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.
Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »
Note: The main review of the film was written by John J. Puccio. The review of the video, audio, and extras was done by William David Lee.
The first thing that came to mind when I heard that Peter 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 significantly 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, indeed, 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 people like 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 up the world´s biggest candy store.
Then, too, while much of the action in the movie is exaggerated, it can also be downright exciting. Although the movie´s tone may change abruptly and although 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 some 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 hardly 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 ever-longer 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 co-director, 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 artist, a conniver for whom we never much care. And Adrien Brody as a playwright turned action hero? Brody is a terrific actor, but no amount of good acting can make him into an Indiana Jones, or even a Bruce Cabot.
Average user rating (1-5):
[release]18336[/release]