Wednesday, February 01, 2006

King Kong - Review by Request

I've been asked to provode my opinion of yet another remake, "King Kong." Once again, I feel that this remake missed the mark. Filmmaking's hottest director, Peter Jackson, created this film as an homage to the original film, which he credits with inspiring him to become a filmmaker.

The new "King Kong" is a beautifully shot production, with visual effects that are, in many cases, nothing short of astounding (I thought the skyline of 1930's New York was especially effective). Everything, including the acting style, was presented to recall the filmmaking style of that era, as combined with the mega-budgets of the early 21st century.

What hurts this new "Kong" the most is it's length. At 187 minutes (over 3 hours), it feels overly long. This epic film also becomes an epic test of endurance. An adventure film should never drag. This does during the first half as the audience awaits the Big Show.

Consider "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which was, in a way, also an homage to thrillers of the same era. That film, according to the Internet Movie Database, was only 115 minutes long, and kept the audience on the edge of their seats throughout the entire film. Most three hour films would be vastly more entertaining at two hours. The new "King Kong," I believe, might have been a better tribute to the original at two hours - or, like the original, at an hour and 44 minutes.

1 comment:

Stephen said...

I couldn't agree more. My only other problem with that movie was the stupid actress in love with Kong who kept putting herself in danger on the Empire State Building after Kong kept taking her out. I so wanted to bitch-slap her. I don't remember Fay Wray being so dumb. Ape love? Indeed.