Review of King Kong (2005) by Bill R — 08 Aug 2016

As good as the original.

That is really saying something as the 3+ hour run time had me convinced I wasn't going to like it.

First the negatives - too much goddamn B-Roll. Peter Jackson I know you love showing us New York and the harbor in 1933, but a five second establishing shot is plenty. There were countless examples of WAY too long shots of mostly nothing.

Second negative, spend some CGI money on something other than Kong. Some of the scenes on Skull Island, specifically "the running of the dinos" were laughable. Really badly done. Jurassic Park had better effects and pre-dated your movie by a decade.

The Jack Black was awful. Across the board. I really didn't think he could be unlikable in anything. Boy was I wrong.

Finally Jack's last line - the iconic one - didn't land at all because they spent so much time showing us that she loved Kong. She didn't kill him. She tried to save him. They should have found a way to make that line work and they didn't.

Now the good stuff - contrary to my last point, I loved the extra attention on the relationship between beauty and the beast. I'm a softie. That really worked for me and Kong's expressiveness was tremendous. The scene on the frozen pond was pure movie magic.

Kong ripping through NY was simply amazing. As was his fight with the T-Rex pack.

I loved all he little touches. The credits with the same design, putting the Kong costumes from the original into the musical number in front of Kong, etc, etc. It was very clear that Jackson has a deep and abiding love for his source material.

In the end, the positives far outweighed the negatives. I wouldn't say it's better than the original, but it's just as good.