King Kong Year: 2005 Director: Peter Jackson Written by: Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson Threat: Human Beings Weapon of Choice: Biplanes IMDb page:

Other movies in this series:
none

Rish's Reviews
After astounding the world (and more importantly, yours truly) with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson brings us his vision of--and tribute to--his favourite film of all time, Merian C. Cooper's 1933 classic King Kong. A massive three hour epic, I anxiously looked forward to this film to finish out a year filled with disappointments big (Episode III and War of the Worlds) and small (Robots and The Ring 2).
Set in Great Depression-era New York, King Kong 1.3 tells of down-on-her-luck actress Ann Darrow (the achingly beautiful Naomi Watts) who crosses paths with down-on-his-luck movie director Carl Denham (the adorably chubby Jack Black) and sails off toward the unknown with quirky playwright Jack Driscoll (the perpetually odd-looking Adrian Brody). Aboard the S.S. Venture, they discover Skull Island, where Ann is kidnaped by the most revolting natives in film history. She is to be sacrificed to Kong, the giant silverback gorilla (the affably pug-ugly Andy Serkis). Adventure ensues.
And what an adventure it was. Better than both the 1976 version and the great original, the middle hour of this three hour extravaganza is maybe the most fun I've had at a movie in years. I found myself laughing aloud and involuntarily clapping while Kong fought not one, but three Tyranosaurus rexes in defence of our Ann. And when the giant centipedes were crawling on her, I involuntarily shuddered.
Kong himself is almost wholly realistic, an expressive, lively, fascinatingly unique movie monster. The effects are superb, though I can't say they work as well as The LotR's did. Computerized special effects still haven't got human replacement down, but the majority are great, seamless effects that make you forget that's what they are.
The performances are all good, and I'll say again that I suspect Watts to be the best-looking person ever. Jack Black is also good, though I liked him to begin with, and that may have biased me. The breakout star, however, is Kong. Never set up as a villain or monster, he is utterly sympathetic, and Jackson really wants you to weep when he meets his demise. Sorry if that spoils the surprise, but the film is very faithful to the original, touching on all the same story points and recreating a number of scenes. But this film expands on EVERYTHING, multiplying the characters, the action, and the drama.
It's not a perfect flick. A couple of moments (particularly romantic ones between Ann and Jack) do not work, and some of the sequences seem gratuitous and/or unnecessary. My biggest complaint is that it's just too long (Jackson made news when he gave up his directing fee in exchange for allowing the film to be released at its present length), stretching out scenes for no reason other than that they can. But I had worked a twelve hour day prior to seeing this, so that could be a part of it.
Those are petty concerns, really. When the film works, it works as a horror film, a Drama, an Adventure, a Fantasy, and a Period Romance. Peter Jackson is now toward the top of my directors list, and this film is an experience unlike most I've had at the cinema. It deserves to make a bundle, and I'll certainly see it again (and again) if I am able.
Best Scare: The stuff with the natives, the bugs, and the T. Rexes all qualify.
I'd Recommend It To: Any and all who are willing to invest the time--especially fans of the original.
Posted: December 27, 2005

The tyranist's thoughts
I was going to start of this review by stating that I never should have watched King Kong (1933) only a couple weeks before seeing this one. But Rish watched it with me and it didn't seem to taint his viewing of Peter Jackson's remake the way it did for me. I suppose you're on your own on that one, then.
I love the original film. It isn't one that I watch a lot, but it feels me with a sense of wonder and adventure and horror that modern cinema simply can't match. We are all too jaded to create anything quite so innocent and threatening at the same time.
What Peter Jackson did instead was to bring the horror and romance of the story to the foreground. This remake is both darker and more human than the original. The danger seems so much more real, from the frightening natives to the neverending parade of monsters trying to kill anything they come across, the thrills of the new film are more visceral and accessible. There is no wonder anymore, but only threats.
The romantic aspect is played up as well, with Jackson going out of his way to make sure we get that there is a relationship between Ann and Kong. In places it is too much. I understood the relationship in the 1933 movie and didn't really need him to explain it to me. In other places it works well enough make it impossible to name the ape as the villain of the film.
This movie is beautiful and worth the long running time. I don't consider it an accomplishment on par with Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien, but it is awesome to behold.
I'd recommend it to you, but chances are you've already rushed out to see it if it is your kind of movie at all. Posted: December 27, 2005

Total Skulls: 8

Sequel
Sequel setup
Rips off earlier film
Horror film showing on TV/in theater in movie
Future celebrity appears
Former celebrity appears
Bad title
Bad premise
Bad acting
Bad dialogue
Bad execution
MTV Editing
OTS
Girl unnecessarily gets naked
Wanton sex
Death associated with sex
Unfulfilled promise of nudity
Characters forget about threat
Secluded location
Power is cut
Phone lines are cut
Someone investigates a strange noise
Someone runs up stairs instead of going out front door
Camera is the killer
Victims cower in front of a window/door
Victim locks self in with killer
Victim running from killer inexplicably falls
Toilet stall scene
Shower/bath scene
Car stalls or won't start
Cat jumps out
Fake scare
Laughable scare
Stupid discovery of corpse
Dream sequence
Hallucination/Vision
No one believes only witness
Crazy, drunk, old man knows the truth
Warning goes unheeded
Music detracts from scene
Death in first five minutes
x years before/later
Flashback sequence
Dark and stormy night
Killer doesn't stay dead
Killer wears a mask
Killer is in closet
Killer is in car with victim
Villain is more sympathetic than heroes
Unscary villain/monster
Beheading
Blood fountain
Blood spatters - camera, wall, etc.
Poor death effect
Excessive gore
No one dies at all
Virgin survives
Geek/Nerd survives
Little kid lamely survives
Dog/Pet miraculously survives
Unresolved subplots
"It was all a dream" ending
Unbelievably happy ending
Unbelievably crappy ending
What the hell?