King Kong, too long

It’s difficult to describe what King Kong suffers from, but the length of the movie is undoubtedly the biggest factor; it’s a 90-minute film crammed into three hours.

The setting doesn’t help either. The big difference between Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and his expensive re-make of this 1933 classic, is that the latter is set in the real world, whilst the former was carved from a world entirely rooted in fantasy.

It’s not a bad movie, it’s just not a great movie. Sure, Kong looks great, and the action sequences are truly marvellous (with the exception of a few dodgy shots of people supposedly running away from a dinosaur stampede, it’s almost entirely believable) – but, having watched the RKO classic only yesterday on BBC TWO, I couldn’t find a single example of where Jackson’s $200million epic improved upon the original – not even the special effects.

I doubt it could stand up to a second viewing. The dialogue was stilted, and the narrative was transparent – there didn’t even appear to be any effort on Jackson’s part to give his audience the benefit of the doubt.

The slow and disappointing box office start will probably pick up over the next week, because this is exactly the type of movie cinema-goers love; mindless, heartless drivel, with explosions, monsters and running.

Lots of running.

Imagine that

25 years ago today, a nice young man from England was on his way home to see his little boy and was signing some autographs.

For no particular reason at all, somebody shot him.

« Older Entries

Back to top