Review: King Kong
Probably one of the most anticipated movie this year, and you can breathe now, as the movie confidently delivers. The key is, obviously, doing it BIG. And there’s no denying in the fact that it works. Big budget leads to big sets, big special effects extravaganza and of course a big King Kong. Just like the whole Lord of the Rings series worked so well, so does this movie. Although with a few minor differences.
The script breaks about after the first half of the movie. Changing it from personal story telling to full speed chase mode (leaving no time for real depth of characters) doesn’t go unnoticed. But then again, what a ride it is. With a running time of almost 3 hours, it not boring at any time.
Another difference is that there’s is no real clear-cut hero/villain type, and without the hero to root for, it might subdue the exciment a bit. But just a bit.
So, what earns it enough points to make it DVD (Special Edition, of course) worthy ? Great acting and great casting. Casting Jack Black in a non-comedy movie got me scared, but luckily, it worked quite well. Casting Naomi Watts is of course a non-brainer. Mixing the less serious and very serious actors/characters gives it a nice contrast.
Then there’s King Kong, sending Andy Serkis to Africa to study gorillas really pays off. The uncanny mannerisms integrated in the motion capture is a joy to watch. Money to make him look life-like does the rest. The finishing touch, money does well for atmosphere, the whole 1933 look and feel it nicely recreated (not spoiling the fact of the majestic landscapes during the second half of the movie).
The conclusion is clear, with so much money well spent (including certain shots paid for by Peter Jackson himself, to finish the 3 hour cut he wanted), I’d recommend you spend money to see it.8½.
December 16th, 2005 at 16:38
And so I will. Tonight, actually, avec le babe. You better be right!