King Kong

Jackson really loves the monkey and when he enthusiastically says in interviews that he got inspiration for filmmaking from him in childhood, it's not just empty talk. But do we really have to see every detail because of it? When the main characters talk at length about the unknown threat on Skull Island and Kong as the main attraction is seen after over an hour, everything is not alright. Fortunately, what unfolds in the second half is amazing and a perfectly rich spectacle with stunning tricks. Thanks to them and also the uncluttered composition of action scenes, I hardly breathed at times. When the way back home is also a revelation, I can only regret that the slow start put me to sleep for so long. Among the actors, the atypical Jack Black pleased the most, while Adrien Brody in the role of an anonymous hero from next door barely had anything to play. I would like to congratulate Peter on another great cinematic experience and on showing, even after the trio of polished diamonds called The Lord of the Rings, how versatile and restrained artist he is. However, with a slight distance, there is not much that really remains in me, perhaps just the feeling of a pleasant adventure with a good dose of adrenaline, which, however, begins to fade sadly when placed in an attempt at a deeper story. King Kong is a fulfilled dream, but not mine. For hungry fans, dear Bilbo arrived seven years later. 70% (01/14/2006)

I'm like Peter Jackson - I love everything about the original. Like the director, I know it's impossible to make anything that has it atmosphere, but I'm blown away by this film. Nostalgia everywhere you look, quotes from the original King Kong in every other film field, scenes (the rolling brontosaurs, the fight between Kong and the T-Rex) that could not have been invented by anyone other than Jackson. Beautiful cinematography, music, fun and interesting characters (the best of the supporting roles is Kretschmann's captain)... Just great. But if I didn't know the original film and love it, I'd probably go with a lower rating... By a star. (05/17/2009)

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)

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. (01/29/2011)

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)