KING KONG

[Vic Sage]

5 bananas.
I was slightly disappointed.

It wasn't BAD, by any means. And definitely worth seeing.
Still, a disappointment.

I'll wait a few weeks before i go into details.

[Willets Point]

Last night an art theatre in Cambridge showed King Kong (1933) and a second-run cinema in Somerville showed King Kong (2005) so I made it a two city, two theater, two Kong double feature. Very interesting to see where Peter Jackson mimics (or should I say apes) the original and where they difer. I like how the new Kong is the first one that really looks and moves like an gorilla, running swiftly instead of lumbering along, and knuckle-dragging Naomi Watts into a state of dizziness. Neither version makes any explanation about how they got Kong from the South Pacific to New York on that tiny ship, especially since he seems able to break restraints with ease.

[Vic Sage]

Here's why i wasn't crazy about it...

The movie divides into 3 acts. The first act, in nyc, is attenuated. We could've gotten to the boat alot sooner. Taking so long to establish Jack Black's desperate motivation still didn't lend any credibility to his subsequent eyebrow-arching self-parodying performance.

Act II, on the boat and the island, is the best part of the movie. The natives, especially, are realistically terrifying. But there are still problems here.

The story has divided the leading man into 3 characters: the sensitive writer, who she's not that hot for, but who ultimately becomes the action hero; the boat captain, who really is the tough guy, but has no real interest in her; and the actor, who only pretends to be a tough guy, but is a coward... until for some reason he saves the day. And he seems more likely to be interested in the boat captain than the girl.

This parsing out of the "leading man" role ends up creating a vacuum filled by the REAL leading man... Kong. In the original, the girl is terrified of the big ape, though there seems some mutual underlying sexual tension in the metaphorical romance. Here, the love is REQUITED. The girl DIGS the big ape! The rediculousness of this conceit (which is the essential artistic statement of the remake) is underlined in the 3rd act, which i'll get to in a moment.

The other problem with act II is that Jackson keeps upping the ante... Kong fights not 1 dinosaur but 3, and they keep hanging on, and the bug attack gets more and more intense, and ... it becomes an exhausting theme park ride. Which sets up another problem in Act III.

Act III, back in nyc... Kong's rampage in nyc is brought to a screeching halt so that he and the girl can go on a romantic idyll... ice-skating in Central Park! I kid you not! What had been once metaphorical or at best implicit has become explicit. It made me laugh out loud. seriously. And that was NOT what the filmmakers were going for right at that moment.

Then, after nearly 3 hours, we're pretty much done, yet we still have to climb the Empire State building. This iconic climax of cinematic history can't help but feel anticlimactic, after all we've already seen. In fact, the movie shot its wad, so to speak, with all the SFX and action in Act II.

There is alot to admire in this movie... the acting (other than Black) is pretty good, the look and feel of the art direction and cinematography outstanding, the realism of Kong a real achievement. Some of the action set-pieces are thrilling.

But the storytelling is long-winded, and the basic premise... turning the unrequited love story into a REQUITED one in which, tragically, the lovers cannot be together... ends up just feeling like a silly idea. Not just silly, but actually and literally laughable.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Interesting.

First of all, as you may or may not remember, I have an extraordinary love for the 1933 King Kong. I watch it once, and only once a year, every Thanksgiving Day. (Since WOR Channel 9 stopped their Thanksgiving giant ape tradition I had to take matters into my own hands.)

I liked that Ann cared for Kong, as did Jessica Lange's character in the 1976 movie. They didn't need to go ice skating together, of course. But when I first watched the 1933 movie as a kid it bothered me that Fay Wray didn't seem to even understand that Kong loved her. If I was remaking the movie, I would have had the love be requited, but probably much less overtly.

I loved Naomi Watts, by the way. I found myself somehow captivated by her front teeth.

They really screwed up the Carl Denham character, in my opinion. Robert Armstrong played him as a kind of P.T. Barnum, and I loved that. He had that swagger, as seen when they were retreating from their first encounter with the natives. Armstrong tilted his hat at a rakish angle and walked away whistling. He was confident that he could do anything.

Jack Black's version was a filmmaker on the outs who was trying one last time to hit it big. He was more devious and far less likable. I don't know why they made that fundamental change. It really wasn't necessary at all.

The T-Rex battle was over the top, but I got a kick out of it. My favorite moment in the whole film was when the battle was finished and Kong verified that the dinosaur was dead by playing with his broken jaw. It was a nod to the original movie, and was my goosebump moment. In fact, all my favorite moments were the homages to 1933. That tells me that if the 2005 version was the original, I wouldn't have liked it nearly as much as I did. My enjoyment of the 2005 movie was based heavily on my love of the 1933 version; the current film doesn't really stand on its own that well.

I absolutely agree that the movie was too long, and a lot could have been shaved off of what you called the first act. Way too much setup. In 1933 it was, "Hey, I'm making a big movie. I'm gonna find a girl to be the lead and then we're getting on the ship!" Much better that way.

Other disappointments:

The new characterization of the skipper. I loved that he was a seasoned old salt, who knew of every legend on every little island. When they encountered natives that no white man had ever seen, Captain Englehorn knew their language.

It also struck me as dumb that Denham didn't even know anything about the legend of Kong. Why was he so fired up about going to that island if he didn't have a sense of what he'd find there. Again, back to Robert Armstrong, when he's briefing Englehorn and Driscoll after they've set sail: "Gentlemen, have you ever heard of... Kong?" He describes the island, the wall ("something they fear"). He was brash, he was bold, he was cocky. Not snivelly like Jack Black.

But some of the homages that I liked: The dialog being rehearsed on the ship was verbatim from Jack and Ann's conversation in 1933. The Kong stage show, back in New York, was lifted from the actual island ceremony in the 1933 film. Same music, same costumes, everything.

It also made sense that Denham would bring along more than one actress and a bunch of sailors. This time around, he had cameramen, a lead actor, a sound guy, a screenwriter. We probably spent too much time getting to know them, but it was reasonable that they were there.

There's probably more that I could say, but I saw the movie three months ago, and have probably forgotten some of my initial impressions. I will buy the DVD when it comes out, and if upon a second viewing I remember more of what I planned to say, I'll return here.

[Vic Sage]

It is the unrequitedness of the love that gives the original its heartbreaking quality. Ann Darrow just doesn't get it... or does she? Methinks the lady dost protest too much... like many Hollywood films of that era, KING KONG had an underlying sexual tension that is much more interesting than the more explicit, overstated relationship portrayed in the remake.

as to much else you liked in the remake, it seems mostly the moments that were referencing the original, rather than anything original to this version. which damns it with faint praise.

unlike the original, which i'd happily watch once a year till i die, i have very little interest in watching this one again.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I was underwhelmed. For most of the reasons Vic says, only moreso.

[Centerfield]

I saw it this weekend...and was pleasantly surprised. I had been told that it sucked. That it was long and drawn out and badly in need of an editor. I still think it needed an editor, but it wasn't that bad. A couple of thoughts....

*The first hour where they were in NY needed the editor more than any other parts of the film. Ann's desperation, Denham's desperation...all of that could have been done a lot more succinctly. It's weird. After cramming all of LOTR into those nice, streamlined movies, it's almost like Jackson decided (starting with the last 45 minutes of Return of the King) "Oh fuck it, I'm going to be indulgent." I mean really, how many "You can't do this Mr. Denham, you don't have papers" scenes did we need?

*The second hour of the film, as Norrin says, was the best part of the movie...and I thought it was fantastic. From the boat ride, the terrifying natives, the no-nonsense captain, the introduction of Kong, I thought it was great. And yes, it did go a little over the top with the brontosaurus stampede, leading to the cliff scene, leading to the T-Rex scene, followed by the bug scene, but even if it wandered into ridiculousness for a while, it was still fun. Although at one point, I couldn't help but wonder why 3 T-Rexes would fight so hard for Naomi Watts considering she is like a Tic Tac to them. Especially if they have to split her amongst the three of them? Aren't there a bunch of freshly killed/lame brontosauruses lying around? These are the worst predators ever.

*There were lots of interesting characters, though most of them were not developed and just kind of leave you wondering. The relationship between the black sea dude and the kid...Denham's assistant...the sea captain...how the actor buy was a weenie, then brave, then a weenie again. There was potential there in all these characters but Jackson just chose to touch upon all of them rather than develop any of them. Also, I thought the acting went back and forth from stylized to realistic to stylized again.

*Adrien Brody was much better than I thought he would be. I'm still not convinced he could have navigated his way around the island by himself, but he was likeable and otherwise believable. You can't help but feel bad for him when he shows up to rescue Ann and Ann gives him this look like "Well, this is kind of awkward, but I'm seeing someone else."

*The last part back in New York was pretty much a disappointment. Like Norrin, I thought it got a bit silly when all of the mayhem stopped while Kong and Ann went frolicing in the park. For what it's worth, Naomi Watts did a good job with this scene...and I thought that was the only thing that kept me from actually groaning or laughing. Adrien Brody's character's involvement in this last part is weird too. I'm not sure what he's trying to accomplish, or why he's even there...it's just confusing.

*The climax on the Empire State Building was nothing like I thought it would be. It wasn't exciting at all, just kind of sad. And maybe Jackson knew he couldn't top the thrill ride he gave us on the island so he took it in a different direction. Anyway, it was just a sad end to a roller coaster of a movie.

Six Bananas.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't think I mentioned this earlier, but I was strangely captivated by Naomi Watts' front teeth. On the big screen, they were enormous, but somehow enthralling.

[Centerfield]

That's weird. I noticed her teeth too...and I never notice teeth. First I was like, is she buc-toothed? Then I realized she wasn't, but that they were nice.

[Elster88]

She is Pretty.

[Centerfield]

Watts fans should watch Mulholland Drive.

[Elster88]

Done.

21 Grams, too.