Saturday, October 10, 2015

KING KONG (1933) vs. KING KONG (2005)


Before Godzilla was heralded as the King of Monsters, there was another king.  King Kong.  And his reign was terrifically menacing!!  No other introduction is necessary.


 

Like our previous entry, The Phantom of the Opera, there are multiple versions of this beloved movie monster.  But again, we're focusing on the first and most recent films (the only ones that matter in my opinion).

SYNOPSIS: It is the classic tale of "nature vs. civilization" as the city folk travel to an exotic and isolated island to shoot a movie but come face-to-face with the local terror, King Kong.  In hopes of bringing him back to New York City to make an astoundingly huge profit off the beast, the movie crew embarks on a new mission to capture the gigantic gorilla.  Forced out of his element and paraded through the city only to be shackled as a circus show, King Kong cannot be held captive and terrorizes New York City until the final climax atop the Empire State Building.

DIRECTOR: Merian C. Cooper/Ernest B. Schoedsack vs. Peter Jackson

Although Cooper and Schoedsack were uncredited for their work on the original film, they worked closely together on two other films.  Cooper's directorial career was short-lived while Schoedsack went on to direct other classics about the lovable ape, most notably Son of Kong and Mighty Joe Young (which got its own remake in 1998).


Peter Jackson on the other hand has made a much bigger name for himself.  Most well-known for his two recent epic trilogies The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, in between the two major projects he found time to direct a different kind of epic.

Cooper and Schoedsack together brought Hollywood to its feet with the groundbreaking original movie, made famous for the film's use of modeling and the stop-motion technique.  Stop-motion photography is the process of posing inanimate objects in certain positions, snapping a photo, and then moving the models ever so slightly, and snapping another photo.  This process is quite tedious.  The individual photos are then pieced together and run through a projector to make it appear that the models are moving.

Future movies owe it to the original King Kong for creating this very unique style of film-making.  Stop-animation is commonly used nowadays for movies using clay figures, like in James and the Giant Peach, Wallace and Gromit, and used by director Tim Burton in The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride.

Despite all the important groundwork the original laid out for future films, I have to give the nod to the remake.  Jackson's use of heavy CGI didn't distract from the "realness" of the film at all.  Except for the scene where the movie crew is caught amidst a brontosaurus stampede, which is so ridiculously fake as this clip shows,


the use of computers was so detailed and smooth that you forget it's only a computer simulation (albeit when it's not mixed with live actors, *sigh*).  Jackson also included in his version the same epic showdown between King Kong and a T-Rex.  Not just one...but THREE!


If that doesn't pump you up, I don't know what will.

WINNER: Remake, Peter Jackson

SCREENPLAY: James Creelman & Ruth Rose vs. Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, & Peter Jackson

Because both films used ideas and concepts from Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace, two instrumental figures who conceived the idea for the story, I have to cast my vote for the original.

One thing the screenplay did exceptionally well for the remake was to showcase the close bond and the smitten infatuation King Kong has with Ann Darrow.  Actually, it might have showcased that bond so well that it becomes a bit creepy by the end to see the leading female character lovingly gaze into the eyes of the giant ape.  It is clearly a compassionate look as Darrow sees Kong as her protector, not a romantic stare that one may have for a lover.  Ewww, gross.

One thing the original screenplay did well was transforming King Kong from a feared antagonist on Skull Island to a sympathetic protagonist by the film's conclusion, causing you to feel compassion for the creature when Kong sacrifices his life in order to protect the life of Darrow.  As the final quote from the end of the film suggests, "'Twas beauty killed the beast."

WINNER: Original

CAST/ACTING: Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, & Bruce Cabot vs. Naomi Watts, Jack Black, & Adrian Brody

No contest here; the remake wins by a landslide.  Not only for the A-list actors it cast, but for the one actor that you DON'T see.

By now, everyone should know the name Andy Serkis.  He is likely the best and most famous actor for the motion-capture technique, namely for his work as Gollum in Jackson's earlier mentioned work The Lord of the Rings and later for his role as Caesar in the modern reboot of The Planet of the Apes.

Andy Serkis portrays King Kong, which captures the human-like emotion so well it translates flawlessly on the big screen.  Because there's an actual actor behind the eyes and the movements the giant beast, there is no way that a simple stop-motion character can capture the same emotion.


WINNER: Remake

SCORE/MUSIC: Max Steiner vs. James Newton Howard

The music that is used in the original is good.  But not quite good enough.  I mentioned before how crucial the motion-capture was in projecting more emotion out of Kong in the remake, but the music added to that brings out full circle the emotion that the movie is meant to convey.


WINNER: Remake, James Newton Howard

King Kong (1993):
King Kong (2005):
OVERALL WINNER: Remake 2005 King Kong


While the original is also one of the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die included in the book by Steven Jay Schneider, 2011, and should definitely not be missed, the remake gets the final vote for me.

I think the only reason why the original 1933 King Kong recorded such a high rating from both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb.com was the pioneering techniques of stop-motion and modeling.  While the original is considered a classic, and rightfully so, I enjoyed watching the remake so much more.  Not because of the computer-generated Kong and huge green-screen set pieces; that's not what entirely makes a film great to me.  It was Serkis' performance of the titular character that gave the remake its personality that ultimately was the deciding factor in my decision.

Something the original just couldn't capture.

Do you agree?  Whether you do or not, you can now enjoy watching everything wrong with King Kong, brought to you by one of my favorite YouTube channels 'CinemaSins.'  This video will either confirm your disagreement against my vote for this entry, or entertain the agreement of it.  Either way, it's definitely a channel you--as a fan of movies like myself--should definitely check out.

Enjoy!  Next up, our first of two comedies: The Longest Yard.
Posted by at

1 comment:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)