Jeff's 'King Kong' Review

Ok, I've been getting lazy about posting. And this blog is certainly not dedicated to film and television reviews, but I just got home from viewing King Kong and feel a review of this movie will get me back in the blogging saddle again.

For me, King Kong has always been a fun movie. I can remember watching it for the first time in my parent's room around the age of 10 and really digging the world that Merian Cooper and Edgar Wallace created. However, the only part of the film I can recall in detail is the fight scene between Kong and the T Rex, specifically Kong grasping the jaws of the T Rex and prying them wide open until the jaw bone gives way, breaking the T Rex's jaws clean off his head. Wow!

So I went into 2005's version feeling a little fuzzy on the details of the storyline, but full of eager anticipation of how Peter Jackson would re-create the magical world of Skull Island and its most famous resident.

THE GOOD

Character Development: King Kong is the essential character driven movie. Many may argue this point, calling Kong a fairly simple adventure film with fairly complex CGI and special effects. But make no mistake. This is no Waterworld or Star Wars: Episode II. As evidenced in his LOTR films, Jackson doesn't cheat his audience by presenting over the top CGI to make up for a weak storyline, thin characters, or poor dialogue. Does his groundbreaking effects impress? Sure, but they don't overwhelm. By the time the plot has begun its upward swing, each character, specifically Kong, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), and Carl Denham (Jack Black) are firmly implanted in the audience's heartstrings.

Acting (in general):Denham, the sometimes-nice-guy-sometimes-selfish-jerk is played surprisingly well by Jack Black. I questioned Jackson's choice in Black, considering Black's resume of loud, physical comedic roles. But in Black you find the right combination of sweet exterior and sinister core which is crucial for the role of Denham. After all, he is the central role and catalyst for the first half of this film and it's essential that the audience like this character right off. Black succeeds in spades, drawing the audience close to his version of the eccentric and witty Denham, while always having the audience second guessing his true intentions. Naomi Watts is her usual spectacular self, especially considering the long scenes with Kong and Ann Darrow where there is very little, if any dialogue. Watts was cast perfectly, as she exudes an old-Hollywood glamour reminiscent of 1933's Ann Darrow - Fay Wray. Finally, I must give high marks again to Andy Serkis, the man behind LOTR's Gollum and King Kong's title character. A better physical actor you will not find. Serkis spent over a month studying Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans in order to play the human version of the CGI Kong. The key element of the film, Kong's strong and sympathetic personality, was created in large part by Andy Serkis acting out Kong's facial expressions, feeding these expressions into a computer, and transposing them into the CGI Kong. Remarkable. The supporting cast (including Serkis as the ship's cook) was tremendous, especially Kyle Chandler as Bruce Baxter, Colin Hanks as Preston, and Evan Parke as Hayes.

The Look of the Film: Again, Jackson has proved that his ability to create a spectacular and truly unique new world is unparalleled. What impressed me, however, was Jackson's ability to bring 1930's era New York to life. The first 30 minutes of the film is dedicated to Depression-ravaged New York, flashing images of hopelessness, despair, and struggle for survival. It also gives us a great look at the Vaudeville scene of the time, centering on the struggling Darrow as she hits rock bottom in the industry. Jackson's re-creation of Skull Island reinforces my distaste for Narnia. What a special place Skull Island was, with its creepy natives, craggy landscape, and wonderfully savage creatures (the blood worm scene was one of the best of the film). This place truly seemed mythical, a complete dichotomy from Andrew Adamson's bland Narnia. Overall, the look of this film was BIG and BOLD, paying a well deserved tribute to its 72 year-old predecessor as one of the biggest films of its day.

Kong: Jackson had his hands full in re-creating one of the most recognizable characters in cinematic history. Kong could not be just a guy in an ape suit, as he was portrayed in the retchingly awful 1976 version starring Jeff Bridges. No, Kong needed to not only have the perfect physical attributes of a low-land silverback gorilla, but the intense heart and emotions of a lovesick, lonely human. Near perfection is attained on both parts. His ferocity and 'island bully' image only amplify his loneliness and desire for affection. His delicate and loving nature when handling Darrow help spark the audience's admiration for this beast, while his image as a hero and vicious defender of his property by staving off three T Rexes, a gaggle of prehistoric bats, and a ship full of greedy sailors, add to the realistic characteristics of the modern day gorilla. But most impressive about Jackson's version of Kong is how strikingly human he is. Scenes like the playfully quiet moment with Ann on one of the iced-over Central Park lakes helped to solidify the beast's desire for solitude with his love. Actually, Kong is in many ways super-human, as he is dedicated to his love even to the point of a gruesome death. All of these qualities help qualify Kong as a truly tragic character in the Greek sense of the word. No wonder chicks dig this movie.

THE WEAK

I felt there was nothing truly bad or ugly about this film, but I did want to point out a couple of the weak moments (of which there were few).

Length: First let me premise my critique of the length of the film by stating that I'm a big believer that fantasy blockbuster movies are warranted to have a 3+ hour run time. There is typically so much going on with so many important characters and development of new worlds that a longer film is often needed. Limiting a film of this nature to 2 hours simply creates a feeling of the film being squeezed (again, Narnia is a perfect example of this). However, King Kong's 187 minute run time could have been trimmed slightly by editing two or three of the longer action sequences on Skull Island. The Brontosaurus chase scene, for example, was ridiculously drawn out. It's sequences like this that the audience has to bear with Jackson's insatiable appetite for the BIG BIG special effects scene. It's almost like he can't help himself from showing more than needed of his treasured Weta Workshop's craftsmanship. But aside from those two or three scenes, I felt the pacing of the movie was perfect, especially following the harrowing escape of Ann Darrow and Jack Driscoll (played by Adrien Brody) from Kong's lair. This last hour of the film is truly something special with very little wasted energy. So, could the film been shortened by 10-15 minutes? Sure. But the 3 hours and 7 minutes still flew by for me, even with these longer scenes.

Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll: - Adrien Brody is a tremendous actor, no doubt about it. I've enjoyed his work in The Pianist and The Village. But the part of Jack Driscoll just didn't fit into Brody's repertoire. Brody's physical appearance just doesn't lend itself to that of a hero - a playwright perhaps (as is Driscoll's profession), but Driscoll's main role as Ann Darrow's love interest and eventual hero (or villain, depending upon your opinion) demands someone who doesn't look so dour, who isn't so softspoken or sensitive. I equate Brody's performance in Kong with DiCaprio's performance in Gangs of New York - no one bought puny DiCaprio as one of the Five Points gang leaders, just like no one is really going to buy equally frail Brody as the vine-swinging-risk-my-life-through-a-perilous-jungle-for-my-true-love Jack Driscoll.

Those are my biggest gripes. Not too bad, considering the size and scope of this film.

CONCLUSION

Overall, I really had fun watching this new version of King Kong. Kong is truly iconic in American cinematic history and Peter Jackson needs to be commended for creating a new and better breed of Kong. Upon reflection, I realize that King Kong is the personification of the Great American Adventure Film, something that seems to have lost its appeal to the political pundits that are the figureheads of Hollywood. I felt refreshed after leaving the theater without any of the political or allegorical baggage that seems to seep its way into many of today's films of higher criticism. Look at this year's crop of Oscar-buzz movies - Syriana, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, etc. I'm sure each film is extremely well made with varying degrees of political propaganda peppered throughout. Some of this can be good, if not great at times. I like movies that really force us to reflect on our personal ideology. But what happened to going to the theater to be entertained? Why has the Soapbox become the prerequisite for a film to be judged 'classic'? My hope is that folks like Jackson will continue to develop movies that storytell, movies that are simply shown to entertain audiences. I also hope Jackson's sudden success won't lead him away from these type of films to more artistic genres, thus tarnishing his legacy (i.e., the 'Speilberg Syndrome'). The world needs to start having fun at the movies again.


4.5 out of 5 Stars

PriceyHoho's Official Review of 'Narnia'

As was covered in last week's article, my anticipation for The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe became a tad deflated after reading some of the various interviews with director Andrew Adamsom. However, last Saturday's trip to the theater came with rekindled excitement. So, with an outlook of positivity entering the screening, here is the PriceyHoho's official review (I feel safe voicing Chris's opinion, as ours were basically shared).

The Good
First off, I felt the creatures that Adamson created were excellent. The beavers provided a much needed comic relief, while the centaurs, minotaurs, cyclops, griffins, etc., brought with them a certain level of 'realistic fantasy' that was crucial for the film to reflect the magic that Lewis created in Chronicles.

Secondly, the White Witch was fantastic. Beautiful and charming, cruel and punishing, Adamson made an excellent choice in casting Tilda Swinton. Her old-world aristocratic appearence and speech added to her persona of an intelligent, strong leader rather than a cold, heartless brute. My personal standard of excellence for characters in film adaptations of classic books comes from the resemblance of the on-screen character to the character I had pictured in my mind when reading the book. The White Witch was just as I had imagined her, down to her hair, outfits, and weaponry.

Thirdly, Lucy was adorable. Georgie Henley did a wonderful job of creating a character that the audience felt emotionally attached to. How could they not? Her quaint British mannerisms and child-like honesty and integrity only gave more credence to her purity in spirit and undying faith.

Finally, the area I thought I would have criticized the most is the area I must rightfully praise: The allegory. I felt that film mirrored the book quite nicely. There were certain scenes that were added to help the pacing of the film (which were sorely needed - more on that later), but overall I felt the spiritual and religious themes were there for the taking. The most important and symbolic part of the book, Aslan's sacrifice, death, and resurrection, was represented fairly in the film, as was the idea of prophesy. Whether or not the characters themselves were created in such a way to present the allegory effectively is another story. But I never got the feeling that Adamson explicitly cut scenes or changed important parts of the book for some silly political agenda. No major complaints in the allegory department from me.

The Bad

The created world of Narnia was a disappointment. Outside of the Castle, I felt there was nothing spectacular or fantastic about the physical attributes of Narnia. It almost seemed like any of the landscapes could have been found in many parts of this country. For instance, there was no sign of dramatic mountains, huge waterfalls, colorful hillsides, strange towns, or gleaming lakes. Dramatic establishing shots sweeping over the land were non-existent. Narnia just didn't seem big enough. It was almost if Lucy had went from England to the foothills of Colorado or the forests of Northern California. Adamson underestimated the importance of transporting the audience to a truly magical and different world. This lack of creativity surprised me, frankly. After all, he created one of the most popular fantasy movies in history (Shrek).

One other area that Adamson and the production team overlooked was the importance of proper character development. Outside of the Lucy character, there wasn't one character I cheered for or against. There was nothing in the characters that created a climactic moment in the film, including the final battle scene. Susan was annoying at best, hardly the strong leader of the book. Peter responded to certain situations as brave, but I never got the feeling that he exhibited the characteristics of a king.

Speaking of kings, Aslan was anything but. His lack of ferocity and intensity made him not a sympathetic martyr, but a weak-willed lapcat. At no point was Aslan represented as a non-earthly (er..Narnian) being (aside from the cheesy ending). And Liam Neeson as the voice? Are you kidding? His sobering timbre almost put me to sleep at times. Aside from a failed use of a strong voice, another reason why Aslan looks kinda wimpish and mortal is that Adamson completely neglected the large section of the book where Aslan had intense dialogue with the four children. I can understand cutting out some of the more basic dialogue from the section (after all, it took up a whole chapter), but a little backstory on Aslan would have been brought the audience to a new understanding of who this character really is. Additionally, the lack of godly reverence given to him by his army in the war camp created an image of a loved general rather than a spiritual and worshipped being.

The Ugly
Only one aspect of this film was terrible: The pacing. I'll be honest - I was fairly bored for 3/4 of the 2 hour film. It's usually a bad sign if I'm feeling compelled to check the score of the Sixers' game periodically. There isn't one thing I can point to here - simply that at no point was there a discernible rise to climax followed by a satisfying ending. The beginning was slow, followed by a muddled middle (with interspersed semi-action scenes), followed by an intense but limited battle scene, and finished with a very shortish ending. He just tried to fit too much into a 2 hour film (the blame for this may lie in Disney's hands, as they have a fairly strict adherence to the 2-hour rule). I've said this before and I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with a film of this genre to be over 3 hours long, especially considering the legions of the fans that know the books inside and out. Just ask Peter Jackson.

In Conclusion....
Upon exiting the theater, the words 'Monumental Disappointment' rattled around in my head. Certainly, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is not a terrible movie. It's not 2005's version of Gigli - not anywhere close. But, it's also not this year's Lord of the Rings or even in the same ballpark as Harry Potter, which leads to increased skepticism in the studio's ability to rebound and successfully create additional Narnia films. We'll find out - Prince Caspian is due out in 2007.

2.5 out of 5 stars

Hollywood's Version of Narnia

In retrospect, I guess it was silly to convince myself that Hollywood would retain the essence of a The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in its upcoming feature film adaptation, due out next Friday. In a recent interview with Andrew Adamson, its clear that the film's Director just doesn't get it.

"I didn't think a lot about the religious aspect of the film," said Adamson. "I know people have interpreted the book in many different ways over different years.....I don't know if C.S. Lewis really intended it to be allegorical, but he definitely wrote from a place of his own belief."

Didn't think about the religious aspect of the film? Interpreted in many different ways? Listen, I understand that when kids read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe they may not immediately see the Gospel story jump off the page. But Lewis, although cautious never to characterize Chronicles as an 'allegory', (late in life he said he didn't intend the series to be allegorical initially, but realized there was really no other way to interpret it), was very clear in his spiritual intentions. If Hollywood is going to take on a movie adapted from a book by one of the most revered authors in modern history, Hollywood cannot alter its core message without some understandable public backlash.

Adamson then went on to argue with the interviewer that Aslans' death has nothing in common with Jesus' death and resurrection. More disturbing is Adamson's interpretation of Aslan's confrontation with the White Witch near the end of the book.

"There's a moment where Aslan and the White Witch stare at each other at the end as if they're both accepting their fate. He's going to have to kill her. She accepts that she's going to be killed. And to me I didn't want to send home the message that war is an ideal solution. I wanted Aslan to actually regret the fact that he's going to have to kill the White Witch."

(Sigh) Oh yes, I do remember that portion of scripture where Christ is sad and upset about defeating sin. Is there anything worse than the misinterpretation of a great character of literature for the advancement of the director's/studio's political ideas?

In the end, I'm sure the film will be a visual masterpiece. Adamson proved his worth with Shrek. The trailer itself gave me goosebumps. But the most remarkable aspect of Chronicles is its allegory, something I fear may be lost on its viewers.

The End of Cable As We Know It

It is not my intention to write about television, but Paul Davidson's article in USAToday on Nov. 29th raised my eyebrows a little. Davidson chronicles the FCC's new stance on the packages that cable companies currently offer. It would like cable providers to get rid of the cable packages in exchange for an 'menu' pricing schedule. FCC chairman Kevin Martin asserts that 'a la carte pricing could both allow parents to block raunchy programming and lower their cable bills.' While I agree with Martin that TV is going a little overboard with its primetime programming, I fear this measure means the end of quality cable channels such as the History Channel, TLC, Bravo, etc.

Think about it. Who (besides me) flips to the History Channel on a Thursday night for some good WWII coverage, of looks forward to the spleenectomy on Discovery Health? No one. These channels' actual viewership ratings are terrible. If it were not for the revenue produced by the existing cable packages none of these educational channels would be in existence. My prediction is that once this measure is passed, the 'raunchy' channels will increase their profits and popularity tenfold. (Did our country learn anything through prohibition?).

Mr Martin also leaves out the little tidbit about the price per channel. The average channel price would be $3.90, and only subscribers who pay for fewer than nine channels would save under an a la carte. Nine channels? A 2004 FCC report found that the average cable household, which watches 17 channels, would see its bill rise 14% - 30%.

On the bright side, maybe this move will finally make it clear that TV is just not worth my time.