I just watched Peter Jackson’s remake of King Kong!
To sum it up in a word: awesome. I’m talking about a jaw dropping, eye popping, incredible piece of film. I’m pretty hard on big budget action movies, I don’t tend to like most of them, but this sucker had me glued to the screen. There was every possibility this remake could have been terrible, but Jackson and his team (writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) pulled it off by getting a whole bunch of stuff right.
The first thing they did right was not mess with the original material, avoiding the modern affectations that plague remakes. They could have called the movie “Kong”, “Kong is King”, “8th Wonder”, or something pompous like that, but they didn’t. Unlike the 1976 version, which changed the story and names of all the characters, Jackson’s Kong very closely follows the story of the classic 1933 movie updating only the dialog and mannerisms of the characters. Like the original, it is set in the early thirties. Jackson, it seems, has figured out what so many directors these days have not: if the story isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.
The second thing they did right was Ann Darrow. It’s hard to beat Fay Wray for sheer lung power, or Jessica Lange for full on sex appeal, but not only does Naomi Watts have a great horror movie scream, she’s incredibly sexy and she’s funny and smart. Gone is the whole creepifying monkey/girl thing expressed so obviously in the 1976 version. Jackson’s Ann doesn’t sing to Kong, she wins him over with some vaudville moves and becomes his companion. As curious as this might seem, it’s really a clever modern touch. 21st century actresses don’t sing to their leading men, and they aren’t playthings. They are women of action.
The next thing they did right was bring in Andy Serkis to play Kong. As many know, he played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings series. I’m not sure how Serkis feels about this distinction, but I’m convinced he is the premier motion capture actor of our time. Kong has a deeper, more developed character in this movie; a lot is asked of Serkis. When Kong scowls, laughs, pounds his chest, or howls, it’s all Serkis. Even the movements of his face were sampled. Some suggest the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences should make a category for best digital performance, but I disagree, as they already have an applicable category: Best Supporting Actor. The fact that he’s covered with digital makeup isn’t relevant. As with Gollum, Serkis’ performance as the giant ape is excellent, and worthy of recognition.
The final thing they did right is they made it huge. King Kong only works if it is done really BIG. The movie would be laughable today if the monkey looked like a puppet, or the monsters on Skull Island looked like models. Although the movie is loaded to the gills with incredible, retina detaching special effects, never once was I bothered by this, as I have been with many other big features. Even during scenes comprised mostly of CG, focus on character wasn’t lost, even if the characters were animated too. Jackson has proven to me his computer animators have the greatest Kung Fu of all. An entire book could be written about the special effects in this movie, from the incredible recreation of 1930s New York, to the astonishing dinosaurs of Skull Island. I see it on the screen and I imagine the folks at Weta Digital are taunting me to find some error or inconsistency in their work. They know I’m going to have to scrutinise it a bunch of times just to find even minor errors.
King Kong is some three hours long, but the time goes by smoothly. I was never bored by it, and never was I seriously jarred out of the story by some terrible special effect, dumb character, or stupid line of dialog. For an action movie, really any movie, this is quite an achievement, a testament to the skill of the writers, the editor, the director, and the legions of digital artists. It’s definitely worth seeing in a big theatre and I hope it does well. 4/4.
links by the IMDB
