Why do I like King Kong more than Lord of the Rings?

Post Reply New Topic

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the most critically acclaimed film adaptation series I know about, yet I found the whole thing insufferable. I could never sit through any single one of the movies; they all felt atrociously long. The only thing I liked about them other than the visuals was Gollum, whom I did pity, yet even then he never got to redeem himself. The strange thing is that I'm actually very fond of Peter Jackson's other three-hour movie, King Kong. That movie's running length didn't bother me nearly as much and I felt much more sympathy for Kong than I did anyone in LotR. Honestly, I don't know why I love King Kong but hate LotR. They're both very long, yet I found Kong much more tolerable.

I actually liked the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy for the most part and I have read the novel. It was actually the second film that deviated most from the novel, although I also didn't like the fact that they cut out the Scouring of the Shire in the last film but I understand why they did it.

yeah... i liked Kong more too. Naomi Watts was just awesome. and yeah, Jack Black was cool in it too!
i have it on DVD.

lotr... i saw it in theaters....but...i could have passed on it.
that one scene in Clerks 2...where they talk about it and the one guy sums it up and makes the nerd throw up... yeah, priceless!

King Kong is one of those mediocre movies that's mediocre not because it's mediocre from start to finish, but because it's equal parts brilliance and awfulness. Just when you've seen something truly amazing, it feels like George Lucas takes over and gives you something just as bad as the worst parts of the prequel trilogy. And yes, the length is a problem, not because the movie as a whole is too long, but because each individual scene is dragged out for three times longer than it should be. Jackson's self-indulgence is insufferable.

It's just your personal preference.

I like Alice in Wonderland more than another Johnny Depp movie that got better reviews, Dead Man. There were several people on this site who said that Dead Man was one of the best Johnny Depp movies, but when I tried to watch it, I was bored for the first half an hour because all Johnny's character did was wander around. I love Alice in Wonderland because I can relate to Alice and the Mad Hatter, and there is never a dull moment in the movie. I couldn't understand why people panned it - their criticisms of the movie made me wonder if we were watching two completely different things.

So basically what I'm getting at is that just because a movie gets good reviews doesn't mean you'll like it, and just because it gets bad reviews doesn't mean you'll hate it. That's why you should form your own opinions on movies instead of listening to the masses.

I haven't seen Jackson's King Kong, but I'm not crazy about Lord of the Rings movies.

I am a HUGE fan of the book, so the movie felt... I don't know. He failed to capture the spirit of the novel.

Soundtrack, on the other hand... It's perfect. It does capture the spirit of the book (imo).

The Lord of the Rings was one of the best adaptations of a novel to a film. Much better than the Harry Potter series, but not nearly as good as The Godfather.

King Kong had a huge gorilla fighting dinosaurs and wreaking havoc around Manhattan. Plus, giant bugs and Tommy guns.

I rest my case. Both are awesome.

I only saw the first Lord of the Rings movie, but I found it very difficult to watch...I had a hard time telling a few of the characters apart and working out where the team was going and why. The length also did me in...I couldn't bear to watch the other two.

I've never actually seen King Kong straight through (only bits on TV), but I did enjoy the video game.