King Kong

Ahogyan A Gyűrűk Ura - A Gyűrű Szövetsége című filmben minden képnek megvolt a maga súlya, és egy átgondolt, érzékenyen összerakott, összetett egység szerves része volt, akkor a King Kong című filmben minden kép a pillanat hangulatának terméke, és más-más módon közelíti meg a nézőt. Az eredmény pedig egy gigantikus, felemás tákolmány, amely egy jellegzetes Jackson-szerű örült film ígéretével kezdődik (a bolondos kamera és vágás segítségével tálalt romantika, a filmezés iránti lelkesedés és az 1930-as évek New Yorkjának nosztalgikus hangulata), de túldigitalizált számítás jegyében folytatódik, ahol tucatnyi vérszomjas dinoszaurusz sem kelt akkora csodálatot, mint egykor az az egyetlen növényevő lény az első Jurassic Park filmben. James N. Howard zenéje sem mentheti meg a helyzetet, amely ügyesen kombinálja a kortárs filmzene igényeit Max Steiner klasszikus sémájával, sem Naomi Watts megtestesült sztárszépsége, sem Kong szemének megható beszédessége, sem zsonglőrködés kövekkel, sem korcsolyázás a jégen. Peter Jackson, az elveszett világok és a nagyszerű filmek rajongója vagyok, de szomorúságomban letörlök a könnycseppeket a be nem teljesült elvárások miatt, és bájosabb és kiegyensúlyozottabb Sky kapitány és a holnap világa című filmet nézek meg. (2005.12.18)

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. (2011.01.29)

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. (2006.02.03)

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. (2005.12.17)

Just like Carl Denham, Peter Jackson should have had a good producer at hand to keep a tighter rein on him while making this movie. As the saying goes: “less is more" and (even in the extended edition which, unfortunately, mainly contains new scenes with dinosaurs and only here or there something meaningful) King Kong is a prime example of that. The entire island part is over-combined and the fact that Peter was just making his childhood dreams come true here is no excuse for it. The scenes with Kong and Ann are splendid, but unfortunately rather sidelined by scene with the dinosaurs fleeing from other dinosaurs, something that you soon get fed up with. The only scene that works in this pulp dime action respect is the one with Ann, King Kong and the trio of T-Rexes. Basically, as long as Kong/Ann are on screen, then everything is perfect and when they aren’t, then it’s just mediocre. Of course, any objections go aside as far as the New York finale goes (which lasts almost as long as a feature-length movie) and I have no qualms in giving this a full set of stars. ♫ OST score: 3/5 (2005.12.16)

Jackson really loves the monkey and when he enthusiastically says in interviews that he got inspiration for filmmaking from him in childhood, it's not just empty talk. But do we really have to see every detail because of it? When the main characters talk at length about the unknown threat on Skull Island and Kong as the main attraction is seen after over an hour, everything is not alright. Fortunately, what unfolds in the second half is amazing and a perfectly rich spectacle with stunning tricks. Thanks to them and also the uncluttered composition of action scenes, I hardly breathed at times. When the way back home is also a revelation, I can only regret that the slow start put me to sleep for so long. Among the actors, the atypical Jack Black pleased the most, while Adrien Brody in the role of an anonymous hero from next door barely had anything to play. I would like to congratulate Peter on another great cinematic experience and on showing, even after the trio of polished diamonds called The Lord of the Rings, how versatile and restrained artist he is. However, with a slight distance, there is not much that really remains in me, perhaps just the feeling of a pleasant adventure with a good dose of adrenaline, which, however, begins to fade sadly when placed in an attempt at a deeper story. King Kong is a fulfilled dream, but not mine. For hungry fans, dear Bilbo arrived seven years later. 70% (2006.01.14)

I have avoided this film for a long time because I knew I wouldn't like it in advance. In the end, I couldn't escape it, and when I finished it, all the prejudices I had formed about the movie in the past were fully confirmed. There were no surprises. After the huge success of his Tolkien trilogy, Jackson had the film world at his feet, and he could have taken a risk and created any film on any topic. Instead, he chose a story that had been used many times before, was perfectly exhausted, and had a theme that could have been significant in the 1930s, but today can only evoke a sympathetic smile. Yes, Jackson wanted to pay tribute to old adventure literature and B-movies, on which he grew up, as did I. But he would have had to direct the film with a much greater dose of humorous detachment to do so. Essentially, as a subtle parody in the style of Indiana Jones. However, Jackson got carried away by the wave of romance with only a touch of adventure film. The main character is somewhat unnecessary, but above all, the chemistry between him and Naomi Watts as the film's fateful woman simply does not work. Film characters in many cases only recite their positions or appear to gloriously perish shortly after. Otherwise, it is a bombastic, high-budget film, and Jackson's direction does not disappoint. For example, the battle between King Kong with three tyrannosaurs at once, the duel in swaying vines with clapping dinosaur jaws, or attacks by giant insects that take one's breath away. There are a few such scenes in the film, but after they arrive in the city, the film loses momentum, and adventurous action is replaced by overly sweetened romance. With a budget like this, a dozen other films could have been made, and half of them would probably be better. Jackson should have been more judicious. Overall impression: 45%. (2008.01.02)

The pleasantly old-fashioned opening titles make us forget about the digital escapades that we will witness throughout the film. In every minute of this captivating film you can feel it is the work of Peter Jackson. The same mise-en-scène structure, composition of images, camera sweeps, and even the use of visual effects. Thanks to his direction, the film itself becomes more a celebration of traditional values rather than just an action blockbuster. The lengthy running time does not bore and not a single shot feels unnecessary. The production design is truly impressive, the panoramic shots of 1930s New York are breathtaking. The meticulously crafted visual effects were truly worth the money and you can feel the amazing atmosphere. Even Kong himself turned out to be outstanding. This was made with love for film, as a dream project. It should be taken into consideration. (2005.12.17)

I'm like Peter Jackson - I love everything about the original. Like the director, I know it's impossible to make anything that has it atmosphere, but I'm blown away by this film. Nostalgia everywhere you look, quotes from the original King Kong in every other film field, scenes (the rolling brontosaurs, the fight between Kong and the T-Rex) that could not have been invented by anyone other than Jackson. Beautiful cinematography, music, fun and interesting characters (the best of the supporting roles is Kretschmann's captain)... Just great. But if I didn't know the original film and love it, I'd probably go with a lower rating... By a star. (2009.05.17)

I appreciate the director's efforts to bring a cinematic legend to the screen in the most sophisticated style, I appreciate the great visual effects and some truly breathtaking and imaginative action scenes, but there's still a little something missing and my favourite from 1933 remains unsurpassed. That's certainly not to say that the new King Kong is bad. On the contrary, Peter Jackson incorporates a lot of new ideas and strange animals into the story, and he lets them run wild, whether on the humans during the unforgettable scene in the deep ravine or during the long battle between the tyrannosaurs and Kong. Perhaps the film could have been shortened a bit and even more suspense could have been packed into it, which Jackson tries to do especially after the arrival on the island, but the romantic scenes with Naomi Watts and her ape admirer, which should be the highlight, don't really play into his hands and instead slow down the already slow pace. An absolutely great spectacle for the eyes and ears, but it simply lacks more verve and momentum. (2011.05.19)

Probably the greatest movie I've ever seen. Of course, it raises the question of whether greatness should be the direction a film should generally go in. But if we measure it in the context of Jackson's work, one can't help feeling that he must have reached that zenith for the very reason that he was able to bounce back artistically in yet another direction, which is currently represented by the conversion of early war footage to full-HD color, which, in retrospect, suggests that Jackson, more than anything else, was always a technophile who was lucky enough to have his wife Fran Walsh at his back, who as co-writer managed to colonize his spectacular ideas into a coherent shape. There's an awful lot of that in King Kong, and all of it in overwhelming quantity. If my chin was already dropping at the, for some, unnecessarily long New York exposition, taking place in crowded streets crammed with period detail, by the end I had a disposable jaw not worth going back for. But why do those CGI scenes work for me in Jackson's untenable tsunami of digital gimmicks, even though I usually dislike them in other directors? Presumably it's because, unlike standard CGI work in which the actors are clearly separated from the computer-generated action, here the live characters are directly part of those trick sequences, making the viewer feel more invested in them, plus they act as a size scale. This does set the filmmakers on a harrowing journey that can never be completely won in terms of credibility (or even completely derailed in places, see the terrifying escape from the dinosaurs through the gorge), but when they do succeed, they have a far better chance of succeeding not only in terms of the action, but on an emotional level as well, working with the relationship between the eight-foot digital ape and the famed Naomi Watts. And incredibly, indeed, the film succeeds in this endeavor as well. Unintentionally amusing, then, are the scenes through which the filmmakers try to explain, with seeming patience, that they can make the audience relate to many of the supporting characters as well, so that we have enough clues during those three hours that this is not an animated film. The scenes involving the young sailor and his mentor or the chef and his Asian friend feel out of context, and when they're not naively funny they border on irritating pathos. Besides, they pretty much lead to nothing. That general naivety of the film is otherwise related to the overall concept, i.e. the creation of an actual giant blockbuster, completely devoid of postmodern thinking. In some ways, it's a miracle that this happened at all, let alone that it worked. PS: Someday I hope to live to see the lawsuit between Ondřej Soukup vs. James Newton Howard over the original ownership of the central musical motif, which is totally swiped from Accumulator 1, don't tell me I won't. (2020.06.28)