Browse Source

Movie review: King Kong

master
Julio Biason 3 years ago
parent
commit
9fe4f545a9
  1. 35
      content/reviews/movies/king-kong.md

35
content/reviews/movies/king-kong.md

@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+++
title = "King Kong (2005)"
date = 2020-12-13
[taxonomies]
tags = ["movies", "reviews", "fantasy", "2 stars"]
+++
[IMDB Summary](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/): A greedy film
producer assembles a team of moviemakers and sets out for the infamous
Skull Island, where they find more than just cannibalistic natives.
<!-- more -->
{{ stars(stars=2) }}
If I could summarize it, I'd simply put "weird".
Sure, the special effects are a lot better than the original version,
done in claymation. But the whole of the story is simple... nothing
new. I mean, there are movies that took the original story and update
it to the current times, like "The Day the Earth Stood Still"; others,
are timeless, like "Twelve Angry Men" (which shouldn't make sense at
this time), but the only update from the original is that they put
Jack Black saying catchphrases from time to time -- not that his
acting is bad, the character just seems out of place, like someone
acting the way they acted in the 20s with the rest of the cast in the
90s.
Again, the special effects are pretty damn good, with Andy Serkis
leading the titular monkey. But, again, it's hard to put an excuse for
a remake only for that.
In the end, if they just coloured the original version and updated the
visuals, the result may be actually better.
Loading…
Cancel
Save