Sorry but it has to be said. The combination between the Hollywood publicity guys and the numerous newspaper film critics proclaiming King Kong to be a wonderful remake is the biggest conspiracy since the setting up of the European Union. And it doesn't do what it says on the tin. So if you haven't seen it yet you may suspect that there's been a bit of a conspiracy conducted between the publicity department and the film critics who were invited to view and give so many hundred words to attract the punters. Because of my affection for the 1933 version I was a soft touch for this latest version. In a year or so we will be invited to purchase the Director's Cut version of KING KONG. I hope it really is a Director's Cut and not one which includes any footage which Peter Jackson actually did leave out! This one badly needed an attack by a real editor. Surely nobody who can seriously call themselves an editor got their hands on this film. I suspect that Peter Jackson did the editing himself. Anyway, to the film. I'm slightly deaf but found that the volume of the film was set high enough to be uncomfortable in the cinema in Poole in Dorset. Is that a common problem or does the cinema projectionists take advice on how loud they are expected to play it? Superb atmosphere at the beginning and a wonderful mood when they finally got to Skull Island. OK if you knew the story from previous films Id suppose. I found the sub plot with Jamie Bell to be unnecessary and timewasting. Is it now becoming obligatory to have some degree of suggested homosexual content in so many films?. I have found that, for me, humans being chased by dinosaurs has a lower boredom threshold than a good old car chase. The dinosaurs running after the humans hardly resulted in one single squashed body and nearly all of them lived to tell the tale and didn't look the worse for wear either!! Never mind the dinosaurs, watch out for the creepy-crawlies!! It would be hard to defend the accusation that it is too long by a good half an hour. I found myself urging the film to get a move on. The noise didn't let up and this didn't help the story to move along. At times the constant racket became quite wearing. It seemed that Peter Jackson had overall responsibility for the editing and that he was reluctant to discard any of his precious footage. Anyone who has not seen the 1933 version may view this quite differently but it is unfair to compare them. Two films on the same subject material made 72 years apart are going to be treated differently!! I'm telling you, not everything improves with age!! The reputation of the film is held to be a success by HOW MANY people went to see it. That's sometimes not quite fair. Once the publicity machinery have had their way and displayed some obviously dramatic big close ups of the main character, sweet-talked some critics to be nice about it, a lot of people will be duped into going to see it. I'm one of them. Judging by a general consensus on this site we've been let down by the reviewers on the main national newspapers in a big way. Compare the initial response to "Shawshank Redemption". It was virtually ignored at it's debut. It was only later when film fans got to see it and let the word out that it was something special has the success of it really gained momentum. Kong was irritating to a considerable degree in a number of areas. I would only rate it 5.
