King Kong Review

by samseescinema (sammeriam AT comcast DOT net)
December 15th, 2005

King Kong
reviewed by Sam Osborn of www.samseescinema.com

rating: 4 out of 4

Director: Peter Jackson
Cast: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Kyle Chandler
Screenplay: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
MPAA Classification: PG-13 (frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images)

At its heart, moviegoing is an escape. We hand over our ten bucks and file into theatres every weekend for the adventure we might find within their walls. It's the purest form of film: the adventure. Merien C. Cooper and Ernest B. Shoedsack epitomized this adventure in 1933, when they released the original King Kong. Remake failures have followed in its wake decades later, and essentially ruined the rights to the picture. But now we can witness this awesome adventure again, from the genre's savior, Peter Jackson. His film really is the "eighth wonder of the world."

Most audiences will gasp in the ticket lines, overhearing whispers that King Kong, although excellent, is three hours long. And actually, just to get the record straight, it's three hours and eight minutes long. But let me assure you, we can trust Peter Jackson. He's pored over every frame and segment of this picture and found a pacing that works to its liking. The story of King Kong needs to be told in 188 minutes. Its Jackson's peculiar way of forming pathos in audiences for the most unlikely of characters-a trick he picked up from Lord of the Rings. And it's true, we don't even catch a glimpse of the furry beast until just past the hour mark. Yet, I didn't feel tired or weary of the film during any point of its extended running length. It's spaced in a distinct three-act structure, with each act playing adventure at a different, but equally glorious angle.

In the first of these acts we're taken on crazed filmmaker, Carl Denham's (Jack Black), last desperate grasps at completing his infamous safari film. His producers hate him and his footage, having decided to scrap the picture after already wasting a hefty $40,000. But Denham won't give up, even in the face of casting disaster (his lead actress has dropped-out of the film for good). Luckily, that night he discovers Anne Darrow (Naomi Watts), a struggling, starving actress lowered to pocketing apples from street vendors. After hurriedly casting her, tricking his screenwriter into forced boating, and escaping a troop of police officers, Denham casts off from Manhattan towards his undiscovered Skull Island, in search of his picture. We all know the story from there: Skull Island's natives capture Anne and offer her as sacrifice to great and mighty Kong. The screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), who's taken a liking to Anne, leads the search expedition close after ape's wake. Spectacular adventure ensues, eventually leading to Kong's capture and iconic scaling of the Empire State Building.

Cooper and Shoedsack's Kong of 1933 succeeded beyond its technologically innovative action sequences and lasted for our film history textbooks mostly on the merit of its narrative. The filmmakers gave life and meaning to their three-ton gorilla. The audience fell for the beast. Tears were shed as the credit slides flashed. Jackson's Kong would mean nothing without this pathos. But this is where his three hours of footage comes in handy. Jackson succeeds at the seemingly impossible task of not only keeping faithful to the film's original emotions, but heightening them with King Kong's time expansion. His dissection of relationships and love between man/woman and beast is more or less sociological. It's almost even a testament to the psychology of animals. He toys and delves deeply into the interplay of love between not only Jack and Anne, but also a love between Anne and Kong. It's a paternal love between woman and beast; a relationship that doesn't evoke snickers or rude guffaws from the audience, but, in many cases, ends up in tears. This narrative isn't bullied out of frame by King Kong's action sequences either. In fact, it's often strung through the violence, woven smartly within the sequences to keep its effect.

That's not to say, however, that King Kong is a mushy love story. Oh no, assuredly not. Jackson is, after all, the king of high-profile combat. And with a $207 million price tag on this picture, I expected nothing less than absolute paramount. And what was said about the 1933 Kong becoming frighteningly realistic, I'm ready to announce the same can be said for 2005's iteration. From Jackson's vision of 1930's Manhattan, to his imagining of a brachiosaurus stampede through a jungle canyon, King Kong puts the frantic fun of roller coasters to shame. Each sequence is a snarled mess of adventure waiting eagerly to be unwrapped. Whatever sequence Cooper and Shoedsack mounted for 1933, Jackson has expanded for 2005. Where there were two T-rexes dukin' it out with Kong in the original, now we have three. Also, the infamously snipped spider scene now returns in wholehearted squeamishness. The CGI work is astounding, as expected. But the visual and audio invention Jackson's team of wizards has created makes each frame a work of technical art. King Kong's art direction is simply gorgeous. His New York is glitzy and dazzling, complete with a cinematically attractive take on The Depression. And his other world, the jungle, is equally exciting; a lush and menacing tangle of leafy playgrounds for beasts and critters of all shapes and sizes to roam.

I had no problem getting lost within Kong's story. Unlike Jackson's Lord of the Rings, the acting is justifiably notable here, with Brody and Watts putting up spectacular renditions of those iconic roles. Jackson has again wowed us with his proven audacity. His Kong is not only the best film this year, but probably the best adventure we'll find within those walls of our theatres for a long time to come.
-reviewed by Sam Osborn of www.samseescinema.com

More on 'King Kong'...


Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.