Quote:
Originally posted by The STE
How overtly did they say that? Was it an inferrence by the tone of the review and the overall attitude towards the movie, or did they actually out and out say that?
|
Well, I thought it was pushy firstly because I thought the romance between Ann Darrow and Jack Driscoll was badly drawn; I felt a romance was being forced on the audience very quickly--a romance that was prefabricated in the sense that Ann was already starry-eyed over screenwriter Driscoll before she'd met him. I didn't personally feel a sense of attraction between them. It was more like, "Here's your lovers, folks, they'll be kissing in a minute, there's sure to be some jealous rivalry once they get to that island with the big ape." I have nothing against drama, but I like it to be well designed.
Exposition in New York was choppy and didn't flow. Jack Black a talented performer but miscast, and not a likeable character...Robert Armstrong's 1933 Carl Denham was much more likeable, which I preferred. Both risked the lives of their crew, but the newly-rewritten character seemed much colder and exploitative, a real Hollywood jerk, whereas the original character was a friendly but reckless adventurer.
I did however feel that they delivered the effects in spades, and generally the effects were remarkable. The production is gorgeous. Kong the animal/character was beautifully realized and worth the price of admission. If you wanna see some cool shit, I say grab yourself a ticket and some popcorn and see it. I realize my review sounds split, and maybe it is. At about the 1/3 mark, I recall thinking that "this looks great but doesn't replace the original film in any way." Peter Jackson is tremendously talented himself but considering that he respects the original film, and displays more than a little humble reverence for it on the 1933 film's DVD supplements, I believe he presents this new King Kong as a reimagining, not as a replacement.