ETAndElliot4Ever wrote:
1933 Kong: 1 hour 40 minutes
2005 Kong: 3 hours 7 minutes
Character development's one thing. This film is just way too bloated.
In the middle of the depression it WAS a pretty big deal to make a monster movie that lasted as long as Kong did. Frankenstein and The Invisible Man were 71 minutes apiece, Dracula 75. Kong's roughly half an hour longer, pretty much the equivalent of a 3-hour movie these days. The only thing I considered to be "bloated" was the bronto stampede, which went on way too long and looked like crap -- probably an eleventh-hour addition.
Personally, I think DGL's comments were right on the money. This thread is filled with way too much "analysis" that comes across less like well-considered criticism and more like Star Wars sheep shaking their little fists and crying "NO ONE'TH ATH GOOD ATH LUCATH!" Some of you sound like you only had $10 left to your names and you deeply resent being forced to spend it on a ticket for Kong. Get some more fiber in your diet, for Christ's sake.
