King Kong (2005)
7/10
Took too long to get going, but then was good.
7 March 2020
I heard of 'King Kong' but never watched any movie until this one and immediately afterwards watched the original one from 1933. The old movie really is like a blueprint except they improved a lot of things in the 2005 version and unfortunately also made some things worse.

Improvements would be the emotional part between Kong and Ann, obviously the added CGI, especially in the important scenes with Kong. And the production overall.

What was made worse is the length, 3 hours+ is too long for this one or the love story between Jack and Ann which overshadowed the connection between Ann and Kong.

Also I didn't enjoy the first half of the movie as much as I did the second one. There were a lot of things going on which either weren't believable or elongated. Some characters didn't have the right personality or maybe it's just that I would've enjoyed other actors for some roles more. Daniel Day-Lewis as Carl Denham for example. Paul Dano as Preston or Jimmy. I could put up a whole list now but I guess it would contain too many stars in one movie which also would be unrealistic.

It's a decent remake, has it's good moments, but it's not perfect either.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed