Rated PG-13 for frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images.
Directed by Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy…)
Starring Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody…
This film is huge!
I was lucky enough to watch the original 1933 version of King Kong just a few days before watching Jackson’s 2005 remake. The remake is very loyal to the original, but without the claymation ape that looks like Wallace and Gromit.
Audiences love the new film so far. Opening weekend Kong grossed 50 million, breaking box office records. The film will make its 207 million back, no problem.
I agree with mainstream audiences- I loved the film. It was creative, visually compelling and frightening. I think that some people might be surprised how scary the film is at times. It’s not a family film. It’s a creature film filled with a host of terrifying creatures, save one big fuzzy one that you’ll grow to love.
The affects are tremendous. I was literally amazed at how good Kong looked. And Jackson doesn’t wimp out when it comes to action. He ups the ante from one T-rex to three. And he doesn’t just feature one angry brontosaurus… he provides an entire herd. The action is incredible.
I’ll be honest. Sleepless in Seattle fans might not like this film, although both end with a romantic gathering at the top of the Empire State Building. This film has a great storyline, believable performances (my hat goes off to Black, Watts and Brody) and likeable characters… but it’s a monster film. Some people just won’t like it.
I’ve heard people comparing Jackson’s film to the earlier two. Here’s the skinny: The story is very similar to the 1933. If you watch them both, you’ll notice just how true Jackson was to the original. The new film takes place in 1933 and Kong climbs the Empire State Building just like the 1933 original (which excludes the antennae that the building now dons). Jackson even jokes about the original in a scene early in the film where Carl Denham (Black) is asking about available actresses for his film. He asks about “Fay,” referring to Fay Wray, the original actress that played Ann Darrow. When he’s told that she isn’t available he mutters the name “Cooper,” referring to Merian Cooper, the director of the original.
The film is full of other tributes to the early film, with props, dialogue, and special affect designs that film buffs will love.
I enjoyed the film immensely. I eagerly await Jackson’s next project.
SHOULD KIDS WATCH IT?
Young kids really shouldn’t. The film has very little bad language or objectionable content, but in my opinion, it is far scarier than Lord of the Rings. My young kids are a little scared of some of the creatures in Lord of the Rings. But they would be TERRIFIED of the natives in King Kong. (That’s why I left them home!) In addition, King Kong seems to be a little darker. I know, I know… some people will retort, “Darker than Lord of the Rings? Are you crazy?!!!” Sure, Lord of the Rings was pretty dark at times. But the film wasn’t a monster film. King Kong was about a group of people who land on an island of monsters and get eaten! Pretty freaking scary. Yes, Kong doesn’t turn out to be so bad. But the rest are terrifying.
My wife disagrees. She thinks Lord of the Rings is scarier. Let’s face it, those Orcs and Goblins are pretty frightening. I’m not denying that.
Here’s my point. My wife let my kids see Lord of the Rings. My youngest was scared of Gollum, other than that, she managed okay. Kong, however, would keep her up for a week. So argue all you want about what is darker or scarier… but my wife and I both agreed that it was a good thing that we left my girls (8 and 10) home for Kong.
Leave the kids with a sitter for this one.
Conversation Starter
Three Simple Questions (with Answers You May Be Looking for):
- What are some of the messages or themes you observed in this movie?
- How do you suppose we—as serious Christ-followers—should react to this movie?
- How can we move from healthy, Bible-based opinions about this movie to actually living out those opinions?
