King Kong (2005) Reviews

This is one of the most emotionally moving epic films I have ever experienced between Kong and a woman. Jackson and the writers also critique the greed of the system in NYC as well as the immoral acts of capturing live animals. Unfortunately, the film could've pushed further to perfection if it further critiqued colonialism of the white men through the natives. I am very disappointed in the portrayal of the natives as savages.

En 2005 Peter Jackson nos sorprendía a todos con una nueva película de King Kong, que resaltaba por la curiosidad de la gente a ver cómo se podría trasladar la historia del mítico rey de los simios a nuestros tiempos.
Diré que mientras la versión original de los años treinta se dirigía más que nada a impactar debido a lo innovador que era en aquel tiempo lo que se mostraba a nivel técnico, es decir, a entretener, la nueva versión está más dirigida a los personajes y a la forma en la que afrontaban las múltiples situaciones en las que se veían inmersos. Tal vez la película de los treinta presentaba qué pasaría si sacamos a un simio gigante de su hábitat natural para llevarlo a nuestro sitio (un bastante rebuscado mensaje anti-zoo’s para algunos, IDK), pero esta entrega da un poco más de tiempo a las interacciones y a los dramas que se presentan en la historia fuera de la acción que incumba a Kong.
Entre estos personajes realmente el único que de verdad podríamos decir que destaca y tiene un tema en sí es Carl Denham, principalmente por ser el más carismático y porque es su pasión obsesiva por el cine y su determinación que lo lleva a cometer literales crímenes lo que desata todo el hilo de la trama y mueve a casi todos los personajes a hacer lo que hacen y a tener una motivación. De hecho, casi todo a lo que aspiran el resto de personajes fuera de Carl, Jack y Ann viene directamente de las acciones y decisiones de Denham. El punto que se quiso hacer con su arco me pareció bueno con todo eso de caer en catástrofes enormes al llevar una pasión demasiado lejos, pero tengo mis problemas con esto, ya los explicaré más adelante.
Por otra parte, la dirección visual es bellísima, más que nada por los hermosos escenarios en los que nos sumerge la película, con toda esa biodiversidad y coloración que hace lucir tan vivo al lugar en el que se encuentran los personajes, y el cómo se contrasta a la Isla Calavera con el escenario citadino y sucio de Nueva York fue una buena jugada por parte del director.
El CGI, y a pesar de que hayan pasado ya casi 16 años, me sigue agradando y de hecho aún se ve asombroso, Kong se ve muy bien y el resto de animales e insectos lucen intimidantes pero a la vez espectaculares por el nivel de detalle puesto en sus diseños.
¿Y la música? Bueno, le va bien a las escenas, tanto en las de acción como en las que solo somos paseados por la cámara para admirar los bellos paisajes y la grandeza de ese misterioso y en cierto punto aterrador lugar. Lo mismo iría para las peleas; ¿la batalla contra los tiranosaurios? Muy épica. ¿La escena en la que se meten a un pozo lleno de insectos enormes? Muy incomodadora y desesperante, bien para que sintamos lo mismo que los personajes. Y sí, esas veces en las que vemos una especie de efecto de distorsión con cámara en mano en una situación de riesgo o de desesperación le queda muy bien a los momentos, no lo negaré. La película es un mar de tensión, y la dirección de Peter Jackson hace sentir todo muy vivo, de lo cual ya teníamos aviso desde The Lord of the Rings.
Todo esto parece construir los puntos elementales para una buena película de aventura, sin embargo no podría pasar a la película como buena, y ni siquiera como algo decente, repasemos las razones.
Primero lo obvio: los personajes son demasiado insípidos en su mayoría, y la única razón por la cual te llega a ‘’impactar’’ sus muertes es por la mórbida curiosidad por ver a un hombre común siendo asesinado por criaturas nunca antes vistas por el humano, o bueno, ver triunfar a la naturaleza por sobre los hombres, lo cual sí admitiré que es una pequeña fantasía mía.
Algunos personajes guardan algo de carisma, pero o se terminan muriendo antes de que se nos dé algo más de ellos con lo cual conectar, o directamente solo son carismáticos y punto, siendo unidimensionales y no teniendo nada que los haga verdaderamente funcionales.
También tenemos otros como Hayes y Jimmy, los cuales guardan una química muy interesante y entendible, y con este asunto de cómo acabará Jimmy y Hayes queriendo lo mejor para él, siendo casi como una figura paterna, lo que llevaría a Jimmy a querer vengarlo y honrarlo. Pero esto nunca lleva a nada, no solo porque ninguno de los dos personajes posee una conclusión verdadera, sino también porque la película no nos da mucho tiempo para profundizar en dichas cuestiones, dejándolo por el camino y sin nada de dónde agarrar.
El caso con Jack Driscoll es interesante también, más que nada por este drama que tiene con que los actores nunca interpretan bien lo que él plasma en sus guiones, y hasta le podemos ver otra cara suya cuando tocó ir a salvar a Ann. Y no es por arruinar la fiesta, pero aún con esto el tipo nunca es usado para hacer algún punto temáticamente hablando, no es muy multifacético, la relación que tiene con Ann se siente demasiado apresurada y carece de base realmente sólida, y por si fuera poco, su ya mencionado ‘’conflicto’’ (el cual ni siquiera es algo súper drámatico que digamos) nunca obtiene una resolución, por lo que se siente como simple forma de rellenar a un personaje que, seamos sinceros, nunca deja de ser un típico galán de película de los treinta sin mucho trasfondo.
Ann Darrow tiene una motivación válida con aquello de querer lanzar su carrera y poder llevar una buena vida, esto último producto de lo mal que la dejó la crisis de aquellos años en el país, negándose al inicio pero aceptando sobre el final, y de hecho la forma en la que se va encariñando con Kong es enganchante y ‘cute’. Mi problema con ella es que no tiene mucho conflicto interno realmente, y todo lo que le pasa en gran parte de la película se siente más como una forma de mover al mono a hacer cosas alucinantes como vencer a 3 tiranosaurios (a pesar de que eso por sí solo no tenga mucho sentido) mientras salva a la damisela en apuros. Su punto como personaje es bastante simplón y para nada elaborado, lo mismo podemos decir de su desarrollo y la ya mencionada relación con Jack. Es un personaje OK, pero no creo que sea algo como para hacer algún escándalo.
Por otra parte, y volviendo con Denham, pienso que una de las peores cagadas del metraje fue volver a su obsesiva pasión por hacer una película como algo exagerado y hasta retrasado, mostrando cómo incluso el hombre es capaz de hacer movimientos suicidas o arriesgar la vida de ajenos con tal de lograr su objetivo. Está buena la idea de mostrar hasta dónde puede llegar la determinación de una persona, pero el caso con Carl es demasiado específico como para conectar, y es que no pienso que sea muy útil el mensaje de ‘’cuidado con llevar tus pasiones demasiado lejos o sino tus compañeros serán comidos por dinosaurios’’, es un punto mal hecho. Mi mayor problema con el personaje, sin embargo, radica de que, y ojo con esto, JAMÁS se muestran consecuencias de lo que hizo. ¿Es en serio? El tipo literalmente fue el responsable de que varios tripulantes y asistentes técnicos que nada malo habían hecho sean asesinados en una misión suicida por salvar a alguien a quien, de nuevo, él tuvo la culpa de arrastrar allí. La más sencilla oportunidad que tuvo la película para mostrar una enseñanza positiva, de todas las que tuvo, fue hacerles caer las consecuencias a Denham, y no lo hizo.
Luego de los personajes, la historia es la que ya todos conocemos, con el asunto de que bueno, al ser más larga, se siente una pérdida de tiempo más grande, habiendo trabajos que buscan solo entretener y con mensajes y temas más elaborados que cuentan con una menor duración.
Tampoco me agrada tanto el hecho de que existan tantas salvadas de último momento (la escena en la que casi ejecutan a Carl, la pelea contra los tiranosaurios, la escena en la que Kong está frente a Jack quien no tiene posibilidad para huir y llega Ann justo en ese momento, etc.) o conveniencias por el estilo, supongo que es algo natural en los films de aventura, pero eh, se pudo haber evitado un poco a decir verdad, la película dura tres horas, no me miren a mí. Además sí que se hace extraño el que exista una isla llena de bichos prehistóricos y la población ni se halla enterado, así como que nunca le den una explicación a cómo fue que se conservaron todas esas especies, pero de nuevo, supongo que puedo dejarlo pasar por la naturaleza medio infantil de la cinta.
Igual no diré que es mala, ya que además de que he visto cosas ciertamente peores que esta, no es como que las escenas de Kong no sean muy divertidas de ver o que la cinta se vuelva llevadera a pesar de la larga duración. Pueden verla un domingo que tengan el día libre o con una novia o amigos si se proponen apagar el cerebro y disfrutarla sin más. Solo tengan en cuenta que si lo que buscan es algo entretenido con tropos parecidos, pueden perfectamente verse la versión original, sin necesidad de recurrir a toda esta súper bomba de efectos especiales de miles de dólares.

5/10

Slow beginning, but the movie eventually gets a lot more interesting and actually makes a very cool adaptation of the original movie. The special effects are beautiful. The performances and the characters are very decent. The climax is predictable... but is a King Kong movie, we all know how it starts and finish. 8/10

What a great movie!!!

Wiki Says: King Kong is a 2005 epic adventure film and remake of the 1933 film of the same name. Directed, co-written and produced by Peter Jackson, the film stars Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow, Jack Black as Carl.

The ONLY thing lacking in the film: Ann did not say I LOVE YOU before Kong slipped gently off of the Empire State Building.

Following his tremendous success with the LOTR trilogy, Peter Jackson joined the club of the very few directors (including James Cameron, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Christopher Nolan) who can do whatever they want and spend as much money as they please. For Jackson, it was the opportunity to fulfill his lifelong dream of remaking 'King Kong'. And that was probably the main issue with this movie. I mean, except for Peter Jackson, were there really so many people expecting a new 3 hour long version of this story? I'm not so sure and eventually, in spite of the huge buzz around this movie, it wasn't really a huge success. Personally, I thought it was pretty good and, above all, it looked really awesome with some pretty amazing set pieces but that's something we have been accustomed to with Peter Jackson. I have re-watched it recently and, honestly, I have to admit it, I wasn’t really blown away. I mean, it remains a huge spectacle, that’s for sure, but Peter Jackson has some serious editing issues. It worked fine with the LOTR but with 'The Hobbit', he is showing no restraints and this movie had some problems as well. I mean, one hour to get to see Kong, one hour on Skull island (the best section) and one hour back in New York, it wasn’t really effective. Especially in the first part, he introduces way too many characters with their own sub-plots while they could have been removed easily. Finally, Jack Black was seriously miscast here as he gave one of his usual goofy performances. Anyway, to conclude,, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent blockbuster and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Peter Jackson’s work.

'King Kong' is a 1933 movie about an ape falling in love with a woman, it got two remakes

'King King' is scary, well animated and never ending. Really scary scenes and gorgeous animation but it is also a bit long and King Kong isn't even in the first hour, there is still a pretty good cast (Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Thomas Kretschmann, Colin Hanks, Andy Serkis, Evan Parke, Jamie Bell) and animation somewhat similar to the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy (also starring Andy Serkis)

Thriller/horror movies are often scary and 'King Kong' is up there with the scary ones

To be honest, it starts really boring, but the suspense soon starts to build up, and then they're at 'Skull Island'. The locals here arn't very happy to see newcomers, and instead of offering them a nice drink they spear a guy threw the chest. They get scared off by a good old gun shot, but not before some gnarly old woman aims some eerie words at Naomi Watts. Could of been chatting her up I guess but we'll never know now. Anyway, without telling you all the details; Kong eventually gets his prize, the men go back, shit goes down, a giant cockroach kills a guy, Kong gets high and taken to New York, then escapes, then falls off the empire state building. Yet my favourite moment is simply when Adrien Brody drop kicks a velociraptor!

Peter Jackson does it again. 'King Kong' is a very full-on, but also heartfelt drama that succeeds in many ways. In the hands of Jackson, the visuals are, not surprisingly, superlative, both on the brutal and beautiful 'Skull Island' and in 1933 New York City. The heart of the film is the relationship between King Kong and Ann, played by Naomi Watts. There is wonderful chemistry between the beast and the beauty that continues to develop until the last fateful scene. The effects that bring Kong to life are astounding, each facial expression captured perfectly to give the creature emotion and personality. This is what makes the film so impressive.

The film does not go without its faults, though. Much of the middle part of the film involves Ann and other characters screaming and running away from large monsters, or large monsters battling eachother. However, Naomi Watts is very appealing, even when in situations that look dire, and the creatures are unbelievably realistic to make the battle sequences every bit worth it. There are also repetitive moments consisting of people being saved from an ill fate at the last minute by some dangerous force. This happens more than four times and, although occasionally exciting, starts to feel tired after the fourth time.

Nevertheless, the slow start and lengthy action sequences are made up for by a spectacular climax at the end, that is both tragic and beautiful. All actors give fine performances, and the film is well scripted, but it is the production team and director Peter Jackson who have made a truly special film. It is very, but it is also highly entertaining, visually magnificent and emotionally resolute.

King Kong, the original 1933 film, is one of my favorite movies. It’s a breathless action-adventure film filled with the stuff of dreams and nightmares made fully realized. And it accomplished something that few special effects heavy films can lay claim to: it gave its central creation, a creature that is only a puppet moved one frame at a time, a real soul. There is a naïve sense of wonder, of rollicking adventure delivered at a break-neck speed. The movie barely stops long enough for us to gasp before we’re running into our next monster battle, our next rampage, and our next big thrill. It laid the groundwork for this 2003 remake…which never should have been made.

Yes, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy can lay claim that it created a character out of special effects and gave him a soul, and that character is obviously Gollum, but that doesn’t mean that Kong needed to be reimagined in our digital age. Did Peter Jackson learn nothing from the truly atrocious 70s remake?

It’s plain as day to the modern eye that the original Kong is nothing but a furry puppet, but there is something so charismatic about the animation of that puppet that retains its magical power. Jackson’s Kong is a visual wonder, but I was always aware that I was watching an impressive technological achievement. I can’t pin-point the exact reason for this, but I think it has to do with the design of the creatures. Each one is embellished yet rendered in an ultra-realistic style. We clearly know that a gorilla’s proportions (no matter how out-sized) will never reach the distortions of Kong. We also know that the dinosaurs on Skull Island are all wrong, scientifically speaking. But we see that they’ve been animated to move and be as textured as real as possible. It creates a great distance.

There is also the problem of length. At three hours long, Jackson hasn’t edited anything out of his storyline. Which is unfortunate because somewhere within this bloated monster of a movie is a great one wanting to come out. As it stands, it’s only good by half. Told in three acts at an hour each, some serious revising needed to be done. I don’t need an hour’s worth of explanation about our three main characters. What the first movie economically did in about twenty minutes, this one takes around sixty. And we’re dealing with the same handful of characters for the first two-thirds of the film. And what happens once we get back to New York? We’re never given any closure, updates or information about the fates of our survivors. I’ve just spent two hours with these characters, and you can’t continue on their story? Why introduce characters if you’re not going to satisfactorily conclude their plot line? It’s a lazy writing mistake from a writer-director given carte blanche over a passion project.

Ego is the true enemy of the version of Kong and his one-sided love affair. The sluggish paces of first and last thirds of the film aren’t their only problems. Numerous scenes go nowhere and add nothing to the overall storyline. A scene where Kong takes Anne ice skating is unintentional hilarious when it is supposed to be touching and tender. It is completely and utterly unnecessary.

And fresh off the operatic sword-and-sorcery epicness of Rings, Jackson has mistaken that everything is better with a bigger scale. Kong was a simplistic story. A fairy tale story of a beast that loved a beauty that did not love him back, but filled with thrills and chills. That Anne loves the beast in this version is but a symptom of its problems. The great tragedy of the original King Kong, and it was a tragedy in the end, was that the beast so fiercely protected and sought out Anne while all she wanted to do was run in the other direction and get as far away from him as possible. But who wouldn’t? A giant gorilla has chosen you for its affections. These bells and whistles turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear.

This goes into the visuals as well as the story. Why is so much of this movie a CGI-generated mess? Blue lines are visible around the actors during scenes set during sunset. Characters try valiantly to interact with shrubbery and jungle floral and fauna that are never really there. In Rings and the original Kong these things mesh seamlessly. As wonderful as some of it looks some of it also looks embarrassingly cheap.

Notice that I have said nothing of the actors. Well, it’s hard to create a fully realized performance in a film that puts razzle-dazzle on center stage. And some actors are also just horrendously miscast. Adrien Brody as our romantic action hero? It’s all wrong. Jack Black as our Orson Welles stylized director? Stick to juvenile comedies dear. Colin Hanks and Jamie Bell are wasted in thankless roles. As is Kyle Chandler, but at least he looks like he’s trying to have a good time. Evan Park is given a thankless role as the racist trope of moralizing black man who’s among the first to die. At least in 1933 that kind of stuff was expected. And Naomi Watts tries her best to make the whole thing float and give it some kind of emotion, but she’s just a cog in Jackson’s epic masturbatory film construct. And Andy Serkis’ performance as Kong pales in comparison to his work as Gollum. Kong here is a 99% CGI creation. None of Serkis’ performance shines through, so what was the point of hiring him in the first place?

Jackson should consider scaling back with future films (The Hobbit withstanding), because of this visual and aural stimuli is too much for some stories. Like this one. He had a huge hit with Rings, deservedly so, and he cleaned up at the Oscars for that trilogies grand finale, again, deservedly so. But he just didn’t know when to quit.

"Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you... KONG! THE EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD!"

Due to his work on the much-acclaimed live-action Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson's name has become synonymous with the word "epic". Following his sojourn into Middle Earth, the question on everyone's mind was simple: where could Mr. Jackson go next? His decision to helm a reimagining of King Kong may have seemed like a strange choice for the filmmaker, yet it was a match made in cinematic heaven - Jackson's treatment of the classic story is an epic, entertaining and moving blockbuster. Jackson and his team have expanded upon the original 1933 movie to add welcome depth to the characters and present a whole new interpretation of the source material. While it clocks at a mammoth three hours - nearly two times the runtime of the 1933 film - Jackson's soulful, entertaining epic stays afloat for the entire show. Along with James Cameron and Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson is one of a select few Hollywood directors capable of understanding how to successfully marry emotion and spectacle.

Set in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression, stage actress Ann Darrow (Watts) is struggling to earn a wage. But a chance meeting with filmmaker Carl Denham (Black) permanently changes the trajectory of Ann's life. Carl also has his problems, though - his financiers have pulled the rug out from beneath him, and Carl is struggling to both finish his latest movie and find a leading lady to appear in it. After some arm-twisting, Ann accepts the job as Carl's leading actress, while Carl also cons his way into hiring a cast & crew and chartering a ship. However, Carl's people are oblivious to the fact that the filmmaker has set his sights on the mysterious Skull Island. During the voyage, screenwriter Jack Driscoll (Brody) takes a liking for Ann, and a romance begins blossoming between the two. Unfortunately, their fortunes take a turn for the worst upon arrival at Skull Island. The island natives kidnap Ann and offer her as a sacrifice to Kong; a massive ape who immediately becomes smitten with the blonde actress. Thus, the crew venture into the dense jungles of Skull Island on a mission to rescue Ann.

King Kong is a lavish, high-octane, epic action-adventure. The film was produced for a gargantuan $200 million, and every cent of it shows up on the screen. For Jackson, making this film was not just following up The Lord of the Rings, but also accomplishing a lifelong dream. Since childhood, Jackson has been enraptured with 1933's King Kong, and he attempted to make his own version when he first came to Hollywood in the mid-1990s. Flush with money and awards after the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Universal Pictures allowed Jackson to remake King Kong on his own terms. Like all personal projects, this particular flick ran the risk of not working, but Jackson's passion for the material fortunately did not dim his creative senses. Jackson opted to use the 1933 King Kong as his blueprint, and has greatly expanded upon it. The basic premise is similar, but the experience of Jackson's King Kong is wholly different. In fact, Jackson has produced what could be considered the definitive King Kong, as virtually every narrative possibility was explored here. People have complained about the three-hour runtime, yet no moment feels inessential. Granted, by the end of King Kong you feel like you've experienced a long motion picture, but that's the same with all epics, from Lawrence of Arabia to Gone with the Wind to Seven Samurai.

Instead of transplanting the story of King Kong into a contemporary setting, Jackson recreated the early 1930s backdrop of the original film. To the credit of the production team, the recreation of '30s-era New York is stunning, as are the lavish jungles of Skull Island, both of which were excellently rendered using a mixture of digital effects and intricate sets. Fortunately, the rest of the CGI effects are equally impressive; believably conveying a world of fantastic creatures and astonishing sights. With this film, Jackson set a new standard for visual effects advancements, as Kong and the dinosaurs were rendered using amazingly detailed, borderline photorealistic effects. If you're seeking pure eye candy, King Kong is the world's biggest candy store. Jackson's directorial efforts are similarly impressive - the extended action sequences on Skull Island are rousing and exhilarating, while the quiet moments are affecting. Some action beats do push the boundaries a little too much, but the set-pieces are always enjoyable nonetheless. Topping this off is James Newton Howard's powerful score. Despite having only seven weeks to compile the music, Howard managed to deliver several marvellous compositions that augment the epic feeling of the material.

The cornerstone of Peter Jackson's King Kong is not the action-adventure material, but instead the relationship between Kong and Ann. This is where the heart and soul of the movie is derived from, and where the film emerges as something more than a visual extravaganza. In the 1933 King Kong, Ann is terrified of the giant ape - he treats her like a plaything, and she both hates and fears him. In the 1976 version, a forced romance develops between the ape and the female protagonist, but it feels unearned. However, for Jackson's version, a tender, two-way relationship between Ann and Kong is meticulously developed over the course of the movie. Additionally, for all of the action and exhilarating destruction on display, the final section of the movie is essentially an affecting portrait of how cruel humans can be towards those we do not understand. It certainly helps that Kong was brought to life using phenomenal digital effects - his range of motion is superb, and his facial expressions are so sincere that it's hard to believe he is not real when you look into his eyes. Andy Serkis, who "played" Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, lent his motion capture skills to Kong, and Serkis' performance is stunning.

As for the cast, all of the actors are impressive. Naomi Watts is a joy to behold as Ann Darrow; she's frequently ravishing, and she embodied the spirit of Fay Wray while also presenting her own interpretation of the role. Watts had the difficult job of convincing viewers that she's in love with a CGI creation, but she pulled it off with aplomb through sincere facial expressions. Meanwhile, as Carl Denham, Jack Black has received a lot of criticism, yet his performance works - he played it straight when the material called for it, and he was able to convey Carl's insanity with supreme effectiveness. And as Jack Driscoll, Adrien Brody is perfectly fine. While he's not an actor that one would typically think of to portray an action hero, Brody put in a solid effort. In the supporting cast, Thomas Kretschmann is a particular stand-out - he's a show-stealer whenever he's on-screen as Captain Englehorn.

As an epic action-adventure, King Kong excels tremendously. All of the technical aspects are top-drawer: the cinematography, James Newton Howard's score, the digital effects, the pacing, the action sequences, and the direction. And as an emotional journey, King Kong is still a success. It's a terrific piece of entertainment, but it also has a soul. King Kong is 2005's biggest and best blockbuster, and - in the shadow of Roland Emmerich's Godzilla - Jackson's film proves that it is possible for a classic monster to make a triumphant re-appearance. And what of the extended edition of the film, I hear you think? It adds a bit of interesting footage, but nothing feels truly essential. Plus, the swamp scene is marred by atrocious underwater effects. The extended cut is only for established fans.

9.2/10