My interest in King Kong was first generated way back last summer when I saw a trailer advertising the release of the film the following December. I was stunned at the recreation of 1930s New York and full of expectancy at the promise of further spectacle. In short I couldn't wait.
Well I have now seen it. Was it worth the wait? Well yes and no.
The film follows the basic outline of the original 1930s movie starring Fay Wray, but develops further the scenes in New York and on the island where Kong is captured. And this is for me the chief problem with the film: we sit waiting one full hour before we get a glimpse of Kong and then another hour before he is caught and taken off the island. Admittedly one sits in awe at the incredible realism created by the films digital artists, but I couldn't help but feel that much of it was self indulgent. The philosopy being: I can do it so I will.
I have to say though the cast were splendid. Joe Black and Naomi Watts had much competition from the special effects but in my view conceded nothing and both gave excellent performances.
Its a shame that someone at Universal couldn't persuade Peter Jackson, the films director, to lop off at least an hour of footage; preferably the jungle episode when one feels that the projectionist during reel change mistakenly inserted one from Jurassic Park! Jackson could quite easily have reinserted the deleted scenes later in a Director's cut DVD.
Judging by audience numbers at the cinema where I saw it, I rather suspect that King Kong will not recoup its huge cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment