We can keep discussing BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but I just can't stop talking about KING KONG. So here's my ridiculously long review. (Why do I write these? Maybe I just like the attention.
)
KING KONG I haven't been so enthralled at a cinema since....well, since Peter Jackson's last offering.
Is there anyone making movies today with as large an imagination as Jackson's? This new KING KONG could easily have been a disaster, especially when one considers that its cousins are the remakes of MIGHTY JOE YOUNG and GODZILLA. Instead, the sheer audacity of this movie makes it one of the most overwhelming experiences I've had the cinema this year. Although not as finely-crafted as his sublime LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, Jackson's KING KONG is still an impressively rich feast for the senses, while also satisfying the heart.
The original storyline has been fleshed out considerably, with the screenwriters exploring several themes that I didn't even know existed in the KONG plot. More than anything, they have taken the famous last line -- "it was beauty killed the beast" -- and have run with it, examining the nature and effect of beauty. Jackson's film puts a spotlight on how Carl Denham and his sensation-starved audience take one of the last wondrous mysteries of the world and exploits, cheapens and ultimately kills it. Kong wasn't just destroyed by his love for Ann Darrow, or his desire to see a sunrise, but by Man's need to possess beauty. The true monster in Jackson's KING KONG isn't Kong himself, but humankind.
Jackson's biggest contribution to the KING KING story, though, is how he has changed and developed the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. The giant gorilla in this remake doesn't love Ann because she's blond and white; he takes a liking to her because her vaudeville act fills him with wonder, and his affections grow because she allows him to be her protector. The addition of the Central Park scene to the story is a risk that could have easily fallen into ludicrousness, but - amazingly - it works. There's a palpable loneliness and understanding shared between the two of them. For all the movie's dazzling spectacle, it's this poignant and bittersweet relationship between Kong and Ann that is the film's greatest accomplishment.
That said, what dazzling spectacle! I felt like a little boy again at the movies. The ridiculously over-the-top battle between Kong and the three T-Rexes must be the coolest action sequence ever committed to film. Some of the other set pieces are iffy (particularly the brontosaurus stampede, which really should have been cut), but the recreation of 1930s New York and Kong himself are remarkable achievements. I was shocked at how real the CGI-rendered Manhattan looked, and how liberal the camera was in capturing it all: we see congested traffic on Brooklyn Bridge, birds-eye views from a skyscraper being built, even an elaborate car chase scene through busy streets that don't actually exist outside a computer.
Kong himself is a marvel. He must be the first photo-realistic CGI character in film history, even more fully realized than LOTR's Gollum. I was a little confused as to why Jackson asked Andy Serkis to "play" Kong (he's still a beast, not a speaking individual like Gollum); but this so-crazy-it's-genius decision pays off in spades, for Kong now has a real soul. He possesses an air of nobility that was somewhat missing from past incarnations, a natural majesty and intelligence that demands respect. (I'm surprised that this revolutionary technique of blending an actor's performance with CGI hasn't been adopted by other filmmakers since Gollum. It represents the future of believable CGI characters, and is a novel way of employing good actors in effects-heavy movies.)
Naomi Watts is positively radiant and really carries the movie. It's a difficult role to do, considering you're playing the quintessential damsel-in-distress and you're reacting to nothing but a guy in a monkey suit, but she does a remarkable job and really fleshes out a character from its archetypal foundations. I was less impressed with Adrian Brody, but that's because I found his entire role superfluous. I'm probably in the minority here, but I thought Jack Black gave a fine performance. He seemed completely at home in this 1930s fantasy story, and had an unexpected screen presence.
As enjoyable as the movie is, it has several major flaws, chief among them the pacing. The film is much too long, and a good half hour could be cut or tightened without it being detrimental. I thought the opening scenes in New York were fine, but the sea voyage really needs trimming, with its screwball dialogue (an homage to the original, but still) and excessive character threads. The encounter with the natives could also be tightened, and there is just one action set-piece too many. At least the film is long in the right place (the first hour), and I see the value of building up the tension and developing the characters; but Jackson would have done better to reduce the film's scope, since we're only really invested in Kong and Ann's relationship.
Jackson employs some of same bag of tricks he used in his RINGS films, but less effectively here; he uses his blurry slo-mo technique ad nauseum, for example. I also wish he kept Howard Shore onboard as composer, because James Newton Howard's rushed score is rather generic. At times the film threatens to collapse under its sheer size, but it's still refreshing to find an action blockbuster this wildly imaginative and genuinely moving. This is why we go to the movies, folks: thrilling adventure, spine-tingling surprises, and a heart stirred.
BlueWizard's blog: The Rambling Corner
HEDWIG: "The road is my home. In reflecting upon the people whom I have come upon in my travels, I cannot help but think of the people who have come upon me."
Updated On: 12/21/05 at 01:50 AM
