Film review
The many moods of Kong in Peter Jackson's remarkable remake "King Kong"
'KONG' ROCKS!
When I first heard that "Lord of the Rings" trilogy director Peter Jackson was doing a remake of "King Kong," I was skeptical; "King Kong," with its rather simplistic plot, didn't need to be remade, I thought.
When I heard that Jackson's remake would star Jack Black and Adrien Brody, I was even more skeptical. Black and Brody are brilliant actors, but having seen them in the films I've seen them in, I couldn't see them being effective in a "King Kong" remake.
I saw "King Kong" today when I wasn't able to make the start time of another movie. I'm glad that I couldn't make the other movie.
In a word, "King Kong" is "Wow!"
Jackson's "King Kong" is one of the most derivative films ever made. It's a remake ("King Kong" was first made in 1933, with Fay Wray as Kong's plaything, and was made again in 1976, with Jessica Lange playing the Fay Wray role), so there's that, of course, but you'll also see elements of Steven Spielberg's "Jurassic Park" and Indiana Jones series, "Starship Troopers" (with its battles between humans and giant insects) and, of course, the "Lord of the Rings" films.
I think I even saw some of "Titanic" in there, and Black's character is very much like John Malkovich's character in 2000's "Shadow of the Vampire": Both Black and Malkovich play obsessed filmmakers who want to get their films made, no matter what the human costs -- and the monsters that they are filming are real.
But even though we can list Jackson's apparent inspirations for his remake of "King Kong," his remake solidly stands on its own two furry feet. Jackson makes the old feel new again, and what a roller-coaster ride he gives us on the island on which Kong lives. Jackson is a master of action, and there is one action sequence in particular in which the entire audience, myself included, let out a collective "Whew!" when the roller-coaster finally came to a stop. Jackson draws out an action sequence as long as he can, without drawing it out too far, and he knows how to pull you in.
I'm not going to rehash the plot of Jackson's "King Kong"; one, you probably already know it, and two, I'm not big on rehashing plotlines in reviews. Jackson uses the basic plot elements of the original "King Kong" and fleshes them out to bring us a new version of it that is just more than three hours long (but not too long).
Jackson wisely kept his "King Kong" set in the 1930s, when the original "King Kong" was released, rather than giving it a modern-day twist, and his film is stronger for it. Jackson captures the look and feel of the '30s brilliantly, taking pains, in fact, to set his setting when the film opens.
My misgivings about Brody and Black were unfounded, and Naomi Watts, as Kong's girlfriend, also gives a solid performance. I'd like to have seen more of Jamie Bell, whose character of Jimmy is rather just abandoned when the action moves from Kong's island to New York City. (And, OK, I might be just a bit hot for Jamie Bell. There. I admit it.) And the romance between Brody's and Watts' characters could have been developed better. Brody is thoroughly upstaged by Kong, although I guess that was inevitable. Sometimes size matters.
Jackson's "Kong" draws us in closer than does his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, but that's probably because we can relate more easily to the planet Earth portrayed in "Kong" than we can relate to the fantastical Middle Earth of "Rings." And while Jackson had three installments in which to develop "Rings," in "Kong" he had to get it all in one film.
As pure entertainment value goes, "Kong" is unsurpassed by any recent movie. But if we're the analytical types, there also are messages that we can extract from "Kong," such as how Americans' immediate impulse, when faced with something that is unknown to them and thus strikes fear in them, is to kill it or to destroy it. Americans have been doing in Iraq what they do to King Kong at the end of the "King Kong" films.
Jackson's "Kong" misses an "A+" for me because his dinosaurs are just too much like those in the "Jurassic Park" films. You're allowed to pay homage to other films, but if he'd included much more of the dinosaur stuff, Jackson's "Kong" could have qualified as a prequel to "Jurassic Park."* He still gets an "A" because although I've seen those dinosaurs before, he gave me one hell of a ride today.
Peter Jackson is the new Steven Spielberg.**
My grade: A
*Don't believe me? Here are some "Jurassic Park"-like stills from Jackson's "King Kong":
**Well, hell, Jackson even looks like a young Spielberg. Here's Spielberg on the set of 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark":
And here's Jackson on the set of "King Kong":
Jackson has lost a lot of weight, by the way, since he directed the "Rings" trilogy:
 
I'm glad, because I want him around making movies for a long time.
10:13:44 PM 
|
