King Kong

Jännittävät jaksot vuorottelevat todella tylsien kanssa. Elokuva kestää kolme tuntia, ja sille tekisi hyvää, jos Jackson leikkelisi sitä vielä hieman. Itselleni suuri pettymys. Mielestäni kiitokset parhaista näyttelijänsuorituksista kuuluvat Thomas Kretschmannille ja Andy Serkisille, joka itse asiassa veti kaksoisroolin. Elokuvassa on hienot visuaaliset tehosteet, mutta kohtaus, jossa Kong ikään kuin ottaa käteensä Annin, joka näyttää sillä hetkellä viivoittimelta, ei ole kovin onnistunut. (17.12.2005)

Whereas every image in The Lord of the Rings had its own weight and was an integral part of a well-thought-out, sensitively constructed and complex whole, every image in King Kong is an eccentricity derived from the mood of the moment and a different approach to the viewer. And the result is an enormous incoherent mishmash that begins with the promise of a distinctive Jacksonian flick (romance conceived through crazy cinematography and editing, enthusiastic filmmaking and the nostalgic atmosphere of 1930s New York), but it continues in the spirit of the pre-digitalized calculus where even a dozen bloodthirsty dinosaurs don’t inspire as much awe as the single, herbivorous one did in the first Jurassic Park. Not even James N. Howard’s music, skillfully combining the needs of a contemporary soundtrack with the formula of Max Steiner’s classic score, could salvage this movie, nor could Naomi Watts’s embodiment of celestial beauty or the touching expressiveness of Kong’s eyes, or the endearing juxtaposition of boulders and ice skating. I’m a fan of Peter Jackson, lost worlds and epic films, but I will shed a tear for unfulfilled expectations and watch the more enchanting and well-balanced Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. (19.12.2005)

Jackson has returned to his roots, where he can extract maximum impact from minimal elements. In this case, it's a fairy tale that could be told in 20 minutes, but thanks to the final three-hour runtime, it remains engaging and avoids boredom. It is true that several scenes from the first half could be trimmed without much loss (although the reference to the original King Kong creator, Merian C. Cooper, was the only thing that made me laugh in the theater). However, the second half is a perfect celebration of filmmaking. While the flurry of visual effects often borders on being self-indulgent, the content is so fascinating that it's impossible not to be mesmerized, with one's mouth agape, silently staring. Kong truly comes to life, and it's astonishing how Jackson managed to imbue him with such a realistic presence. The viewer finds themselves rooting for him in the intense battles for survival while also feeling deep empathy for this profoundly lonely creature who remains so isolated. The acting talents, with Jack Black in a standout role, serve as mere supporting players, with only Naomi Watts slightly standing out because it is her character that drives Kong's actions. The magnificent finale is an amazing golden highlight, albeit perhaps excessively saccharine kitsch. However, it is so sweet and captivating that one cannot help but surrender to it and unabashedly shed tears along with everyone else. (03.02.2006)

There's one place in 1933's King Kong... Ann stands in front of the camera and Carl Denham tells her what to do. The scene culminates with the famous "scream Ann, scream for your life" and the phrase "what's the thing she's really going to see". Jackson's remake couldn't get close to the power and atmosphere of this scene, but you can't blame him for it. Rather than a terrifying monster, who has raised viewers' hair with horror, his Kong is a humanized and playful gorilla attacking completely other areas. He's a monster created the way every child wanted to see him, a monster protector. And along with him, the archetypal forms of the main actors are altered – Ann is not a fragile and defenseless beauty who screams hysterically for half of the film, Carl is not an enthusiastic adventurer with a camera... Naomi Watts is more emancipated, bolder, more active... and great. Jack Black is self-centered, selfish, crooked... and great. It is he who will destroy the mighty Kong, his desire for profit, his desire to sell secrets for the price of one ticket. A big and, in my opinion, successful update of King Kong. Paradoxically, the fact that the monster is transformed from scary to sympathetic does not take away it’s strength. The film's strength is lessened by a major lack of self-criticism and a willingness to omit unnecessary multi-talk and superfluous scenes that kill both the pace and the emotion. The visual gluttony and repetition of some scenes does not pay off in the ending, which fades out into nothing. It’s too bad, because all Jackson and Co. had to do was get away from the love of the story and give it a firmer shape. Likewise, the director could have avoided unnecessary and overly sweet clichés that had nothing to do with the poetics of the original 1933 film. If there were fewer of them and if they were more moderate, everything would be in perfect order. Even so, King Kong is a royal spectacle and a film that has the magic of "lost worlds", the pathos of heroes, beauties and monsters. But the film lacks the cohesion and inner energy of The Lord of the Rings, it lacks really strong emotions... There was very little missing for everything to be fine, but in its current form King Kong only fulfilled my expectations and that is too little from Jackson. (17.12.2005)

I’ll say it clearly: King Kong is (and has always been) silly, already from the premise. The concentrated stupidity of a story about the love between a fragile girl and giant ape becomes atrocious in Jackson’s version, because when you spend 200 million dollars on something, if you want to make a profit, you need to aim at the lowest common denominator, i.e. the result has to be silly enough to attract the average masses. That’s why we have Jack Black making funny faces, Naomi Watts performing a funny dance for a gorilla that wanted to eat her a moment ago, sailors fighting dinosaurs… and nobody cares that a lot of money was wasted in a shallow megalomaniac kitsch that might be good in the technical categories, but fails in everything else, or rather, doesn’t even attempt to succeed. This is an approach that I will never celebrate. Utter crap, and I’m afraid that Jackson’s better years are a thing of the past. (29.01.2011)