King Kong

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%. (01/02/2008)

I appreciate the director's efforts to bring a cinematic legend to the screen in the most sophisticated style, I appreciate the great visual effects and some truly breathtaking and imaginative action scenes, but there's still a little something missing and my favourite from 1933 remains unsurpassed. That's certainly not to say that the new King Kong is bad. On the contrary, Peter Jackson incorporates a lot of new ideas and strange animals into the story, and he lets them run wild, whether on the humans during the unforgettable scene in the deep ravine or during the long battle between the tyrannosaurs and Kong. Perhaps the film could have been shortened a bit and even more suspense could have been packed into it, which Jackson tries to do especially after the arrival on the island, but the romantic scenes with Naomi Watts and her ape admirer, which should be the highlight, don't really play into his hands and instead slow down the already slow pace. An absolutely great spectacle for the eyes and ears, but it simply lacks more verve and momentum. (05/19/2011)

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. (12/17/2005)

Jackson has returned to his roots, where he can extract maximum impact from minimal elements. In this case, it's a fairy tale that could be told in 20 minutes, but thanks to the final three-hour runtime, it remains engaging and avoids boredom. It is true that several scenes from the first half could be trimmed without much loss (although the reference to the original King Kong creator, Merian C. Cooper, was the only thing that made me laugh in the theater). However, the second half is a perfect celebration of filmmaking. While the flurry of visual effects often borders on being self-indulgent, the content is so fascinating that it's impossible not to be mesmerized, with one's mouth agape, silently staring. Kong truly comes to life, and it's astonishing how Jackson managed to imbue him with such a realistic presence. The viewer finds themselves rooting for him in the intense battles for survival while also feeling deep empathy for this profoundly lonely creature who remains so isolated. The acting talents, with Jack Black in a standout role, serve as mere supporting players, with only Naomi Watts slightly standing out because it is her character that drives Kong's actions. The magnificent finale is an amazing golden highlight, albeit perhaps excessively saccharine kitsch. However, it is so sweet and captivating that one cannot help but surrender to it and unabashedly shed tears along with everyone else. (02/03/2006)

Just like Carl Denham, Peter Jackson should have had a good producer at hand to keep a tighter rein on him while making this movie. As the saying goes: “less is more" and (even in the extended edition which, unfortunately, mainly contains new scenes with dinosaurs and only here or there something meaningful) King Kong is a prime example of that. The entire island part is over-combined and the fact that Peter was just making his childhood dreams come true here is no excuse for it. The scenes with Kong and Ann are splendid, but unfortunately rather sidelined by scene with the dinosaurs fleeing from other dinosaurs, something that you soon get fed up with. The only scene that works in this pulp dime action respect is the one with Ann, King Kong and the trio of T-Rexes. Basically, as long as Kong/Ann are on screen, then everything is perfect and when they aren’t, then it’s just mediocre. Of course, any objections go aside as far as the New York finale goes (which lasts almost as long as a feature-length movie) and I have no qualms in giving this a full set of stars. ♫ OST score: 3/5 (12/15/2005)