"King Kong" remains one of the most beloved films from the 1930's. From its groundbreaking special effects, the memorable characters, and the high sense of adventure and stakes, the film is recognized to not only be an important film from its time, but one of the greatest films of all time. Although there was a remake back in 1976 that got some acknowledgement for its visual effects and modern setting, it proved to not be very memorable as time goes on. However, it is Peter Jackson's 2005 remake that had everyone's attention from the moment of its production. From the big-name cast and crew, the largest budget up to date, and modern technology being able to accomplish more than what anyone could imagine from 1933, it was a smash hit and has sparked many debates of if the film was better or inferior than the classic, to which I will discuss in this review. During the Great Depression, a down-on-her-luck vaudeville actress, Ann Darrow, is hired by Carl Denham, a filmmaker wanted by the authorities, as she learns that her favourite playwright, Jack Driscoll, wrote the screenplay for Denham's movie. As the crew go on a long voyage by boat, Carl reveals that he intends to set the film on the undiscovered Skull Island. As the crew set foot on the mysterious island, they are attacked by the local natives and Ann is sent as a sacrifice to the giant ape known as Kong. While everyone forms a rescue operation to rescue Ann, the ape has no interest in eating the actress, but befriending her as she seems to be the only one to understand his animal instinct and behaviour. The remake stays pretty faithful to the original and just expands on it rather than alter or completely change it. When I mean expand upon, I literally mean expand upon as the runtime of over three hours crams in plenty of scenes, from the long boat ride, the various dangers on Skull Island, more chemistry with Ann and Kong, etc. While it allows so much extra detail, the issue is that the pacing is just completely all over the place. For almost an hour, the crew doesn't arrive on Skull Island, and by the time they capture Kong, there's still another hour left of the film. Every act has their respective moments in the film, but the core issue is that it's just way too long and while there's no real filler, scenes go on for just a bit too long. Tonally, it manages to stay in nature with the original as it's a film that is just a bit intense for children, but not enough to downright scare them as the movie does have its share of funny moments along with the action and horror-like elements.
Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is very good as the talented, but unlucky actress with her own sense of attitude. While she's an enjoyable presence in the first act, I love the lack of dialogue she shares with Kong throughout the movie as she knows that there's no real point in attempting to talk to it. Jack Black is such a strange, yet effective actor to play Carl Denham, the filmmaker who becomes obsessed with Kong whether it's to film or capture him. At first, it feels weird to have this very comedic actor to be in a film that mostly takes itself very seriously, but Black manages to slip into the role as both this sympathetic and unlikeable man who lost his sense of moral or loyalty. Adrien Brody is also a really good choice as Jack Driscoll, a playwright who falls in love with Ann and has no interest in capturing or killing Kong. While Brody fits the part for his dry wit, especially appearance-wise, he's not the most engaging character of the film as he never does anything notably bad-ass during the journey nor has a complex arc as Denham, other than being the one to save Ann from Kong by the end of the second act. The side characters include Captain Englehorn, the hardened leader of the ship who doesn't trust Denham, Preston, Denham's personal assistant, Benjamin Hayes, the first mate who leads the rescue expedition due to her army training back in The Great War, Jimmy, a young sailor who looks up to Hayes, Bruce Baxtor, an actor who specializes in adventure films and is hired by Denham to take part of the movie, Lumpy and Choy, notable sailors who join in the expedition, and Herb and Mike, Denham's cameraman and soundman. As you can tell, there's a lot of notable side characters in the film and although there are some very likeable performances and personalities, the issue is that there's just way too many side characters and some of them don't even do anything in the third act. I won't say who gets killed or not during the film, but I will say that some of those side characters do manage to survive, yet have no role in the third act whether it's to be killed or help out the main leads during Kong's rampage. The last character to mention is Kong himself, portrayed by motion-capture legend Andy Serkis, who also plays Lumpy. I personally love this interpretation of Kong the most, as it's essentially a giant silverback gorilla, which not only makes it a more distinct portrayal, but actually gives more reason for Ann to care for the creature as she acknowledges that he's really just a giant animal that means no real harm. However, I don't like how some scenes of the two go on for too long and the "ice-skating" scene in Central Park is just way too silly in my opinion. Regardless, all of the characters are actually very well-casted and characterized, it's just that there's way too many side characters for my liking.
After the immense success of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, many wondered what could be Peter Jackson's next cinematic epic and masterpiece. While Jackson didn't exactly create a revolutionary film with this remake, it's abundantly clear that he put all of his effort and dedication to the film, considering his love for the original. The 1930's backdrop is wonderfully created with tons of effects and excellent production design to have some authenticity to the world. Although it would have been more interesting to have the film be set in modern-day, I got to give credit to Jackson that he managed to perfectly emulate the time period. The third act also makes New York to be a very lavish and gorgeous city with the night sky and winter aesthetic, along with Times Square's shining aesthetic and product placement. Skull Island itself is also a haunting, yet lavish landscape filled with creative sets and tons of detail in its location. The set designs themselves are fantastic as practically all of the film was shot in some sound-stage or studio in New Zealand, which is an impressive feat for a film that looks like at least a quarter of it appeared to be on location. The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie, a long-time collaborator of Jackson, is very good and has expression depending on the location and mood, whether it's the cramp, tiny ship, the scary base of the island with the local natives, and the beautiful wide-shots of the island offering some beauty in an island filled with beasts. However, there are some shots of slowed-down, motion blur with awkward slants that really makes me nauseous. I assume that's by design, and it's clearly a trademark of both Lesnie and Jackson in other established works, but man, those moments are just ugly to the senses, regardless of the intention behind them. The score by James Newton Howard is very good and has lots of both epic and dramatic pieces. I love the subdued music at times, mainly during the snake pit scene. The visual effects still hold up fifteen years later. The majority of the CGI looks great with tons of detail and motion for Kong, dinosaurs, and creatures. However, there's a lot of green-screen being used and it gets very noticeable with the stampede scene and some instances with Ann being held by Kong. Lastly, there's the action to mention, which once again is simply captivating to watch. The highlights are clearly the snake pit, Kong's battle with the T-Rex pack, and the climax where Kong is causing a rampage in New York. The action is captured brilliantly with the best effects possible and some cool hero moments for plenty of the characters. Jackson is known to be a fantastic filmmaker and, although he made some mistakes, he still managed to make a great-looking and sounding blockbuster.
"King Kong" is a remake that has managed to surpass the original in a variety of ways, but still falls behind it in others. There's plenty of good that the remake does. The story and tone stays true to the original, all of the characters are casted well and given distinct and likeable personalities, the production and set design manages to bring life to Skull Island and takes viewers back into the world of the 1930's, Lesnie offer some great shots with plenty of emotion and mood captured in each one, Howard's score is as good as the composer is known for, the visual effects are still good-looking fifteen years later, there's plenty of noteworthy action or horror scenes that keeps you engaged or suspenseful for the outcome, and Jackson's directing manages to hold everything together by passion and skill. However, the original manages to be effective, mainly by how simple and precise the filmmakers were in taking an ambitious story and making it accessible for anyone, no matter as time goes on. While there are a lot of good things Jackson managed to come out with, there's a few glaring issues that stick out to everyone. The three hour runtime kills the pacing, the expanded story adds intriguing, but not very necessary, details in a snail's pace, scenes go on for too long, there's way too many side characters that won't play a role in the third act regardless of their fate, the motion blur shots Jackson is known for continue to make viewers like me nauseous, and the heavy amounts of green-screen causes people to point out some fake and awkward moments. So, although the remake has qualities that could have potentially made it one of the best films of the decade, there were just a few too many issues that prove critical to the viewing experience. Regardless if you prefer the original or the remake, there's one thing I can't deny, which is that Jackson's film is practically one of those films that must be watched at least once in your life, especially on the big screen.
Verdict: 7/10. Good, but not great. Both films will stand the test of time, though the original will be the easier watch. If you however want a more modern version with great action, filmmaking and effects, the remake should be able to more than please you.
No comments:
Post a Comment