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
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
posted by JP at 9:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home