igiskos2

King Kong. Does this name ring a bell? It should, as it is a trademark, for more than seven decades now, all over the world. It started at 1933, when the King hits the big screen and automatically becomes a classic, even more........it becomes a legend!

The 1976 King Kong, with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lang leading the cast, arrives as a late remake not to revive the legend, but to adjust it in the 70's. The contemporary character of this movie and the lack of vision from its creator, brought it out of date, very soon after it was released. The mind of the audience was still haunted from the original dark and dramatic tale of Kong, even if he was just a cheap puppet with an obviously fake, frame to frame, movement.

Peter Jackson, the director of the 2005 movie, dreamed of recreating the original story with the respect and tenderness that deserved. Before even the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy he was determined to shoot the authentic remake, step by step. That was his way of paying tribute to his favorite and the most popular monster flick ever made world wide. The Original King Kong created a whole genre and started a new era of film-making. Peter Jackson had already that in mind, when he finally stepped up to the challenge of making his own version of the "8th wonder of the world". The results? Well let me express my most humble opinion. Every cine fan, familiar with the previous work and style of the talented New Zelander, would presume that Jackson's project would be a detailed CGI, Special FX pandemonium with every technical aspect of it covered graciously and without any sign of faults or mistakes.......and they'd probably be right. This 3 hour monstrous creation was, on technical terms, a masterpiece. But was that enough?

I'm really a fan of Jackson and his movies. But i wanna be as honest and objective as possible. After some hundreds of fantasy and action flicks and a lot of retro movie nights, its difficult for me to simply digest a movie for its laborious cover and its state of the art cinematography. I'm searching behind all these for purposes, hidden meanings, watertight scenarios and 3-dimentional characters. I try to put everything in its true perspective. So.... Peter Jackson's King Kong was well worth the admittance price of a cinema viewing. Even the 20 $ price for a Village gold class theater. Its worth seeing it on DVD or even buying it for your collection. In short terms its a win\win situation for pure cinematic thrill. BUT was this a masterpiece with the wide perspective of the term? I have to say NO. The main reason for saying that is simple.I enjoyed the 1933 version more than this one....not a lot more but...more. Maybe i have the thing for old b&w flicks...maybe i like cheesy, out of date special effects i don't know. The truth is that first of all i couldn't handle, the enormous length of this movie, too well(i had no problem doing that in lord of the rings trilogy). Is it possible to get tired by a true masterpiece whatever its length is? In the other hand i couldn't feel the chemistry between Naomy Watts and Brody. Was there any? Was it me or Kong looked and acted a bit more human, than supposed,at times? Anyway there is definitely something( or maybe a collaboration of little things) in this movie that prevent me from voting more than 7 out of 10 for it. It is totally enjoyable and i encourage anyone who haven't already seen it to harry up and do that.....But, really, can anyone that already watched it once, watch it again?(after a short period of time of course) .....Personally i can't.

I'm not going to analyze anything from the script.....i can tell you though, its as lousy as it can be. But that was what director mr.Koutras(former musician) wanted to achieve in the first place. The idea was to make a hilarious b-movie based on some classic flicks right back from the 50's. But the fun part is that he totally distorted and humorised every piece of fact that used from that period of sci-fi cinema.The movie is fast paced, totally enjoyable and became an instant cult from the moment that was released in Theaters all around.

You know , small budget really takes the creator's capabilities a bit further cause of the pressure to conclude as fast and as cheaply, the movie, as humanly possible. Thats why Koutras made an effort to produce something not as corny as a 50's or 60's sci-fi b-flick, but faster, more up to date and definitely funnier than any other cult, b-movie film that came out. I think that this director is making fun of everyone and he enjoys every last minute of it. The good thing for this film is that the actors surprisingly followed the director's guidance and felt free to express their true selfes ,without having to worry about how the movie gonna look to the sci-fi audience that will see it.Finally, One thing i can say for sure...... that, i had a heck of a good time watching it.

This is a movie that you easily erase from your cinema memories. The worst one of the three that the director from India M.N.Shymalan gave us. Not that the others are masterpieces but this one really knocked me out of my seat. The problem with this guy is that he insist at the absence of visual effects in his films. This would be fine with me if he didn't insist of making sci-fi movies. Why didn't he try Bollywood? At least people wouldn't waste any money on craps. What else can you describe a movie that presents us the ultimate fight between good and evil, using absolutely NO visual effects to back it up. I mean the script refers to a guy with superhuman powers battling a master villain. Any usaspected person would fall for that, but be worn......all you gonna see is people talking to people(and above all with lousy actoring). The clistophobic atmosphere that sometimes comes forward isn't enough to save this film from any trushcan's bottom. And just one question.....I read somewhere that this flick costed about 80.000.000 dollars to shoot. WHERE DID THESE MONEY GO?