Movie Review of Peter Jackson's King Kong

King Kong, Lord of Skull Island

Article
FIRST ONLINE Dec 17, 2005

Tools:

The first thing that came to mind when I heard that Peter "Master of the Rings" Jackson was remaking the 1933 "King Kong" was "Why?" Why would anybody, even so talented a maker of epic films as Jackson, consider messing around with a classic, especially when the movie had already endured a mediocre remake in 1976 and several more even less-inspired variations ("King Kong Lives," "King Kong Escapes," "King Kong Vs. Godzilla")? As Jackson explains it, he always held the original "Kong" in high esteem, saying it was one of the biggest inspirations of his filmmaking career, and presumably he couldn't wait to apply today's advanced computer graphics to the project. Fair enough, if he had actually improved upon the original, which he does not, except in purely technical ways.

Fortunately, most viewers are more than willing to provide a suspension of disbelief to enjoy a good fantasy, whether it's the 1933 "King Kong" or the 2005 remake. So, if you're inclined to go along with the illusion, this new "Kong" can deliver some dazzling surprises.

Not the least of the movie's pleasures is a screenplay that follows the general outline of the original movie, even if Jackson felt compelled to double the length of everything in it. It really is a good tale, with Denham finding his star, Ann Darrow, and boarding a steamer bound for the uncharted Skull Island. There, they meet hostile native tribesmen, a plethora of prehistoric monsters, and eventually the great Kong. Because Kong takes a liking to Ms. Darrow, he protects her from the other gigantic inhabitants of the island. Then, Kong is captured and taken to New York City for exhibition, he escapes, wreaks havoc, and winds up on the Empire State Building with Ms. Darrow in hand. Had Jackson tried changing this basic plot, he probably would have been lynched by filmgoers.

Another pleasure is the movie's look. Beyond some minor reservations about the CGI central figure, the film has much to please the eye. I have to applaud Jackson's decision, for example, to recreate the early 1930s setting of the original movie. The opening shots of New York are alone worth a movie ticket, the images done up in the dull, slightly grainy tones of Depression Era movies. The sequences at Skull Island, especially the ancient, ruined city, are good, too; and the closing scene atop the Empire State Building is among the best moments in the show, stunning aerial shots that are jaw-dropping amazing.

The rest of the CGI effects are equally up to the task of conveying a world of fantastic creatures and astonishing sights. This is territory into which only the likes of Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Peter Jackson have ventured before. I'd go so far as to say it is among the best CGI work I've ever seen on the big screen, so if it's pure eye candy you're looking for, Jackson has opened the world's biggest candy store.

Then, too, although much of the action in the movie is exaggerated, over-the-top, it can also be downright exciting. While the movie's tone may change abruptly and while you might not fully appreciate the silliness of some of the fight scenes, there is no denying they can be mighty entertaining as well. Remember, beyond everything else, "Kong" is a fantasy and begs to be accepted as one.

And I can't forget the pleasure of Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow, the down-on-her-luck New York showgirl. Ms. Watts is a joy to behold, ravishing in every scene and embodying the spirit of Fay Wray while somehow possessing the essence of a more-modern woman as well. Her curious relationship with Kong is more extended here than in the old 1933 movie, and viewers may respect the clearer two-way street Jackson provides.

However, don't get me wrong; I did not find Jackson's 2005 update of "Kong" the end-all in movies. It is not exactly the awe-inspiring adaptation he provided for Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." Indeed, there are sections of this new "Kong" that are positively yawn-inducing. So it may be worth mentioning a few of the misgivings I had with the film.

First, there's the sheer length of the thing. Maybe Jackson noticed that nobody minded the length of his "LOTR" films, and he saw how popular the extended DVD versions were, leading him to think that he needed to satisfy his audience's desire for long movies. Or maybe he figured all epics should be big in length as well as big in screen size, or nobody would notice they were epics. Or maybe he was counting on overwhelming his viewers with pure, unadulterated bulk. Consequently, he took a 1933 film that lasted barely over an hour and a half and almost literally doubled its length. The marvel is that he was still able to capture much of the original movie's plot, mood, and characters without totally drowning them in irrelevancy. But the new version remains bloated, filled with too much unnecessary repetition and a redundancy of peripheral characters, monsters, and action.

There is, for instance, the well-worn gimmick of holding off the introduction of the monster, in this case Kong, until well into the picture. For Spielberg in "Jaws" this device worked well; we all knew what a shark looked like, but we had no idea it was going to be anywhere near as huge and imposing as it finally turned out to be. On the other hand, we all know what Kong looks like, either from the original movie or from the new movie's trailers, and when he does appear, it isn't the same startling experience we had with "Jaws." It's more like, "Oh, finally."

The fact is, "King Kong" does not cover the number of years or encompass the cast of thousands that a "Gone With the Wind," a "Ben-Hur," or a "Lord of the Rings" does. There is no necessity for a three-hour running time just to give the audience its money's worth of CGI dinosaur fights.

Second, there are the characters of Carl Denham and Jack Driscoll, the movie director played in the original by Robert Armstrong and the adventurer played by Bruce Cabot. In Jackson's remake they are played by Jack Black and Adrien Brody, two of the least-likely candidates for these roles I can think of. In 1933, Denham was supposed to be a screen incarnation of the movie's codirector, Merian C. Cooper, a real-life explorer and soldier of fortune who covered the globe in search of big stories and exotic pictures. In the early version, Denham was a shady opportunist, to be sure, but he was also a tough realist whom we came to appreciate. Jack Black's major attribute in the role is that he bears a striking resemblance to a young Orson Welles. Beyond that, his character is a petty con man, a conniver for whom we never much care. And Adrien Brody as a playwright turned action hero? He's a terrific actor, but no amount of good acting can make him into an Indiana Jones, or even a Bruce Cabot.

Third, there is Kong himself. In the original, of course, he was a combination of Willis O'Brien's miniature stop-motion puppetry and several full-scale models. Yet there was something about the old Kong's face, his features, and his eyes that gave him an uncannily genuine personality. Here the big ape is almost all computer graphics (with help from actor Andy "Gollum" Serkis), and while he does display enough facial expression to satisfy admirers of the original, he still doesn't move any more realistically than the old Kong. Yes, his movements are more fluid and more lifelike and every hair on his torn-and-tattered body seems to stir naturally; yet there's something about the way he swings from the trees of Skull Island or the buildings of New York City that doesn't seem right. It's like the first "Spider-Man" movie, where the superhero appears to be moving faster than either a man or a spider would move in real life. Now, I know what you're going to say: Jackson's special-effects artists studied the movements of actual gorillas and duplicated them in real-time perfectly for the screen. But it's like good photographs or paintings--no matter how authentic they look, they simply aren't the real thing, the fact that they may artistically surpass the real thing being beside the point. Sometimes, they're maybe too perfect, and I'm not sure what it was here that bothered me except that I was never fully convinced I was looking at a live animal unless I strongly, willingly suspended my disbelief.

Fourth, there's the cuddly factor to consider. The 1933 Kong could be sweet and gentle with his newfound love, actress Ann Darrow, but he was one mean brute when he wanted to be, too, a killer in fact. The new Kong is fearsome as well, but he's even more dewy-eyed than before and less wantonly brutal. He's too often more like one of Andy's playthings in "Toy Story" or maybe Ann Darrow's personal Teddy bear. At one point I thought the gorilla was going to say he enjoyed taking long walks on the beach and reading Keats and Shelley. Again, one needs to exercise a strong and willing suspension of disbelief to appreciate the creature.

I wondered, too, about the cabin boy reading Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." I wondered if Jackson knew how difficult "Heart of Darkness" was for anybody to read? More important, I wondered just what point Jackson was making with this information. The young man says at one point to his adoptive, first-mate father something like "This isn't just an adventure story, is it?" The parallel Jackson is making with "Kong" seems clear: We are to take his "King Kong" as something more than a mere adventure. But what more? Is it supposed to be a treatise on Man's loss of innocence? On Man's destruction of Nature? On Man's assault on everything that is good and noble in the world? Are the sunset scenes a reinforcement of these ideas? But Jackson does little else to develop his theme, rather leaving us to assume that whatever else the film is, it is, indeed, an adventure story above all.

Finally, I had concerns about the film's abrupt changes of tone. The first hour is all cheeky good humor, lighthearted fun, with a bevy of stereotypes that appear ripe for mild parody. That's followed by a middle section that is all action adventure, the episodes so preposterous, so over-the-top, that no amount of willingness on my part could make me believe in them. I mean, it's as if Jackson were trying to one-up everything in the original. Where the explorers in the early version of "Kong" were threatened by a brontosaurus, Jackson has his explorers threatened by a herd of the beasts. If the original Kong fights one tyrannosaur, Jackson is going to have his Kong fight three of them. Then, there's the ending, which left me largely unmoved. It is too romanticized and too sentimental to have made much of an impact on me, at one point Ann and Kong skating together across the ice in Central Park like Fred and Ginger. Even the Empire State Building scene, one of the most visually spectacular in the film, blunts its force by seemingly going on forever.

The Wife-O-Meter passed on this one, so I saw the movie with a friend, Ed Wood (no, not that Ed Wood). He summed up the picture best by saying it was "amusing and entertaining," but "the technical effects surpassed the story line." I would agree.

Peter Jackson's "King Kong" provides a good, stirring, heroic-sized motion-picture event, without ever quite moving one the way his "Lord of the Rings" epics did. And nothing in the new film, short of the special effects, surpasses the original "Kong."

7/10

Please Note - More details:
Be sure to check out the full details under related releases.