King Kong

Director: Peter Jackson
Main Cast: Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Jack Black, Andy Serkis
Writer(s): Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, & Peter Jackson
Director of Photography: Andrew Lesnie
Producer(s): Jan Blenkin, Carolynne Cunningham, Fran Walsh, & Peter Jackson
Editor(s): Jamie Selkirk
Original Score By: James Newton Howard
Release Date: 2005 December 14

Peter Jackson, after having so phenomenally brought to life the beloved Tolkien trilogy, now attempts to rebirth the film that instigated his choice of careers. Unfortunately, all this resurrection induced from me was a desire to check my watch, dash to the restroom, and wonder where we would be eating once the film had ended. Not exactly the jaw-dropping, heart-warming epic he intended or, for that matter, that I expected.

I have been cautious of prematurely hailing Jackson as a great director. Aside from some of his early horror flicks (which, consequently, I do not really understand or appreciate) he has really only directed one film. Now, this one film happens to be great. Granted, it is film whose running time exceeds 12 hours, but the Lord of the Rings trilogy is still just a single film. It is, however, an undeniably spectacular cinematic achievement. Not to mention that is has become for New Line Cinema a source of seemingly endless revenue.

In handing to Jackson the reigns of King Kong I am sure that GE-owned Universal had their fingers crossed that he would do for them what he so successfully orchestrated for New Line. Clearly they have had no lack of advertising to encourage the monetary floodgates. However, based on opening weekends sales figures, general gut feeling, and possible negative word-of-mouth discussions, I believe that Universal will end up staring at red-colored numbers a few months from now trying to devise a plan to sell more GE fluorescent lightbulbs to make up for the loss. But, enough of the economics debate the movie is still awaiting its discussion.

---

Not exactly the jaw-dropping, heart-warming epic he intended or, for that matter, that I expected.

---

I should disclose, somewhat abashedly, that I have not seen the entire 1933 version of King Kong ("And you call yourself a film lover?"). Also, thankfully, I have been spared the apparent agony of suffering through any of the prior remakes of this well-known classic. I am judging the current Kong based soley on its own strengths and weaknesses without (much) prior prejudice.

187 minutes. For those math-challenged individuals, or those without a good calculator, that is 3 hours and 7 minutes. Few films can boast this running time without discouraging its potential audience. After Return of the King I thought that if anyone could do it, Jackson could. I was hopeful, but Kong just did not have the substance to arrest the viewers attention for that amount of time. I am reminded of a quote from Alfred Hitchcock, "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder." The endurance described can be lengthened by capturing the audience and allowing them to think of nothing other than what is being shown on the screen. To this end, Kong failed miserably.

The film is essentially split into three sections. 1) New York, Pre-Kong, 2) The Voyage & Skull Island, and 3) New York, with Kong. Each of these portions is about equal in length, but differ immensely in content and interest. Part 1 is filled with anticipation, character backstory, wheeling, dealing, criminal behavior, and generally good storytelling elements. It piques your interest with depression-era tales of hunger, helplessness, desperation, and dreams.

These attributes unfortunately dissipate quickly once on board the USS Venture and degrade into even more base behaviors upon the arrival at Skull Island. Part 2 is filled with preposterous computer-generated situations that run endlessly past the point of necessity. There is little dialogue and what is present plays as merely trite and painful. The character find themselves continually being required to battle or escape prehistoric peoples and creatures with inept dexterity and yet unbelievable success. Remember they are supposed to be filmmakers, actors, and sailors, not adventurers.

The one key plot element of this act is the establishment of the relationship of Kong and Miss Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). This is portrayed in several scenes, most notably the one-woman burlesque comedy routine that Ann uses to bring the oversized gorilla to laughter and the gorilla-on-T-Rex fight/rescue sequence. The former is pleasant and goes a long way in building the understanding that Kong and Darrow have throughout the rest of the movie. It was charming and enjoyable. In my mind it is arguably the best scene in the movie. The latter, however, makes much smaller strides in the way of character development. The special effects used in the T-Rex sequence are truly spectacular and will be more completely addressed at a later point.

Part 3 is in much the same vein as the opening act. We see more of what Denham (Jack Black), the former film producer, is willing do for fame and money. We further understand Darrow and her saddened, morally sound plight. Kong is exploited and misunderstood as a savage beast with no soul. Driscoll (Adrien Brody) has his romantic epiphany. In some ways, this final act is too much like the first. Very little presents itself that has not already been revealed. In that sense, it offers little more for the audience to chew on.

The re-creation 1920's and 1930's New York is spectacular. Times Square never looked more vibrant with the masses of theatergoers filling the streets, the brilliant neon signage lighting the brisk winter air, and the antique yellow taxis scurrying about avoiding collisions with pedestrians and one another. The skyline, the Empire State Building, and the entire Manhattan Island, all built digitally, were fantastic. The city never looked more alluring.

With that segue, let's talk about the special effects. Overall the eye candy was phenomenal. It was ever present and well executed. The most expertly crafted sequence was the battle between Kong and the series of T-Rex's. It started out furious and never let go. There were a few times, in the canyon with the dinosaurs and other Kong action sequences, that gave away the green screen usage, but all in all Weta Digital has outdone themselves once again. In some ways, though, the whole thing played as a digital effects promotional video rather than a story of love and misunderstanding.

The story itself is so simplistic that it seemed it could have been told in much less time with much more effectiveness. Every scene felt as if it were forced to run just a little too long until its ingenuity, excitement, and interest had faded. It felt like a SNL skit that started as funny, but ends with only sad chuckles from the audience as if to say, "We liked it, but now we're ready to move on." Perhaps, during his labor of love, Jackson became so blind to his passion that he didn't realize that he was steering the film's helm directly into the sharp gorilla-faced rocks of Skull Island. I felt as though I was watching a collection Jackson's family vacation home videos. For him, they bring back memories and passions of things he cherishes, but for the audience all they produce is eye-rolling, sighs of boredom, and comments about how "It's getting late. We should really be going."

Despite all this the acting was surprisingly good. Black's movie producer and entrepreneur was spot-on. Watts was wonderfully layered and had beautiful presence. Brody, whose character was minor, was successful at his position. What was lacking here was sufficient development of each their characters. The substance for their personas was not adequately presented. Despite the mostly noteworthy acting within the limited material, the player who stole the screen was Kong. Andy Serkis, of Gollum fame, brought to life the digital ape in a amazingly lifelike way. Giving him subtle touches of humanity that one would expect only from a live actor with years of training. These subtleties should also be attributed to the top-notch digital effects team. Jackson's focus on the gorilla was not without positive results.

---

Jackson became so blind to his passion that he didn't realize he was steering the film's helm directly into the sharp, gorilla-faced rocks of Skull Island.

---

There was so much in this film that seemed extraneous. Subplots of a stowaway that were never fully explained or completed. Unending predicaments that the rescue party seemed to encounter and then escape from. Questions regarding the large gorilla skeleton that were forcefully presented with no explanation. Was this Kong's mate? Was he trying to replace her with Miss Darrow? I suppose we'll never know. Too many question, too many loopholes, too much excess.

If you boil away all the fat, what you have left is actually a tragic love story. On one side a story about the struggle of two alpha males, one human and one not, who desire nothing more than the love a beautiful woman. The other a tale of the anti-hero. The man who desires financial propserity over everything else. A businessman who will exploit anything and anyone who may prevent him from attaining the only thing he truly loves: money. These are classic cinematic and literary elements. In the end we are not sure if we are happy or sad at the story's outcome. But we are intrigued by the ideas that our minds are wrestling with. The unfortunate part of this film is that to really get to the heart of the matter just described we must wade through what seems like never-ending bogs of superfluous nonsense. This is where the film truly disappoints.

Bottom Line: Through the plot holes, the overdone, lengthy digital effect sequences, and the limited character development Jackson has taken us to a place we had hoped he wouldn't: mediocrity. Universal's hopes for a Lord of the Rings cash cow may go wholly unrealized. The film's underpinnings present mankind's fear of what we don't understand and what we can't explain. The movie does this well, because when the lights come on we are left with puzzling curiosity as to why a director with so much potential would offer up such a distracted and bloated piece of work. And in the end we just don't understand it and we just can't explain it.

A chest-pounding, 5 out 10

~RG