"King Kong" is the film of the year.

Yes, it is too long, and it's CGI is a bit too obvious and times and yes, Jack Black, while a good choice overall, does seem a bit to modern for his role at times. Yet I would be some sort of dirty liar if I told you that Peter Jackson's remake of the 1933 classic did not leave me choked up and with tears in my eyes. Further proof of "King Kong's" excellence lies in the permanent grooves embedded into the theatre armrests from my gripping them in fear and suspense. In a year where blockbuster filmmaking has truly shined ("Batman Begins," "War of the Worlds," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"), "King Kong" reigns supreme above all others, delivering something unlike anything I have ever seen before. It's an eye-popping spectacle of visual effects and action, but at it's heart, it's a quiet, personal film, filled with moments of pure love, joy and tragedy. Unless something quite extraordinary pops out at me, this is the best film of 2005.

The character of King Kong has been so firmly entered into our popular culture, that many claim to be familiar with the character without ever having seen the original film. This certainly cannot be said of Peter Jackson. As you have undoubtedly read in one of the countless articles on the subject, "King Kong" was Jackson's favorite film as a child and it has been his lifelong dream to remake it. In this way, we are taking a look at the very first $200 million passion project; a lifelong dream achieved.

Thankfully, Jackson manages to maintain his love of the source material without sacrificing telling a new story. Even if you are in the majority who hasn't seen the first version, you certainly know the story: an expedition to the uncharted Skull Island leads to the beautiful Anne Darrow being abducted by the creature of the title, a 25 foot tall ape, which leads to a horrific journey through the jungle, which leads to Kong's capture, which leads to a fatal rampage in New York City.

In order to bring this story before a modern audience, Jackson makes the wise decision to establish time and place brilliantly. It's the Great Depression in America, and everyone is suffering. It was a no-brainer in 1933 for a young woman to hop on a boat on a mysterious voyage because the audience knew what she would face if she did not take such a job. By spending more time setting up location, Anne's decision is made clear.

Speaking of Anne, she is played by the single most gorgeous woman working in film today. Her name is Naomi Watts, and guess what? She's a brilliant actress (of course, many of you already know that). Her character has changed quite a bit from the original (more on that later), but it is all for the best. Backing her up is Adrien Brody as a the heroic love interest, also a vastly changed (and vastly improved) character. Although he has little to do, Brody is the perfect unconventional hero that this material requires. Then there's Jack Black as filmmaker Carl Denham who organizes the ill-fated journey to Skull Island. To speak mathematically, Mr. Black works 95% of the time; rather than a DeMille-ish showman, he's a crafty Orson Welles type who cares more about making a movie than those who die around him. It's a big step forward for Black as an actor, but his zany, comedic personality does peek through occasionally, once or twice at inopportune moments. There's also many supporting characters, few of whom are truly fleshed out, but all of whom have unique personalities. While I certainly could have done without the "mentor to the young sailor" relationship between two of them, they serve the story nicely, especially an egotistical actor who is a sly dig at the flaws of the original film.

Then there's Kong.

I'm speechless about this. I truly, truly, TRULY forgot that this completely computer generated character was made entirely of pixels. I have said this before, but this is honestly only the second time I have accepted CGI as the real thing without an inkling of doubt in my head. Ironically, the other instance is Gollum of "Lord of the Rings," which, in case you live in a ditch, was Jackson's previous effort. Even more ironic, is that Andy Serkis, the man who played Gollum, also plays Kong. Like Gollum, Serkis' performance as Kong was motion captured; he did all of the movements, all of the facial expressions and the vocal performance (which, in the case of Kong, is pretty damn impressive). Like Gollum, Kong is utilized as a character rather than a pretty picture. Kong has always been a tragic figure, and it's a testimony to the talents of Jackson, Serkis and Watts that this works. Watts especially. The relationship between "beauty and beast" is a tender and heartbreaking one, 2005's best romance (I haven't seen "Brokeback Mountain" yet, so who knows about where that will land), and it is handled with maturity and sensitivity. Both Anne and Kong are lost souls who have found one another. Anne gives Kong a reason to live, and Kong protects Anne from all dangers.

Yeah, and there's also a ten minute long scene where Kong fights three T-Rexes! Cool!

But I mustn't forget the scene which may define Jackson as a filmmaker: Kong, soon to meet his fate atop the Empire State Building, finds a frozen pond in a park and joyfully slides on the ice...

What about the super-awesome moment when the giant bugs attack our heroes and they have to shoot and slice their way out?

Two quiet scenes where Anne and Kong watch the sun set...

A stampede of dinosaurs...

Personal tragedy and rage as Kong is imprisoned...

Random destruction in New York and a car chase that proves that Jackson should direct more car chases...

You get the point. There's a whole lot of material to justify the hefty three hour running time, and I have not even begun to crack the lid on what I loved about "King Kong" (the extremely slight inside jokes, the visual effects other than Kong that are going to win an Oscar in a few months, a complete recreation of New York that is jaw-dropping...).

I leave with a nifty piece of analysis that I have picked up along the way (from where, I can't remember). Consider this: Carl Denham sets out to make a movie, the entertainment for the common man. He becomes the villain of the piece when he abducts Kong and returns to create a Broadway show, the entertainment of the rich. Social satire? You tell me.

© Written by Jacob Hall

How We Rated This Film TC Candler - C+ Richard Propes - C+ Jacob Hall - A

TC Candler's Comment

I am going to give this version the mildest of recommendations because of the wonderful Watts and the konvincing Kong. It has many entertaining parts. I just wish that Jackson had reigned himself in. He seems to have trouble losing the excess scenes that drag the film down. He's lost quite a bit of weight personally in the last year. I hope he learns to do the same with his bloated epics. It would be a sign of humility and would help his cinematic efforts be less visual and more emotional.

Richard Propes' Comment

King Kong", as many have noted, is largely an exercise in Jackson's tendency towards excess. It is FAR too long, desperately in need of editing and has a screenplay that proves Jackson should stop writing with his wife. They clearly are not comfortable editing each other. Several of these characters are developed, but pointless including "Jimmy," "Baxter" and most of the ship's crew.

As in any Jackson film, surrender to the technical wizardry is inevitable but even in this film I found myself questioning areas I seldom notice. For example, listen to the sound mix during the jungle scenes. The "beats" are frequently off and the sound mix uneven. Likewise, there is a "clang" when Watts, at the end, is on top of the "Empire State Building" that actually made me laugh.

Ultimately, surrender didn't happen for me. "King Kong" ended up being a film I respected but didn't enjoy. "King Kong" is a joy to observe, and an often overwhelming sensory experience yet the lack of clarity, excessiveness, pointless plot points and intrusive, inappropriate score combined to turn a 25-foot beast of a film into a mere monkey on my back.