King Kong
Kong has been realised.
2005's King Kong may not be the tightest film ever cut. Perhaps, maybe, there have been more stunning, creative and
complex action scenes realised on film before. And before King Kong, we've arguably seen standards of effects work
which furthered the field to a greater degree than this film does. But for all the marketing moola that's ever been thrown
behind big-budget spectacles touting audience-pleasing CGI characters, King Kong has realised any and all of the
promises you may have heard, and then some.
King Kong's creators have elevated the image of the giant ape to such a degree that he transcends the idea that he's
a simple effect and becomes the films legitimate title character. There's no Aslan-like 'looks really good, but he's still
quite an obvious CGI-looking lion' issues with Kong. If an audience weren't to have ever seen CGI before, if we as the
public watching Kong hadn't been jaded by 15 years of sloppy, rushed and lazy CGI work, imagine what Kong would look like
if it were your introduction to the technology. If we didn't understand that the only way to bring non-existent
photo-realistic characters (there's a term that disappeared from describing CGI work in movies long ago) to the big screen,
we could almost believe it true that giant apes exist.
To not talk about the CGI work in King Kong is like trying to pass off a review of Titanic without citing
that there was a boat involved, it just has to be done. Kong's scars, his matted hair, the fine attention to detail as his
fur as it ruffles in the wind. The respect to the laws of physics, action and reaction to the movements of a 15 tonne
creature. Kong appears to move the way a creature of his design would move if it were real. And that's the easy stuff. Kong
has a real personality, something we've seen only once before in a CGI character. He sighs, throws tantrums, laughs, shows
joy, anger, longing and despair. It's a character realised through understatement. Whilst the very idea of his existence is
a loud, jarring assault on realism, he's given a personality and a believable reality through the very smallest of
expressions and subtle movements, down to that very human point where you're convinced you can tell what he's thinking.
That's attentive and demanding work, something approaching true artistry. Not only does every frame of Kong's existence look
to have been carefully considered, but for example, it appears as though it's been someone's job to make sure his left
thumb is always in a realistic and measured position, to the detriment of the character if it weren't on the same level of
purposeful placement as something we'd all consider vastly more important, such as his eyes. Be prepared to be unprepared
for the stunning visuals used to bring Kong to life.
So the character of Kong has been realised. It's probably the most important aspect when making a film called King
Kong to get that right, with King Kong earning top marks, but expensive Hollywood films have been rightly
penalised before by assuming that that's all that makes a good film.
I have no problem with three hour films. If it takes 4 hours to properly tell your story, then I'll gladly appreciate every
minute used to tell it. But King Kong takes it time to get going, with around an hour of screen time used to
introduce the human characters as they make their way to the Venture and from there, to Skull Island. Sadly, it's a
laborious process where some of those minutes seem unnecessary. There's no harm in introducing the main players, Anne, Jack
and Carl and properly flushing out their characters, but occasionally there's a lingering sense of awkwardness in that first
hour of King Kong. It's not an overwhelming feeling, but the dynamic on the boat just wasn't that engaging. It felt
like a gathering where people just couldn't be bothered getting to know each other, because tomorrow, everyone will be
going their separate ways, never to meet again. Proposals? There's no need to cut characters or scenes out, just make them
more interesting and useful. That's more a writing/directing issue than an editing fault.
That said, the first hour serves its purpose effectively, even if it fails to do so flawlessly. It is a very sweet reward
when Jackson does choose to unleash the action. From the moment the boat hits Skull Island, the speed of the film takes
only small pauses before jumping right back into the next imaginative and heart-pounding action sequence. The positive is
that when it does choose to take a momentary breath between its action sequences, we're kindly paid off with inventive and
highly engaging moments, such as Ann discovering and acting on how to not be killed by Kong.
As far as spectacles go, King Kong is the year's pinnacle, easily surpassing the thrills and rides offered up in
any and all of the year's earlier highly promoted attempts to satisfy the effects junkie. That much should be clear by
now in this review. The part that makes Kong different from all before it is the emotion that the audience has been
asked to invest in the story. By the end of it, you'll be giving it up freely. Knowing how the film's going to finish up
should mean it's ending has less of an impact. As their fateful time of departure upon the Empire State Building approaches,
Kong and Ann's relationship reaches a final moment closeness that has more of a bitter sweet complexity than most human
dramas could hope for.
Another thing that elevates King Kong above other films and will add to re-watchability of such a film is the
high frequency of small, inventive details. It's not just a story of A to B with great effects and competent acting such
as we saw in War of the Worlds, it's the touches of a filmmaker overflowing with ideas of creativity to make every
scene a unique experience. The way Kong examines random women as he searches for Anne and discards them without an
after thought, the way a trapdoor spider appears, the way Kong plays with a dead T-Rex, the way he ignores Anne and
deposits her on his shoulder. These and countless more realised ideas, importantly, are narratively relevant to the
situation, giving King Kong an extra roundness.
Of the characters, it's of course Naomi Watts who's the film's human highlight. It was quite a delight to watch her
physically fall into the role of a '30's comedy-routine entertainer; was that CGI or pure Naomi? Jack Black brings a
requisite sense of opportunist to his Carl Denham. He's a used car salesman putting his faith in con after con and just
when it looks as though his underhanded exploits have led him to where he deserves to be, another avenue of exploitation
appears. The way Black is able to convey Denham's sense of awe when he realises the potential of what Kong could earn him
is appropriately despicable. While these two leads excel, unfortunately Adrien Brody is out of place. He's a common fault
many people seem to have with King Kong, which is an unfortunate slap for the Oscar winner. His leading-man heroics
seem highly out of place every time he appears, with a screen charisma defying the love angle his Jack Driscoll is supposed
to have with Ane. Out of the supports, Andy Serkis is surprisingly good as the rough and dodgy cook, he has some nice lines,
and Kyle Chandler has the film's second funniest scene after Kong.
At 3 hours, a Peter Jackson film such as this should run smoothly, but King Kong's first hour is too slow. It's
entertaining enough to enjoy on the first viewing, but I imagine that it could become the only tedious part of the film on
multiple viewings. King Kong is ultimately a story about sacrifice. The extent to which Kong goes to in order to
protect Ann is admirable and selfless; she's given him a purpose. But there's a moment towards the end where we wonder if
Kong is regretting the decisions that he's made. Just as the animators of King Kong have been able to bring Kong to
life by putting a believable range of emotions on show, Jackson has infused his picture with those same key ingredients.
As an attraction, King Kong pleases on all levels.
out of ten
Reviewed by Paul Boschen
Moviemarshal.com home