King Kong (B or 3/4 stars)
Peter Jackson wanted his 'King Kong' to be the biggest & best epic ever; all the while, trying to maintain a level of intimacy with characterization, poignancy & nuance. The finished product? A 3 hour colossal hit & miss affair; with the positives outweighing the negatives. The film can be discussed in 3 parts: 1 hour per part. 1st hour: 1933, Manhattan: struggling starlet Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) is picked up by director Carl Denham (Jack Black), to star in his new adventure flick to be filmed on the mysterious Skull Island. Darrow is skeptical about jumping into such a demanding & risky project, but she has nothing to lose & everything to gain.
Aboard the vessel that takes them to Skull Island is Denham's screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Driscoll & Darrow inexplicably & immediately fall in love. When their vessel enters a dense fog & crashes into the island, all Hell breaks loose; and native savages offer Ann up as sacrifice to King Kong (the amazing CGI-ed Andy Serkis). After he takes her, a series of action sequences involving prehistoric creatures commence & we're taken on a 1-hour-long roller coaster ride. I'm only divulging the plot because, by this point, it is one of the most known cinematic stories of all time & shouldn't be a surprise. The last hour involves Kong being brought back to NYC to be part of a fantastic Manhattanite freak show (how Kong arrives back in Manhattan via damaged, insufficient transport is beyond me). But I digress. Kong escapes from the freak show, tears through the city, finds Ann (who's become enamored with Kong & willingly offered herself to him), and he scurries up the Empire State building where his ultimate demise plays out.
Phew. If you think that summary is tiring to read, you need to see the film to realize the extra back story, side plots, characters & implausible action that unfolds. Then, you can truly say you are tired. Seriously, folks ... a good 40 min. could be scraped off the film & it still would be a bit lengthy. For example, right off the bat, while the Manhattan landscape is meticulously executed with true 1930's feel, this film should not take an hour to introduce 3 main characters. Any dialogue or back story involving the 1st hour is inconsequential to the rest of the film about a 25 ft. tall ape.
The best parts of occur on Skull Island. I enjoy how Ann & Kong interact. She uses Vaudevillian methods to both distract & entertain him when needed. He loves her, & she grows to love him in a different way. On another note, Peter Jackson does an amazing job of integrating exciting action with top-notch special effects onscreen. Kong is the best example of this. He looks entirely realistic & has an almost humanistic face (which makes you feel even worse by the time the movie ends). A Brontosaurus stampede highlights this Skull Island hour. The way in which Jackson blends CGI & real humans as they race to-&-fro with the dinosaurs is astonishing! There's also a great confrontation between Kong & a T-Rex.
Now, there are many scenes which throw your suspension of disbelief right out the window. i.e., Driscolls' willingness to save a woman he barely knows & risk certain death; super-human strength by Ann as she clutches onto a ladder by one hand when she's a thousand ft. in the air; untimely/displaced moments of affection by Ann & Jack atop the Empire State Building. It is a major cinematic pet peeve of mine, & it surfaces several times.
But enough negativity for now. The lighting, production design, costumes, sound work & music are astoundingly good. The Manhattan backdrop at sunrise is a sight to behold (during the last 20 min.). And the thrills this film offers are substantial. i.e., Kong's dealing with the fighter planes is spectacular. Naomi Watts has the most vulnerable eyes. Her eyes, alone, should be given an Academy Award. She screams well (an absolute necessity for this role). And I was very impressed with her physical acting (all of which must have been while facing a green screen - not an actual ape). Adrien Brody is quite decent; just had little to work with. And Jack Black, much to my surprise, is entertaining as the crazed-director/semi-villain of it all.
This film is nowhere near bad, it's just not the marvelous achievement that so many critics believe it to be. It is exciting, at times, but also a disappointing follow-up to Jackson's amazing The Lord of the Rings. It seems as if he threw all of his energy into making 'King Kong' a visual masterpiece (and it IS); figuring the story & dialogue would fall into place. But since we know 'King Kong' & we know that there will be myriads of interesting creatures on the Island ... the most important aspects of the film to focus on should have been characterization & plot. This movie is bloated. This review, itself, is bloated. I enjoyed many aspects of it, but with proper tinkering, 'King Kong' had the potential to be a true blockbuster for the ages.
Aboard the vessel that takes them to Skull Island is Denham's screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Driscoll & Darrow inexplicably & immediately fall in love. When their vessel enters a dense fog & crashes into the island, all Hell breaks loose; and native savages offer Ann up as sacrifice to King Kong (the amazing CGI-ed Andy Serkis). After he takes her, a series of action sequences involving prehistoric creatures commence & we're taken on a 1-hour-long roller coaster ride. I'm only divulging the plot because, by this point, it is one of the most known cinematic stories of all time & shouldn't be a surprise. The last hour involves Kong being brought back to NYC to be part of a fantastic Manhattanite freak show (how Kong arrives back in Manhattan via damaged, insufficient transport is beyond me). But I digress. Kong escapes from the freak show, tears through the city, finds Ann (who's become enamored with Kong & willingly offered herself to him), and he scurries up the Empire State building where his ultimate demise plays out.
Phew. If you think that summary is tiring to read, you need to see the film to realize the extra back story, side plots, characters & implausible action that unfolds. Then, you can truly say you are tired. Seriously, folks ... a good 40 min. could be scraped off the film & it still would be a bit lengthy. For example, right off the bat, while the Manhattan landscape is meticulously executed with true 1930's feel, this film should not take an hour to introduce 3 main characters. Any dialogue or back story involving the 1st hour is inconsequential to the rest of the film about a 25 ft. tall ape.
The best parts of occur on Skull Island. I enjoy how Ann & Kong interact. She uses Vaudevillian methods to both distract & entertain him when needed. He loves her, & she grows to love him in a different way. On another note, Peter Jackson does an amazing job of integrating exciting action with top-notch special effects onscreen. Kong is the best example of this. He looks entirely realistic & has an almost humanistic face (which makes you feel even worse by the time the movie ends). A Brontosaurus stampede highlights this Skull Island hour. The way in which Jackson blends CGI & real humans as they race to-&-fro with the dinosaurs is astonishing! There's also a great confrontation between Kong & a T-Rex.
Now, there are many scenes which throw your suspension of disbelief right out the window. i.e., Driscolls' willingness to save a woman he barely knows & risk certain death; super-human strength by Ann as she clutches onto a ladder by one hand when she's a thousand ft. in the air; untimely/displaced moments of affection by Ann & Jack atop the Empire State Building. It is a major cinematic pet peeve of mine, & it surfaces several times.
But enough negativity for now. The lighting, production design, costumes, sound work & music are astoundingly good. The Manhattan backdrop at sunrise is a sight to behold (during the last 20 min.). And the thrills this film offers are substantial. i.e., Kong's dealing with the fighter planes is spectacular. Naomi Watts has the most vulnerable eyes. Her eyes, alone, should be given an Academy Award. She screams well (an absolute necessity for this role). And I was very impressed with her physical acting (all of which must have been while facing a green screen - not an actual ape). Adrien Brody is quite decent; just had little to work with. And Jack Black, much to my surprise, is entertaining as the crazed-director/semi-villain of it all.
This film is nowhere near bad, it's just not the marvelous achievement that so many critics believe it to be. It is exciting, at times, but also a disappointing follow-up to Jackson's amazing The Lord of the Rings. It seems as if he threw all of his energy into making 'King Kong' a visual masterpiece (and it IS); figuring the story & dialogue would fall into place. But since we know 'King Kong' & we know that there will be myriads of interesting creatures on the Island ... the most important aspects of the film to focus on should have been characterization & plot. This movie is bloated. This review, itself, is bloated. I enjoyed many aspects of it, but with proper tinkering, 'King Kong' had the potential to be a true blockbuster for the ages.