Warning: I admit. This is a terribly biased review as I hate CG animations and I'm a huge fan of the original 1933 KING KONG. Read on if you dare...
Storyline: The disreputable Carl Denham (Jack Black) and his film crew travel to the unexplored Skull Island to shoot a movie starring the beautiful Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) as leading lady. On the island the film crew encounter first a tribe of primitive cannibals and the giant ape Kong who falls in love with Ann Darrow. They use Ann Darrow as bait to catch Kong and transport him back to New York. But all hell breaks lose in New York when Kong escapes from a presentation show to seek out his beloved Ann Darrow...
Since I first heard Peter Jackson was remaking KING KONG I had been anxious to see what the New Zealandish director of infamous low budget/no budget horror movies such as BAD TASTE and BRAINDEAD, the funny mockumentary FORGOTTEN SILVER, and the overrated LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy had done with the perhaps biggest monster icon in the history of cinema. Remaking such huge cinematic milestones is always near-impossible. Many people have nostalgic memories of the giant ape, and therefore everybody will have opinions.
Surprise, surprise - the movie was actually good! And much better than the 1976 and 1986 versions. Most impressive are the CG special effects. For example: the fast-paced "Kong vs. dinosaur(s)" scenes or the small details on Kong's body. His hair. His eyes. And his realistic movements. Andrew Lesnie's cinematography looks stunning, and the movie is generally full of stunning backgrounds and set designs. Secondly Jack Black nails the Carl Denham character by never overdoing the sentimentality or comedy, unlike fellow comedic actors Robbin Williams and Jim Carrey. Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody, along with the rest of the person gallery, struggle to give their cliché cardboard characters life, but that doesn't matter too much, because in reality this movie is all about Kong. Thematically it deals with impossible relationship among uneven sizes.
But, aside from being an hour too long, I have another more fundamental, yet highly subjective, problem with Peter Jackson's KING KONG. This is where the inevitable subjective and nostalgic criticism comes in: I want stop motion animations and not CG animations! Although Kong looks better than ever CG is just too slick and, in lack of a better word, "undemanding" for me. Admittedly the 1933 KING KONG looks laughable compared to today's standards, but one can only imagine the impact the stop motion technique must have had on its audience in the early 30's. To me stop motion just has a certain unique visual quality that CG will never be to deliver. Nowadays CG easily handles anything, while in 'dem good ol' days it had to be done manually. And the result just came out more cinematic. I enjoy looking at Kong 2005, but when the initial wow-effect has worn off I find Kong 1933 more exciting to look at. As with all good film elements it's hard to pinpoint the exact quality of stop motion, but it has something to do with visual poetry (to use German director Werner Herzog's expression). The CG is so overdone and slick that it gives you all the answers, and doesn't leave room for the imagination. Stop motion looks more strange, terrible, mysterious, funny, and... poetic!
I welcome CG animations to the world of cinema, but only when used rightfully. Hollywood shouldn't forgot to reflect on what qualities they neglect by always taking the easy route. If you want a modern Hollywood action popcorn blockbuster then Peter Jackson's KING KONG is a fine choice, but I highly recommend that you seek out the 1933 version to see what they accomplished back then. Judge for yourself which one is superior. Remember to get the original black/white version, and not the colorized version. 7/10
Storyline: The disreputable Carl Denham (Jack Black) and his film crew travel to the unexplored Skull Island to shoot a movie starring the beautiful Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) as leading lady. On the island the film crew encounter first a tribe of primitive cannibals and the giant ape Kong who falls in love with Ann Darrow. They use Ann Darrow as bait to catch Kong and transport him back to New York. But all hell breaks lose in New York when Kong escapes from a presentation show to seek out his beloved Ann Darrow...
Since I first heard Peter Jackson was remaking KING KONG I had been anxious to see what the New Zealandish director of infamous low budget/no budget horror movies such as BAD TASTE and BRAINDEAD, the funny mockumentary FORGOTTEN SILVER, and the overrated LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy had done with the perhaps biggest monster icon in the history of cinema. Remaking such huge cinematic milestones is always near-impossible. Many people have nostalgic memories of the giant ape, and therefore everybody will have opinions.
Surprise, surprise - the movie was actually good! And much better than the 1976 and 1986 versions. Most impressive are the CG special effects. For example: the fast-paced "Kong vs. dinosaur(s)" scenes or the small details on Kong's body. His hair. His eyes. And his realistic movements. Andrew Lesnie's cinematography looks stunning, and the movie is generally full of stunning backgrounds and set designs. Secondly Jack Black nails the Carl Denham character by never overdoing the sentimentality or comedy, unlike fellow comedic actors Robbin Williams and Jim Carrey. Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody, along with the rest of the person gallery, struggle to give their cliché cardboard characters life, but that doesn't matter too much, because in reality this movie is all about Kong. Thematically it deals with impossible relationship among uneven sizes.
But, aside from being an hour too long, I have another more fundamental, yet highly subjective, problem with Peter Jackson's KING KONG. This is where the inevitable subjective and nostalgic criticism comes in: I want stop motion animations and not CG animations! Although Kong looks better than ever CG is just too slick and, in lack of a better word, "undemanding" for me. Admittedly the 1933 KING KONG looks laughable compared to today's standards, but one can only imagine the impact the stop motion technique must have had on its audience in the early 30's. To me stop motion just has a certain unique visual quality that CG will never be to deliver. Nowadays CG easily handles anything, while in 'dem good ol' days it had to be done manually. And the result just came out more cinematic. I enjoy looking at Kong 2005, but when the initial wow-effect has worn off I find Kong 1933 more exciting to look at. As with all good film elements it's hard to pinpoint the exact quality of stop motion, but it has something to do with visual poetry (to use German director Werner Herzog's expression). The CG is so overdone and slick that it gives you all the answers, and doesn't leave room for the imagination. Stop motion looks more strange, terrible, mysterious, funny, and... poetic!
I welcome CG animations to the world of cinema, but only when used rightfully. Hollywood shouldn't forgot to reflect on what qualities they neglect by always taking the easy route. If you want a modern Hollywood action popcorn blockbuster then Peter Jackson's KING KONG is a fine choice, but I highly recommend that you seek out the 1933 version to see what they accomplished back then. Judge for yourself which one is superior. Remember to get the original black/white version, and not the colorized version. 7/10