King Kong (2005)

Yell! Magazine Review:

Peter Jackson’s follow-up to the award winning Lord of the Rings trilogy is a remake of the 1933 classic giant gorilla flick. The first thing to say is that this version outshines the ’76 remake by a long shot, even if you don’t see a glimpse of Naomi Watts chest as you did Jessica Lange’s. If you are so inclined, then Watts makes a naked appearance in David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr. (2001).

Jackson keeps faithful to the original; the time period and characters remain the same as well as the story itself. There are only minor irritants to this film, which include Jack Black (a better actor could have played Carl Denham), the length (three hours is a bit long to sit in a theater) and Jackson’s use of dinosaurs (why set yourself up to be criticized for ripping off Jurassic Park?). But these are minor and the fight scenes between Kong and the T-Rex were awesome anyway.

The biggest problem I had with this movie is that it belongs in the past. I found that the capturing, displaying, and killing of such an amazing creature (if it really existed of course) was an attitude that belongs in a different century. Would it have been a cop out to change the ending to allow Kong to live? The answer is yes and, therefore, such a script needed to stay in 1933.