“Peter Jackson is a great inspiration,” he claimed with pride, “a director who started making Troma-like films and now proved he can make great ones with LORD OF THE RINGS and KING KONG”. These outrageous words came from the mouth of an LA based, indie filmmaker, the type who is stuck doing independent films and strives for mainstream recognition. It proved to me, beyond all doubt, that in Tinsletown, big is beautiful.

I was preparing for a great film. The opening (and the best) scene – a montage of depression-era NY, was beautiful. The cinematography reminded me of Jackson’s early works (pay attention to the crate carrying the DEAD ALIVE Sumerian Monkey-Rat on the boat). And since this is a project he initiated long before his LOTR fame, it was refreshing to see him go back to his roots, although not refreshing enough.

The original KING KONG is not a perfect film, but it’s an extraordinary one that still stands out, more than 70 years later, as a remarkable achievement. The new KING KONG offers very few updates on the first: Jack Driscoll (Brody) became the film-within-the-film’s writer and unlike his tough persona in the original, to fit modern times (although the film still takes place in 1933), he is a sensitive writer. Carl Denham (Black) in now a renegade filmmaker-on-the-run, and a few new characters are introduced for additional drama.

Of the actors, two really stand out: Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow and Kong as himself. In fact, their scenes together are the only aspect of the film that surpasses the original. Watts is so good; the thought that she was not really standing in front of a giant ape is nothing less than shocking. Her Ann Darrow is intriguing - an emotional wreck in a tough shell. Did I mention how beautiful she was?  Kong is an incredible CGI creation. Last time we were treated to such was… well… Gollum in LOTR. If this is all Andy Serkis is (who acted as both Kong and Gollum) doing, than he deserves more credit than he is getting.

While in the original film Kong and Darrow share a one sided relationship – he grabs her and she screams – the new version offers an interesting affair between two outcasts:  She – a struggling actress, trying to survive the depression. He – the only survivor of his species, fighting to dominate a prehistoric world. The two share a bond that is bound for disaster. And disaster it shall bring. This relationship overshadows any attempt to create a compelling one between Darrow and her dream-guy, the writer, Jack Driscoll. Which ends up feeling forced and anti-climatic.

“It wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast”. The first time I heard these words, coming from (Robert Armstrong’s) Denham as he stands next to Kong’s dead body, I was moved to tears – I was also naïve enough to believe Denham had a shred of sincerity in him. When I heard Jack Black say the same line, I didn’t buy it for a second – as good as he was, lightning didn’t strike twice. I’m a great guy myself, but if you hear me repeat a joke you heard George Carlin tell, I doubt you’ll laugh. That smile on your face would be remembering how Carlin told it.

Jackson truly loves and adores the original film, he created the most respectful and faithful remake in recent memory – to the level that almost every scene form the original exists in the remake. The idea was to expose the children of today, who are not going to sit through a black and white film, to the great story he grew up on. He felt the 1933 film didn’t need much updating and made a very similar one. But the original has more than a great story going for it. The excitement and magic it brings derive from its groundbreaking effects, ideas and craftsmanship (and yes, Fay Wray). Even though they may seem amateurish by today’s standards, they are full of soul. The remake features some of the best CGI work I’ve seen, but in our age this happens 4-5 times a year. There is nothing breathtaking and surprising with CGI anymore since we’ve learned to expect it. Quite frankly, it just seems hollow. As amazing as Kong is, he only works because Naomi Watts is next to him. The best counter-point would be JURASSIC PARK, 13 years after it was made, it still features the best looking dinosaurs to ever grace the screen and will forever be engraved in the minds of children who watched it during its initial theatrical run.

Big can be beautiful, but it’s mainly big. KING KONG, for the lack of a better definition, felt synthetic.

Some classics should stay classic. I can understand the will of a filmmaker to remake his favorite films, it’s an egotistical quality I believe most filmmakers share. If common sense fails me, I would be first in line to re-do Russ Meyer’s MUDHONEY, but until then you can find it at your video store, in black & white, under “M”.

Dennis' King Kong / Greg's King Kong / Gordon's King Kong / Victoria's King Kong