15 Years Later: Peter Jackson’s ‘King Kong’ is Truly a Masterpiece

December 17, 2020

peter jackson's king kong 0 — King Kong (2005) | Universal Pictures

It took 43 years for the first remake of King Kong to happen, despite the cinematic and cultural impact of the original King Kong (1933). In the decade that gave birth to the blockbuster, it was a no-brainer that a remake was long overdue. It would be an immense undertaking that would be met with skepticism and the question of why a classic needs to be remade. In the seventies, we weren’t inundated with reboots and remakes the way we are now, so John Guillermin and James Ashmore Creelman’s retelling was highly anticipated. King Kong (1976) was a hit, but followups would stumble as they attempted to take advantage of another phenomenon that was born in the seventies— the movie franchise.

Sequels and spinoffs existed to be certain, but when blockbusters had followups or universe-expanding stories, there was money to be made. It was easier than the uncertainty of producing an untested set of characters or hero. Audiences are fickle, though. They always have been. This may be the reason producers were not in a rush to make a King Kong origin movie again for 39 years. In 2005, Peter Jackson’s King Kong was released, and though it earned more than a half billion dollars at the box office, it was considered to have underperformed.

It’s been fifteen years since the most recent iteration of King Kong’s origin tale has been told, and no one is clamoring for a retelling yet, so we can probably expect the next retelling to happen halfway through this century. When that time comes, the new spin will be a future modern take, one that’s forgotten the magic of the time the story was first told. One that Peter Jackson did his best to honor.

It took twelve more years before Kong: Skull Island was released, and Godzilla vs Kong is expected in May 2021. Surely nerd culture will be abuzz with the question about who the real king of monsters is in May. Based on the success of what’s to come, we can imagine Kong will be invited into our homes to grace our screens a few more times before interest wanes once again, and the franchise settles in for a long winter’s nap until 2050, or so.

With an 84% Tomatometer rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 50% Audience Score, it seems something was missing for enough people to not see the masterpiece for what it was. Coming in with a run time of over three hours for the theatrical release, it’s easy to see what the reason may be. Typically, audiences don’t want their movies to last more than two hours. Ironically, the extended cut does more to showcase the genius love letter Peter Jackson wrote to his childhood. There is more character development in the extended cut that may seem wasted to many since there are so many casualties on the island during the rescue of Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and the capture of the giant ape. Seeing that development may put audiences on the defensive. Most of us already know that Kong dies in the end. We’re preparing ourselves emotionally. There’s no room in our hearts to care about human character development for disposable characters. That might be what’s wrong there. Every character has a purpose, even if it is to pass the development baton on to the next.

The complex script by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson gave us a clear picture of the motivations of every person involved in the story. Jackson’s direction kept the actors focused on showing us who they were. In a story so clearly void of red herrings and surprise twists, we were left with the ability to ingest the beauty of the artwork, sets, and the flawless integration of CGI. We were allowed to experience it all without a question of uncertainty. We knew people would die along the way, and even though we were given insights into who they were, we failed to properly mourn them… just like Carl Denham (Jack Black). Denham’s character represents the selfish nature of greed. He continues rolling the camera to catch footage he knows will have value even when the cost is someone’s life. He unapologetically manipulates his writer, his star, his newfound leading lady, the captain of the ship he’s commissioned, and those are just the obvious ones. In failing to get the native child from Skull Island to accept his chocolate, he’s faced with an entity he’s never experienced. Even the innocent heart of Ann Darrow can be pierced with the promise of something better. The boy they meet on the island has a different set of principles. His rectitude is imprinted by King Kong himself. No amount of chocolate will sway the human inhabitants of Skull Island to believe there is something greater than them. Ambition and desire are for the inexperienced.

There are several morals and themes Jackson picked up on in retelling Merian C. Cooper’s and Edgar Wallace’s King Kong. It wasn’t as simple as harkening to the period the story was first told. The setting was only an homage that made it easier to script the characters. Dialogue in classic films is uncomplicated and often brimming with exposition. The writers of this fifteen-year-old King Kong clearly borrowed that; but brilliantly made nothing feel trite or contrived. The messages from King Kong are spelled out for us, and it feels like they are universally accepted. Yet we continue to live in a world of Carl Denhams.

Everyone wants a Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to clean up the messes, but few want to be Jack Driscoll. Instead we chase the carrot Denham leads before us. We expect something better to come along because Denham promises it. We ignore the voice in the back of our head that warns us because we have the same greed Denham does, we just don’t want to admit it.

I’ve watched Peter Jackson’s King Kong (both the theatrical and extended versions) more times than I can name. Normally, if I love a movie, I will watch it over and over to find what could have been done better. The action is intense, and each sequence has its own feel. The acting is perfect, allowing every character to demonstrate their purpose. The soundtrack knows its role, giving a berth to the silence that some scenes require. I have yet to find a flaw.

In making King Kong fifteen years ago, Peter Jackson made a new classic from an old classic. He turned something that influenced generations of film makers into an under appreciated masterpiece that has yet to earn the accolades it deserves. Forget the carrot. Decline the chocolate. King Kong (2005) may be the greatest film ever made. 2050 can wait. We don’t need this story told again. Jackson set out to tackle a project few film makers in their right mind would dare try. He faced a beast of a challenge, and made a thing of beauty that stands today, and will easily stand another thirty years. It was Beauty killed the Beast, indeed.