Advertisement

King Kong

Can Peter Jackson's £200 million-plus, three-hour monkey opus deliver on the spectacle promised by a year's worth of online production diaries?

Trending Now

Well, yes and no.

Jackson is undoubtedly a cinematic visionary who more than deserved his armload of Oscars for The Return of the King. The lessons he and his WETA digital effects team learned on Middle-Earth are used to astounding effect here. In the main, the visual effects piss all over anything that Lucasfilm have ever come up with. Three key sequences – Kong versus a gang of bloodthirsty tyrannosaurs, Kong at large in depression-era New York and Kong scaling the Empire State Building – are nothing short of breathtaking, and (in the case of Kong romping through a frozen Central Park) sometimes even beautiful.

Sadly, no matter how inventive Jackson’s box of tricks is, he can’t disguise the fact that this movie is an overlong, steroid-laced remake of a bank holiday classic that just about everyone’s seen already. Nowhere near the triumph that the audacious Rings trilogy was – what could be? – this King Kong is nicely played, entertaining, creatively empty and ultimately rather pointless.

Advertisement

By Andrew Sumner

Advertisement
Advertisement

Latest Issue

Advertisement

Features

Advertisement
Well, yes and no. Jackson is undoubtedly a cinematic visionary who more than deserved his armload of Oscars for The Return of the King. The lessons he and his WETA digital effects team learned on Middle-Earth are used to astounding effect here. In the main,...King Kong