Review of King Kong (2005) by Vaibhavd. — 19 Dec 2005
I went to watch this despite my rule to avoid $100 million plus extravaganzas. I was seduced by the critics surprisingly gushing response and had to overcome my own tepid feelings for the subject matter of the movie.
In retrospect I greatly regretted this experience. The movie is abysmal and does not function at any level that is expected to be deeper than a video game. Apart from writing a review of the movie, someone needs to write a critical review of the reviews.
How has this film achieved universal acclaim from professional critics? Did Jackson release two prints, one for the critics that was decent and one for the rest of us, that was abysmal? Or for some inexplicable reason, did the critics feel like they had to write the reviews they did.
Most great films get better the more one thinks about them. This movie just seems worse and worse when you rewind it in your mind. The ape effects and Sirkis are good but you can see these parts in the free previews on the web.
These brief moments simply (and not frequently enough) punctuate vast swathes of tedium and idiocy. I recommend that you avoid this movie at all costs.
This review of King Kong (2005) was written by Vaibhavd. on 19 Dec 2005.
King Kong has generally received positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
