|
|
|
 |
Reviews |
 |
Source:
rec.art.movies.reviews newsgroup
Rating:
|
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.
By : Sam Osborn (http://www.samseescinema.com/)
|
|
Source:
rec.art.movies.reviews newsgroup
Rating:
|
CAPSULE: Peter Jackson's longtime ambition to make a new version of KING KONG is fulfilled with a great yet respectful expansion and remake. He finds enough ways to improve the original film that even die-hard fans should be impressed. There is a lot of film here for a single admission ticket. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4) or 9/10
The question has been asked, "If you have a favorite film, who would you want to remake it?" And the best answer is, "Nobody!" If you have a favorite film you want the story left as it is. At least that is the common wisdom. But all my life one of my favorite films has been the 1933 KING KONG. (I gave the 1976 remake a viewing. It was painful. The opening was reasonable, but as the film went along it got worse and more painful.) Then it was announced that Peter Jackson was going to make another remake. Well, at that time Jackson had showed some talent. But I was a little relieved when the project was tabled and Jackson went off to make his version of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. That was an extremely hard project and Jackson proved himself to be a very good visual fantasist. He also was the first director ever to have one film I rated -4 (BAD TASTE) and another I rated +4 (THE LORD OF THE RINGS). Then he went back to Kong. Okay, Mr. Jackson, do your best.
All right, I admit it. Peter Jackson actually made a better version of KING KONG than the original. It really is considerably better. I gave the original KING KONG a +4. Jackson's version gets a +3. His film was not as original as the 1933 KONG and he had seventy-two years of technology to help him. But he has made what I would judge one of the greatest action- adventures ever filmed. By making a film that is almost 80% longer he has the time to develop his characters and it does show. He gives the people back-stories so you can actually get involved with the characters. I have to admit that in the first half-hour or so of the film I was getting involved in the stories of Carl Denham as an unscrupulous filmmaker and of Ann Darrow as someone other than the girl who would be in a hairy paw. This is not the same Ann Darrow who was in the 1933 version, but she is close enough. Carl Denham is similar to the original but is more of an unprincipled sharpster who is less than likable. Another change that I think would have been made in the original film if the writers had a second chance: the girl is sympathetic to the beast. The same team did that with SON OF KONG and in MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. But the original Ann Darrow in the 1933 version never seemed to look at Kong as anything but a threat. In fact, any sympathy that the audience felt for the ape may have been unintentional.
I will not say a lot about the plot, since most people have seen the original film, and that tells more than enough about the plot of this version. Jackson has used the original film as an outline and just expanded it with a great deal of respect for the original material. He was content to tell very much the same story and just in scene after scene show how his visual sense and his seventy-two years of additional technology allowed him to outdo the original on a scene-by-scene basis. For example in the original KONG the natives are not really as impressive as intended, and they are entirely the wrong race. In the new film they are racially more accurate and as scary as the orcs of LORD OF THE RINGS. In the original film all the character foundation work takes place before Ann is kidnapped so after that the film can be non-stop action. The same is true here, but it is about seventy-five minutes before the real action starts. It does the job, but the film does not drag.
Even some of the best films have a few scenes the fans could do without. I have problems with both versions of KONG. In the original film poking fun at Charlie, the Chinese cook, never sat well with me. In the new film nearly every scene seemed to work for me for most of the film. But there is a silly little idyll that I could have done without with Kong and Ann on a frozen pond in Central Park, away from the hustle and bustle that one might expect would accompany having a twenty-five-foot ape loose in the New York City.
The Jackson team has created a marvelous visualization of the whole Kong story. Skull Island earns its name, not with a giant mountain that looks like a skull, as unlikely as that would be. This film gives the feel of a great previous civilization that at one time lived all over the island, not just on the safe side of the wall. How they did that with the fauna in the interior of the island makes the story all the more mysterious. The dinosaurs are given a new physicality that I have not seen in even the Jurassic Park films. When stampeding dinosaurs try to go through a narrow space you have the feel that these are massive animals piling into each other. The dinosaurs and most other animals look very good. The bats do not. But close-up bats never look very good on film and it would be better for filmmakers to just leave them out of plots. Kong is much more like a natural gorilla in the new film. He has the posture of a gorilla and he yawns at odd moments making him seem more like a natural animal. The original Kong had too many human gestures, had inconsistent dimensions, and was more a sort of ape-man than a gorilla. The new Kong is a realistic but magnificent ape.
The film is full of loving visual and sound tributes to the original film. The credits are done in the same style. Tiny pieces of the Max Steiner music creep into the James Newton Howard score. Then when we get to Times Square the same neon ads are on the buildings and the Steiner score is reprised in an unexpected way that pokes a little loving fun at the original film. And at the end of the credits there is a nice tribute to many of the names of people who contributed to the original film.
There are a few problems. Kong is graceful, but he is a little too acrobatic to be believed. This is especially true in the scenes where he carries Ann and would have broken her neck if both were more than digital images. In the script Denham sees the ape carry off Ann and does not see them again, but somehow knows that the ape will follow Ann. The script does not explain how he knows that.
This is a production that proves that even a great film can have a remake that is even better. I just wish Willis O'Brien were around and could look what they done to his Kong. I rate it +3 on the -4 to +4 scale or 9/10.
Oh, and one thing that I would have been thought would have been obvious from the 1933 film, and this film makes it even more obvious. Some wag has found what some think is a goof in the film. Why leave a Kong-sized gate in the wall that was intended to keep Kong out of the village? It is easy to explain. Suppose Kong decided to climb the wall and he ended on the other side. We know Kong is a climber, after all. Would a native prefer trying to convince Kong to climb the wall again to return to his side or to open the gate and tempt Kong to return through it?
By : Mark R. Leeper
|
 |
Featured Posters |
|
|
