Please don’t expect this review to be too fantastic as I am rather hung-over, but here goes anyway.
King Kong
Overall rating: 90%
Success can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing to many directors. I mean where do you go after a huge blockbuster? George Lucas destroyed his own franchise and made himself universally hated amongst the geeks of this world; James Cameron has yet to follow up Titanic (but I really wish he would. Come on James, it’s not quite the same without you) and many would argue that Spielberg has yet to recreate the magic of Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List. So I’m sure that when Peter Jackson pitched the idea of remaking the classic King Kong we were all a little anxious about if it was going to work or not.
So did it work? The short answer is yes. Is it as good as Lord of the Rings? Unfortunately not, but it’s a damn good effort.
For those of you who don’t know the story of King Kong, (yeah I know such people actually exist *cough*KarenHelenClaire*cough*) it is a pretty simple one. A filmmaker and his crew set out to find an uncharted island on which to shoot their picture. They unknowingly stumble upon hostile natives, prehistoric beasts and a certain big primate. When their leading lady gets captured they go about rescuing her from what seems like mortal peril. However little do they know she is forging a friendship with said big primate, which leads the crew to put aside their morals and think in dollars and cents. Who wouldn’t pay to see Kong, the 8th wonder of the world?
The whole picture is quite simply beautiful; from the lights of New York to the valleys of Skull Island, the whole thing is visually stunning. One would expect little else from Peter Jackson. Another thing you would hope is that the special effects are top notch. Let me assure you now they are IN-FUCKING-CREDIBLE (you’ll let me swear won’t you Neale?) (I suppose – Neale). The fights with dinosaurs, the nasty bug like things and the film’s heartbreaking climax are all so perfect that you wonder how so many directors get it wrong.
As in most films of this genre, the performances of the cast need to be up to scratch because if you don’t care about the characters then all the effects in the world won’t engage you. Naomi Watts is absolutely brilliant as the lonely vaudeville actress, Ann Darrow, who finds a friend in the giant gorilla. The scenes of her bonding with Kong were really rather touching. But I fear she will be overlooked come awards season. The character of Kong himself is another example of technical wizardry, take a bow Andy Serkis for helping to create a beast that one can empathise with (and I take back what I said about CGI last week, Kong looks pretty damn real!). Jack Black brings a certain charm to his movie producer role which surprised me because I didn’t think I would be able to take him seriously. The only weak link is Adrian Brody, but in fairness his character was poorly developed.
And now for the nit-picking!
The only reason Kong did not become the first film to get 100% on my ratings scale is because it has a few pacing problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those retards who cannot sit through a 3 hour film, (although Runcorn Cineworld had its fare share of those!) but the first hour appears to drag a little as do some of the moments on Skull Island. You can forgive it in the long run because the film’s final act is so spectacular, but at the time it felt a little disappointing.
The sad thing about Kong is that it is no way near as memorable as the films it seems to be influenced by (most notably Jurassic Park and Titanic), pretty damn entertaining but ultimately forgettable.
Summary:
It’s pretty ace. You will not have to ask where 3 hours of your life went. Speaking of which, I wonder how I can claim those back from Michael Bay………………….