Movie Review
21 Comments | Add a Comment

0


KING KONG

By: Abbie Bernstein
Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Let it be said upfront that there is no way a remake, or indeed much of anything else, can surpass the impact of the original 1933 KING KONG. The movie world was relatively new then; concepts and indeed whole genres were being invented, rather than extended or improved upon.

Having said that, director Peter Jackson and his co-scenarists Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens the team that brought us the LORD OF THE RINGS films have really thought and felt out hidden potential in the original KING KONG, with results that are emotionally and dramatically rich and satisfying, as well as giving us a cornucopia of movie riches. Their KONG has two love stories to root for, tragedy, black comedy, fabulous monster action, a bit of horror and a real sense of spectacle.

The new KONG is fairly faithful to the original in its broad strokes, though characters have been fleshed out, particularly the title anti-hero portrayed by a combination of CGI and a motion-captured performance by the extraordinarily talented Andy Serkis (who had similar duties in a very different role as Gollum in the RINGS trilogy) and actress heroine Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), who as we meet her is in the process of losing her job as a vaudevillian. We're in Depression-era New York, where moviemaker Carl Denham (Jack Black, playing the character as an homage to Orson Welles) is bent on utilizing a secret map to make his new spectacle. When his leading lady drops out, Carl spots Ann on the street and offers her the part, based on the fact that she'll fit the costumes and does in fact have an intriguing tragic quality. Intent on staying ahead of his investors, who want to pull the financial plug, Carl gets an expedition underway on the somewhat rickety sea vessel The Venture, which has in the past been used for animal capture. Key personnel aboard are Ann, soulful writer Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), self-adoring leading man Bruce Baxter (an amusingly on-target Kyle Chandler) and wary Captain Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann), who strongly suspects that Carl's ambitions will lead to everyone's undoing. The quest leads to Skull Island, where Carl hopes to photograph something (he doesn't know what yet) that no one has originally seen. However, when Ann is kidnapped by natives and offered as a sacrifice to the giant ape they call Kong who dominates the island, priorities change. Jack is determined to rescue Ann and Carl becomes determined to capture Kong.

On a strictly thrill level, one big difference between this KONG and the original is that the creature factor has been substantially amped up. Both Ann and the rescue party encounter a horde of monstrous animal life multiple species of dinosaurs, gigantic bugs and ferocious bats that give the second act a lot of big (in every sense of the word) pulp thrills, with extended sequences that escalate wonderfully.

However, where the new KONG really succeeds is in developing the nuanced kinship between Ann and Kong. Here Ann is very much a participant in her own survival, using strategy rather than just looks to pique Kong's interest, then gradually becoming intrigued herself, then grateful, and finally empathetic. The film doesn't attempt to clean Kong up in the sense of making him any more sympathetic to humans in general he kills quite a few people (including some we like), but his sentiments are easily readable, whether infuriated, amused or caring. In both behavior and appearance (size notwithstanding), this is one of the best-rendered, most realistic-looking screen gorillas ever Jackson, Serkis and the effects team have done an extraordinary job here. Watts adds to the impact, reacting so thoroughly (and shot at such apt angles) that we easily accept that she's really interacting with a 25-foot-tall ape.

The performances are quite wonderful. In addition to Serkis as Kong (he does double-duty in a droll performance as the ship's tough-guy British cook), Watts shows a deft physicality and quiet intelligence that make her utterly likable as well as lovely, while Brody as the intellectual forced into action displays appropriate terror, tenderness and grit. Black's manipulative Carl is alternately hilarious and appalling (sometimes both) and Kretschmann is persuasively world-weary and imposing as the ship's captain.

It should be said there are a couple of iffy moments with some of the CGI, but none of it involves the superb Kong himself and there is so much of it that is seamless that the few less than perfect shots are noticeable primarily because of the splendor surrounding them.

The new KING KONG probably won't single-handedly stun a whole generation of moviegoers in the same way the original did, but it will move, excite and thrill a number of its viewers in some ways that the first one did not. It is wonderful filmmaking twenty-first-century style, done with respect, skill and obvious love.



Related Products
Comments/Responses
1 2 3 > >>
• Dec 14, 2005, 03:54am •
Just got back from a midnight showing of Kong. IT ROCKED!!! 3 hours flew by like nothing. The visuals were stunning, the actors were believable, the suspense was gripping, the drama was heart-wrenching. I know it probably won't win any awards outside of special effects (Kong looked great, kudos to Serkis and the effects teams), but definitely worth seeing more than once. Jackson really knows how to turn the screws when it comes to action and suspense, I was on the edge of my seat for quite a bit of the film. At times, I was even genuinely afraid for the charcters who I knew were going to survive, at least for a while longer. You could almost take the whole Skull Island part of the movie and make it its own feature film. The relationships were richly developed at a good pace, most you know are inevitable but they're not rushed into. There were even some good horror moments (those slug-things? I checked out for a second or two). It was really faithful to the original, just took it to the next level....or next 100 levels. Definitely a must see! (some little kids may get freaked out with one or two things though, definitely some parts that'll make you squirm). A+ Go see this movie!!!

• Dec 14, 2005, 08:08am •
Is there any doubt that King Kong will be the biggest movie of this year, never mind this season? I'm going to see it on Friday or maybe even thursday, not just for the movie itself, but also for the X-Men 3 trailer.

• Dec 14, 2005, 12:56pm •
Incredible. Amazing. Spectacular. Outstanding. Three hours never went by so quickly. The movie may be a little too intense for small kids, but this movie will knock your socks off! I just watched the original the other night so it was fresh in my mind. It's breathtaking to see how far movie effects (and not just the fx, but the lighting and overall mood and feel of the film) have come since the first Kong. Mr. Jackson should be very proud of himself for the masterpiece he lovingly crafted. After watching Kong, and thinking back on the LOTR films, I can imagine how great a Dune series of films would have been in his hands. Kong is King of the world!

• Dec 14, 2005, 01:07pm •
Funny how things work out sometimes. Jackson was heartbroken when the plug got pulled on this several years ago. Now, with the years spent crafting LOTR into a ground-breaking epic, advances in SFX have turned this movie into a spectacle far beyond what it would have been at that time, not to mention Jackon's own progression as a director. I can't wait to see it. The sad thing is Peter Jackson will now take some well-deserved time off and we won't have another fantastic, other-worldly experience to look forward to next Christmas.
Many thanks to Peter, for giving us four of the best (as I'm sure Kong will be) fantasy films of all time, all within the last five incredible years.

• Dec 14, 2005, 01:10pm •
5 years into the new new century and for one of the many genres that I love, only a scanty few I would definitely say comes damn near close to the idea of representing fantastic settings and realizing, through cgi and traditional methods, the wonderful and the strange. And Peter Jackson's childhood fascination and inspiration he has been able to realize onto the screen. Yes, I will definitely see this! On my day off that is.....

• Dec 15, 2005, 02:05am •
The movie was ok. The whole middle of the movie was horrible. Shooting bugs? Bronto rampage? Climbing down the vine and riding a bat? Special FX were SHIT except for the kong scens (1/2 of them anyway) Take out the middle 30 minutes and the movie would be great.

• Dec 15, 2005, 01:48pm •
I hate to say it, but I saw King Kong last night, and frankly, I wasn't impressed. It was OK, but not what all the hype made it to be. Some of the FX were just plain bad, and 3 hours for what is essentially a "monster movie" was a bit much. Jackson's work on LOTR is what's making this movie big, not the movie itself. If it IS the hit it's hyped to be, it certainly won't be because it's actually a good movie, but because the hype sold it. Narnia was actually far more entertaining, even for a "family" film. I give Kong a C-.

• Dec 15, 2005, 01:52pm •
And I give Kong a D for the FX. A LOT of films this year had far better effects, including Narnia, Potter, Sith, and even Serenity! And some say even the Soundtrack was awesome....Really? I collect movie soundtracks(over 200 now), and I don't plan to get this one. Howard is no Williams! Not by a long shot! Williams' Potter score and Sith score are superior in every way.

• Dec 15, 2005, 02:18pm •
Not surprising. I figured the people who wet their pants over Harry Potter & Star Wars would line up to bash this.

• Dec 15, 2005, 03:58pm •
I actually enjoyed Sith, but that's not what got me to go see Kong last night, it WAS the hype, and PJ's legacy with LOTR is what got me to go. I had somewhat lofty expectations for this going in, but I didn't feel as though it delivered on the hype. And I don't wet my pants over Potter or Star Wars, in fact, I'm not much of a Potter fan at all, just the music from Williams. And I AM within my right to express my opinion of this film. It was OK, but not great. It was better than the 70's version, though. If you liked it, great, but I didn't.

1 2 3 > >>
Login to post a comment!