King Kong

The pleasantly old-fashioned opening titles make us forget about the digital escapades that we will witness throughout the film. In every minute of this captivating film you can feel it is the work of Peter Jackson. The same mise-en-scène structure, composition of images, camera sweeps, and even the use of visual effects. Thanks to his direction, the film itself becomes more a celebration of traditional values rather than just an action blockbuster. The lengthy running time does not bore and not a single shot feels unnecessary. The production design is truly impressive, the panoramic shots of 1930s New York are breathtaking. The meticulously crafted visual effects were truly worth the money and you can feel the amazing atmosphere. Even Kong himself turned out to be outstanding. This was made with love for film, as a dream project. It should be taken into consideration. (17/12/2005)

There's one place in 1933's King Kong... Ann stands in front of the camera and Carl Denham tells her what to do. The scene culminates with the famous "scream Ann, scream for your life" and the phrase "what's the thing she's really going to see". Jackson's remake couldn't get close to the power and atmosphere of this scene, but you can't blame him for it. Rather than a terrifying monster, who has raised viewers' hair with horror, his Kong is a humanized and playful gorilla attacking completely other areas. He's a monster created the way every child wanted to see him, a monster protector. And along with him, the archetypal forms of the main actors are altered – Ann is not a fragile and defenseless beauty who screams hysterically for half of the film, Carl is not an enthusiastic adventurer with a camera... Naomi Watts is more emancipated, bolder, more active... and great. Jack Black is self-centered, selfish, crooked... and great. It is he who will destroy the mighty Kong, his desire for profit, his desire to sell secrets for the price of one ticket. A big and, in my opinion, successful update of King Kong. Paradoxically, the fact that the monster is transformed from scary to sympathetic does not take away it’s strength. The film's strength is lessened by a major lack of self-criticism and a willingness to omit unnecessary multi-talk and superfluous scenes that kill both the pace and the emotion. The visual gluttony and repetition of some scenes does not pay off in the ending, which fades out into nothing. It’s too bad, because all Jackson and Co. had to do was get away from the love of the story and give it a firmer shape. Likewise, the director could have avoided unnecessary and overly sweet clichés that had nothing to do with the poetics of the original 1933 film. If there were fewer of them and if they were more moderate, everything would be in perfect order. Even so, King Kong is a royal spectacle and a film that has the magic of "lost worlds", the pathos of heroes, beauties and monsters. But the film lacks the cohesion and inner energy of The Lord of the Rings, it lacks really strong emotions... There was very little missing for everything to be fine, but in its current form King Kong only fulfilled my expectations and that is too little from Jackson. (17/12/2005)

I have avoided this film for a long time because I knew I wouldn't like it in advance. In the end, I couldn't escape it, and when I finished it, all the prejudices I had formed about the movie in the past were fully confirmed. There were no surprises. After the huge success of his Tolkien trilogy, Jackson had the film world at his feet, and he could have taken a risk and created any film on any topic. Instead, he chose a story that had been used many times before, was perfectly exhausted, and had a theme that could have been significant in the 1930s, but today can only evoke a sympathetic smile. Yes, Jackson wanted to pay tribute to old adventure literature and B-movies, on which he grew up, as did I. But he would have had to direct the film with a much greater dose of humorous detachment to do so. Essentially, as a subtle parody in the style of Indiana Jones. However, Jackson got carried away by the wave of romance with only a touch of adventure film. The main character is somewhat unnecessary, but above all, the chemistry between him and Naomi Watts as the film's fateful woman simply does not work. Film characters in many cases only recite their positions or appear to gloriously perish shortly after. Otherwise, it is a bombastic, high-budget film, and Jackson's direction does not disappoint. For example, the battle between King Kong with three tyrannosaurs at once, the duel in swaying vines with clapping dinosaur jaws, or attacks by giant insects that take one's breath away. There are a few such scenes in the film, but after they arrive in the city, the film loses momentum, and adventurous action is replaced by overly sweetened romance. With a budget like this, a dozen other films could have been made, and half of them would probably be better. Jackson should have been more judicious. Overall impression: 45%. (02/01/2008)

I’ll say it clearly: King Kong is (and has always been) silly, already from the premise. The concentrated stupidity of a story about the love between a fragile girl and giant ape becomes atrocious in Jackson’s version, because when you spend 200 million dollars on something, if you want to make a profit, you need to aim at the lowest common denominator, i.e. the result has to be silly enough to attract the average masses. That’s why we have Jack Black making funny faces, Naomi Watts performing a funny dance for a gorilla that wanted to eat her a moment ago, sailors fighting dinosaurs… and nobody cares that a lot of money was wasted in a shallow megalomaniac kitsch that might be good in the technical categories, but fails in everything else, or rather, doesn’t even attempt to succeed. This is an approach that I will never celebrate. Utter crap, and I’m afraid that Jackson’s better years are a thing of the past. (29/01/2011)

Whereas every image in The Lord of the Rings had its own weight and was an integral part of a well-thought-out, sensitively constructed and complex whole, every image in King Kong is an eccentricity derived from the mood of the moment and a different approach to the viewer. And the result is an enormous incoherent mishmash that begins with the promise of a distinctive Jacksonian flick (romance conceived through crazy cinematography and editing, enthusiastic filmmaking and the nostalgic atmosphere of 1930s New York), but it continues in the spirit of the pre-digitalized calculus where even a dozen bloodthirsty dinosaurs don’t inspire as much awe as the single, herbivorous one did in the first Jurassic Park. Not even James N. Howard’s music, skillfully combining the needs of a contemporary soundtrack with the formula of Max Steiner’s classic score, could salvage this movie, nor could Naomi Watts’s embodiment of celestial beauty or the touching expressiveness of Kong’s eyes, or the endearing juxtaposition of boulders and ice skating. I’m a fan of Peter Jackson, lost worlds and epic films, but I will shed a tear for unfulfilled expectations and watch the more enchanting and well-balanced Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. (18/12/2005)