Oh, Peter Jackson. I have loved your work for years, having first seen “Heavenly Creatures” then exploring from there. You made “The Frighteners” (which is one of my favorite films of the 90’s) and then went on to become super famous doing “The Lord of the Rings” movies. Maybe that’s what happened to make your “King Kong” remake the mess is it.<\/p>\n
Now, when I say “mess” I am saying it in the best way possible. There is so much that is good and thrilling in “Kong” to make it worth seeing. But, by the same token, there is so much in the movie that is pointless and bloats it to that three hour run time. <\/p>\n
Do we really need to take the time to get to know all<\/u> the characters even when they don’t have anything to do with the basic story (ie: Preston, Denham’s Assistant, or the whole Hayes\/Jimmy relationship). The entire Kong\/Anne Darrow “love story” is problematic too as you have to take time from the action and adventure to set that up. And what gives with Jack Driscoll being a Broadway playwright instead of the first mate of the ship? I really couldn’t buy that he would be “man” enough to trek off into the dinosaur and monster bug infested island by himself to rescue Anne ’cause all we have seen him do up to that point is work a typewriter. Someone also needs to teach you the proper usage of “slow motion” as well. There was a lot of it in the Skull Island sequence that was just totally unnecessary. Only once did you use it effectively.<\/p>\n
That said, there is a lot of cool stuff in the movie … the Tyrannosaur sequence, the “Spider Pit,” the Broadway theater scenes (loved that stage show) and the top of the Empire State building. If you could have just gotten rid of the fat of the film and made it lean with the really good stuff you would have a movie that would have done much better at the box office than it already has.<\/p>\n
So, Mr. Jackson, can I get you an editor for Christmas?<\/p>\n