King Kong

I appreciate the director's efforts to bring a cinematic legend to the screen in the most sophisticated style, I appreciate the great visual effects and some truly breathtaking and imaginative action scenes, but there's still a little something missing and my favourite from 1933 remains unsurpassed. That's certainly not to say that the new King Kong is bad. On the contrary, Peter Jackson incorporates a lot of new ideas and strange animals into the story, and he lets them run wild, whether on the humans during the unforgettable scene in the deep ravine or during the long battle between the tyrannosaurs and Kong. Perhaps the film could have been shortened a bit and even more suspense could have been packed into it, which Jackson tries to do especially after the arrival on the island, but the romantic scenes with Naomi Watts and her ape admirer, which should be the highlight, don't really play into his hands and instead slow down the already slow pace. An absolutely great spectacle for the eyes and ears, but it simply lacks more verve and momentum. (19/05/2011)

I’ll say it clearly: King Kong is (and has always been) silly, already from the premise. The concentrated stupidity of a story about the love between a fragile girl and giant ape becomes atrocious in Jackson’s version, because when you spend 200 million dollars on something, if you want to make a profit, you need to aim at the lowest common denominator, i.e. the result has to be silly enough to attract the average masses. That’s why we have Jack Black making funny faces, Naomi Watts performing a funny dance for a gorilla that wanted to eat her a moment ago, sailors fighting dinosaurs… and nobody cares that a lot of money was wasted in a shallow megalomaniac kitsch that might be good in the technical categories, but fails in everything else, or rather, doesn’t even attempt to succeed. This is an approach that I will never celebrate. Utter crap, and I’m afraid that Jackson’s better years are a thing of the past. (29/01/2011)

The pleasantly old-fashioned opening titles make us forget about the digital escapades that we will witness throughout the film. In every minute of this captivating film you can feel it is the work of Peter Jackson. The same mise-en-scène structure, composition of images, camera sweeps, and even the use of visual effects. Thanks to his direction, the film itself becomes more a celebration of traditional values rather than just an action blockbuster. The lengthy running time does not bore and not a single shot feels unnecessary. The production design is truly impressive, the panoramic shots of 1930s New York are breathtaking. The meticulously crafted visual effects were truly worth the money and you can feel the amazing atmosphere. Even Kong himself turned out to be outstanding. This was made with love for film, as a dream project. It should be taken into consideration. (17/12/2005)

Just like Carl Denham, Peter Jackson should have had a good producer at hand to keep a tighter rein on him while making this movie. As the saying goes: “less is more" and (even in the extended edition which, unfortunately, mainly contains new scenes with dinosaurs and only here or there something meaningful) King Kong is a prime example of that. The entire island part is over-combined and the fact that Peter was just making his childhood dreams come true here is no excuse for it. The scenes with Kong and Ann are splendid, but unfortunately rather sidelined by scene with the dinosaurs fleeing from other dinosaurs, something that you soon get fed up with. The only scene that works in this pulp dime action respect is the one with Ann, King Kong and the trio of T-Rexes. Basically, as long as Kong/Ann are on screen, then everything is perfect and when they aren’t, then it’s just mediocre. Of course, any objections go aside as far as the New York finale goes (which lasts almost as long as a feature-length movie) and I have no qualms in giving this a full set of stars. ♫ OST score: 3/5 (15/12/2005)

Whereas every image in The Lord of the Rings had its own weight and was an integral part of a well-thought-out, sensitively constructed and complex whole, every image in King Kong is an eccentricity derived from the mood of the moment and a different approach to the viewer. And the result is an enormous incoherent mishmash that begins with the promise of a distinctive Jacksonian flick (romance conceived through crazy cinematography and editing, enthusiastic filmmaking and the nostalgic atmosphere of 1930s New York), but it continues in the spirit of the pre-digitalized calculus where even a dozen bloodthirsty dinosaurs don’t inspire as much awe as the single, herbivorous one did in the first Jurassic Park. Not even James N. Howard’s music, skillfully combining the needs of a contemporary soundtrack with the formula of Max Steiner’s classic score, could salvage this movie, nor could Naomi Watts’s embodiment of celestial beauty or the touching expressiveness of Kong’s eyes, or the endearing juxtaposition of boulders and ice skating. I’m a fan of Peter Jackson, lost worlds and epic films, but I will shed a tear for unfulfilled expectations and watch the more enchanting and well-balanced Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. (18/12/2005)