the great artistic leap forward. And whereas the original film had to remind us that there was, perhaps, a moral to the story, Peter Jackson’s monkey-film constatnly holds a sign up to our face in case we are too stupid to see the theme of beauty &#38; the beast. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DrSpengler</title>
		<link>http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>DrSpengler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmsy.com/reviews/king-kong-review/#comment-13</guid>
		<description>The Ninja and I can agree on one thing; this is certainly the best King Kong movie to date.  Better than the original where Kong was played by an uncreditted Gumby, better than the Japanese movies where Kong was played by a pile of carpet samples, and certainly better than that 70's remake where Kong was a 100ft rapist.

The movie is gorgeous in every conceivable way.  The only time the effects slip is during a brontosaurus stampede that was, admittedly, utterly pointless other than for the sake of killing off some 7th tier characters.

And speaking of characters, the one character you sympathize with most, the one character you pay the most attention to, the one character who is the most believable, the one character who displays the best acting talent, and quite possibly the one character you'll leave the theater remembering their name...is the giant GGI monkey who was never actually there.

Nearly all the side characters who are introduced in the first (criminally slow, to some) hour of the film are completely dropped after Kong is hauled off of Skull Island; making all their developement during that first hour and some change seem absolutely pointless.  Especially that teenage kid we never hear from again.  His defining moment in the film was "Oh no, the black guy just died!"

Then there's Jack Black.  The problem with Jack Black is that he's playing Jack Black.  I don't care what his character's name was supposed to be in the film, because he wasn't playing a character.  He was playing Jack Black.  And at times, unfortunately, that can draw you out of the experience.  However, for every time Jack Black tries to sabotage the movie there's some gorgeous moment in which Kong munches on some bamboo or skull-*bleeps* a V-Rex to make you forget about it.

Then there's the "romance" between Kong and Ann which is the most believable version of that relationship to date.  Kong isn't some massive pervert trying to undress her like in the 70's version, he's just lonely and she makes him laugh.  Kong's implied to be the last of his kind, if you notice all the monkey skeletons in his cave (another fine little detail), so the fact that his only friend in the whole wide world is some tiny little blonde he kidnapped is both pathetic and touching at the same time.

In regards to the length issues, yes, that first Kong-less hour can be painful to those with short attention spans.  And yes, much of the character developement goes absolutely nowhere.  But let me say this, pointless character developement is better than NO character developement.  And when all those guys get hurled off the log and into the pit of man-eating bugs you at the very least are left to think "Awww, that was the Chinese guy who was friends with the Australian guy!".  So the fact that the movie can leave you knowing or caring at least that much about the cannon-fodder characters says something.

The movie has its problems, for certain (too long for little kids, too romancy for teenage guys, Jack Black, some lapses in CGI quality, Jack Black) but nothing is perfect, and this is an A-level movie any way you look at it.

Because holy crap that fight with the V-Rexes was awesome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Ninja and I can agree on one thing; this is certainly the best King Kong movie to date.  Better than the original where Kong was played by an uncreditted Gumby, better than the Japanese movies where Kong was played by a pile of carpet samples, and certainly better than that 70&#8217;s remake where Kong was a 100ft rapist.</p>
<p>The movie is gorgeous in every conceivable way.  The only time the effects slip is during a brontosaurus stampede that was, admittedly, utterly pointless other than for the sake of killing off some 7th tier characters.</p>
<p>And speaking of characters, the one character you sympathize with most, the one character you pay the most attention to, the one character who is the most believable, the one character who displays the best acting talent, and quite possibly the one character you&#8217;ll leave the theater remembering their name&#8230;is the giant GGI monkey who was never actually there.</p>
<p>Nearly all the side characters who are introduced in the first (criminally slow, to some) hour of the film are completely dropped after Kong is hauled off of Skull Island; making all their developement during that first hour and some change seem absolutely pointless.  Especially that teenage kid we never hear from again.  His defining moment in the film was &#8220;Oh no, the black guy just died!&#8221;</p>
<p>Then there&#8217;s Jack Black.  The problem with Jack Black is that he&#8217;s playing Jack Black.  I don&#8217;t care what his character&#8217;s name was supposed to be in the film, because he wasn&#8217;t playing a character.  He was playing Jack Black.  And at times, unfortunately, that can draw you out of the experience.  However, for every time Jack Black tries to sabotage the movie there&#8217;s some gorgeous moment in which Kong munches on some bamboo or skull-*bleeps* a V-Rex to make you forget about it.</p>
<p>Then there&#8217;s the &#8220;romance&#8221; between Kong and Ann which is the most believable version of that relationship to date.  Kong isn&#8217;t some massive pervert trying to undress her like in the 70&#8217;s version, he&#8217;s just lonely and she makes him laugh.  Kong&#8217;s implied to be the last of his kind, if you notice all the monkey skeletons in his cave (another fine little detail), so the fact that his only friend in the whole wide world is some tiny little blonde he kidnapped is both pathetic and touching at the same time.</p>
<p>In regards to the length issues, yes, that first Kong-less hour can be painful to those with short attention spans.  And yes, much of the character developement goes absolutely nowhere.  But let me say this, pointless character developement is better than NO character developement.  And when all those guys get hurled off the log and into the pit of man-eating bugs you at the very least are left to think &#8220;Awww, that was the Chinese guy who was friends with the Australian guy!&#8221;.  So the fact that the movie can leave you knowing or caring at least that much about the cannon-fodder characters says something.</p>
<p>The movie has its problems, for certain (too long for little kids, too romancy for teenage guys, Jack Black, some lapses in CGI quality, Jack Black) but nothing is perfect, and this is an A-level movie any way you look at it.</p>
<p>Because holy crap that fight with the V-Rexes was awesome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
