SBD Star Rating:
by Lew Irwin
View Credits | See Other Reviews
|
 International reviewers scrambled Monday night to post reviews of King Kong after it premiered on 38 screens at two Times Square multiplexes. All appeared to agree that the film will pack 'em in. John Hiscock wrote in the London Daily Telegraph: "Hokey and clichéed in parts, thrilling and dramatic at other times, King Kong is reminiscent of both Jurassic Park and Titanic. And like those two record-setting epics, it is certain to be a huge hit. Baz Bamigboye in Britain's Daily Mail described it as "jaw-droppingly brilliant: the most entertaining blockbuster movie this year." Kevin Maher in the London Times commented: "That Jackson's King Kong upgrades the now hammy original with wit, heart and humor is a pleasant surprise. That it does so by reinventing the action blockbuster, in form and emotional impact, is nothing less than an act of cinematic alchemy." But several writers also noted that the film will have to become one of the top-ten box-office earners of all time in order to be considered a success. Geoffrey Macnab of Britain's Independent, who noted that director Peter Jackson poured $32 million of his own money into the film to cover budget overruns, commented, "Even with Jackson opening his check book, King Kong remains a monumental risk." The New York Daily News is running reviews from each of its lead film critics, Jami Bernard and Jack Mathews. Bernard calls it, "the most thrilling, soulful monster picture ever made. At last, it can be said without irony -- I laughed, I cried. ... It's brilliant." Mathews concludes that it "will further Jackson's reputation as the leading visionary among fantasy filmmakers and it restores the Empire State Building to the stately glory of its past." |
|
SBD Star Rating:
by Lew Irwin
View Credits | See Other Reviews
|
 King Kong arrives in theaters at midnight tonight to challenge the lion of Narnia. Critics and analysts are suggesting that the ape ought to win. Roger Ebert gives Peter Jackson's latest rendition of the Merian C. Cooper/Edgar Wallace tale a four-star review, calling it "a magnificent entertainment. It is like the flowering of all the possibilities in the original classic film. Computers are used not merely to create special effects, but also to create style and beauty, to find a look for the film that fits its story. And the characters are not cardboard heroes or villains seen in stark outline, but quirky individuals with personalities." In the New York Times, A.O. Scott marvels at Jackson's showmanship. "In his gargantuan, mightily entertaining remake ... Jackson tries to pay homage to the original even as he labors to surpass it. The sheer audacious novelty of the first King Kong is not something that can be replicated, but in throwing every available imaginative and technological resource into the effort, Mr. Jackson comes pretty close," Scott writes. Lou Lumenick in the New York Post doesn't mince praise, calling it "the year's best movie." In fact, he writes, it's "the most pulse-pounding and heart-stirring romantic adventure since Titanic." Claudia Puig in USA Today remarks that King Kong reaffirms Jackson's position as "a visionary filmmaker who is not only a technical wizard but also a master storyteller." And if all of that sounds like a movie too good to be true, Glenn Whipp in the Los Angeles Daily News assures his readers, "It cannot be oversold: Jackson is so far ahead of every director making these epic, effects-laden event movies that it's really not even fair. The only comparison one could make would be Steven Spielberg when Jurassic Park came out a dozen years ago, and even that's not apt because Jackson isn't simply content to throw a monster mash. He wants you to feel for the brute, too. That combination of goose-bump-inducing and lump-in-your-throat moviemaking is almost impossible to pull off, but Jackson makes it look easy. He gets it. He is the master." And Jack Mathews in the New York Daily News sums up his reaction in three words: "What a movie!" Still, some reviewers, while marveling at Jackson's imaginative use of special effects, express overall disappointment with the finished product. Ty Burr in the Boston Globe complains that it is "curiously lacking soul. Jackson is so devoted to piling modern CGI wonders on the bones of the 1933 classic that he forgets to have much fun." Bob Longino in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution gripes that at three hours and seven minutes it's "way longer than it needs to be" and that the relationship between Kong and his captive, Ann Darrow, comes off "treacly." |
|
|
