King Kong (5 Stars)

People associate the name Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings. Understandably. Between them the three films in the trilogy earned $2.9 billion at the box office, and the third film was awarded 11 Oscars, winning every category it was eligible for. And yet I consider "King Kong" to be his true masterpiece. The first time I saw the Lord of the Rings films (in the cinema) I loved them, I was wildly enthusiastic. The second time I saw them (on DVD) I still liked them, but I was cooler in my opinion. The third time I watched them I felt bored. Spectacular scenery, great special effects, interesting characters, but somehow it seemed empty, it didn't have the heart and soul that Tolkien's novels have. I doubt I'll watch the DVD's again. With "King Kong" the opposite is the case. I enjoyed it greatly the first time I saw it, and every time I watch it I like it more.

The first version of "King Kong" was made in 1933. The original screenplay was written by Edgar Wallace, based on a 1932 novel by Delos Lovelace. Some editions of the novel incorrectly name Wallace as the author. In the 1930's it was easier to cheat to make books more saleable. If tricks like that were attempted today there would be massive lawsuits. Edgar Wallace died before the film was made, and the screenplay was modified by various other writers including Ruth Rose. The film shows the influence of German expressionism. In my opinion it was the best film made in America in the first half of the 20th Century.

There was a remake of the the film in 1976. At the time it was very successful, but over the years critics have turned against it, saying it relied on special effects -- the best special effects available at the time -- rather than believable characters. It's been many years since I last saw it, so I won't give my own opinions.

And now to Peter Jackson's remake that was released in 2005. He was also critical of the 1976 version, and his goal was to get back to basics. He remade the original 1933 version without borrowing anything from the 1976 version. He also made the decision to set the film in 1933, not bring it up to date. This was the right decision. As a period film this is a masterpiece, even before the ship sets sale and leaves New York behind. Apart from the old-fashioned streets and cars we see the suffering of the Great Depression and hints of Prohibition. The attention to detail is meticulous.

The casting is so perfect that it's difficult to imagine anyone else in the major roles. Naomi Watts has a face that breaks into a gaze of star-struck innocence when she looks upon the monster. In her case this isn't acting, this is her natural expression that I've already seen in "Mulholland Drive" and "The Ring". Nobody else could have played Ann Darrow. Jack Black, who plays Carl Denham, fits into the era perfectly. He has the facial appearance of the early silent movie actors. If anything he reminds me of Gustav von Wangenheim. Adrien Brody is perfect as the sad-faced writer Jack Driscoll. Again, this isn't acting skill, Adrien has very distinctive facial expressions that are exactly what the film needs. Kyle Chandler plays the deliciously bland film star Bruce Baxter, who I don't believe was in the original film. A welcome addition to the story. Thomas Kretschmann was an inspired choice as the cool Captain Englehorn. And I could continue with all the other supporting actors. Has any other film ever been cast so perfectly?

The story? I'm sure everyone knows it already. A third-rate movie director, Carl Denham, gathers a small group of actors to make a film on a remote island. While there they find and capture a giant gorilla they call King Kong. They bring him back to New York, where he escapes, goes on a rampage and is killed. The story is made more poignant by the monkey falling in love with the film's leading lady, Ann Darrow.

Click here to view the amazingly dull trailer. At least it shows Naomi Watts' beautiful gaze.