![]() For here is a film that makes an earnestly sincere tearjerker out of one of the great fantasies of fiction, and in doing so it’s built a movie that lasts. Whatever its issues, King Kong was a rarity in 2005 as a blockbuster that strived for art, and in 2017 it is downright foreign in its ambitions. Nevertheless, the legacy of the running time around Jackson’s own King Kong adventure has mostly surpassed everything the filmmaker brought to the screen with his immensely personal opus. It’s probably why I hadn’t revisited the picture for about 10 years prior to the release of Kong: Skull Island. Whereas Jackson won an Oscar for the equally long or longer Lord of the Rings films he shepherded to Hollywood and global box office glory, Kong’s epic breadth, which turned the original brisk 104-minute adventure into a would-be simian Ben-Hur, was met with polite applause… as well as a palpable sense of disappointment.Īnd in all honesty, I think the film desperately needed to reduce its runtime by at least 30 minutes, if not more. In other words, it just was a little too long, wasn’t it? Actually, that’s being charitable since the theatrical cut for King Kong runs at 187 minutes (never mind the extended cut released on DVD the following year). ![]() And yet, also like the press and publicists who found themselves crushed under the weight of the unimpressed ape, that reception quickly soured due to the enormity of it all. ![]() When Peter Jackson’s King Kong landed in theaters around Christmastime 2005, it was received by many eager fans and film journalists like the big guy in its title: the eighth wonder of the world. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |