My King Kong review
Peter Jackson's next effort is certainly a very impressive feat. It is the rare remake that actually remains exceedingly faithful to the original, while at the same time expanding the boundaries of what has come before. In 1976 Dino DeLaurentiis appealed to the world that his newest production, a remake of Kong, was "the most exciting, original motion picture event of all time". But it was a failure in many ways in its attempt to modernize the classic tale, with the threat of the then-current oil crisis prompting a billionaire to fund an expedition for unknown oil reserves in the pacific.
Over time these expansions have proved to be dated concepts. Jackson and co-screenwriters Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens (goddesses to film geeks everywhere) have smartly realized that complimentary expansion is only possible through the ways and means of the original narrative setting. In this case, those boundaries are not merely narrative in scope, but technological as well. However, this amping up, while brain candy to be happily eaten up by the captive audiences, is sour in its excess. I at once marvelled and was irritated at the sheer audacity with which this adventure yarn unspools. But this is to be expected from the genius who brought you Meet the Feebles (1989) and Dead Alive (1992).
But for all its excesses for the masses, the audience members with more cerebral intent will no doubt find much meat in the loving recreation and expansion of the 1933 film. The original Merian C. Cooper movie is such a beloved classic that it is almost universally known. Like Citizen Kane and the Wizard of Oz, it is most likely a film that the majority of people will have seen. Jackson's intense love of this hallowed classic is obvious in every frame. The casting is perfect and the acting top-notch. Seeing Andy Serkis as a grizzled ship cook that experiences one of the worst screen-deaths I've ever witnessed is a real treat. And Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Adrien Brody give great performances all around. The visual effects honed by Weta on The Lord of the Rings trilogy have advanced in the ensuing years, and actually rival their predecessors. In fact, Andy Serkis's (Gollum) motion-capture portrayal of Kong is the finest digital character ever created. The full range of emotion he displays connects the audience to the character more than many human actors are capable of. It makes the world thankful that Jackson wasn't able to continue production of this film back in 1996, and was then able to turn to the Lord of the Rings films instead.
Aside from Kong's brilliance, Jackson's team has unleashed their efforts on the very imaginative and believable creatures that populate Skull Island, from many varieties of dinosaurs to oversize insects, worms, and bizarre hybids such as bat-like gargoyles. And since no amount of impressive bestiary is wholly complete without befitting environments, perhaps the biggest feat of Alan Lee's production design and Weta's cg enhancements aside from the big ape is in the locations themselves, notably 1933 New York City. Never has there been so amazing a recreation of New York City of the 1930's than in this instance. If it weren't for the actors we know and the bold colour of the film stock, you could swear these portions of the film are authentically shot in the referenced time-period.
Critics are hailing this film as a four star event, and that is of no doubt. My only qualms with the film is the sheer amount of audacity of the action, and the time they take to play out. Jackson even upstages Michael Bay in this area, and for me that isn't necessarily a good thing. And even though many of the character-driven scenes are repetitive or unnecessary, these never seemed too long. My best recommendation would've been for Jackson to cut an hour of the film for theatres, with this currently-three hour and seven minute opus seen as the inevitable extended DVD cut. But while its three hours plus, its still a treat every minute of the way. This and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are certainly the best event films of the season. My preference is the latter, but I'd be remiss to say King Kong isn't worth every penny of admission. However, I'd strongly advise taking in the original beforehand, or else you'll be missing a bevy of in-joke references and stylistic nudges of the cinematic landmark.