The first film about the giant gorilla which lived on the island and one day came to New-York was made as early
as in 1933. In 1976, producer Dino de Laurentis decided to return Kong to a big screen. In 2005, Peter Jackson (the director of “Lord of rings) made a three-hour long striking film with a $207 billion budget (it makes this film one of the most expensive in the history of cinematography) (Colley, par. 8). Comparing the remakes of “King Kong” (1976 and 2005), the last version is
really a masterpiece, as it combines well a thought-out, fascinating theme, a magnificent acting, and a fantastic level of computer technologies.
First of all, the theme of “King Kong” of 2005 reflects the film of 1933 more than the
remake of 1976, as Gillermin (the director of the remake of 1976) used the spectacular potential of the classic theme only partly. The Jackson''s Kong is very realistic and reflects the photos of existing gorillas, as Andy Serkis (made the blueprint for Gollum in the “Lord of Rings”) went to Rwanda and learned the habits of these animals in the natural habitat (Fischer, par. 1 ). Secondly, in contrast to cheap special effects of the Gillermin''s version, the special effects of “King Kong” of 2005 are very impressive. Thirdly, in the remake of 2005 the streets are flooded with old cars, the actors wear the suits of 1930s; lady''s hats, dresses, walking sticks, trousers, and shoes are reflected splendidly. Peter Jackson told: “I just wanted to try to step in the footsteps of the original. I wanted to do something that was an entertaining today as the original was back in 1933” (Colley par. 7)
The actors of “King Kong” both of 1976 and 2005 play are chosen well. If to overview the cast of the remake of 1976, Jeff Bridges (the role of Jack Prescott), Jessica Lange (Dwan), Charles Grodin (Fred Wilson) performed the title roles really well. Similarly, Peter Jackson decided to take very interesting actors. Jack Black (the role of Carl Denhman) bore the palm. Naomi Watts was like a queen on the screen. Her gracefulness, bearing, and fearlessness made her a striking and an unusual heroine.
The script of two films are also very important for the comparison. The script of Peter Jackson is really better as it reflects the original and the relations among the actors really better. For example, the relations of Ann Darow with King Kong are developed more precisely than in the remake of 1976 with Jessica Lange. Everything is more realistic. There is something attractive in power and courage of Kong.
In conclusion, the remake of Peter Jackson is really better as it''s more realistic and attractive. Moreover, this film received four Academy Award nominations for Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, and Art Direction and is considered to be one of the best films of 2005 (“King Kong (2005 film), par. 36)).
Bibliography 1. Colley, Ed. “Jackson: King Kong is why I am here”. The Evening Standard. 8 December 2005. 25 January 2007 <http://thisislondon.co.uk/film/article-2 1146885-details/Jackson%3A+King+Kong+is+why+I%27m+here/article.do
2. Ebert, Roger. “Ebert''s Best 10 Movies of 2005. 18, December, 2005. 25 January 2007. <http:rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20051218/COMMENTARY/512180302
3. Fischer, Paul. “Interview: Andy Serkis “King Kong”. Dark Horizons. 5 December 2005. 25 January, 2005 <http:darkhorizons.com/news05/kong2.php
4. “King Kong (2005 film)” 25 January, 2007 <http://answers.com/topic/king-kong—2005-film>.