“King Kong” will have no problem making back its $200 million dollar budget, but at what expense? Peter Jackson’s latest epic has already wowed the critics, who have mostly turned in positive reviews, but the film was snubbed from a majority of the categories during the announcement of the 2006 Golden Globe nominations. The film’s absence from the second-biggest entertainment awards show of the year shouldn’t have a big effect on it’s success, but it will probably result in a number of moviegoers hesitating to rush out and see it in theaters.
My biggest problem with the film, and possibly the biggest gripe universally, is it’s Biggie Sized runtime. At just over three hours long, “King Kong” runs about 40 minutes too long, and Jackson would have had no problem cutting a lot of the unnecessary material if he weren’t so fascinated by his subject. The guy must fall asleep behind the camera sometimes, because most scenes between Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and Kong drag on far too long.
That said, the action sequences were incredible and are worth the price of admission alone. I’ve even uncovered a worse fear of bugs thanks to Jackson’s crazy imagination, and will probably never step foot into a jungle, woods, or any other creepy environment where a mutant-sized larva could latch onto my head while giant grasshoppers attack me from all sides. “King Kong” is definitely a must-see affair, but it’s not one that will yield as much applause as Universal is hoping for.
