|
Interesting.
First of all, as you may or may not remember, I have an extraordinary love for the 1933 King Kong. I watch it once, and only once a year, every Thanksgiving Day. (Since WOR Channel 9 stopped their Thanksgiving giant ape tradition I had to take matters into my own hands.)
I liked that Ann cared for Kong, as did Jessica Lange's character in the 1976 movie. They didn't need to go ice skating together, of course. But when I first watched the 1933 movie as a kid it bothered me that Fay Wray didn't seem to even understand that Kong loved her. If I was remaking the movie, I would have had the love be requited, but probably much less overtly.
I loved Naomi Watts, by the way. I found myself somehow captivated by her front teeth.
They really screwed up the Carl Denham character, in my opinion. Robert Armstrong played him as a kind of P.T. Barnum, and I loved that. He had that swagger, as seen when they were retreating from their first encounter with the natives. Armstrong tilted his hat at a rakish angle and walked away whistling. He was confident that he could do anything.
Jack Black's version was a filmmaker on the outs who was trying one last time to hit it big. He was more devious and far less likable. I don't know why they made that fundamental change. It really wasn't necessary at all.
The T-Rex battle was over the top, but I got a kick out of it. My favorite moment in the whole film was when the battle was finished and Kong verified that the dinosaur was dead by playing with his broken jaw. It was a nod to the original movie, and was my goosebump moment. In fact, all my favorite moments were the homages to 1933. That tells me that if the 2005 version was the original, I wouldn't have liked it nearly as much as I did. My enjoyment of the 2005 movie was based heavily on my love of the 1933 version; the current film doesn't really stand on its own that well.
I absolutely agree that the movie was too long, and a lot could have been shaved off of what you called the first act. Way too much setup. In 1933 it was, "Hey, I'm making a big movie. I'm gonna find a girl to be the lead and then we're getting on the ship!" Much better that way.
Other disappointments:
The new characterization of the skipper. I loved that he was a seasoned old salt, who knew of every legend on every little island. When they encountered natives that no white man had ever seen, Captain Englehorn knew their language.
It also struck me as dumb that Denham didn't even know anything about the legend of Kong. Why was he so fired up about going to that island if he didn't have a sense of what he'd find there. Again, back to Robert Armstrong, when he's briefing Englehorn and Driscoll after they've set sail: "Gentlemen, have you ever heard of... Kong?" He describes the island, the wall ("something they fear"). He was brash, he was bold, he was cocky. Not snivelly like Jack Black.
But some of the homages that I liked: The dialog being rehearsed on the ship was verbatim from Jack and Ann's conversation in 1933. The Kong stage show, back in New York, was lifted from the actual island ceremony in the 1933 film. Same music, same costumes, everything.
It also made sense that Denham would bring along more than one actress and a bunch of sailors. This time around, he had cameramen, a lead actor, a sound guy, a screenwriter. We probably spent too much time getting to know them, but it was reasonable that they were there.
There's probably more that I could say, but I saw the movie three months ago, and have probably forgotten some of my initial impressions. I will buy the DVD when it comes out, and if upon a second viewing I remember more of what I planned to say, I'll return here.
| 
