Review of King Kong (2005) by Jean-Olivier G — 17 Aug 2014

After finishing one of the best trilogies every put to film, Peter Jackson decided that a second remake of the classic 1933 "King Kong" was going to be his follow up film, two years after his multiple Academy Award winner "The Return of the King".

Its 1933 at the peak of the Great Depression, we follow an actress named Ann Darrow who agrees to be part in a new film by a troublesome director named Carl Denham. Denham is obsessed with finding the mysterious "Skull Island" and filming his movie there so he manages to hire a tramp steamer to make his obsession come true but once they find the island they discover a creature that may kill them all.

With Jackson at head of this film and counting with some A list actors, some of them are actors I really enjoy seeing, expectations about making a worthy retell of the eighth wonder of the world were high but unfortunately Jackson deliver an uneven film with some memorable moments in it but also counting with serious pacing issues. The acting is functional but there isn't anyone that stands out, the action scenes are pretty but aren't engaging, bland characters with absolutely no character arc, Hollywood managed to get Kong right by having Serkis doing the motion capture, the special effects were phenomenal at the time but unfortunately now they look a little dated, the editing is a little weird and even becomes annoying at certain sections of the film, beautiful locations that are enhance by a well done cinematography and while the story is known by everyone, it still has some memorable moments worth all the waiting. The biggest problem with 2005 "King Kong" is Jackson´s slow pacing. Jackson give us tons of unnecessary scenes just because he wanted to make a three hour movie; some people argue that Kong is just a supporting character in his own film but I don't have a problem with the fact it takes some time to see Kong because I like some build up when is done well; that being said, Kong appears after a boring and forgettable hour of needless exposition that never goes anywhere. Another problem with the pacing is the fact the supporting characters are even more develop than the protagonists themselves and after spending two and a half hours with them, they are thrown away in the final section, so what's the point in having them?

Jackson´s version of "King Kong" is a beautifully shot but hollow experience that wastes its talented cast with forgettable characters and an unnecessary slow pace.