Friday, 7 October 2011

King Kong (2005)

It is no secret that I detest remakes in general, they often are wholly unnecessary and a cash in on the success of an original movie. Why don’t I hate King Kong?

Is it that it falls into the loophole that allows a very old film to be remade with better technology. Well although this does occur (The Ten Commandments being an obvious example) often the first film is not successful. For example Demilles original silent epic is hardly well known. I would also baulk at any suggestions of a remake of a classic like Metropolis so it isn't that.

vlcsnap-2011-10-07-20h48m47s158Perhaps it survives comparison with the less able 70s version. It does but only because it is better.

Sometimes a remake is a winner because the original wasn't well known. That is patently not the case here?

What ever the reason for its acceptability Peter Jackson took a huge risk adapting such a well loved property. I went in all prepared to hate, conflicted because of my love for Jacksons other work.

Its a good film, not great but certainly more watchable then the original and certainly more exciting if my sons reaction was anything to gauge it by. He had certainly lost several pounds towards the end.

It suffers from being overly long and the first half of the film does run the very real chance of being boring. The middle Skull island is great and then we lose some momentum towards the with an epic conclusion.

One very real strength is the expansion of the loneliness of Kong. It is touched on in the original but by the time this third attempt at the myth comes around the message is clear. WE are the monsters and Kong is a lonely, intelligent ape. The last of his kind.

A fun film, not a classic and not the blockbuster Jackson wanted I am sure but good nonetheless and not insulting to the original.

Daniels Verdict: Awesome

Paul Out.vlcsnap-2011-10-07-20h49m52s38

Web Statistics