King Kong 2005
King Kong (2005)
December 14; AMC Fenway 13
* * * * (out of 4)
This film worried me, the primary reason ironically being one that excited most people. I was worried because this was from the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now I enjoyed Return of the King as much as I could, despite being probably 45-60 minutes too long, but getting through each of the previous two was an arduous task that I’ve only done once. When I heard Kong was going to be on the long side, my fears intensified. Considering the original King Kong was only about 100 minutes, what was Jackson finding that warranted a near-doubling of the run time?
And then I saw the first trailer. And all my fears disappeared.
This became akin to my expectations for Revenge of the Sith. For that, I would forgive a lot of things from the previous films and even some in the new ones, so long as I got an awesome lightsaber battle on top of a volcano. And I got it. For Kong, my one demand was an awesome fight scene between a thirty foot gorilla and a tyrannosaurus rex. And I got it. About four times, and every time ruled. Luckily for us, Kong is so much more than a cover for a “King of the Monsters”-type battle. It’s a damn fine piece of cinema.
Pretty much everything clicked for me in Kong. The characters are all there (although most of the development takes place in the first hour, since after that, if your name isn’t Ann or you’re not a giant monkey, your screen time disappears), the settings are gorgeous and serve the script, and Jackson dispelled any fears I had about his directing – to me, this looks more like Peter Jackson of The Frighteners than Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings. He’s not afraid to play with his camera, or get messy, or let characters have real personalities. That’s also a compliment to the cast, as well. Lots of people had their reservations about Jack Black as Carl Denham, but Black restrains his over-the-top personality JUST enough, and eliminates some of the humor, and Denham is perfect. He’s a kind of semi-sadistic, manipulative schemer who is just enough scary and entirely fun. Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is also great, but a good portion of her character only exists via her relationship with Kong…
… which brings me to the centerpiece of the film, undeniably the reason people stepped into the theater. KONG. In writing/development and design, he is a masterpiece. He comes off as more sympathetic than his predecessor, mostly because a lot more time is spent showing why he develops this attachment to Darrow. A good chunk of the last two-thirds of the film are spent on just the two of them – the film-stealing scene is when Darrow performs her vaudeville act for Kong; that’s when she first realizes he has no intention of hurting her. Jackson drops little hints everywhere that this is a different sort of beast than the original showed. In a cave on Skull Island, there are glimpses of giant simian skeletons – Kong is the last of his kind. His fur is matted and grayed. He has scars on his body from years and years of fighting. To an old ape, Ann Darrow is something worth protecting, and he has something worth fighting for again, instead of just territory on the prison of Skull Island.
And it’s gorgeous. I won’t waste any time on that, because you can clearly see it in the trailers. It looks even better on a huge screen. Roger Ebert is right – soon WETA won’t even need a director to make an amazing movie.
There is so much in Kong, pulled from so many different types of films, especially romance, noir and (naturally) action. This is also the first three-hour film I can remember seeing that felt like three hours, and that was fine. Afterward, I thought back on the movie, realized the huge amount of stuff I had just watched, and would have had no problem sitting back down and seeing it again the next day. It doesn’t drag, even before the star appears for the first time – Jackson puts enough into every section and every act to make the time worthwhile.
As far as deference to the original goes, there are references and parallel scenes to the original version, but many are taken out of context or intended as a quick chuckle before Jackson goes back to his version. I saw the original the night before I saw the new one, and while I don’t think it is anything that is really necessary, there are a few gags you might not get. While it’s clear that Jackson loves the ‘30s version (he says King Kong is what made him want to be a filmmaker), he has taken the ideas and basic story outline of that film and exploded it into something entirely different. By my standard, this is NOT a remake.
Right now, King Kong is probably my pick for the best movie of the year – yep, beating Star Wars, if only because Kong stands entirely on its own. Thinking back on it now, I cannot name a single part of the movie I didn’t enjoy. It was, for lack of a better term, three hours of bliss. If you haven’t already, get everyone you know, and go watch a masterpiece.
December 14; AMC Fenway 13
* * * * (out of 4)
This film worried me, the primary reason ironically being one that excited most people. I was worried because this was from the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now I enjoyed Return of the King as much as I could, despite being probably 45-60 minutes too long, but getting through each of the previous two was an arduous task that I’ve only done once. When I heard Kong was going to be on the long side, my fears intensified. Considering the original King Kong was only about 100 minutes, what was Jackson finding that warranted a near-doubling of the run time?
And then I saw the first trailer. And all my fears disappeared.
This became akin to my expectations for Revenge of the Sith. For that, I would forgive a lot of things from the previous films and even some in the new ones, so long as I got an awesome lightsaber battle on top of a volcano. And I got it. For Kong, my one demand was an awesome fight scene between a thirty foot gorilla and a tyrannosaurus rex. And I got it. About four times, and every time ruled. Luckily for us, Kong is so much more than a cover for a “King of the Monsters”-type battle. It’s a damn fine piece of cinema.
Pretty much everything clicked for me in Kong. The characters are all there (although most of the development takes place in the first hour, since after that, if your name isn’t Ann or you’re not a giant monkey, your screen time disappears), the settings are gorgeous and serve the script, and Jackson dispelled any fears I had about his directing – to me, this looks more like Peter Jackson of The Frighteners than Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings. He’s not afraid to play with his camera, or get messy, or let characters have real personalities. That’s also a compliment to the cast, as well. Lots of people had their reservations about Jack Black as Carl Denham, but Black restrains his over-the-top personality JUST enough, and eliminates some of the humor, and Denham is perfect. He’s a kind of semi-sadistic, manipulative schemer who is just enough scary and entirely fun. Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is also great, but a good portion of her character only exists via her relationship with Kong…
… which brings me to the centerpiece of the film, undeniably the reason people stepped into the theater. KONG. In writing/development and design, he is a masterpiece. He comes off as more sympathetic than his predecessor, mostly because a lot more time is spent showing why he develops this attachment to Darrow. A good chunk of the last two-thirds of the film are spent on just the two of them – the film-stealing scene is when Darrow performs her vaudeville act for Kong; that’s when she first realizes he has no intention of hurting her. Jackson drops little hints everywhere that this is a different sort of beast than the original showed. In a cave on Skull Island, there are glimpses of giant simian skeletons – Kong is the last of his kind. His fur is matted and grayed. He has scars on his body from years and years of fighting. To an old ape, Ann Darrow is something worth protecting, and he has something worth fighting for again, instead of just territory on the prison of Skull Island.
And it’s gorgeous. I won’t waste any time on that, because you can clearly see it in the trailers. It looks even better on a huge screen. Roger Ebert is right – soon WETA won’t even need a director to make an amazing movie.
There is so much in Kong, pulled from so many different types of films, especially romance, noir and (naturally) action. This is also the first three-hour film I can remember seeing that felt like three hours, and that was fine. Afterward, I thought back on the movie, realized the huge amount of stuff I had just watched, and would have had no problem sitting back down and seeing it again the next day. It doesn’t drag, even before the star appears for the first time – Jackson puts enough into every section and every act to make the time worthwhile.
As far as deference to the original goes, there are references and parallel scenes to the original version, but many are taken out of context or intended as a quick chuckle before Jackson goes back to his version. I saw the original the night before I saw the new one, and while I don’t think it is anything that is really necessary, there are a few gags you might not get. While it’s clear that Jackson loves the ‘30s version (he says King Kong is what made him want to be a filmmaker), he has taken the ideas and basic story outline of that film and exploded it into something entirely different. By my standard, this is NOT a remake.
Right now, King Kong is probably my pick for the best movie of the year – yep, beating Star Wars, if only because Kong stands entirely on its own. Thinking back on it now, I cannot name a single part of the movie I didn’t enjoy. It was, for lack of a better term, three hours of bliss. If you haven’t already, get everyone you know, and go watch a masterpiece.
posted by Matt S. at
11:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home