Customer Reviews

Kong Reborn

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Kong Reborn is a sequel to the old 1930s movie, so it has nothing to do with any of the sequels (like Son of Kong) or remakes. Some blood from the original Kong gets cloned into a new baby Kong, but he's a really BIG baby, so he gets dangerous, and he just hates New York. They take him to Skull Island, and all the dinosaurs and stuff from the old movie are there, and start killing the team, but Kong helps to protect them. The scientific stuff is realistic, and the dinosaurs are uber-cool.

I found this book by accident doing a search on Amazon, took a chance and ordered it and to my delight and suprise really enjoyed this King Kong yarn. The book loses some momentum 1/3 of the way in. It gets bogged down with how Kong was cloned. This part of the book is a bit slow. However, the second half of this story is fun, exciting, anyone who enjoys King Kong related movies or Jurrasic Park type themes is in for a real treat. Monster bugs, dinosaurs, King Kong, mercinaries, the second half of the book is action packed. A fun read.

This could be called Kong 2000 I suppose. Carl Denham's grandson Jack finds out a workman has found blood samples from Kong's battle in New York, and arranges to acquire some.

Yep, Kong clone. Now, that would all be interesting, but not as interesting as taking the new kid back to Skull Island, where dinosaurs, doublecrosses, death and DNA await. An entertaining enough book.

I loved King Kong when I was a kid. His name is right up there with Superman in the way that everyone around the world knows who he is. Even if you've never seen it. So when I found this at the used book store I just had to pick it up. I was suprised with just how well written this book was, because its around 200 pages into the story before anything really "adventerous" even happens. The first half of the book is about our main character cloning Kong and all the legal issues he and his team has to go through in order to keep him (and not get into trouble for creating him in the first place.) But the book is so well written that you don't even realize your just reading a legal drama with a giant cloned ape in it. But after awhile the action picks up.

They eventually through reasons I wont spoil have to go to Skull Island where the original Kong was from. After this happens the story basically turns into Jurassic Park vs. Kong (not a bad thing). A bunch of people trying to survive an island that wants to kill them, and they just so happend to have a giant gorilla as their bodyguard. If Skull Island was your favorite part of the King Kong movie then you'll really enjoy this book. You get really emotionally attached to the new Kong, and the creatures on the island take me back to my childhood of being a dinosaur fanatic. If your into James Rollins' adventure style and Michael Crichton's writing style you really should check this out.

1:let it be said immediately, that whenever i hear of an "updated" version of kong,uneasy memories of the justifiably-maligned 1976 version surface. when the concept of cloning kong came up, my apprehension only doubled. cloning kong was not only a return to de laurentiis country, but with elements of michael crichton thrown in. for all my life-long love of dinosaurs, i've always found more credibility in the lost world of sir arthur conan doyle,who had a much more elegant way of explaining how prehistoric species may exist along with modern ones. the original king kong is case in point. since skull island yet exists in the present book, one may wonder why, if man is now so handy with his cloning-kits and dinosaurs could be patched up rather than revert to the "oh-so-outdated cliche of a lost world in the pacific..."
2: as for cloning, the author not only admits that a cloned organism is not the original, but this is a central plot device, resulting in a cloned kong that's not a patch on his old man. since the book is dedicated in most of it's length to ethical discussions on biogenetics and ethics in general, the fact that we have here a kong almost puppy-like in his devotion to humans around him after being modified genetically is not a point in the book's favor. what happened to the devotion exhibited by the original kong toward ann darrow? was'nt that enough, especially when the descendent of carl denham had so many lessons to draw upon from the past? kong was a gentle and loving being mistreated by greedy people, so is "docility" a proper way to redress that wrong? that is contrary to the expressed desire of the cloners, a glaring contradiction. is the author suggesting "genetic docility" as a means of dealing with emotion,? is personal accountability towards others no longer a viable option?
3: this and more: in a book supposedly dedicated to ethics, what is one to make of jack denham's theft of kong's blood, when legally it belongs to another, and the original kong from which it was taken was forcibly removed from his natural habitat, and no transaction ever took place with the natives on skull island? what possible ethical sense was there to utilise the cloned kong as a mascot for a genetics company's success if that would have again made a display-animal of him, as in 1933? these issues are, absurdely enough, addressed by the author, but only in an offahanded manner as though the whole issue of ethics as well as the appropriation of king kong to this end is no more than a sugar coating for the ignorant fiction-reading layperson at home who dosen't understand why biogenetics are good for him. well, i regard the hypocratic oath as the most elementary guidline:" do no harm". the essence of any concept is determined not as of itself, but in relation to others. the author does not resolve the ethical nessecity of cloning or any other biogenetic issue by repeating in a modern context the same mistakes done by carl denham in 1933 and by dumbing kong down. i call that adding insult to injury.
4: speaking of insults vs.the much-touted ethics, one marvels at the length to which the author goes to for hammering home the message while ignoring the logical loopholes previously mentioned. more than half the book in fact. and so, the introduction of skull island and its creatures does not solve any questions about it's history or that of kong. the dinosaur scenes read like a pale cut-paste from jurassic park or doc savage, while the latter had more zest and vigor, and the former contained no pretense to synthesize preaching with classic adventure story tradition. when the characters do get to skull island its a collection of "run from huge whatever, run from corporate killers, get kong-clone to clean up, see remains eaten by scavengers". and thats that.
5: also, the author's website clearly states that the novel was authorised by merian cooper's estate. the cover of the book states differently.is that ethics for you?
6: in conclusion what we have here is a misunderstanding of the kong story, both literaly and scientifically, and it's appropriation for an agenda that is preached to the dummy the author assumes the reader to be. if the author bothered to remember that bioethics are a means of predicting the outcome of a biological innovation in order to avoid damages- kong would either nt be cloned or cloned as a whole from remains that would have been kept since 1933 and not dumped so crelesly. kong exhibited enough sensibility and emotion to merit as much. that's what endeared him to so many people. if emotional endearment merits genetic tempering and preaching to the reader by this author we have a very big ethical problem. i would wholeheartedly suggest a far better study of the same issues in kong: king of skull island by joe devito and brad strickland. what we have here is shoddy propaganda disguised as a cotton-candy fanfic. fans of kong be fairly warned!