Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005)

What have I got to say?

THAT WAS AN AMAZING MOVIE!

I don't get the deal why a lot of people are saying that it was boring at the 1 hour of the movie. I suppose they were just sort of looking for wanting to get straight to seeing King Kong in action - a pseudo pitfall for a movie that's made famous because its principal character is as huge and as well-known as Godzilla. Frankly, I've never bothered to know what the original King Kong story is about... I just know, King Kong is huge (both literally and physically) , and its just now that I'm being reacquainted with the actual history of this film.

As for my just mentioned comment, I say "pseudo-pitfall" because the first hour isn't really boring, or dragging. True, Kong doesn't enter the screens until well into the beginning of the second hour, and audiences are probably impatient that way, especially in an age where everything is convenient and instantaneous. But the whole first act is just matter of film making perspective. There's a need to set up the mood and feel of the story, to introduce lead characters so that the audience will have a connection with them, and so that the movie will be able to pull the audience into the fantastical world of make believe reality that movies are made for.

Peter Jackson has set up a very nice first act in this case, if you're one of the many people who appreciated the first hour of the movie. I have not seen the original film, and I doubt that the first hour is needed for the original 1933 movie, as its already set in 1933. There might be no need to set up a environment depicting the depression era in the original film's case, but the director made a good choice by presenting this in the most recent remake of the movie - it builds on the timepiece of the film, drawing viewers in to the timeline rather than making them believe that all is happening in present-day Manhattan. Besides, whoever would've suspended their belief if Kong was brought to New York and shot down my airplanes, or shown in a theater and displayed as the Eighth Wonder of the World? That's HARDLY believable. (There's going to be complaints and lawsuits from animal rights group all over the world, and audiences could always say we could bomb Kong with gazillions of machine guns and snipers... he wouldn't even have made it halfway through the Empire State Building that way.)

Jackson has made nice parallels between his story lines, and there's a plethora of metaphors and symbolisms hidden in the first hour, if not all of the whole movie. To the inquisitive viewer, it comes off as an intelligent piece, not just another bombshell blockbuster action movie that's been released for the past year. To the average viewer, it might be a bit slow, but it would still be entertaining to watch as a precursor to the Kong centerpiece.

From the very start, I've already loved the casting - Naomi Watts made a great Ann Darrow, Black Jack as an ingenious and slightly scheming Carl Denham, and Adrien Brody a slightly suprising pick but well deserved casting as the human romantic counterpart for Kong, Jack Driscoll. The other casting were also well deserved - all came on with the 1933 backdrop as if they belonged there. No fancy Hollywood faces can be seen in this movie, slightly low-key casting, which is actually great (these popular faces tend to disrupt the audiences' suspended reality.. imagine Brad Pitt as Jack Driscoll and Nicole Kidman as Ann Darrow? Hardly - you'd probably start looking for Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes somewhere in the screen) If I had my way, I'd like to pick on Peter Jackson's brain to see how in the world he decided upon these actors to portray these characters in his ever beloved King Kong movie. That's all that I want to know... they're very ingenious casting, to say the least.

The second act, when finally Kong makes a show, is the main action sequence. There's hardly any room to breathe here. Its one CG action sequence after another - if its not the rescue party's ongoing perils, its a separated Ann Darrow's horrifying experience of escaping the many dangerous tenants of Skull Island. Giant cetipedes, cockroaches, a brontosaurus stampede, T-Rexes, giant bats. All in a day's horror works. Both storylines are interlaced with each other that gave that feel of life threatening and dangerous place that is Skull Island. The action may be a bit overdone here, but nevertheless, all is forgiven as the sequences are pretty good by themselves - A lot of people have probably seen the action sequence trailers with Kong and the T-Rexes, as well as the Brontosaurus stampedes, but its altogether a different feel when they're interlaced against each other.

Despite that, it was a good thing as Peter Jackson opted to chronicle the development of understanding between Ann Darrow and her captor. This would be the foundation in building the scenes for the last act when Kong invades that jungle that is New York City with his usual romp and berserking mode while searching for that all familiar face. Although the last act was a bit of an anticlimatic moment, it nevertheless serves its purpose as the movie arrives in its tragedy-like full circle when finally Kong takes a nose dive from the top of the Empire State Building.

There is one thing that bothered me in this movie though: Jack Driscoll wasn't given enough time with Ann Darrow throughout the second and third acts to develop a significant connection to make a believable ending as the curtains closed on the couple as he comforted the distressed lady in her loss. It just didn't seem enough explication why Driscoll, in the second act, would risk his life to rescue his lady-love, alone, in the jungles within Skull Island, and more unconvincingly, why, in the third act, he would even attempt to be a hero and thwart Kong from wrecking havoc in New York City as Kong violently released himself from his chains in his anger to search for Ann. If the development had been done in a more proper way, the ending would've been a much better as compared to an anticlimatic one in the last act. I believe that its not the fault of the actor, but of the director and the editing team, that resulted in this. Although the ending was heart wrenching, it didn't really tie up lose ends in a way that I'd appreciate. Hopefully that would be cleared up in a typically Peter Jackson fashion in the release of the extended DVD version (if there is ever going to be one).

Despite this lacking point, the movie is a great success for the director, and leaves a track record that seems to be unblemished until even the present. Let's hope that he does more of these kinds of movies in the future, and I'll certainly be closely following any future productions he might handle. This movie warrants a second, and even a third viewing, as it is a timeless, well made, classic movie, maybe as much as the original.

Go watch it! :)