Kong Part II
So is this version better than the first? NO. You cannot perfect perfection. But this version
is very good. It's a different take on the original, but again, I don't know how to interpret this one. I wonder if this
is just the way 'King Kong' is, the way it was written I mean. At first Mr. Jackson's version starts out as what seems to
be a trip down the human psyche but then turns into a petition for animal rights. Or a cry for environmental awareness.
It makes me wonder why he made such a drastic change halfway through and why he didn't stick with one interpretation. Although,
the change is so quick that you hardly notice it until it's passed (I believe it comes when Ann and Kong share a sunset and
she realizes that he is not so evil).
The numerous references to Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' (sailor Jimmy
even reads it en route to the island!) points to the first half of the film being a psychological journey. I don't think
the film takes us into the human mind and into realms of which we don't want to go (a'la 'Pirates: Dead Man's Chest') but
it does show us what lies within our minds. In this light, Kong is the animal that we all have within ourselves, our Mr.
Hyde, if you will. Kong is our subconscious (or maybe unconscious) mind which we all try to hide (hence the wall on SKULL
Island....) and when the animal is free of the wall bad things happen. As Carl Denham looks at Kong for the first time he
realizes that this is no ordinary ape. But there is also beauty in each one of us, beauty that will eventually overcome the
beast. The island's name, then, in this case, is not without meaning. The skull houses the mind, just as Skull Island houses
Kong. But I wonder if this then was the interpretation that we were to have of the original 'King Kong', and Peter Jackson
realized this but made it more obvious in his version of the film. I wish I knew. Just as Mr. Hayes in the film tells Jimmy,
in 'Heart of Darkness' Marlow keeps venturing up the river to find Kurtz (who is more than likely Marlow's alter-ego, his
Kong) because he has to. He can't turn back. He needs to know the truth, much as the explorers in the film need to know
the truth about the island and what it hides, and also the need to know about ourselves, who we are, and what our minds hide.
'Kong' then is a psychological journey like the second 'Pirates' which shows us what humans can be, what is inside of them
and what can happen if this thing inside is let out. It seems like a twisted sort of version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (and
I now wonder if maybe the writers of 'Pirates 2'-and maybe 'PIrates 3'?-took the Jekyll/Hyde idea for their film. Then would
Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones be alter-egoes of each other? But I seriously digress).
But the second half of 'Kong'
feels less like a psychological thriller and more like an environmental film. Most people probably could guess that Mr. Jackson
is eco-friendly and aware (look at his Ents in 'Rings'-well, Tolkien's Ents, but his versions). And one need not look hard
at how poor Kong is treated by Mr. Denham and his men to realize this. The poor monkey is kidnapped from his home and put
on display as if in a museum to be abused some more and ogled at and used at his expense to make others rich (exactly as in
the original). Only Ann seems to understand how bad this is. And the destruction Kong causes in New York just goes to show
that you should not mess with nature. Leave it be! There are a few lines in the film which enhance this point, and I can't
remember if they're added by the script writers in this version or if they're in the original film (and I can't remember any
specific lines so that doesn't help). Mr. Jackson evokes such emotion in this film towards the end that it clearly seems
like it's calling for animal rights and whatnot. But then this mood contradicts the original mood of the beginning.
Lest
we forget that this was probably originally meant to be a horror film (which coincides with the psychological twists of the
first part) Mr. Jackson makes the beginning dark and gloomy. There is very little racism here (I also wonder if Kong is more
sympathetic here to do away with the racism he carried before) which makes sense. But the island natives are creepy and brutal
and kill and sacrifice people in horrible ways. The infamous bug scene has also been added (and I wish it hadn't-next cricket
I see dies) which most definitely adds to the horror of the film. The 'Heart of Darkness' bits also remind us of the horror
aspect of the film (and the rain-in horror films it also rains-sorry, this is another reason why I call 'Pirates 2' a horror
film-all the rain). But while the beginning is creepy and dark, by the second half of the film this has been forgotten.
Now it's about poor Kong and Ann. What happened?
Mr. Jackson also adds more emotion to the film. That's the thing
with this 'Kong'; everything is done in extremes: more horror, more dinosaurs (which sadly look silly after awhile-and apparently
those aren't T. Rexes fighting Kong, it's something else, but I don't know the difference), more emotion, more romance (on
many levels), more everything (more film!). But more emotion really tears you up. I cried when Kong died. The moments at
the end like Kong and Ann skating on the pond are heartbreaking because you know what's coming later. Kong is so easy to
like by the end (we start by not liking him, naturally, then he gets hit on the head by a rock, and our feelings change) that
it's painful to see him go.
On a few minor notes the film was exceptionally well cast. Few films I have seen
are better cast. Jack Black is excellent as Carl Denham, really superb. Naomi Watts adds appeal and power to Ann Darrow,
and Adrien Brody who shows up as Jack Driscoll (here a writer for some reason) is the perfect unexpected hero. He's a handsome
man and he's perfect as Jack. Andy Serkis proves himself a brilliant actor as Lumpy (oh yes and Kong), but we knew he was
a true talent with Gollum. I also enjoyed the old fashioned soft lighting at times during the film. Very nice touch. And
the set of Depression era New York, while not entirely real, is excellent as well. I also liked some of the tributes to the
original 'Kong' film.
This is an epic film. A sort of twisted version of Beauty and the Beast with some Jekyll
and Hyde mixed in. A fantastic film, except for the fact that it is WAY too long (if you thought 'Pirates' was long, that
was nothing) and many of the dinosaur scenes, especially the T. Rex things, could have been cut. It was also really annoying
the way the film switched themes and moods halfway through, and I wasn't sure how to see this film (which also annoyed me).
But there is so much going for it as well. I happen to like poor Kong. This is one of my favorite films. A nice twist on
the original. Oh and how do I interpret the last line of the film? In many different ways. :)
Best moment: There are too many really good ones, but nothing that really sticks
out. This film is best taken as a whole.
Worst moment: The bugs! Ug! I want to vomit. Also the end, with the Empire
State building....it's way too sad.
Best quote: 'It was beauty killed the beast...'
Why you should see
it: It's brilliant. You should see it if you've seen the original. It's excellent.
Why you should choose something
else: It's TOO LONG. Much longer than 'Pirates 3' even. And it switches tones halfway through, from horror to romance, and
it feels weird. Plus some people might not like the idea that it was a remake of the sublime original.
