King Kong

I'm like Peter Jackson - I love everything about the original. Like the director, I know it's impossible to make anything that has it atmosphere, but I'm blown away by this film. Nostalgia everywhere you look, quotes from the original King Kong in every other film field, scenes (the rolling brontosaurs, the fight between Kong and the T-Rex) that could not have been invented by anyone other than Jackson. Beautiful cinematography, music, fun and interesting characters (the best of the supporting roles is Kretschmann's captain)... Just great. But if I didn't know the original film and love it, I'd probably go with a lower rating... By a star. (05/17/2009)

Jackson really loves the monkey and when he enthusiastically says in interviews that he got inspiration for filmmaking from him in childhood, it's not just empty talk. But do we really have to see every detail because of it? When the main characters talk at length about the unknown threat on Skull Island and Kong as the main attraction is seen after over an hour, everything is not alright. Fortunately, what unfolds in the second half is amazing and a perfectly rich spectacle with stunning tricks. Thanks to them and also the uncluttered composition of action scenes, I hardly breathed at times. When the way back home is also a revelation, I can only regret that the slow start put me to sleep for so long. Among the actors, the atypical Jack Black pleased the most, while Adrien Brody in the role of an anonymous hero from next door barely had anything to play. I would like to congratulate Peter on another great cinematic experience and on showing, even after the trio of polished diamonds called The Lord of the Rings, how versatile and restrained artist he is. However, with a slight distance, there is not much that really remains in me, perhaps just the feeling of a pleasant adventure with a good dose of adrenaline, which, however, begins to fade sadly when placed in an attempt at a deeper story. King Kong is a fulfilled dream, but not mine. For hungry fans, dear Bilbo arrived seven years later. 70% (01/14/2006)

I have avoided this film for a long time because I knew I wouldn't like it in advance. In the end, I couldn't escape it, and when I finished it, all the prejudices I had formed about the movie in the past were fully confirmed. There were no surprises. After the huge success of his Tolkien trilogy, Jackson had the film world at his feet, and he could have taken a risk and created any film on any topic. Instead, he chose a story that had been used many times before, was perfectly exhausted, and had a theme that could have been significant in the 1930s, but today can only evoke a sympathetic smile. Yes, Jackson wanted to pay tribute to old adventure literature and B-movies, on which he grew up, as did I. But he would have had to direct the film with a much greater dose of humorous detachment to do so. Essentially, as a subtle parody in the style of Indiana Jones. However, Jackson got carried away by the wave of romance with only a touch of adventure film. The main character is somewhat unnecessary, but above all, the chemistry between him and Naomi Watts as the film's fateful woman simply does not work. Film characters in many cases only recite their positions or appear to gloriously perish shortly after. Otherwise, it is a bombastic, high-budget film, and Jackson's direction does not disappoint. For example, the battle between King Kong with three tyrannosaurs at once, the duel in swaying vines with clapping dinosaur jaws, or attacks by giant insects that take one's breath away. There are a few such scenes in the film, but after they arrive in the city, the film loses momentum, and adventurous action is replaced by overly sweetened romance. With a budget like this, a dozen other films could have been made, and half of them would probably be better. Jackson should have been more judicious. Overall impression: 45%. (01/02/2008)

Whereas every image in The Lord of the Rings had its own weight and was an integral part of a well-thought-out, sensitively constructed and complex whole, every image in King Kong is an eccentricity derived from the mood of the moment and a different approach to the viewer. And the result is an enormous incoherent mishmash that begins with the promise of a distinctive Jacksonian flick (romance conceived through crazy cinematography and editing, enthusiastic filmmaking and the nostalgic atmosphere of 1930s New York), but it continues in the spirit of the pre-digitalized calculus where even a dozen bloodthirsty dinosaurs don’t inspire as much awe as the single, herbivorous one did in the first Jurassic Park. Not even James N. Howard’s music, skillfully combining the needs of a contemporary soundtrack with the formula of Max Steiner’s classic score, could salvage this movie, nor could Naomi Watts’s embodiment of celestial beauty or the touching expressiveness of Kong’s eyes, or the endearing juxtaposition of boulders and ice skating. I’m a fan of Peter Jackson, lost worlds and epic films, but I will shed a tear for unfulfilled expectations and watch the more enchanting and well-balanced Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. (12/18/2005)

The pleasantly old-fashioned opening titles make us forget about the digital escapades that we will witness throughout the film. In every minute of this captivating film you can feel it is the work of Peter Jackson. The same mise-en-scène structure, composition of images, camera sweeps, and even the use of visual effects. Thanks to his direction, the film itself becomes more a celebration of traditional values rather than just an action blockbuster. The lengthy running time does not bore and not a single shot feels unnecessary. The production design is truly impressive, the panoramic shots of 1930s New York are breathtaking. The meticulously crafted visual effects were truly worth the money and you can feel the amazing atmosphere. Even Kong himself turned out to be outstanding. This was made with love for film, as a dream project. It should be taken into consideration. (12/17/2005)