From 9fe4f545a91943d3f75598000452740245ecdf82 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Julio Biason Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:37:42 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] Movie review: King Kong --- content/reviews/movies/king-kong.md | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/reviews/movies/king-kong.md diff --git a/content/reviews/movies/king-kong.md b/content/reviews/movies/king-kong.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1dd259b --- /dev/null +++ b/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. + + + +{{ 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.