Fabmacca
23-Dec-05, 10:36am
I obviously have very little to do at work at the moment. Reviews a go go!
King Kong (2005). Directed by Peter Jackson. Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson, based on the story by Merian C.
Cooper and Edgar Wallace used for the 1933 movie of the same name.
Yes, it's 3 hours long and yes, it's more or less a very fleshed-out remake of the 1933 original made with a budget about 10million times larger (or something). And, yes, right now, it looks like it will be a big movie but nowhere near as big as the hype would have suggested, box office wise.
But I reckon this is a good movie, subject to all the above points (length, remake, excessive flashiness). I was not bored during the three hours, and I certainly didn't have massive expectations having seen the original and having some suspicion as to where director Peter Jackson would go. (To summarise : more and longer action scenes, much better effects, much more character back-story, padded out to Lord of the Rings standard 180mins+ runtime.)
But what do you want? It's a movie about a giant monkey, in the same way Godzilla was a movie about a giant lizard. If you didn't like Godzilla, it's probably because it's not that good a movie, but the movie making skills employed in the service of King Kong are much higher even though they rely on much the same suspension of disbelief. Well, a little less in the case of King Kong. Huge insects, dinosaurs, giant apes and bats and Jack Black playing an eccentric movie producer while a giant simian falls in love with a female 1/1000th his size, weight and species. Even if she is Naomi Watts. Godzilla, on the other hand, asked you to believe in... Well.. Matthew Broderick as a scientist, among other ridiculous things.
There is something to be said about a good, long story that unfolds without excessive complexity and King Kong delivers this. The music is good, the acting is good and the special effects are top-notch. I didn't have the same expectations going in as I did for Star Wars Episode III and that was probably just as well, but overall my complaints are limited to a few:
1. Giant ape? C'mon. Mammal skeletons can't support that much weight. That's why whales live in water. (Just saying.)
2. Some of the 'last minute escapes' grate on you after a while. The artificial deadlines really are that : artificial plot devices.
3. If I liked Jack Black's character just a *little* more it'd help. Black acts very well, but I wish his character was... Something more. Ask Johnny Depp, he would've eaten up the part.
4. Adrian Brody (lead actor) is a bit too stoic and dapper and passive. He's the heroic lead only because the camera follows him around, not because he's actually much of a hero or much of a lead.
That said, though, the movie has some good moments. Forget CG Yoda having realistic frown lines, here Kong delivers a complete nonverbal performance that's a testimony to good motion-acting by Andy Serkiss (the 'body double' of Gollum in Lord of the Rings). The battle scenes on the island drag a bit, but there's one moment of pathos so complete I can't think of another film that's made me feel that emotion so completely. The final parts in New York are particularly well done - both an homage to the original and a good example of restraint in direction.
It's no epic masterpiece, but I still reckon it's a very well made film in its own right. I was even pleased to see that the original score was adapted for some parts of the movie, which is nice.
I give it 7 out of 10.
King Kong (2005). Directed by Peter Jackson. Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson, based on the story by Merian C.
Cooper and Edgar Wallace used for the 1933 movie of the same name.
Yes, it's 3 hours long and yes, it's more or less a very fleshed-out remake of the 1933 original made with a budget about 10million times larger (or something). And, yes, right now, it looks like it will be a big movie but nowhere near as big as the hype would have suggested, box office wise.
But I reckon this is a good movie, subject to all the above points (length, remake, excessive flashiness). I was not bored during the three hours, and I certainly didn't have massive expectations having seen the original and having some suspicion as to where director Peter Jackson would go. (To summarise : more and longer action scenes, much better effects, much more character back-story, padded out to Lord of the Rings standard 180mins+ runtime.)
But what do you want? It's a movie about a giant monkey, in the same way Godzilla was a movie about a giant lizard. If you didn't like Godzilla, it's probably because it's not that good a movie, but the movie making skills employed in the service of King Kong are much higher even though they rely on much the same suspension of disbelief. Well, a little less in the case of King Kong. Huge insects, dinosaurs, giant apes and bats and Jack Black playing an eccentric movie producer while a giant simian falls in love with a female 1/1000th his size, weight and species. Even if she is Naomi Watts. Godzilla, on the other hand, asked you to believe in... Well.. Matthew Broderick as a scientist, among other ridiculous things.
There is something to be said about a good, long story that unfolds without excessive complexity and King Kong delivers this. The music is good, the acting is good and the special effects are top-notch. I didn't have the same expectations going in as I did for Star Wars Episode III and that was probably just as well, but overall my complaints are limited to a few:
1. Giant ape? C'mon. Mammal skeletons can't support that much weight. That's why whales live in water. (Just saying.)
2. Some of the 'last minute escapes' grate on you after a while. The artificial deadlines really are that : artificial plot devices.
3. If I liked Jack Black's character just a *little* more it'd help. Black acts very well, but I wish his character was... Something more. Ask Johnny Depp, he would've eaten up the part.
4. Adrian Brody (lead actor) is a bit too stoic and dapper and passive. He's the heroic lead only because the camera follows him around, not because he's actually much of a hero or much of a lead.
That said, though, the movie has some good moments. Forget CG Yoda having realistic frown lines, here Kong delivers a complete nonverbal performance that's a testimony to good motion-acting by Andy Serkiss (the 'body double' of Gollum in Lord of the Rings). The battle scenes on the island drag a bit, but there's one moment of pathos so complete I can't think of another film that's made me feel that emotion so completely. The final parts in New York are particularly well done - both an homage to the original and a good example of restraint in direction.
It's no epic masterpiece, but I still reckon it's a very well made film in its own right. I was even pleased to see that the original score was adapted for some parts of the movie, which is nice.
I give it 7 out of 10.