Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Movie Report: King Kong

I hope the producers of King Kong got a discount on the fee they paid the writers since the plot was lifted from the original King Kong movie made, in 1933, and much of the dialogue consists of roaring. I was taken in by the hype on this movie and went to see it Monday night with my wife and son.

There is a lot to criticize about the movie. I was bothered by the inconsistencies in scale. King Kong is supposedly 25 feet tall. I don't know the heighth of Naomi Watts, the actress who plays Miss Driscoll, Kong's love interest, but she must be a minimum of five feet tall, which would be one-fifth the size of Kong. Even given that apes have disproportionately-large hands, compared to humans, how is it that she fits into the palm of his hand?

My companions thought there were large holes in the plot. Even a fantasy movie, such as this one, doesn't work unless it manages to convince the viewer to suspend his disbelief, at least for the duration of the movie. This movie runs on for three hours and that's just too long to give up disbelieving all its improbabilities.

I gave the movie two stars, mainly because all the critics love it and I'm sure they know more than I do, and it just seemed to cruel to rate a movie that cost $200 million to produce any lower. But this is one movie that I would recommend waiting for the DVD. That way you can fast forward through an hour or so of the roaring and just watch the high parts.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Kong was so highly recommended to us just last night (by someone many years younger than me!) I was skeptical because it's not "my type of movie" in the first place. Giving the recommendation the benefit of the doubt I thought that I should at least consider going and be more young minded but now it's decided. I can't spend my time reading bad books, watching mindless TV or going to mediocre movies. Thanks for the thumbs down (you've saved time, $$ and disappointment.) Becky