First off, let me say that I'm a huge Peter Jackson fan. I loved the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy, and consequently, I was really looking forward to seeing this film, too. Unfortunately, my admittedly high hopes were not fulfilled.
On the plus side, and most importantly, Jackson does an amazing job of portraying Kong both as a wild beast and a caring, compassionate creature. Hence, the end is particularly powerful and touching, and I truly did sympathize with Kong and feel his tragedy. In fact, I was in tears.
On the downside, however, the film has a number of big problems.
First of all, the film is too long. Jackson and his cohorts (Walsh and Phillipa Boyens) spent too much time trying to build up a multitude of characters (namely, the shipmates) who, ultimately, don't matter much, and whom you really end up not caring about, despite all the time spent on their development. Focusing instead on the handful of main characters would have allowed at least a half hour of the film to be trimmed from its needlessly bloated 3 hour length.
Secondly, the action scenes are so over-the-top that they become absurd. Painfully absurd. If you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings films, then recall Legolas' single-handed downing of the Mumakil in "Return of the King." It was a fun scene, but it stretched the bounds of plausibility, almost winking at the audience in acknowledgment of its self-indulgence. Now, imagine that scene amplified ten-fold in both length and brazenness, and that's the kind of nonsense in Kong that had me rolling my eyes, and that had the audience around me audibly groaning.
Compounding the absurdity of the action scenes was the total disregard for plausibly in scripting the actions of the scenes' main participants: the creatures. Simply put, animals just don't behave as idiotically as they do in this movie. I'm no zoologist, but I'm confident that a predator with its mouth full of a huge dinner does not bother to chase after additional prey, especially when it's a mere fraction of the size of its current meal. Moreover, a large herd of gigantic beasts doesn't stampede away from a handful of predators that are comparatively minuscule in scale. For that matter, beasts that gigantic simply don't stampede, period; they're too big. Furthermore, any animal trapped in a situation endangering its life will focus its efforts entirely on self-preservation -- that is, escaping its plight -- rather than stupidly trying to continue chasing a meaningless morsel of a meal. Don't get me wrong; the action scenes are exciting. But when the conflicts they revolve around are fundamentally flawed in concept, you find yourself scratching your head wondering, "remind me; what are they fighting about again?"
-- Spoiler Alert --
On top of those problems, there are a number of plot holes and incongruities. Why do the inhabitants of Skull Island disappear after their sacrificial offering to Kong? I mean, they just vanish! Also, what was the use of the chasm and gate protecting the inhabitants from Kong when ultimately he simply leaps the chasm and breaks through the gate? Once Kong is subdued with chloroform, how do the mere handful of people in the remaining crew get his body on board the ship? When Kong runs wild in the city, why is one street bustling with cars (that careen insanely *towards* an enraged 25-ft ape, no less), while a block or two away, the streets he "escapes" to are devoid of any activity? Isn't "the girl" cold wearing only a party dress while atop the Empire State Building in the middle of winter? I was really disappointed by the holes that easily could have been tied-up with better writing.
-- End of Spoiler --
One last complaint: as fantastic as the special effects are for Kong and the other creatures, surprisingly, many of the effects depicting the boats in the water are laughably fake-looking. Not what I expected from an operation that has proved itself top-notch in other capacities.
Overall, I liked the film for how much Kong's love story and tragedy really moved me. Unfortunately, the film's other flaws were a huge detractor to my enjoyment. I loved Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings trilogy, but in contrast, King Kong is bloated, too long, and too often insulting with its self-indulgent action, at the expense of believability.
On the plus side, and most importantly, Jackson does an amazing job of portraying Kong both as a wild beast and a caring, compassionate creature. Hence, the end is particularly powerful and touching, and I truly did sympathize with Kong and feel his tragedy. In fact, I was in tears.
On the downside, however, the film has a number of big problems.
First of all, the film is too long. Jackson and his cohorts (Walsh and Phillipa Boyens) spent too much time trying to build up a multitude of characters (namely, the shipmates) who, ultimately, don't matter much, and whom you really end up not caring about, despite all the time spent on their development. Focusing instead on the handful of main characters would have allowed at least a half hour of the film to be trimmed from its needlessly bloated 3 hour length.
Secondly, the action scenes are so over-the-top that they become absurd. Painfully absurd. If you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings films, then recall Legolas' single-handed downing of the Mumakil in "Return of the King." It was a fun scene, but it stretched the bounds of plausibility, almost winking at the audience in acknowledgment of its self-indulgence. Now, imagine that scene amplified ten-fold in both length and brazenness, and that's the kind of nonsense in Kong that had me rolling my eyes, and that had the audience around me audibly groaning.
Compounding the absurdity of the action scenes was the total disregard for plausibly in scripting the actions of the scenes' main participants: the creatures. Simply put, animals just don't behave as idiotically as they do in this movie. I'm no zoologist, but I'm confident that a predator with its mouth full of a huge dinner does not bother to chase after additional prey, especially when it's a mere fraction of the size of its current meal. Moreover, a large herd of gigantic beasts doesn't stampede away from a handful of predators that are comparatively minuscule in scale. For that matter, beasts that gigantic simply don't stampede, period; they're too big. Furthermore, any animal trapped in a situation endangering its life will focus its efforts entirely on self-preservation -- that is, escaping its plight -- rather than stupidly trying to continue chasing a meaningless morsel of a meal. Don't get me wrong; the action scenes are exciting. But when the conflicts they revolve around are fundamentally flawed in concept, you find yourself scratching your head wondering, "remind me; what are they fighting about again?"
-- Spoiler Alert --
On top of those problems, there are a number of plot holes and incongruities. Why do the inhabitants of Skull Island disappear after their sacrificial offering to Kong? I mean, they just vanish! Also, what was the use of the chasm and gate protecting the inhabitants from Kong when ultimately he simply leaps the chasm and breaks through the gate? Once Kong is subdued with chloroform, how do the mere handful of people in the remaining crew get his body on board the ship? When Kong runs wild in the city, why is one street bustling with cars (that careen insanely *towards* an enraged 25-ft ape, no less), while a block or two away, the streets he "escapes" to are devoid of any activity? Isn't "the girl" cold wearing only a party dress while atop the Empire State Building in the middle of winter? I was really disappointed by the holes that easily could have been tied-up with better writing.
-- End of Spoiler --
One last complaint: as fantastic as the special effects are for Kong and the other creatures, surprisingly, many of the effects depicting the boats in the water are laughably fake-looking. Not what I expected from an operation that has proved itself top-notch in other capacities.
Overall, I liked the film for how much Kong's love story and tragedy really moved me. Unfortunately, the film's other flaws were a huge detractor to my enjoyment. I loved Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings trilogy, but in contrast, King Kong is bloated, too long, and too often insulting with its self-indulgent action, at the expense of believability.