zBoneman.com -- Home Movie Reviews

King Kong (2005)

King Kong
"Skipper, did I not put you in charge of dosing the ape with Salt Peter before each performance? See anything unusual? Like a brown, hairy school bus"

Starring:

Naomi Watts
Jack Black
Adrian Brody

Released By:

Universal Pictures

Released In:

2005

Rated:

PG-13

Reviewed By:

Adam Mast

Grade:

B+


King Kong is a true spectacle of a motion picture. It really has it all; action, drama, romance, humor, and, of course, eye popping special effects. I guess the real question though, is it any damn good? The answer is yes, it is a good movie. However, I wouldn't call it a great movie - I'm afraid it comes up a little short of greatness.

For those who aren't in the know, the original King Kong from 1933 is the movie that made Peter Jackson want to become a film maker. And in fact, the creative visionary had been tinkering with the idea of a remake for several years, but it wasn't until after a little series called Lord of the Rings, that Mr. Jackson earned the clout to realize his vision.

This version of King Kong, unlike the 70's update starring Jessica Lange, Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin, takes place in the 30's and features Jack Black as Carl Denham, an eccentric, downright crazed film maker (think Howard Hughes in the early part of The Aviator) with aspirations of bestowing upon the world one of the most grand motion picture experiences of all time. Unfortunately, Denham and his masterpiece are up against a few little obstacles - namely no studio backing and no leading lady. So, like most maverick film makers, Denham sets out to finish the picture come hell or high water flying by the seat of his pants. As if by fate a leading lady practically falls in his lap in the form of struggling young actress Ann Darrow (a luminous Naomi Watts), and charters a boat in the wild hope that he and his film crew might find the mythical Skull Island - an uncharted strip of land that will serve as the perfect backdrop for his monster opus. The journey is treacherous to be sure, but the excitement really begins once they reach the island. When the ship finally sets shore the film crew and shipmates come face to face with the creepy natives that inhabit the island, but the massive wall that fortresses their dwelling place gives the crew cause to suspect that the hostile natives may be the least of their worries. That suspicion would be correct. And before you can say "banana," Darrow is abducted by the natives and bound as a sacrificial offering in order to appease the true star of the film, one King Kong - a colossal gorilla whom is feared above all of the island's many beasts.

King Kong takes it's time with it's set up. Perhaps too much time (the movie runs just over three hours compared to the original's one hour and forty minute running time). Don't get me wrong. I'm all for character development, but there lies the problem. The first hour of the picture establishes what kind of people Darrow and Denham are, but does a piss poor job of developing the so called romance between Darrow and screenwriter Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). This proves to be a major weakness in the film, as Driscoll's desperate yearning and acts of bravery in the final act just don't ring true.

On the other hand, the idea that we the audience must wait over an hour to finally get a glance at Kong, adds to the anticipation and mystique of the whole film. Once the big hairy guy does make an appearance, the film quickly changes gears, and turns into a relentless, if a tad self indulgent, action piece complete with prehistoric monsters, giant bats, and king-size insects. And almost immediately, we see why Kong is the king of this jungle. He'd have to be to survive in this rough neighborhood.

Kong isn't exactly disciplined film making. It's passionate to be sure and it's clear that Jackson loves the source material tremendously, but whereas Lord of the Rings had a more impressive balance of character and spectacle, King Kong is more about the awe inspiring grandeur. Not that there's anything entirely wrong with that mind you - I suppose this is what most audiences want to see. Furthermore, this isn't hollow entertainment like we're used to seeing from the likes of film makers such as Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers. Kong does have heart, and it's incredibly lively, but quite often - particularly when Driscoll, Denham and crew set out to rescue Darrow, the film drowns in a sea of repetition and excess. It's action for the sake of action and doesn't really serve the story. In fact, in a weird way, it is the action-packed rescue portion of the movie that sort of slows the flick down. Even more so than the first act.

There are other items in the screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson that could have been omitted entirely. There's a strange fatherly bond between crewman Hayes (Evan Parke) and ragamuffin stowaway Jimmy (Jamie Bell) that I could have done without. Hayes' constant words of wisdom became extremely tiresome. Not only was it a dead-end subplot, but it also contained some of the film's more stilted dialogue.

I did enjoy the numerous inside film making jokes and also loved the clever references made to the original picture (watch for a wonderful tip of the hat to actress Fay Wray).

The strongest moments in the picture are the ones between Darrow and Kong. There's a sweetness and melancholy tone to the bond that develops between these two that I wasn't really prepared for. I wasn't sure how it would play. Happily, Jackson pulls this unlikely relationship off for two reasons. Firstly, he's found the perfect Darrow in Naomi Watts. This amazing actress simply goes for it. Look no further than her first big moment with Kong in which the fearless performer, in an attempt to prolong her life by diverting the great beast, she goes with what she knows and breaks into her Vaudeville schtick. The whole scenario seems ridiculous but it works amazingly well, because Watts really sells it.

Secondly, Jackson has found the perfect leading man in Kong. But then Jackson is no stranger to the world of amazingly realistic CG characters. Look at Lord of the Rings' Gollum for example. Kong is on par with that. He is brought to life through the effects magicians at WETA Workshop and through the brilliant body language and mannerisms of Andy Serkis (who also plays Lumpy the cook in the film), the terrific actor who also helped bring Gollum to life. Jackson has made an extra conscious effort to make Kong a character in the picture and not just an effect. One of my very favorite sequences in the movie, occurs in the final act as Kong is taken to New York and is treated as a sideshow attraction. The pain in his eyes is evident, but what really makes this sequence fly is his angered reaction to the replacement woman whom Kong initially believes to be Darrow. When Kong realizes the woman before him is an imposter, all hell breaks loose. This is a beast that will not be duped. The bottom line is, it is the bond between Darrow and Kong that is the foundation of the movie. If it doesn't work, then the movie would have been dead in the water. Thankfully, it does work.

Jack Black (whom I'm a huge fan of) is neither terrible nor great. He's just sort of there as is the rest of the cast (i.e. Colin Hanks, Adrien Brody, Jamie Bell etc.). Furthermore, Black's Denham is somewhat the selfish prick in the movie, but he is who he is in the name of his art, and for what it's worth, Black is able to lend a little likability to the role. Let's face it though, the movie is really about Darrow and Kong, and the film is strongest when the story focuses on them.

Most of the effects work is top notch although it should be noted that some of the live action/CG integration isn't exactly seamless. There are sequences here, most notably a massive brontosauras stampede, where things get a little choppy and muddled, and I wasn't entirely buying the actors' reactions to the chaotic events surrounding them.

Of course for every scene that doesn't work are three or four that do. Kong's battle with a pack of T-Rex's is breathtaking, and the climactic scaling of the Empire State Building is absolutely stunning. In fact, dare I say that the climax as played in this version is stronger and far more heartbreaking than it was in the original, particularly because of the way it's played. Jackson has made slight alterations. Ann Darrow isn't a mere damsel in distress here. She cares for Kong and realizes that he's comforted in her presence. This adds a sort of poignancy to the end of the picture, although I did feel there were a few too many shots of Darrow looking deeply into Kong's lovesick eyes. Still, the ending of this film has real drama. It's packs an emotional wallop.

Finally I'd be an absolute idiot if I didn't mention the look of this picture. It really took my breath away, particularly the re-recreation of Depression era New York. This is movie magic at it's absolute finest. I really was in awe of it.

Kong, while flawed, really establishes Peter Jackson as a true visionary. He's simply drunk in the pure joy of film making, and while his passion sometimes gets the better of him, I applaud him for his sheer showmanship. And while I've been a fan of his work all along, and have followed his career since the early days (I'm a proud fan of Bad Taste, Meet the Feelbes, Dead Alive, Heavenly Creatures and the underrated The Frighteners), it's nice to see him tackle these monstrous projects with such courage of conviction. He hasn't only remade one of his all time favorite films, but he's paid homage to the various film makers he's been inspired by as well (Spielberg just to name one). Now that he's taken the world by storm with the likes of Lord of the Rings and the eighth wonder of the world, it sure would be cool to see him do a smaller movie again. Whatever he chooses to do next, you can be certain I'll be in line to see it.

:: zBoneman.com Reader Comments ::

Darryl Moore

Darryl Moore

Overall it was an entertaining movie, though a bit disappointing. As far as I'm concerned Jackson wasted too much time in the first half of the movie and then had to give short shrift to the ending. Still it's a pretty good movie I suppose.

Black guy

Black guy

I don't think you can possibly say enough about what a misread it was to cast Jack Black as Denham. What's next Black as Anne Frank? The real shame is that for all the time he spent stuck on the other side of the planet, her could have made a couple of good comedies. I make myself feel better about this by convincing myself that those movies would have been Envy 2 and 3.

TD Pitts

TD Pitts

Peter Jackson, riding the unicorn of success after the Lord of the Rings Tragedy, has once again graced us with a offering that has little to recommend it as a "great" motion picture. It's understandable though in light of the fact that he totally missed any resemblance to a story line in the Rings, opting instead for admittedly impressive CGI smoke and mirrors. King Kong is more of the same although it at least follows the story line...somewhat. Adrian Brody is a fine actor but is totally miscast as Jack Driscoll, romantic interest. Naomi Watts handled her part well considering what she had to work with script-wise. Jack Black is OK but lacks any real depth of character. This seems to be Jackson's recurring failing. He felt it necessary to include totally unnecessary characters in this film, for some unfathomable reason (the urchin stowaway)and ignored the basic humanity of the key characters in favor of (sound familiar?) really bitchin' special effects. For some reason Mr. Jackson can't stick with a story line, apparently because he feels he can present the material better than, oh, say, J.R.Tolkein.

In summation, the effects are super and the acting acceptable, but over all the movie lacks the same thing it did in the Rings: heart. The orginal 1933 version of King Kong found most of it's resounding success because of special effects. In all probability the same will be true of this version but I doubt it will stand the test of time as did it's predecessor.

Janice Tucker

Janice Tucker

I have to agree with the previous respondant. The film is a visual wonder, but it's as though Jackson didn't even read the script. Much of the dialogue is just laughably weak, and again there are these two characters that he tries to build some sort of bond between that the audience could care less about. One part of me would really like to see Jackson fall back and do a small film or a character study such as he's done in the past. But another part of me is afraid that he's become so enamored with his own wizardry, that he's lost touch with any ability he may have had in the past to tell a human story. We'll see I guess.

Bryan Robb

Bryan Robb

Personally I don't know what those last two people are talking about. I will agree that the Kong script had it's weaknesses, but it was the story and the characters and the dialogue that made the Lord of The Rings the masterpiece trilogy that it no doubt is. I guess everyone is entitled to their opionion, but it seems like you two are way the hell off in yours.

Brent Crandall

Brent Crandall

I have read the last few posts and feel inspired to throw in my two cents worth. I agree that aside from the relationship Jackson builds between Kong and Darrow, the rest of the film is sorely lacking in character. Personally I don't think Black necessarily hurt the film, but by the same token he didn't bring anything to it either. There are literally hundreds of actors that would have been better suited to play Denham. His character is supposed to be a despicable heartless cad, and I felt like Jackson didn't dare do that with Black, simply because he's so beloved. So what we end up with is a character who is completely on the fence. Sometimes he's a nice guy and you can relate to his challenges and then all of the sudden he does something that seems coldhearted. In the process the Denham character was almost erased from the film by being too wishy washy. Denham should have been played by Ben Kingsley or someone of his caliber who can play a nasty bastard - Black just doesn't possess those kind of acting chops and even if he did, the script didn't allow it to come across. King Kong also suffered from a number of minor flaws. One of which is the islands natives. When they first arrive, the natives are a major menacing presence and they were pretty damn scary, what I'd like to know is how come we never saw hide nor hair of them in the rest of the film. So much of the film took place on the island, so where the hell were they. Edited for time, is my guess - I'd hate to think that Jackson just forgot about them. I also had problems with the brontasaurous stampede. I hate it when amimals that are running like 10 times faster than the humans can't seem to keep up, even when the humans are dropping their cameras and tripping and falling down. One minute the huge beasts are right above them and in the next the humans have gained a sizable lead. This is knitpicking, but that's one of the things I've always admired about Jackson is that he is a stickler for those sort of details. Anyway, I found the movie to be a significant disappointment, and I'm surprised all the major publications are giving the film such high marks, even the one's not known for brown nosing are cutting the film a lot of slack. Go figure?

Carl Bryson

Carl Bryson

Y'all can knit-pick King Kong all you want, but the bottom line is I was well entertained during the entire film and that's what I paid my 8 dollars for and I feel like I more than got my money's worth. For christ's sake it's a movie about a big monkey, what's the matter with you people?

Gretchen Baird

Gretchen Baird

Yes you're right it's a movie about a big monkey and it is a big budget picture intended to bring in the big Holiday dollar, but those of us who have become such fans of Jackson, however fairly, havve come to hold him to a higher standard. This is his own fault for delivering three of the grandest films ever made. You can argue this point until your blue in the face, but the LOTR trilogy will stand for decades to come as the standard by which all such films are judged, including Narnia and his own Kong. While I would agree that King Kong deserves no better marks than a B+ (and that's being awfully generous) Jackson has made us accustomed to expect A+ film making. And in that respect he has let his fans down.

Sorry Mr. Jackson

Sorry Mr. Jackson

What a wacky place that Skull Island is, huh? Enormous apes, disappearing cannibals, a nice sampling of Jurassic Park critters, great slugs with teeth that suck you into their uncircumsized heads, grasshoppers the size or pit bulls, bats who look like they could start their own goth bands - and then a few puny humans who are able to subdue a 30 foot gorrilla capable of disemboweling 3 T Rexes, with the equivalent of a couple Utah beers? I'm sorry but I can't get behind this bullshit. I recommend that you go rent the 70s version of King Kong and cut the monster a little slack for being a guy in a monkey suit (they'd never heard of CGI in those days) That film made a lot more sense than this one. The natives played a role in capturing Kong in a much more plausible manner, and then as Jeff Bridges so poignantly pointed out, the natives once they had lost their God, the central figure of their belief system they fell into sloth and alcoholism. There was something wonderfully metaphorical about that. Compare the relationship between Bridges and Jessica Lange to the tepid business between Watts and Brody - that fllm was unfairly criticized and I hope all this renewed Kong interest inspires more people to check it out, aside from the CGI it was a far more affecting film and Charles Grodin kicked Jack Black's ass. Come to think of it, Charles Grodin was the original Jack Black. Minus the band, of course. Tell me this? How did they get Kong back to New York on that rickety little dingey? A crate full of Chloroform, no way. In the 70's version they had him in the hold of an oil tanker and they barely made it - lots of holes in this New Kong, lots of holes. I'd say Jackson screwed the pooch. And that's coming from a total nerd of a LOTR fan.

Stonewall Jackson

Stonewall Jackson

So let me get this straight - the only thing Jackson's King kong has got going for it is some nifty special effects and a relationship between a blonde and a brunette ten times her size, belonging to a different species, hmm - do you think it's possible that Jackson has done the unthinkable, proved that he's a merely a human being? I think maybe that's it.

Danny Petrie

Danny Petrie

Adam speaks of the Spielberg connection in his review and I know this might be kind of an ignorant point to make but didn't the Lost World have about the same ending? True Spielberg had the two previous Kong movies as a precedent. But the Lost World also ended with a misplaced beast let loose into human civilization, only to be conquered and destroyed as a result of love? The T Rex in the Lost World was merely trying to protect a loved one, when it went on it's rampage and they used that very thing in order to kill it ? It all makes for a compelling case of who's stealing from who. Now that I think about it Jeff Goldblum would have made a pretty good Carl Denham. Oh how it all comes full circle. I have to say that I rarely take part in message boards because they are typically so retarded, but this one has been a refreshing exception. This must be a pretty good site to attract so many intelligent cats. Pleased to be a part of it, though I fear my point is among the most inane.

Paul Maggio

Paul Maggio

It's strange about Jack Black's performance. While I didn't particularly care for it. I still say that the casting wasn't the problem. I really think that Black had a better performance in him than the one that wound up on screen. He just didn't lose himself in the role. I just felt like it was Jack Black pretending to be someone else. Look at me, I'm in a Peter jackson movie, this is kick ass. I just never bought into it, which isn't to say that I wasn't rooting for him and wouldn't have loved it if he'd done really well. Oh well, it's just a Christmas popcorn pusher I suppose.

Boo

Boo

King Kong is just a great big bang of a good time, and anyone who overanalyzes any of it is totally missing the point.

Bogey

Bogey

As far as I'm concerned, King Kong is so badly inferior to the Lord to the Rings, that it might as well have been the Dukes of Hazzard. Just a waste of so much talent - for so little worthwhile movie. I feel like the Grinch has stolen Christmas. Hopefully Munich will not be this kind of let down

Add your own comment here and see it posted immediately!