I have been a fan of Peter Jackson's work since "Heavenly Creatures" and throughout the "Lord of the Rings" series. At the same time, I questioned what he could bring to a remake of King Kong. Therefore, I went to see King Kong with some mixed emotions. I came out with a great deal of disappointment.
While some of the effects were great and Jackson brought the great ape to life as only modern computer animation makes possible, the story is really not much more than a retelling of the same tale as in the 1933 version, with little new (besides the effects) to offer. The fine acting by Brody, Watts, and Black were not enough to save this film from mediocrity. Surprisingly, the special effects were not always up to par, either. Too often, the Ann Darrow image in Kong's clutches looked like a doll, and computer-generated (CG) humans moved like they were CG. It seems that Jackson's WETA effects team put all of the efforts into the animals and little into the humans.
Add to these shortcomings what I would call the physics problems. Kong climbs and swings from objects that would not come close to supporting a beast of his size, and Darrow's neck would certainly snap from the way Kong whipped her around in many scenes. I could have overlooked some of these physics problems had other elements of the film been better, but it is clear that Jackson has faltered in this effort.
IMDb ratings tend to be higher early after a film's release because movies will be seen first by those more likely to enjoy the film. Despite this effect, Jackson's Kong trails the original slightly in IMDb ratings at the time of this posting. This should tell potential viewers something.
While some of the effects were great and Jackson brought the great ape to life as only modern computer animation makes possible, the story is really not much more than a retelling of the same tale as in the 1933 version, with little new (besides the effects) to offer. The fine acting by Brody, Watts, and Black were not enough to save this film from mediocrity. Surprisingly, the special effects were not always up to par, either. Too often, the Ann Darrow image in Kong's clutches looked like a doll, and computer-generated (CG) humans moved like they were CG. It seems that Jackson's WETA effects team put all of the efforts into the animals and little into the humans.
Add to these shortcomings what I would call the physics problems. Kong climbs and swings from objects that would not come close to supporting a beast of his size, and Darrow's neck would certainly snap from the way Kong whipped her around in many scenes. I could have overlooked some of these physics problems had other elements of the film been better, but it is clear that Jackson has faltered in this effort.
IMDb ratings tend to be higher early after a film's release because movies will be seen first by those more likely to enjoy the film. Despite this effect, Jackson's Kong trails the original slightly in IMDb ratings at the time of this posting. This should tell potential viewers something.