Kong

[poliphilo]

Well, it's better than the LOTR trilogy.

Kong must be the most convincing CGI character thus far. So why isn't Andy Serkis given star billing?

But why does it have to be so long?  You don't need 3 hours to tell a fairy story.

The middle section is just too much. Taken one at a time those action sequences are thrilling. Added together, one after another, they become fatiguing. 

And distracting.

Come on, get on with it. We want to see the big monkey on top of the Empire State. That's what we paid our money for.

It's one of cinema's greatest moments.  Jackson does it justice. The wings of those biplanes glinting in the  early morning sun. 

Does he add anything to the original? Not really. Not anything essential. 

Except that its not really about sex any more. Kong doesn't peel Naomi the way he peeled Faye.  Naomi juggles and tumbles for him. They're friends.

Original Kong was raw and transgressive. Freudian. This is kinda sweet.

Comments

[jackiejj.livejournal.com]

The dinosaur scene was interminable.

I found I couldn't watch it more than once, because it was too sad to see Kong undone by love.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It's like he felt he had to compete with Jurassic Park.

Buried in all the overkill is a sweet, sad, little love story.

Jackson has gotten into the habit of making films that are way too long.