(Amazon Link)Boy, that Peter Jackson sure doesn't like short, concise films, does he?
Having watched Lord of the Rings I & II and finding them to be very, very worthy of editing down to a reasonable film I wasn't desperate to see King Kong.
In fact, I've always maintained that the entirety of LotRII could be boiled down to this: long shot of the travelers walking away from camera, text comes up on screen: "the travelers walked and walked for many moons, until eventually..........."
Then go straight into LotR III.
But.. It was really good. Too long obviously (3 bloody hours) but very good nonetheless. Jack Black, particularly, impressed amongst the actors. The action was well done, the tenderness well played and the monsters themselves were really good (if you see what I mean).
Of course, the one problem it had, and was always going to have is that, to me, it's nowhere near the original. I don't care how much more money Peter Jackson has, there's no way he can make his version more exciting than the one I first saw when I was 8 or 10. That's why it's called a classic.
No comments:
Post a Comment