|
www.kevacho.com
©2002-2024
Kevin Michael Vance
Writer - Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Go Back To Reviews
Title: KING KONG
Director: Peter Jackson
Year: 2005
Reviewed: December 22, 2005
| Rating: |
|
 | |
| |
 | |
| |
Birthday Cake-Second Highest Rating |
[Rating Definitions]
|
|
|
All right… you've heard the reviews, you've seen the trailers, you might even be a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or even, "Meet the Feebles", but that still does not make King Kong a good movie. More to the point it is bad, on many, many levels.
King Kong, Peter Jackson's new 3-hour (yes, I said 3-hours) epic about a giant monkey (sorry Nic… ape) looking for some lovin' receives a BIRTHDAY CAKE review.
There are quite a few things that are wrong with this film: the superfluous use of CGI and "green screens", the 20 minute chase scenes, the 30 minute fight scenes, the never-ending, ridiculous wave of absurd, creepy-crawly's, the melodramatic love story between a 30 foot ape and a 5 foot blond. What's right? Well, Jack Black actually turns in a very memorable performance, and the advancements that WETA has made in computer generated graphics is no less than stunning; regardless of the fact that after a while it all becomes… redundant. You know, I'm getting to a point in my movie-watching career that I hate CGI. However, in saying this, I do realize it's really not the CGI that's to be blamed, but inevitably the director. CGI does not a bad movie make, look at such wonderful examples as "Finding Nemo" or "The Incredibles", and even on a lesser scale as it regards the technology "Serenity" and "The Fellowship of the Rings". No, the blame and the overuse must be squarely placed on the captain of the movie, the director. It's also my belief that well over half the CGI in films is unneeded. Case in point, brilliant films that pre-date the technology such as "Legend", "Blade Runner", "Aliens", and "Labyrinth"… just to name a few. The only reason I mention CGI regarding "Kong" is the simple fact that the computer technology might as well be a character, Jackson's love of the "art-form" is evinced, and misguided.
Inherently, it's the story that really hurts "Kong". Unlike Jackson, I have no love for any of these films, they seem a tad absurd to me (this coming from a devout Harry Potter fan). It takes us, the viewer, at least an hour to get to skull island, with Jackson more than willing to spend an agonizingly long time on an inane back story with Naomi Watts' character. Then when we finally do get to the island we find that it bears a strange resemblance to Mordor, and we must sit through stupid chase scene after stupid fight scene after retarded swinging through vines scene. After "Kong" has battled the 3 pumped-up T-rex's and the humans have battled grasshoppers the size of small dogs we're still left with the glaring question… "HOW THE HELL DO THEY GET KONG IN THE BOAT?"
All in all, do not believe the rumors. "King Kong" is bad. Not only that it's 3-hours bad.
|
|
