Review: Peter Jackson's King Kong Isn't As Good As It Is Long.
- Mar 7, 2017
- 2 min read
The latest cinematic version of Kong came in 2005 helmed by Peter Jackson, the mastermind behind the stellar Lord of the Rings trilogy. As he turns his hand to remaking classic films, can hem bring Middle Earth magic to Skull Island.
The Great Depression is at an all time high and everyday people are struggling to get by. After Anne Darrow (Naomi Watts) loses everything after the theatre in which she performs is closed. Elsewhere Carl Denham (Jack Black), director and eccentric, is desperately trying to secure funding for a new film, one that involves a mysterious island and a forgotten tribe, all he needs is a leading lady. In a moment of fate they cross paths and so begins a journey of epic proportions.
2005's King Kong might be the best looking monster movie of all time. From the incredible CGI Kong, a digital beast with emotion, nuance and humanity to Skull Island, which has never looked better, the jungles dense and harsh, the various creatures both grotesque and fascinating. The native tribe contrasts sharply with the lovingly recreated 1930's New York, the urban sprawl at stark odds with the dense vegetation of Kong's home. Gone are the days of tombstone teeth and cheesy suits, 2005's rendition of Kong is without a doubt, the best around.
It's well acted as well, easily the best performances and characters the films have ever seen. Jack Black is suitably over the top though it is a little difficult to take him seriously. Naomi Watts is great as Anne Darrow, bringing her all when performing opposite Andy Serkis dressed as a gorilla. Adrien Brody is Jack Driscoll, the hero and love interest, a character far more developed than the original cardboard cutout. Even the side characters are solidly entertaining and there's very little that leaves you wanting.
The action is solid as well, even if it is packed full of digital effects and oozes affluence. But where it falls short is in it's charm. The original, though old, has it's moments where nothing can come close. While Jackson's remake is far more cinematic it lacks a soul, a monster movie without a real purpose.
It's 3 hours long and it doesn't need to be as colossal as it is. While it never feels bloated it does feel long. But that's the biggest problem. It's a solid popcorn flick that will entertain well enough.
Comments