King Kong - Sometimes bigger isn't better

I'm always kind of in two minds about Peter Jackson's take on the whole 'King Kong' story.  He wrote/directed this fresh off the back of his (excellent!) 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy and yet, although certainly epic, 'King Kong' seems a little too epic for its own good.  I haven't seen the original film and I don't even know how far back the tale goes, so I can't compare this film to any form of source material.  All I know is that it's kind of long.  Yes, all 'Lord of the Rings' movies weighed in around a similar run-time and yet they seemed to be able to warrant that kind of audience commitment.  It just seems that in Kong's case, there wasn't enough of a story to justify that kind of length.

However, no matter how long it is, doesn't mean that it's bad, or in any way unwatchable.  You just need to know what you're getting and be prepared to put in the time!  Despite the film being named after the titular giant ape, Kong doesn't show up until about halfway through the movie.  The first hour and a half (roughly) is about a film-maker (Jack Black) in the 1930s trying to assemble a crew and cast to take a boat ride to a mysterious island in order to film whatever wonders are out there.  For this feat he needs a leading lady (Naomi Watts), a script writer (Adrien Brody), some other memorable faces including Colin Hanks, Jamie Bell and (Jackson favourite) Andy Serkis.  So it's a great ensemble cast and, despite the lack of monsters, the film trots along at a nice pace.

In fact, this first half of the film does tend to feel a little like a 'Carry On…' film with its whimsical approach to life in the time period and occasional slapstick humour.  Therefore, when they arrive at 'Skull Island' and start getting chased by all manner of giant beasties (Kong isn't the only 'monster' on the island!) and characters we've got to know start getting chomped on left and right, it suddenly feels like quite a 'tonal shift.'

And, if you came here for the monsters and have been crying out for something slimy and hideous during the first half, you'll certainly get you wish.  However, after the fifth chase between human and giant [insert random monster here] you may find your eyes start blurring over and waiting for the plot to start up again.  Not wanting to talk too much about 'Lord of the Rings,' the it's widely regarded as having some excellent special effects, being one of those movies that blends computer-generated effects with live action *almost* seamlessly.  However, despite Kong himself looking pretty perfect, much of the other effects look a little blurry and you can tell when actors are simply standing up against a green screen.  In fact, sometimes it's like you're almost watching a 'live action cartoon' with humans interacting with a make-believe backdrop and it does tend to pull you out of the moment.

But, like I say, 'King Kong' is overall quite enjoyable to watch.  I've seen it twice now and the first time I found the first half a little boring, but this time round I knew what I was getting and was more prepared for it.  Perhaps its biggest flaw is its lack of 're-watchability.' I can happily re-watch 'Lord of the Rings' quite often whereas I doubt Kong will be getting a third viewing from me for a decade or so to come (and by that time it looks like he'll be fighting the Predator or something, if Godzilla isn't available for Round Two).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that