| A few days ago I went to see PJ's King Kong a second time. This time, I sat closer to the screen, and brought my large stuffed King Kong doll for comfort. I'm 60, sue me. A few quick thoughts: The film worked better the second time around. I liked it the first time, but this time it went by even faster. Unfortunately, the problems remain. King Kong is a terrific film, but not a great film. I'd give it 8.5 out of 10. The reasons why it does not get a 10, much as I would like to give it one: --kill the slow motion stuff. There are better ways to indicate dread. --Jack Black just doesn't really have the acting chops the Carl Denham role requires. His character is incredibly unpleasant. Black seems too young and, sigh, too light weight. Adrian Brody I thought was ok (not fabulous, but ok). Naomi Watts, I believe everyone agrees, was perfect. And I do agree with JoBlo that Andy Serkis & his Lumpy the Cook was my favourite. --some scenes do go on too long in that they just kept repeating the same thing (dino stampede, intro to Skull Island, etc.). --far too much time was devoted to landing on Skull Island, etc., doing nothing for the film. --the depiction of the Natives is, yes, savage, and is suitable for the island. However, it is still troublingly racist feeling. --like everyone else who's commented, we all know that PJ was trying to humanize parts of the crew, but all the scenes between the First Mate and the young crew man can be cut. They went nowhere. --King Kong's teeth looked fake the more I looked at them. --fancy fast editing of the type used in cheesy martial arts movies to hide the fact that the actors can not do the martial arts. The Kong v. T Rexes battle, for example, was cut that way, so that half the time it was difficult to even know what was going on. While this was exciting, it was an artificial excitement. I personally prefer spectacle: as in the original Kong, or in the Harryhausen movies, what you see is what is exciting--you don't have to hoke it up. --a great deal of effort went into Kong and making him emotional. That paid off, in spades. However, ALL of the other animals on the island were simple eating machines, lacking in any kind of character. In the original, the T Rex stops for a quick head scratch, the bronto snarls before chomping the sailor who climbed the tree, etc. There is not a lot of that, but if you look, it is there. It is not just monsters lunging at each other. Although the CGI was terrific, most of the monsters lacked any real personality. --the film seemed to lose some energy by the time it reached New York. None of the scenes in New York, including the central destruction scene in Times Square, matches the original, especially the original Kong attacking the elevated train. The slipping on the icy pond was nice, but Adrian Brody trying to distract Kong (distract Kong from what?) by driving around did not work very well. All that said, blah blah and blah, I enjoyed it even more the second time. I still see no CGI problems, although I find it impossible to believe only a few crew members were trampled in the dino stampede. The Kong/Darrow relationship is a great. Note: I saw the film both times in a "Silver City" a large scale modern theatre with a big, curved screen. The first time, with my daughter, I sat up fairly high as she does not like being close. The second time, with her & my son, we sat much closer. When the big screen fills your vision, the film is spectacular!! |