King Kong

I agree, some scenes maybe are a bit too long. But what do you expect from a 3 hour movie? That it is short?

You know how the duration before you start watching.

I was thinking give it an eight or a nine. I chose nine. Because overall this still is a great adventure movie for sure.

The more recent Kong: Skull Island is a fun watch as well, but more like a fast paced action movie of it's time.

This Peter Jackson version has it's fair amount of action and still pretty good effects and tells a better and more complete story.

1933 New York and two people find themselves in difficult circumstances, albeit for different reasons. Carl Denham is a movie producer who wants to make his big picture but finds the studio unwilling to support him. Ann Darrow is an actress who has hit hard times and is one meal away from having to become a performer in a seedier version of "acting". While frantically searching for an actress that he can quickly convince to come on a mystery voyage to shoot on a distant island, Carl meets Ann and convinces her to come along on the strength of the involvement of writer Jack Driscoll. After an eventful journey, they arrive at the island but to suggest that they face a "troublesome" shoot is a real understatement.

In my 12 hour wait for my "First Class" seat for a transatlantic flight to America I discovered that "First Class" to Continental means "you pay lost more cash but we extend you just the same (dis)courtesy as the economy passengers". With my laptop with me I was at least able to find some distraction with a DVD copy of King Kong. Although I'm sure it loses something by being seen on a comparatively small screen I still enjoyed the film as a big budget b-movie, which is pretty much what it was. Sure, Jackson may have had aspirations to deepen the story and bring real pathos out of his "characters" but he doesn't particularly pull it off and most of the viewers will have been there for the big effects rather than the chance to explore the emotions within a cinematic legend. So in this regard the film works by kicking out the action after a comparatively slow start where we spend a lot of time with lesser characters who don't matter that much in the wider context of the narrative.

However when the action comes it is slick, noisy and visually impressive. The only thing I did have a problem with was how hollow it all was. Jackson does attempt to develop a tender relationship between Kong and Ann, but the material struggles to deliver the goods and all that we are left with is lots of "meaningful" looks as the pair get some sort of unspoken (and unseen!) understanding. At this level the film didn't really engage me – I respected what he was trying to do with it, but I'm afraid I can't relate to those who claim to have cried and felt so much from this "beautiful" relationship.

Faced with such big effects, noise and spectacle, the cast cannot do much other than try and hold their own. Watts has the hardest role as she tries to react and bond with a creature that was never actually there with her in reality – only in a computer. When you remember this, her performance is pretty commendable but when I was watching the film I must admit that I thought she relied far too much on staring and looking sad or having a half-smile on her face; she still did as well as one could have hoped but again I don't get the claims that she was brilliant here when she clearly wasn't. Black and Brody are very much supporting performances that have little to do; Brody didn't suit his role and Black never convinced as a larger than life movie producer. Yet again Serkis does a good job to bring an effect to life although for obvious reasons he is nowhere near as good as he was in the Lord of the Rings films and he can only do so much with expressions.

Overall then a solidly enjoyable blockbuster that produces plenty of noise, action and impressive visual effects. The attempts at depth and meaning are laudable and do add something to the mix but I'm afraid that it doesn't really work as well as some viewers have claimed. Still worth seeing as a blockbuster experience though, despite some of the flaws inherent in the approach and the rather cumbersome running time.

If a movie is three hours or longer, that usually means it already has two negative points against it. But even as the three hours and seven minutes passed, I didn't take my eyes off the television. If the "Rings" trilogies weren't enough to persuade you, now is the time for everyone to agree that Peter Jackson is one of the most imaginative individuals to ever hold the director's chair. This movie belongs to a unique class. Everyone who attempts to replicate "King Kong" should be imprisoned in a rubber room.

Then, you cram this classic remake with moving humanity, astounding amazing effects, and a ton of unforgettable imagery, and you do it all so flawlessly that it's bound to become a classic as well. In a word, Jackson's "King Kong" is amazing, fantastic, beautiful, and spectacular. I'm afraid I can't put it into one word.

WELL...Certainly very few FILMS can boast 3 different BIG BUDGET VERSIONS!!! The EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE!!!

But BEFORE diving in.... FIRST LET US FOCUS on this TITLE's CONTENT & CONTEXT:

In 1956, when I was 8, I saw the original version (1933) of King Kong for the first time. It impacted me very much! ....Although the film tripled me in age, its special effects were the best I had ever seen, without a doubt! The director of King Kong (2005), Peter Jackson (Trilogy: Lord of the Rings), says he saw the original version at age nine and that was what inspired him to become a film-maker. This new version is perhaps one of the best cinema remakes of recent years!

BUT ... (and it is a very BIG "BUT"!) The simple fact that it is not an original story involves many limitations, at least, in my opinion! However, for a few minutes, I'll try to continue this review taking into account that the vast majority of you have never seen the 1933 original...

KING KONG (2005) has many things going for it and against it! Despite this, any film, and King Kong in particular, is much more than a summary and analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. It is, basically, an indictment of just how the modern world destroys everything that is good and innocent for its insatiable appetite for massive and rampant commercialization......Of course, if one so wishes to interpret it that way.

For many, KING KONG will probably seem like a surreal time machine ... first, leading you to the City of New York, at the beginning of the 30s. It is worth commenting that Jackson' recreation was nothing short of absolutely spectacular. Perhaps the best recreation and atmosphere of someplace in the past, without a doubt. Then, when once they get to "Skull Island", we are in a prehistoric world, forgotten millions of years ago. I would say it also qualifies as the best cinematic representation of its type that has appeared in films until 2005, however, not by much, but rather, just barely.

The real charm of the film is its very believable emotional relationship developed between Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and the digital image rendering of KING KONG himself. The strangest thing about this relationship is the apparent peculiar inversion of roles between Ms. Darrow and King Kong. A very special relationship between a dog and its master is very common, where a number of qualities are seen clearly, like love, affection, friendship, mutual respect, platonic love, loyalty, and being able to spend time together sharing activities. In addition, a master offers his pet special care and affection.

What happens here is that King Kong is the master and Ann Darrow, by her own volition, assumes the role of pet. Of course, both these terms are used here in the best possible sense!

Another great achievement of King Kong is the awesome reality represented in its title character. Previously, I think Lord of the Rings' Gollum, also directed by Peter Jackson, was the most realistic CGI character image. But King Kong, you can say, is the first digital character that seems real in almost every scene of the film. Above all, the depth of emotion expressed in the eyes has no equal. If for no other reason than this, it makes it all really worth it!

There are some other negatives that caught my attention. Jack Black is a comedian of great merit. I was somewhat disappointed with his portrayal of Carl Denham, the eccentric and very egocentric producer responsible for organizing the expedition film. He should learn, as did Jim Carrey, to leave the extreme mugging for comedy.

Also, I imagine this kind of film probably appeals to many children 9, or under. King Kong, unfortunately for them, has a couple wildly violent moments that you may not find suitable for them. Too bad, because 95% of KONG is great for kids!

This film lasts three full hours. The last two are full of action, but in the first hour, there are some lethargic moments. Perhaps Mr. Jackson could have cut some 15 or 20 minutes, no problem.

My last complaint has to do with the famous phrase: "Suspension of Belief". In 2 or 3 scenes, digital images maintain a level of frenetic action so exaggerated, so prolonged, it's a little hard not to drop the famous phrase as in, "Oops! There goes my Suspension....!"

But all in all, I think kudos are in order for Peter Jackson and the vision that he has shown with his version of King Kong. For three decades, Steven Spielberg was the king of Hollywood. There seems to be a new King. Long live the King! Long live Peter Jackson! Long Live KING KONG!

Any comments, questions or observations, in English, o en Español, are most welcome! ........................

Don't get me wrong, I still love Jurassic Park, but the technology there is now twelve years old. Peter Jackson's KING KONG is the experience for which movies were invented. The CGI was incredible, the casting appropriate (this wasn't supposed to be an actor-driven, big-star film, after all), and the flow was satisfying. Even the somewhat slow build-up had a huge payoff once you see Kong running through the jungle with Ann in his giant hand. Is it a flawless movie? Probably not. But it Is a perfect example of why we go to movies in the first place-- to see things that we will never see in our real lives. When I walked out of the theater and was making my way through the deserted lobby, I had an odd feeling. Every poster I saw for an upcoming film kind of made me feel like all those movies were probably just going to be a waste of film next to KING KONG.