Slow Boat to Skull Island

I saw Peter Jackson’s, King Kong on New Years day with Clark & Kim. This was kind of sort of supposed to be a ‘double date’ with Jenne along for the monkeyshines, but Jenne came down with a cold. She is still recovering from it. So far, I have been spared the cold.

Before I get into my personal review of King Kong let me say a few things about how I feel about the current state of movies and about Peter Jackson.

Generally I am disgusted with Hollywood and how it churns out crap movies based on seventies TV shows, or crap remakes of beloved films or crappy remakes. What about the stories that haven't been told? What about originality? Box office wise, 2005 will go down as a very bad year and sadly, King Kong won’t save it. With the beauty, splender and Oscar winning Lord of the Rings films, Peter Jackson – a director only previously known for a few horror films and the acclaimed Heavenly Creatures – vaulted to the position of a Hollywood ‘golden boy’. In my mind, and because of LotR, Jackson became a directing god. He achieved what many believed – my self and all of J.R.R. Tolkien fandom included – to be the impossible and because he did the impossible and because he and the LotR trilogy won a mountain of Oscars, he has a lot of Hollywood clout. Still, I was less than enthusiastic when I heard he was going to remake King Kong, another film/story that really doesn’t need a ‘re-imagining’, a retelling or a remake of any kind. The original 1933 RKO Picture is fine. It’s a classic and a film I grew up with. Although by our modern standards of filmmaking and special effects the 1933 Kong looks very dated. However, to me that is a huge part of its charm. But did it need to be retold… again? Remember 1976? Well PJ felt a remake was needed. He wanted to pay homage to the film that inspired him to be a filmmaker. Okay, that’s his right, he has the clout, the skills and he sold Hollywood on it. At the box office however it’s apparent that he isn’t selling audiences on it as he thought he would, in spite of great reviews and an ad campaign that is even bigger than the mighty Kong himself. Only time and the box office will tell.

*****SPOILERS AHEAD*****
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Now that I have said that, I will move onto my review. Now, I’m not saying that “King Kong” is a bad movie. It’s okay, and if you really feel the need to see it then by all means see it on the big silver screen. Seeing the panorama of 1930’s New York, Time Square, Skull Island and the final fight atop the Empire State Building is worth it, but you may want to consider walking in about an hour late. Trust me, you aren’t missing anything of importance in that first hour.

Kong opens in New York City with film director Carl Denham (played annoyingly by Jack Black) hijacking his movie and taking a tramp freighter into the uncharted waters of the mysterious and legendary, SKULL ISLAND! He brings along the film’s new star Ann Darrow (played fabulously by the beautiful Naomi Watts) and the playwright-turned-screenwriter Jack Driscoll (played by Adrien Brody). When they FINALLY reach the island, they discover it to be inhabited by primitive hostile and whacked out natives, dinosaurs, six-foot maggots, giant bats and a HUGE ape named King Kong.

After an inexcusably long first act spent partly in New York City and mostly on a very slow boat to China (AKA Skull Island) that left me screaming (on the inside) “Show me the monkey,” the film begins to take off when the ship enters the shroud of fog surrounding the island. Things get intense when the creepy natives start killing the camera crew and then kidnap Ann to be sacrificed to Kong. But soon things turn into a giant monster smack down with Kong fighting not one, not two, BUT three T-rexes at once. This fight goes on for too long and it gets ridiculous. Look, I am very good at suspending my level of disbelief and I love giant monsters battling each other, but this just went way over the top. This monster mash royale dwarfs the climatic Empire State Building scene at the end. I have to fault PJ here for starting out with big fights and making them smaller as the movie goes along. But wait, there's more. Now we come to the scene where the rescue party sent out to save Ann from Kong is running for their lives. What are they running from? How about a pack of twenty plus brontosaurus being chased by a pack of who knows how many velociraptors. Again, this goes way over top and just when you think it’s coming to an end, it turns a corner onto a cliff face with the ledge rapidly falling away below everyone’s and every dino’s feet! It’s in this 'man chased by monster chased by more monsters' scene that I noticed some breakdown in the otherwise stunning effects. It began to look like the actors are running in place in front of a green screen. I guess this is expected in a film that has so many special effects. Some are bound to break down.

In the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, Peter Jackson gave the most spirit and attention to a computer-generated Gollum given life by the talented Andy Sirkus. Similarly, Kong is the star of this movie, and whenever he’s on screen it’s awesome. You will believe that he is real and he is made real by Andy Sirkus! When Kong is not on screen, which is considerable, I might add, things bog down. Like I said, you can walk in an hour late. Fortunately, the fantastically realized Kong is present in much of the second half of the film.

The actors all turn in good performances, although and as I said earlier, I found Jack Black annoying and his delivery of the classic line at the end of the film falls flat. Why? Because he spends the entire film being a selfish insensitive con-artist and at the very end he tries to appear sensitive and sad. It doesn't work. Naomi Watts turns in a very nice performance as the new Faye Wray. What Adrien Brody’s purpose was in the movie, I have no idea. He is not necessary at all and he gets out-acted by the fantastic performance of Andy Sirkus as King Kong. Out acted by a CGI ape, that’s pretty sad Adrien!

There are lots of tips of PJ’s hat to the original “King Kong”, including a reference to Faye Wray being unavailable for the movie-within-a-movie because she’s doing a picture for RKO. I have to say that this one reference alone pulled me completely out of the make believe world that PJ wants me to suspend my disbelief for! And this was in the first hour! The script also has dialogue from the original 1933 script in it. Again, I was yanked out of the make believe world of the new film. That is the biggest thing that pissed me off about the new Kong. PJ goes to all of the trouble of creating a beautifully crafted world, getting my ‘buy in’ and then repeatedly yanks me back with too many tips of the hat.

What I see as the biggest problem with “King Kong” – aside from its arrogantly bloated length of three hours and ten minutes – is that it tries to be too many things to too many people. It succeeds nicely as an action flick/monster movie (once you get past the first hour and the slow boat to Skull Island). As a period piece it’s so-so. It really struggles to put in a love story between Ann (Naomi Watts) and Jack (Adrien Brody). Did the studio think that by trying to build Jack & Ann's love for each other on a boat that they could capture some of what “Titanic” achieved. Maybe if they showed Naomi's boobies!

Ultimately, the real relationship is between Ann and Kong and it’s here where PJ really shines. Unlike the 1976 debacle with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, PJ's Kong isn’t sporting a king dong for Ann. Rather he bonds with her as we do with our pets. Kong finds a non-sexual companion, someone with whom he can abate his loneliness. Outside of the fights to defend Ann, and thereby proving that he is indeed the king of the island, Kong shows a growing caring and affection for Ann, and in return she for him. Their relationship is the very heart of this movie and it is excellently built up and played out. It’s in this relationship that we see the aging, battered and lonely Kong - the last of his kind - as a tragic figure and not as mere human munching beast. Even so, this movie did not tug at my heartstrings like I expected it too and like it has a few friends. My eyes did not once tear up. PJ pulled me out of Kong’s world one to many times and ran too many scenes way to long. There is no reason that this new Kong should be three-hours and ten minutes in length. Not a single reason. This story is more effectively told in under two hours.

Would I see King Kong again in theatres? No. Once was enough. Can I recommend that you see it in theatres? Maybe, if you can catch a matinee. Otherwise, if you have a big screen, HD TV at home, or you have a friend that does, I say wait six-months for its DVD release and skip past the first hour.

Clark has his own review here and I am in agreement with the points he brings up.