King Kong (2005) Review

King Kong (2005) Review

 

Happy Halloween!

 

Twenty years later, I still love King Kong. The original is, of course, a classic, and while that one steadily approaches its 100-year anniversary, the 2000s remake from Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson is coming up to its twentieth. Despite being less culturally significant by comparison, I find it holds up incredibly well, compared to all other versions of Kong, both ancient and contemporary. I’m going to avoid too many comparisons, though, as I have said plenty about the film in the past, but am only now finally getting down to a proper review. While I do still love it, I’m not going to only sing its praises here. There are issues with the remake, but not all the issues I have are perhaps shared with general moviegoers. I could put forward a spoiler warning here, but that would be unnecessary, wouldn’t it—not just because it’s a remake, but because who doesn’t know the story of King Kong by now?

Before I proceed to unpack the film on multiple levels, from grand strokes of adapting the original story to the minutiae of shot choice and visual design, I want to offer my opinion on which modern viewers should check it out and which ones can probably skip it. Unlike the original, which is not only an important film but still a highly entertaining one despite its age (dated effects techniques and racism and all), this version is a period piece, set in the same year the original came out, and emphasizes literally every aspect of the original, from the Great Depression’s influence on New Yorkers to the mysterious Skull Island and resident giant ape himself. It takes its time to set up the characters, the premise, the stakes, and the adventure, then it delivers one of the most incredible series of action-packed sequences from any 21^st century monster movie. It’s like all the meat of a delicious sandwich, but I have to admit, the bread (the New York stuff on either side) is a little drier compared to the juicy meat.

If someone without any cultural awareness sat down to watch only the 2005 King Kong for the first time, they might mistakenly think that the movie was two hours, ending on the rocky shores of Skull Island as Kong succumbs to the chloroform tossed in his face and Carl Denham declares his name will be up in lights on Broadway in a few months. It feels like an ending, and an inevitable one, at that. There’s still nearly an hour to go. Kong still has to climb the Empire State Building in New York, which is the most famous part of the monster’s lore, despite the majority of the story taking place on a dinosaur-infested isle. This aspect is reminiscent of Jackson’s previous film, The Return of the King, criticized for ending several different times over before the credits roll, and leads me to the number one problem everyone always seems to bring up about King Kong: it is too damn long. For the record, it’s just barely longer than only two of his previous three Lord of the Rings films (even the Kong extended cut is one minute shorter than the theatrical version of Return of the King). Unlike those films, which I think are excellent throughout and have few issues for their amount of runtime, both individually and collectively, I do have issues with King Kong, but the runtime itself isn’t one of them.

If you are invested in this genre of film like I am, or are as huge a fan of the 1933 original as I am (I don’t think anyone could be quite as big a fan as Jackson himself, though), I think the length and pacing especially are not poor. For the average viewer who maybe hasn’t seen it before, go with the shorter theatrical cut, but even that version is still nearly three hours. I enjoy the extended cut, which mostly adds in more Skull Island action (there’s also a better resolution to the supporting character Jimmy) and a few clarifying shots that bridge the action sequences more seamlessly. I’m less of a fan of the added parts in New York in the final third of the runtime, and while I enjoy seeing the rescue team on the rafts made of logs (I was rattled that they left that part out when I first saw it in theatres), the underwater shots look quite poor. I have watched the extended and theatrical cuts all the way through many times, but admittedly, I did watch just the Skull Island stuff a few times when I was a kid, because those sequences really were the whole reason I wanted to see it in the first place. No kid is going to tell you their favourite part of King Kong is the stuff in New York before they leave on the voyage.

If you want to watch the movie purely for seeing Kong and the creature battles, then I have to admit, as much as I love this remake, you might be better off sticking with the more recent iteration of Kong in the MonsterVerse, which places far less emphasis on human characters. Peter Jackson knew he wanted to make Kong a well-rounded, sympathetic character, not just a movie monster, but he also wanted to retell the same overall narrative of an actress being discovered by a maverick filmmaker bound for an undiscovered island of prehistoric creatures, only for the giant ape to take the actress, and the filmmaker setting out to rescue her and capture the ape. He probably didn’t need to spend a whole hour getting the actress into the giant hand of the ape (not mad that he did) as well as a whole hour of creature mayhem and characterization of Kong (even happier with that), but if you can get invested in the idea of really immersing yourself in two different worlds (1930s New York and Skull Island) with a decent cast of actors and visual effects that still hold up today (especially the motion capture for Kong), then I do recommend it, but I recognize the movie’s weaknesses and shortcomings to the point that I don’t just point to it and say it’s so good it should be for everyone, because it just isn’t.

The parts I specifically dislike in the pre-voyage portion of the film include some of the strange humour, the overdramatization of Anne’s “fateful meeting” with Carl Denham and her decision to board the ship, and just Denham in general. It's not the casting of Jack Black that takes me out of the movie (though it is a bit odd, kind of like when you forget Vince Vaughn was in The Lost World: Jurassic Park or Owen Wilson was in Anaconda), but more his clumsy lines like “I’m real good at crappin’ the crappers!” or his sleazy efforts to evade the studio executives and string everyone along so he can make his movie. Carl gets villainized nearly to the point of cartoonish evil by the time he hucks that chloroform bottle at Kong’s noggin, but it’s not Jack Black, it’s just the way the character is written.

Aside from the natives, the creepy crawlies in the chasm, the three hungry Vastatosaurus rexes, and a handful of other predatory creatures, Denham is the main villain, and the only villain in all three portions of the story. Peter Jackson not only poised the filmmaker character as the catalyst for destruction and mayhem, but he also tilted the story of King Kong toward the tragedy side, and how much you get on board with that choice will ultimately determine your enjoyment, I think. Friends, family, colleagues, and random people on the internet seem to enjoy the effects and action well enough, but how much they appreciate the overall movie depends on whether they like a more straightforward harrowing adventure like the original or a weightier drama that keeps you in suspense about what you came to see in a movie like this.

What about Kong himself, you may be asking? Isn’t he a villain? Not so much in this one. The first time he roars far off screen, deep in the heart of the island while the crew are being menaced by the natives (made less racist and far more disturbing—seriously, they remain the scariest part of the movie, unless you really hate bugs), it’s an ominous signal that the title character is coming, though it’s still a bit longer before we see the trees moving, his massive figure emerge from the gloom of the midnight jungle, and one of his colossal hands reach out for Anne. The terror of Kong is sustained for quite a while, as he jostles her around and transports her far from where he first picked her up, but when he finally cracks a smile, amused by her Vaudeville tricks, that’s when we realize he isn’t just some mindless movie monster. Kong is intelligent, caring, and sad. He’s alone, misunderstood, and highly protective of his first real companion on Skull Island in who knows how long. You really root for him to keep her safe and feel your heart ache when he starts to lose.

Some of the other weaknesses of Jackson’s remake go back to just how faithful he chose to be to the 1933 original. It hits all the same story beats, but makes a few changes along the way, mostly with additions—maybe too many at times. Additional characters get added in to the story, and they are given back stories, which adds to the exposition in the pre-island part of the film. The only portion of this third of the film I actually find slow and unnecessary is the montage, which follows the scene of a few crewmembers confronting Denham about actually traveling to Skull Island instead of Singapore, and ends right before they finally reach the fog and crash on the island (an underrated sequence with fantastic visual effects and some of the best camera work in the whole movie). Most of the voyage I find quite enjoyable and meaningful, but there are just a few too many shots panning from one end of the ship to the other as it makes its slow voyage to Skull Island—and this is coming from someone who doesn’t have a problem with the runtime, remember!

It's clear Jackson wanted his Skull Island to be a juiced-up version of the original, and of all the changes made, I appreciate and enjoy the island’s ecosystem the most. As not only a true fan of the original but a lover of all things dinosaurs, King Kong has always been a dinosaur story, to me, despite them playing secondary roles to Kong and the ruthless human characters who are intent to blast them all back into extinction. That being said, when I hear criticisms that it seems unrealistic for a giant T. rex-like creature to be pursuing a tiny human while it literally has a whole meal in its jaws, I can’t defend it. Jackson didn’t hold back with his ideas for striking visuals and edge-of-your-seat thrills, which was good! However, sometimes the realism feels a bit at odds with the nature of the movie. How many times over would Anne be dead from being tossed around like a rag doll? This is a line even the original managed to ride better, and ultimately, I think that’s part of why, comparatively, the 1933 movie holds up better for how displaced it now is from the time it was made, and why I have always liked it more.

Unfortunately, having seen it so many times over, I am all too familiar with the most questionable aspects of the movie, which stretch far beyond what I have mentioned so far. The natives pole vaulting to the ship is a unique and creepy visual, but I always found it a little weird, too. The Brontosaurus stampede still thrills me, but some of the CGI is a bit blurry or weighted wrong or just plain difficult to see clearly, although nothing bothers me more in the entire movie than the ridiculous choppy slow motion used when Jack pointlessly types out SKULL ISLAND for the first time and later when the natives ambush them. I don’t want to expunge every criticism I have, though, not only because I don’t actually think I could have done much better myself writing and directing a faithful remake, but because this is a review for a movie I love. It’s perfectly acceptable to acknowledge the flaws with something even if you love it, but I also want to highlight why it has remained such an important film.

I can watch and even accept all the easily criticizable parts because I think what Peter Jackson got right with King Kong he got just as right as he did everything in his Lord of the Rings trilogy. While not really comparable on the same level, given that Rings was an unprecedented production from a director who had not yet proven himself with a big Hollywood box office hit, he made King Kong with almost the same production team, and was allowed to make it his own vision. I had seen Kong multiple times over before I finally got around to Lord of the Rings, and I can see visual similarities between them, because Peter Jackson really does have a distinct director’s eye. While he was obviously passionate in making those films, I think the love for King Kong comes through in every frame. I love all the little details along the way, from the styling of the title cards to the easter egg of the crate labelled “Sumatran Rat Monkey” in the cargo hold (a reference to his origins as a horror director, the creature originating in Dead Alive), and the recreation of an authentic 1930s New York is impeccable.

I wanted to end my Shocktober Showcase of horror movie remakes with a bang, and that’s why it had to be King Kong. The original will always remain a pillar of early American filmmaking, a paradigm shift for special effects, and a signal of what was possible for so many filmmakers to come, including the guy who paid tribute to it with what I think is one of the best remakes in the 21^st century so far. It’s not like it’s a remake of just any movie. I’ve said plenty about it here, but there’s even more I’ve said previously, so I’ll include links below, with more detail for anyone interested in a clearer explanation of what I think of the plot, characters, and other best parts:

-King Kong (’05) vs. Godzilla (’14): https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2016/07/king-kong-2005-vs-godzilla-2014-movie.html

-Top 10 Movie Theatre Experiences: https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2022/09/top-10-movie-theater-experiences-ccc.html

-King Kong Movies Ranked: https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/king-kong-movies-ranked.html

As a kid, King Kong terrified me, thrilled me, amazed me, and inspired me, and now as an adult, I still appreciate that it has remained a meaningful remake in a world that sees less and less of them all the time. I doubt we’ll see a true King Kong remake like it again, which, in a way, just makes it more special. My favourite parts used to be Kong fighting the dinosaurs, but now, some of my favourite parts are the shots when he’s just sitting there, a relic of a bygone age, overlooking his domain, Naomi Watts’ Anne looking up at him in a mix of horror, wonder, curiosity, and sadness. King Kong is the Babe Ruth of movie monsters, and his tragic story is often forgotten as being one of the most important in the horror movie genre, including the subgenre of remakes of horror classics. 

 

Happy Halloween, everyone! I hope you enjoyed this year's remake-themed Shocktober Showcase, and I will be back next year with a new topic for Shocktober Showcase III! 

Piranha (1995) Review

Piranha (1995) Review

 

I thought I was finished reviewing Piranha movies, but I was wrong. Ten years ago I highlighted Piranha and Piranha 3D, the latter being a remake of the 1978 film. Five years later, I reviewed Piranha II: The Spawning, a sequel to the original, which was inferior to both the remake and original, but did you know there’s another remake? For a minute there, I thought the 1978 Piranha might have been a remake, too, because there’s yet another movie called Piranha from 1972!

This is not a review for the 1972 Piranha, which has nothing to do with any other movies titled after the vicious fish. There’s little to say about it, because it’s utterly misleading. A guy gets eaten by piranhas in one random scene, and aside from an opening close-up of a piranha with the title overlaid, that’s all you see of them in the entire movie. It should have just been called “Jungle” because half the runtime is nature footage of every animal in South America other than the piranha, and what little there is of a plot is about an evil hunter who takes a couple photographers into the jungle and tries to kill them. It goes for an adventure-thriller concept, but completely fails at that, too, with nothing of substance. There’s a dull motorcycle race that goes on forever, day-for-night shots that look terrible (an old school technique where they film during the day then darken the picture to make it look like night), and nothing original or interesting or entertaining. The only way I could possibly recommend watching it is if you want to make the remake that I am about to review seem better by comparison.  

The Piranha remake from the 1990s came about as a cheap rehash from Roger Corman, who also executive-produced the 1978 version. The plot is pretty much identical, except a part where a golden retriever jumps in the river and gets eaten alive, which just makes you feel bad. It’s not scary or thrilling, just awful and unnecessarily mean. There’s another part where a severed head of one of the fish is held up, and this is the only new look we get at the piranhas, because all the special effects are just recycled from the 1978 original! Corman was renowned for his frugal budgets, and this isn’t the only time he pulled this trick. I had been under the impression this Piranha (sometimes called Piranhas) was a completely pointless remake mainly because of how it reuses the creature shots, but it’s definitely not the worst movie out there called Piranha. The sound effects for the piranha attacks are much worse than in the original, with what I swear are eagle screeches overlaid with all kinds of noises, but visually, there’s nothing new to say: they look the same.

The characters are not all the same, and a couple of them stand out for different reasons. There’s a scientist who tells the main characters all about how dangerous the piranhas are, then jumps in the water to save a young boy stuck on a boat not long after and gets so chewed up she bleeds to death! Why did she do that? She knew better than anyone how dangerous they were! It’s almost like intentional comedy, except it’s accidental. Young Mila Kunis made her film debut here, and she’s a literal child, which made me wonder when her scenes were shot, because she seemed to grow up awfully fast in only three years from when this came out to when That 70’s Show first premiered, but it turns out she was only 14 when she got the role of Jackie on that show! Leland Orser (Seven, Alien Resurrection) plays a director shooting footage for advertising the Lost River Lake resort, and this sleazy director is the only bit of inspiration the 2010 remake seemed to take from this version.

Is there any reason to watch this version? It would be purely out of curiosity for how it compares to the original. There really is no other reason. You get the same sorts of scenes with people getting eaten, women getting naked, and people panicking. Even without the original to compare to, it’s an unremarkable TV movie at best, and no one should check this version out first if the premise piques any kind of interest. If someone said they liked this one better than Piranha II: The Spawning, I would understand. While there’s nothing as crazy as flying piranhas or scuba divers having sex at the bottom of the ocean, given it’s the same plot as the original just with some tune ups, such as less silly dialogue, it isn't as glaringly bad or as incompetent as Piranha II. It’s also 10 minutes shorter than the original, and therefore leaner, but again, not as interesting or as entertaining.

Overall, Roger Corman’s Piranha remake was not as bad as I expected, but that’s not saying much, and it lacks any self awareness or sly humour. One of the reasons you watch a Joe Dante flick is for that wry sense of humour; the original Piranha, while having a lot less of it than his later films, is still no exception. In ways, this version playing it straight makes it funnier because it’s so bad, but I still would never recommend it over Alexandre Aja’s 3D remake or the 1978 original. I won’t say I’ve definitively closed the book on Piranha movie reviews just yet…I might still one day subject myself to the dumpster fire horrors of Mega Piranha and Piranhaconda!