King Kong (2005)

I've seen the original film before this one, and while it lacks the sophistication of Jackson's remake (remember, it was done during the Great Depression, so probably the budget was limited), at least the plot was a bit more believable, and straight to the point. No dithering over how the heroine lands a movie role after losing her job in the vaudeville, and all that jazz. Frankly, I felt like stopping the DVD after the initial half-hour of watching - was wondering when the ape and monsters would show up and start their destructive work. Only reason I kept on was to get my $3 worth in renting the movie.

Sure enough, the special effects are fantastic, and that itself might merit watching the movie, if only to amuse kids, animal freaks, and those into action-adventure-what-have-you sort of films. But still I find a lot on (scientific) inconsistencies which I am sure were also noticed even by the most common viewer, as well as the more obvious everyday ones. Like how come Kong (remember, the "King" appellation was given to him by the white men, not the natives) comes away with just a cut on the chest and without wounds on his arms after tackling 3 T-rexes, especially when one of them clearly bit him on it. And the T-rex supposedly has the strongest bite per psi of all animals. And wouldn't T-rex struggle to free itself first after getting tangled in vines, instead of trying to fight off an enemy ape or endeavour to catch its prey (Ann Darrow). Also, raptor dinosaurs were supposed to be the smartest of their kind - wouldn't it have been inane and a death-wish to be plunging into a herd of stampeding sauropods in the hope of catching one of them, instead of waiting in ambush and isolating a likely target, w/c most dinosaur experts concur is how raptors hunted? Even human or animal hunters wouldn't consider such folly.

And how come Ann Darrow escapes from Kong's clutches with hair still gleaming and untangled and her clothes unspoiled and unbesmirched with filth, having been dragged through feral humid jungle? But then, anything can happen in a movie, I suppose...

All in all, I would rate the movie as good but not especially great. Kudos to Peter Jackson for at least trying to do a modern uptake of a classic epic film. But please, no re-make of Gone with the Wind or the African Queen, please .....

Fmovies: This is a wonderful homage to a wonderful old movie. It doesn't have a lot of its own to commend it, but it really doesn't need anything. It's obvious to anyone who has seen the original that Peter Jackson loves the movie. And, that love helps to carry this remake in its slow and tedious moments. So, King Kong (2005) works for me, and I think it will work for most who see it, especially those who've seen the original.

Some cast comments: Adrien Brody was wonderful as Driscoll. There is a poignant scene in a theater where the triumphant Denham is recounting their jungle adventure. The scene is mostly a closeup of Brody, whose face speaks volumes in response to Denham's delusional account of what happened on Skull Island.

I agree with most who feel that Jack Black was miscast as Denham. He captured the sleazy con man fine, but not the pompous and pretentious auteur. Oh, he tries. He's just not believable as a filmmaker. If he was trying to recollect or channel Orson Welles, it was a pretty feeble attempt. Might have helped, I would think, if we had seen some ersatz footage of Denham from another project.

The real star of this movie is Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow. I read elsewhere that Watts and Jackson went to visit Fay Wray before she died, and Wray's opinion was that, "Ann Darrow is in good hands." I've also heard it said that the 1933 movie was Denham's story, the 1976 remake was the ape's, and Peter Jackson's homage is Ann Darrow's. I agree with these assessments completely.

Watts is radiant, luminous, too beautiful to bear as Ann. I think her best scene occurs near the end of the movie when she realizes that Kong has escaped, and that she has to meet him. Her walk down the street and out of the light to where the ape was wreaking havoc, so deliberate, so determined, so courageous, and self-assured is one of the really great scenes of 2005.

I don't agree with Roger Ebert that KK is one of the best movies of the year. And, I take exception with the significance he attaches to the bonding scene at Kong's lair. But, I like this movie, and it's clear to me that Peter Jackson loves the original. Nicely done.

Is this movie good? Yes and no. It is very good in parts, such as the Skull Island sequence which is so long it is almost a film in itself. Also, it is very bad in parts, such as the long beginning which starts with a bang showing vivid images of the Great Depression, even though most of the songs used are from the Jazz Age of the 1920's, but is dragged out until it becomes one big bore with the viewer kept waiting to see the star of the show, King Kong. And the film is also ho-hum in parts. The death of Kong is strung out so long that it becomes overly gushy and sentimental. Certainly the original 1933 feature handles the "It was beauty killed the beast" in a much nobler way.

First, the good parts. The fierce natives of Skull Island are amongst the most horrendous creatures ever put on celluloid. When they go into a trance when attempting to sacrifice Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) to the giant ape, their dilated eyes and eerie shaking send cold chills through the body. The most frightening piece of footage is when Carl Denham (Jack Black) tries to appease an aboriginal youngster by offering a piece of chocolate. It at first seems reminiscent of pictures seen hundreds of times of American GI's in World War II giving candy to starving children in war-torn Europe. This peace offering turns out entirely different and the viewer may just have nightmares about it. I am reminded of the Zuni hunting fetish doll that comes alive in the most frightening TV movie ever made, "Trilogy of Terror."

I was disappointed with Jack Black's performance. He has done so well before the camera up to this point. He is miscast as the shady, overly enthusiastic would-be producer exploiter who promotes Kong in New York City leading to the famed Empire State Building scene. Though he looks the part originally played by Robert Armstrong he is unable to make the role believable. Actually Black is a better actor than Armstrong was. Yet the part of Carl Denham fit Armstrong perfectly so not much acting was required of him.

Peter Jackson shows his skills as an action director by the well done Skull Island mini-movie. That he needs to hone his skills in presenting erotica to a general audience is obvious. Fay Wray's Ann Darrow exudes sensuality. Her abbreviated costume that King Kong proceeds to slowly rip apart to reveal more of her luscious body provides a more sexual interpretation of her relationship to the big ape. On the other hand, Naomi Watts, who could be even sexier than Fay Wray, is left in the lurch by Jackson. There is little of a sexual nature in her scenes with Kong. Their relationship becomes more of a romantic, "someone to watch over me" type attachment. Instead of Freud we get Harlequin.

Jackson does throw in a few clever lines from time to time which helps break the tension, in particular in the scene where the rescue party first sees Kong's footprints. The party puzzles over what kind of creature made the enormous footprint. One of the party members, Lumpy the Cook (Andy Serkis), indicates that he knows. "There's only one creature in the world that could have done this..." All eyes and ears are upon him. He continues, "The Abominable Snowman."

Overall, this second remake of the classic 1933 Merian C. Cooper "King Kong" pales by comparison. But this one is good enough to bear a second watching. I want to see those devil natives again.

King Kong fmovies. Let me just say that with all of the remakes that have been coming out, King Kong may have been the most deserving and the most in need of being remade. I could not think of a better director for this type of film than Peter Jackson.

King Kong stays pretty true to the original. Naomi Watts plays Fay Wray's Ann Darrow perfectly. Right down to her emotional connection with Kong, which is helped by the fact that Kong is pretty darn lovable when he is not ripping apart dinosaurs.

Adrien Brody plays a great Jack Driscoll as well. Brody is truly a gifted actor and plays a good hero.

Even Jack Black did a good job as the rebellious director Carl Denham. Usually I am annoyed by Black's performances, even though they are mostly in comedies. Surprisingly, Black kept his character serious and the movie is better for it. I though for sure he would be the one to ruin this movie for me but, again, I stand corrected. The comedy seemed to be reserved for Kong, himself, and did a wonderful job.

I can not express how much more I enjoyed this movie without the "guy in the suit" special effects. Kong was very appealing visually, as well as the other dinosaurs. I do not say this too much in reviews. In fact, I doubt I have ever said it but King Kong has turned out to be a masterpiece which will raise the bar for many years to come. 10/10

Don't get me wrong here, I liked this film. It was spectacular, it had considerable emotional resonance, it wasn't a travesty.

Of course in reality a 25ft silverback gorilla would collapse under its own weight, and in many ways that's what has happened to the movie.

As others have noted, it is on the long side and would have benefited from resolute scissoring throughout. Just because you have the resources to show a 10-minute dinosaur stampede doesn't mean you actually have to do it, particularly when a 30-second scene would have told the story just as well. Throughout the movie, time is stretched in order to fit in all the effects - at one point several minutes pass between someone being struck by a spear and hitting the ground.

In addition I remain unconvinced by CGI generally. OK, this probably looks better than any other CGI movie so far, but I don't think we're in any danger of confusing it with reality yet. Rather, we have a spectacular and detailed cartoon.

It's ironic that while one of the central characters here is a combination of PT Barnum-style showman and Werner-Herzog-type visionary obsessive taking his cameras into the jungle, this "King Kong" itself is as far away from Herzogian 'realism' as it's possible to get. Not only do the CGI effects themselves (with the exception of Kong's facial expressions) fail to convince, the filmmakers also have people surviving unsurvivable falls, hanging onto logs and creepers in conditions where any human being would fall, etc. I know this is a Hollywood action movie staple, but it still jolts me out of any suspension of disbelief. OK, CGI is the only way we can have dinosaurs or giant gorillas, but keeping things as real as possible otherwise would help no end with the human side of the story.

Any time a film-maker puts a film-maker into his story it's necessary to consider the relationship between the two. On the one hand we have the studio-bound CGI-nerd making a movie about a seat-of-the-pants explorer-director. On the other we have the "showman" side of Carl Denham, as Driscoll points out, destroying that very "wonder" he sets out to capture by reducing it to vulgar spectacle. You have to ask yourself if that resonance wasn't at least in Jackson's mind when he wrote the theatre scene.

On the plus side, all the themes of the original are here and amplified, from the "we are the real monsters" (with added "Heart of Darkness" reference), through strong hints of ecological parable, to the genuinely tragic love of Kong for Darrow which leads directly to his capture and eventual downfall. The sadness in his eyes throughout is something to behold - as the last of his species he is doomed in any event, ironically it is his compassion which hastens his demise.

Let me be the first to admit that there's nothing wrong with a long movie, nothing at all. "Titanic" was a long movie that was as exactly as long as it needed to be. "Gone with the Wind" was a really long movie that was exactly as long as it needed to be. "Dances with Wolves" was a long movie that I wish had been even longer when I saw it in the theater. But "King Kong"? Phhewww...this sucker clocks in at least 30-60 minutes longer than it needs to be. While it played, I kept inadvertently thinking to myself, "Boy, we really should be out to sea by now...they haven't reached the island yet?...man, are they EVER gonna find Ann?...jeez, when are we gonna go back to Manhattan already?..." and so on. Hand to God--I actually yawned twice during the last third of this movie. I even closed my eyes for a second before I realized, 'hey...you can't just rewind this when you wake up!'

Sure, many scenes in "King Kong" were thrilling (e.g., LOVED the T-Rex sequence) and, yes, I even teared up a little a couple of times. And I must say, Kong himself was beautifully realized--he looked and acted like a REAL gorilla (albeit a tiny bit anthropomorphized)! But I gotta tell you...I was more relieved than exhilarated when this movie ended. (If I saw one more flyover of the native village, I was gonna scream!) Peter...baby...why spend so much time developing all these extraneous secondary characters if you don't really have much closure with them by the end. For example, the ship's captain and Jimmy...once we leave Skull Island...pfffftttt...we never them again. Why all the backstory scenes about them? As with the original version, Jackson should have concentrated simply on the four main characters throughout: Kong, Ann, Driscoll and Denham. Period.

The problem is Jackson tried to make an epic out of a thriller, when these two approaches are generally exclusive to each other. The original "Kong" MOVED because it was simply a thriller and content to be so, but Jackson's remake starts and stops, and starts and stops, and starts and stops, merely frustrating the thrillseeker in us that wants to keep going every time Jackson establishes some momentum. But instead Jackson pauses to "delve" or "explore" or "elaborate" a la David Lean or something like that. One can excuse Jackson for shooting so much material for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy--consider the rich source material . But how anyone could have taken the 100-minute original and nearly doubled it for a remake has far too much memory on his Mac. He should have saved all the extra footage (and I'm betting there's a LOT more we didn't see in the theatrical cut) for the DVD release as he did for LOTR. Mr. Jackson's first priority as a filmmaker (well, all filmmakers) is to present the most appropriate cut for THEATRICAL audiences during the film's initial exhibition in theaters. In this case, more WAS less. Much shorter movies in the past have had intermissions!

Honestly, though I certainly enjoyed "King Kong", I really have no desire to see this movie again--I just couldn't bring myself to sit through all the filler just to get to the good parts. How I wish Jackson and/or Universal would consider releasing a 2-hour DVD version. Hey, it's happened before, so what's the harm? Inside of a year there'll be 17 versions out on DVD anyway...what's one more? But having to sit through a 3-4 hour D