In 1933 RKO pictures released King Kong to much acclaim. The monster movie proved to equally terrify audiences as well as move them to tears in a story that was quite unlike anything else at the time. Similar to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Kong was a fearsome creature that was considerably more human than the human cast of characters.
Fast forward to the 1990’s and King Kong has had multiple successful adaptations and remakes, and Universal pictures is trying to capitalise on the character now belonging to the public domain. The studio option Peter Jackson to remake the film with a release penned for some time in the late 90’s but Jackson can’t commit due to his gargantuan undertaking of adapting The Lord of the Rings but expressed his interest as the 1933 film is one of his biggest inspirations as a filmmaker. Willing to push back to an early 00’s release date to accommodate Jackson upon seeing his work adapting Tolkien’s fantasy epic, 2005’s King Kong still had a long and rocky production to undergo that would see multiple rewrites and re-castings; and ultimately the film was extremely well received at the time, winning multiple academy awards and being a big box office success, but in time has largely faded out of pop culture consciousness. 2005’s King Kong was a hugely formative film for me growing up, and I recently picked up the extended blu-ray for my first viewing in around fifteen years. So, I wanted to take a look back at this truly epic monster movie in the wake of the recent Warner Bros. revival and see just what made King Kong resonate with me so much.
New York, 1933, and the Great Depression is in full swing. The entertainment industry is dying, with performers and artists bearing the full brunt of this squeeze.
Filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black) has promised executives an exciting tale of love and danger filmed in an exotic locale following his discovery of a map that leads to an uncharted island.
In desperate need of a new leading actress, Denham hires the down on her luck Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) who has recently found her off-Broadway show cancelled. Excited to work with playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), Ann sets off with the crew asking few questions, unaware that Denham has duped everyone involved.
After the boat runs aground on the island, the crew become the victims of the indigenous tribe, and Ann becomes a sacrifice to a giant ape known as Kong (Andy Serkis). Determined to get her back, Jack leads a rescue mission deep into the jungle where dangerous creatures stalk their every move, whilst Ann appeals to the ape’s better nature to form a connection with the misunderstood beast.
Fast forward to the 1990’s and King Kong has had multiple successful adaptations and remakes, and Universal pictures is trying to capitalise on the character now belonging to the public domain. The studio option Peter Jackson to remake the film with a release penned for some time in the late 90’s but Jackson can’t commit due to his gargantuan undertaking of adapting The Lord of the Rings but expressed his interest as the 1933 film is one of his biggest inspirations as a filmmaker. Willing to push back to an early 00’s release date to accommodate Jackson upon seeing his work adapting Tolkien’s fantasy epic, 2005’s King Kong still had a long and rocky production to undergo that would see multiple rewrites and re-castings; and ultimately the film was extremely well received at the time, winning multiple academy awards and being a big box office success, but in time has largely faded out of pop culture consciousness. 2005’s King Kong was a hugely formative film for me growing up, and I recently picked up the extended blu-ray for my first viewing in around fifteen years. So, I wanted to take a look back at this truly epic monster movie in the wake of the recent Warner Bros. revival and see just what made King Kong resonate with me so much.
New York, 1933, and the Great Depression is in full swing. The entertainment industry is dying, with performers and artists bearing the full brunt of this squeeze.
Filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black) has promised executives an exciting tale of love and danger filmed in an exotic locale following his discovery of a map that leads to an uncharted island.
In desperate need of a new leading actress, Denham hires the down on her luck Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) who has recently found her off-Broadway show cancelled. Excited to work with playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), Ann sets off with the crew asking few questions, unaware that Denham has duped everyone involved.
After the boat runs aground on the island, the crew become the victims of the indigenous tribe, and Ann becomes a sacrifice to a giant ape known as Kong (Andy Serkis). Determined to get her back, Jack leads a rescue mission deep into the jungle where dangerous creatures stalk their every move, whilst Ann appeals to the ape’s better nature to form a connection with the misunderstood beast.
I enjoy a monster movie for what they’re worth. A giant version of an animal running amok and causing mass destruction, it’s a guilty pleasure that I don’t need to put much thought into. But there’s something about King Kong that’s really special and I think why he’s one of the most iconic movie monsters ever, and a lot of it comes down to the bond he forms with Ann.
If you’re a regular reader you probably know about my total obsession with The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that is what fuelled my interest in King Kong back when I was ten years old, and the film was one of the first to truly expose me to horror and quite extreme violence. King Kong sparked my interest in censorship and film ratings boards, simply because I’ve always found it kind of unbelievable that the film gets away with a 12 rating from the BBFC considering just how violent and scary it is. There is some really messed up stuff in this film (some of which I’ll get on to shortly), and I really do earmark it as fuelling my love for the horror genre.
The story and characters are really great. The film spends almost an hour establishing the characters, their motivations, and the dynamic they will go on to have with each other before they even get to the island. Whilst some viewers may just want to watch a monkey smash some stuff, I really appreciate how much time is spent telling an actual story with depth. We really get to see how the Great Depression is affecting not just the lives of each of our characters, but also the entirety of New York. It’s basically a slum, and it’s so gloomy.
The film does kick into high gear once you hit Skull Island though, and I mean like the moment they touch ground. We get a terrifying first action sequence where the film crew is attacked by the locals, then this is shortly followed up by Ann’s sacrifice to Kong.
This is then where the narrative splits between Jack and Ann; and for the next hour or so we get to explore Skull Island from two different perspectives and witness a land that time forgot.
It’s here where you get the most violent and disturbing scenes. One such nightmare enduring sequence sees Jack and the rescue party trapped in a deep and dark cavern infested with giant man-eating insects. What makes it even worse is that the whole sequence plays out in relative silence, just some light ambient noise, the clicks and squeals of the insects, and the terrified cries of the human characters.
Honestly, this scene gave me nightmares as a kid and watching it as an adult it made my skin crawl.
If you’re a regular reader you probably know about my total obsession with The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that is what fuelled my interest in King Kong back when I was ten years old, and the film was one of the first to truly expose me to horror and quite extreme violence. King Kong sparked my interest in censorship and film ratings boards, simply because I’ve always found it kind of unbelievable that the film gets away with a 12 rating from the BBFC considering just how violent and scary it is. There is some really messed up stuff in this film (some of which I’ll get on to shortly), and I really do earmark it as fuelling my love for the horror genre.
The story and characters are really great. The film spends almost an hour establishing the characters, their motivations, and the dynamic they will go on to have with each other before they even get to the island. Whilst some viewers may just want to watch a monkey smash some stuff, I really appreciate how much time is spent telling an actual story with depth. We really get to see how the Great Depression is affecting not just the lives of each of our characters, but also the entirety of New York. It’s basically a slum, and it’s so gloomy.
The film does kick into high gear once you hit Skull Island though, and I mean like the moment they touch ground. We get a terrifying first action sequence where the film crew is attacked by the locals, then this is shortly followed up by Ann’s sacrifice to Kong.
This is then where the narrative splits between Jack and Ann; and for the next hour or so we get to explore Skull Island from two different perspectives and witness a land that time forgot.
It’s here where you get the most violent and disturbing scenes. One such nightmare enduring sequence sees Jack and the rescue party trapped in a deep and dark cavern infested with giant man-eating insects. What makes it even worse is that the whole sequence plays out in relative silence, just some light ambient noise, the clicks and squeals of the insects, and the terrified cries of the human characters.
Honestly, this scene gave me nightmares as a kid and watching it as an adult it made my skin crawl.
Despite being the title monster, King’s scenes are usually a nice reprice from the terror. There is an exciting and extended battle between Kong and a group of dinosaurs trying to eat Ann, but for the most part Kong & Ann’s scenes are quite heartfelt. One scene see’s Ann performing her vaudeville routine for Kong who is highly amused, and another sees her trying to comfort him and heal his wounds.
The final forty minutes or so is a bit of a slog though. Despite being perhaps the most iconic part of the story, the return to New York with Kong in tow, where he eventually escapes and causes havoc in the city, is by far the film’s most boring segment.
Almost all the character development got wrapped up on Skull Island, and the little that there is left feels stretched incredibly thin over Kong’s rampage. Plus, Kong’s final stand against the planes stop the Empire State Building doesn’t feel as triumphant or epic in this version of the film, it feels anti-climactic and underwhelming. Maybe that was Jackson’s point? I mean the message of the whole film is that the pursuit of spectacle over everything else is a fruitless endeavour. But it seems like a strange way to end the film.
This weak final act makes the film’s Achilles heel all that more apparent, it’s too long. I know I watched the extended version, but even the theatrical version is over three hours and the whole thing needs to be around half an hour shorter. I definitely appreciate the effort that went into fleshing everything out as much as possible, but there’s a fair bit that could have been trimmed down or just cut entirely to make the film that much tighter. The extended version doesn’t even need to exist as unlike The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the extra scenes don’t add anything of real value to the film. I’d say that this is a relatively small complaint given the overall quality of the film, but it does tarnish a an otherwise perfect shine.
The final forty minutes or so is a bit of a slog though. Despite being perhaps the most iconic part of the story, the return to New York with Kong in tow, where he eventually escapes and causes havoc in the city, is by far the film’s most boring segment.
Almost all the character development got wrapped up on Skull Island, and the little that there is left feels stretched incredibly thin over Kong’s rampage. Plus, Kong’s final stand against the planes stop the Empire State Building doesn’t feel as triumphant or epic in this version of the film, it feels anti-climactic and underwhelming. Maybe that was Jackson’s point? I mean the message of the whole film is that the pursuit of spectacle over everything else is a fruitless endeavour. But it seems like a strange way to end the film.
This weak final act makes the film’s Achilles heel all that more apparent, it’s too long. I know I watched the extended version, but even the theatrical version is over three hours and the whole thing needs to be around half an hour shorter. I definitely appreciate the effort that went into fleshing everything out as much as possible, but there’s a fair bit that could have been trimmed down or just cut entirely to make the film that much tighter. The extended version doesn’t even need to exist as unlike The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the extra scenes don’t add anything of real value to the film. I’d say that this is a relatively small complaint given the overall quality of the film, but it does tarnish a an otherwise perfect shine.
The entire cast delivers a strong performance, but few of them feel like career best contenders. I’ve seen Watts, Brody, Serkis (both of his roles in this film), Jamie Bell, and many of the rest all do better in other films, but none of them are bad as such. There is one standout performance though and that’s Black as Carl Denham. Black is renowned for his comedy roles because of his eccentricity, but here he plays a man who’s not particularly funny at all, and he’s unexpectedly great. The recent Jumanji films aside, Black is not an actor I rate particularly highly, and yet here in King Kong he delivers what I would say is the best dramatic performance of his career.
It is worth mentioning that Serkis plays two characters in the film, the ships cook, Lumpy, and he provides the motion capture performance for Kong. His turn as Kong is not as revolutionary as Gollum was in The Lord of the Rings, but there really are few actors out there like Serkis who can physically embody non-human characters so well, whilst also conveying human emotions so vibrantly. The mo-cap for Kong is ultimately what will seal the deal for most anybody watching the film, whilst some will disagree on the quality of the overall film due to the balance between story and action, but everyone will agree that Serkis’ physical performance is brilliant.
Jackson was a great choice for director, especially following The Lord of the Rings, because he gives the film such an epic sense of scale. A lot of the methods he used for Rings are present in King Kong, and they are stylistically similar from a visual perspective. There’s a lot of CG work here in King Kong too, and at the time it even won an academy award for best visual effects. Watching it nearly twenty years later though definitely shows the cracks in the armour though as any creature that’s not Kong does have a tendency to look quite rubbery and textureless. The dinosaur stampede is perhaps the most obvious example of this, and whilst I can’t knock the film for the visuals looking dated now, it is a stark reminder as to how far we’ve come in two decades that these effects were considered the best the industry could offer at the time.
James Newton Howard’s score is also of note, whilst Jackson gives the sense of scale visually, it would be nothing without Howard’s epic orchestral numbers that harken back to the 1933 classic whilst also feeling appropriate for a post-millennia blockbuster movie.
I really do adore King Kong. Whilst it’s definitely too long, everything else is of such a high quality. You can see that Jackson put just as much love and care into this as he did with The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that’s why he was the perfect director for the job. He was extremely respectful to the source material, whilst updating the film for modern sensibilities, and expanding upon everything exponentially. Whilst it’s less frequent action sequences and a focus on drama may put off some monster movie enthusiasts, I find it to be one of the most engaging and ambitious films in the entire genre. This monkey most certainly deserves a big banana.
It is worth mentioning that Serkis plays two characters in the film, the ships cook, Lumpy, and he provides the motion capture performance for Kong. His turn as Kong is not as revolutionary as Gollum was in The Lord of the Rings, but there really are few actors out there like Serkis who can physically embody non-human characters so well, whilst also conveying human emotions so vibrantly. The mo-cap for Kong is ultimately what will seal the deal for most anybody watching the film, whilst some will disagree on the quality of the overall film due to the balance between story and action, but everyone will agree that Serkis’ physical performance is brilliant.
Jackson was a great choice for director, especially following The Lord of the Rings, because he gives the film such an epic sense of scale. A lot of the methods he used for Rings are present in King Kong, and they are stylistically similar from a visual perspective. There’s a lot of CG work here in King Kong too, and at the time it even won an academy award for best visual effects. Watching it nearly twenty years later though definitely shows the cracks in the armour though as any creature that’s not Kong does have a tendency to look quite rubbery and textureless. The dinosaur stampede is perhaps the most obvious example of this, and whilst I can’t knock the film for the visuals looking dated now, it is a stark reminder as to how far we’ve come in two decades that these effects were considered the best the industry could offer at the time.
James Newton Howard’s score is also of note, whilst Jackson gives the sense of scale visually, it would be nothing without Howard’s epic orchestral numbers that harken back to the 1933 classic whilst also feeling appropriate for a post-millennia blockbuster movie.
I really do adore King Kong. Whilst it’s definitely too long, everything else is of such a high quality. You can see that Jackson put just as much love and care into this as he did with The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that’s why he was the perfect director for the job. He was extremely respectful to the source material, whilst updating the film for modern sensibilities, and expanding upon everything exponentially. Whilst it’s less frequent action sequences and a focus on drama may put off some monster movie enthusiasts, I find it to be one of the most engaging and ambitious films in the entire genre. This monkey most certainly deserves a big banana.