Went to see King Kong before Christmas and even though it is 3 hours long it needs to be to fit in the story. The story is well put together with a good buildup to the first meeting with the big guy. The time spent on Skull Island was a little long in my opinon with the time spent with the dinosaurs and prehistoric bugs stretched a little bit too long. The characters were good for the most part Naomi Watts was prefect as the damsel and the Ship’s Captain and First mate were well cast. Jack black seemed out of place in a dramatic role and seemed to be out of his depth. Not sure who would have worked in the role but jack was not the right fit. Also Adrien Brody did not come across as the typical leading man and did not convince me that he was more than just a writer caught in circumstances.
The special effects were impressive and the big guy looked very real with incredible facial expressions. I really liked that the story mirrored the original and the film makers did not try and bring into present day or the future. Peter Jackson did an impressive job of telling the love story of Kong and Ann Darrow. Peter Jackson shows he is a genius and love to tell great stories in sweeping visuals. I am really looking forward to more from this great director.
Arghh gives King Kong a 4 out of 5 Well worth seeing on the Big Screen!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.corruptinc.com/2005/12/30/king-kong/trackback
Sunday, January 1, 2006 at 5:37
A.R.Yngve
I totally disagree: the film sucked. My review points out exactly why (see link).
Personally, I reacted most strongly to the significance of making Kong an old, aging gorilla instead of a monster-as-primal-force-of-nature. Briefly put, Peter Jackson’s KING KONG is a “Horny Old Man” plot.
Look: here you’ve got this hot young thing visibly and explicitly falling in love with a grumpy, scarred old gorilla with a human personality.
This is a completely different Kong from the 1933 and 1976 versions. Both previous versions made Kong a beast in his prime, a larger-than-life figure.
Also, in Jackson’s version, the young heroine is *more in love with* than she’s *sensibly afraid of* a giant hungry monster who might kill her just as well as play with her.
In other words, when you ask yourself “What’s it all about?” I think “It’s about an ugly old man needing the love of a much younger and prettier person, and how to make this seem noble, romantic and rebellious - despite the fact that it’s so overwrought, self-righteous and downright perverse.”
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 12:24
Anthony
Good points in your review I still enjoyed the film. I think that each movie had good and bad points and I did suspend my reality check before entering the theater. As I stated I enjoyed the special effects and tried not to analyze the story too closely.