News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

King Kong

By Scoop A. Wasserstein, Crimson Staff Writer

Directed by Peter Jackson
Universal Pictures
3 1/2 stars

“You show them that you have in you something that is really profitable, and then there will be no limits to the recognition of your ability.”

This is a quote from Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” which is referenced repeatedly in Peter Jackson’s new version of “King Kong.” In some ways it describes Jackson himself; after conquering the box office and the critical world with his “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, movie studios were falling over themselves in his praise and to hire him. Universal succeeded. Jackson was given $200 million to remake “King Kong,” Marion C. Cooper’s 1933 classic, as an adventure film set in 1933.

“King Kong” is the story of unknown actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), who is recruited by adventurer producer Carl Denham (Jack Black) to star in a new film set on the high seas opposite matinee idol Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler of “Early Edition” fame).
Denham, who’s lost his movie funding, hurries off in a boat with his lead actors and his technicians to a shoot in the high seas. Denham’s screenwriter/ Ann’s favorite playwright (quelle coincidence), Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), is unable to get ashore and is thus stuck on board for the trip to Skull Island.

Over the course of the boat ride, Driscoll and Darrow fall in love. Very quietly, owing to Jackson’s inability to write romantic dialogue. Which gives Driscoll a motivation to become an action hero after Darrow is kidnapped by the crreeeppy “28 Days Later”-esque natives of Skull Island as a sacrifice for their God, Kong, who is computer generated version of computer captured movements of Andy Serkis—the same process used to make Serkis into Gollum in “Lord of the Rings.” After many action sequences set amongst Skull Island’s monstrous inhabitants, Darrow is rescued, Kong is gassed and brought to New York. The stage is set for the famous final battle.

Jackson benefits from this classic three act structure taken from the original film. Quite simply, he is not good with original screenwriting—a fact previously obscured by the privilege of working from the best-written fantasy novels in the English language. All scenes that are meant to be written as deep and aphoristic are astonishingly silly.

The central relationship between Darrow and Driscoll seems awkward when they attempt to speak to each other. Their sexual chemistry is inexplicable, especially in comparison to Darrow and Kong’s bond, which is as romantic as anything in a Meg Ryan flick. Kong turns his back on Darrow after saving her from a flock of dinosaurs, which inspres her to run after him is a stripped down and true account of the animalistic nature of desire.

Unfortunately, the constantly reiterated relationship between Hayes (Evan Parke) the gruff, but heartfelt first mate and Jimmy (Jamie Bell, the “Billy Elliot” kid) is so bad as to verge on self-parody. Although it allows Jackson to develop the “Heart of Darkness” theme—Jimmy inexplicitly stole a copy from the New York Public Library—it loses the rhythm of the rest of the action.
And yet, surprisingly, the film mostly works.

Jackson can thank Universal’s deep pockets for this relative success. The movie’s digital technicians are geniuses; Skull Island is like nothing seen on film. Every detail is meticulously planned and beautifully executed.

Special note needs to be given to an attack of slug creatures that would have given Freud nightmares. The image of one of them swallowing a man whole by flowing over his head, is among the most terrifyingly psycho-sexual sights this reviewer has seen on film in a long time.

Again in a Peter Jackson movie, the most impressive performance belongs to Andy Serkis. Kong’s inability to speak allows Serkis to only express himself through actions and the pathos in each movement works wonders. It is in the ape’s humanity that “Kong” is saved from the nadir of empty technological beauty that characterized so much of the new “Star Wars” movies.

Everyone has felt like Kong at some point in their lives. Unsure how to court someone they desire, unable to fit into a new world, hunted and haunted by the people around them, unsure who to trust. Seeing Kong exploited and then finally being able to relax with Darrow gives the movie a heart.

It was mediocrity that killed this beast.

—Crimson staff writer Scoop A. Wasserstein can be reached at wasserst@fas.harvard.edu.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags