Premise: You know the drill. Remote island. Big ape. New York skyscraper in the finale.
It's odd how enduring King Kong is, right? Kong is among the most identifiable characters in cinema history. The 1933 movie was a hit, but not a record-breaker (although records are shaky from back then). The cast isn't full of big names. I couldn't name another movie from the directors. Still, that scene on the top of the Empire State Building is (and this word has been cheapened by overuse but I mean it here) iconic.
So, it's never really been a question of if King Kong would be remade. It was only a question of how many times. The original movie got a sequel later the same exact year (crazy by today's production standards). He was resurrected by the Japanese as part of the Godzilla craze. Since then, about once a decade someone comes up with a new take. Most recently, it was Kong: Skull Island, which was an extended cinematic universe take. By far the biggest revival was Peter Jackson's epic follow up to the Lord of the Rings movies. The next most infamous though has to be the 1976 remake produced by Dino De Laurentiis.
This is certainly my least favorite of the main three King Kong movies, but it's not like the other two are tier one classics to me. The 1933 movie I really like. The 2005 movie I don't remember well except that it's really long. Overall, this King Kong runs into the problem of many action movies. The effects just don't age very well. This Kong looks a little silly. They don't convey his size well. The whole sequence when he escapes in New York is funnier than thrilling. It just plain has a Kong problem.
And, I don't think the other elements of the movie balance it out well enough. You'd think having a cast with Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin, and Jessica Lange would turn out a little better. Grodin (I always forget how old he is) is a nice enough foil, although I think he could've been made even more punchable. Bridges comes off mostly unscathed. I do have trouble seeing him as an action star, but that's probably because I first knew him in the Dude era. Jessica Lange was infamously panned in this, her screen debut. I'd argue, who could've made that role work? The main note I made about her while watching was "Thankless role, but Jessica Lange sure is pretty", which I think is how most people involved treated her in the role.
It's hard for me to say now whether using the World Trade Center felt so wrong because of what ultimately happened to the twin towers or because it should always be the Empire State Building for this movie. I see why they switched it. The Empire State Building was used in 1933 because it was the newly completed tallest building in NYC. In 1976, that honor went to the World Trade Center, but it just didn't look right. Besides, I don't think Kong belongs in 1970s New York. Kong: Skull Island sidesteps this by not having Kong leave the island. The 2005 King Kong rightly assumes that King Kong belongs in 1933. Anyway, let's be honest, in 1976 or later, if Kong is being brought somewhere, it's Orlando.
I didn't hate the movie by any means. The bare bones of the story are a good one. I like some of the cheeky humor (Lange's "life was saved by Deep Throat"). The stars hold the screen well. The effects are good for their time, even if they don't hold up now. It's not 3 hours long. It's just hard when there are two better versions of the same movie out there.
Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment