Almost a week later amid disappointing business results, I am still pondering over King Kong. I added the one sheet to the “Recommended” section immediately after seeing the film and linked it to Roger Ebert’s review. He wrote a very-well thought out review which reflected my own thoughts on the film pretty accurately.
More time has passed and obviously, Kong is not going to be the next Titanic. A friend asked me if I thought it was because it was overhyped. The critical reviews of Kong have been good - great for a summer blockbuster release but tame of a time of year when expectations run high for the next award circuit champion. Indeed, overhyped is a possibility - then again, you need a strong opening and a dramatic dropoff to agree with that statement and if anything, the film is growing momentum.
My main criticism of the film is that it did not need to be 3 hours. I am a movie nut who’s girlfriend is a Kong-nut which meant I was going to see the first screening possible - but I tried to get out of the midnight screen only for the run time. Why is that? Others called out my hypocracy because I was there for the midnight screens of Lord of The Rings but the idea of getting home at 3:30/4am to go to work the next day didn’t seem as compelling as it once had.
I believe that 3 hours covering one plot line and a handful of characters may not be compelling to a lot of people…unless those characters are played by Leo Dicaprio/Kate Winslet and it’s a romance story (Kong ‘05 may not be a love story but is definitely not a romance story). Having seen the film, I can identify plenty of areas where the fat could have been trimmed - namely the scenes involving the first mate of the Venture and the younger shipmate. I also think Jackson had too much of his trademark slo-mo-shakey-push-in cam shots that he used with great effect in the LOTR series.
In film school, I learned what happens when you make a film, concerned only for an audience of one - yourself. They call it “cinemasterbation” (actually they called it masterbation, I call it cinemasterbation). It is obvious that Kong ‘33 had a profound effect on Peter Jackson and his career - I understand what it’s like to receive inspiration and want to recreate the genius not to mention best it. However, I think Peter Jackson got this one more Fanboy than expert story telling in the medium of film - exactly the opposite criticism he received for LOTR.
Fortunately for my enjoyment of the film, I’m a Fanboy too.
Kong ‘05 is not the greatest film in the worrr-horld…it was just a tribute.
I was just listening to Tenacious D - Tribute