![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxKing Kong Review from Zap2it.com:
The new "King Kong," all 180 minutes of it, is the kind of daunting achievement that could only have been made by Peter Jackson. That goes for all of the film's virtues -- the breathless action scenes, groundbreaking special effects and sympathetic human characters. That also goes for the film's myriad problems -- its abusive duration, technological excess and bouts of bombast. Any other filmmaker who'd turned in this movie -- and that includes Steven Spielberg -- would have been gently patted on the head by a paternalistic studio head and told to go trim 45 minutes. But Jackson, bedecked with Oscars and sleeping on cushions stuffed with his "Lord of the Rings" millions, seems to have been the true 10-ton gorilla on this film. And if you're Universal Pictures, you're so happy that you get to deal with him, that you don't worry about the risks.
Jackson and regular collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens wrote the update, which sticks very close to Merian C. Cooper Ernest B. Schoedsack's 1933 original (truly the greatest adventure yarn of Hollywood's first 50 years). Carl Denham (Jack Black) is a risk-taking nature filmmaker planning his biggest film yet in the midst of the Great Depression. He's got a treasure map to an unknown island, a script by respected playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody in a part that was less brainy in the original) and movie star Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler playing a new character) as his lead. The main thing he's missing is the girl, until he finds Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an out-of-work vaudeville comedian. They take off, fleeing from Denham's creditors, in a rickety wreck of a ship.
The map, while geographically ambiguous, leads the S.S. Venture to Skull Island, a Lost World-style realm where the natives have become frenzied primitives huddling behind a giant wall from a creature they call Kong. Because we know this story, we know that Kong is huge, furry, feral and easily attracted to blondes. The attraction between Kong and Ann is so immediate (albeit initially one-sided) that he's willing to battle all variety of prehistoric beasts for her honor.
Jackson's Kong is a weary old beast. He's scarred, a tiny bit deformed and, thanks to the behind-the-pixels work by Andy Serkis, he's been totally anthropomorphized. Much more than in earlier "Kong" features, it's possible to see what a delicate balance this creature existed in. There's a sense that as a young gorilla, Kong probably battled all of the island's creatures and reached a stalemate. The dinosaurs and other critters learned to stay out of his way and he out of theirs. Then these stupid white explorers come traipsing into the jungle and destroy the equilibrium. There's a message about colonialism here, just in case the repeated literary references to Joseph Conrad and "Heart of Darkness" fail to sink in. I think that Kong is supposed to represent Kurtz, but I'm not convinced that thinking of it in those terms actually helps the movie.
Much has been made in early reviews of the fact that Kong himself doesn't make his first appearance until roughly 70 minutes in. That sounds like a lot unless you consider that in the original, he doesn't pop up until 47 minutes have passed, which is probably proportionate. Both movies have an awkward three-act structure between New York and the boat, the island and then the extended climax in New York.
The problem with Jackson's "Kong" isn't that the movie is too long, because I was never bored for a second. I understood that the filmmaker was trying to build a little extra sympathy for Ann and that he was trying to give her relationship with Carl some depth that it lacks in the original. The problem is that every one of the ever-escalating set pieces falls victim to overkill. Jackson isn't content to have a single dinosaur charge after our heroes when he can have a dozen. Why would Kong fight off one T-Rex when he could fight off three? It's not enough to just have the S.S. Venture run into a storm approaching Skull Island when they could get caught in a 10-minute monsoon. The famed spider pit sequence that was pulled from the original movie has been restored here and while the assortment of worms, bugs and other nasties makes for a freaky, creepy sequence (moments in "King Kong" achieve a "Temple of Doom" level of PG-13 scariness), the scene is just one of several that could have been trimmed to help the pacing without any loss to characterization or narrative. The movie is bloated with an abundance of riches that would really have been better used on a director's cut DVD. Editor Jamie Selkirk has been with Jackson since the director was making 85 minute zombie movies and really should have stepped up.
I say that it's all too much, but that war between Kong and the dinosaurs is a splendid scene, as sustained a rush as you'll get at the movies this year. It's almost impossible not to clap when it ends. The scene helps create a rooting interest for Kong that sustains for the rest of the movie. He's got expressive eyes, a wide variety of mannerisms and he's more of a man that Brody's Jack will ever be. He's such a good digital effect that the rendering of the dinosaurs is a bit disappointing in comparisons. He's such a leap forward from previous CGI characters, that you'd expect a big step from "Jurassic Park," but there really isn't.
The best effects in "King Kong" are the less obvious ones, like Jackson's depiction of 1930s New York, where the computer work blends perfectly with Andre Lesnie's precise and colorful cinematography (more artful than anything in "Lord of the Rings"). Grant Major's production design and the costume work by Terry Ryan. The cars, the buildings, the sets, the pageantry -- it's all award-worthy.
Amidst all of the expensive bells and whistles, Watts runs the risk of getting lost, which would be a shame. It's difficult to emphasize how difficult her chore is. We believe that Kong is in love with Ann because some guy with a keyboard pressed the right buttons, but Watts is the one acting opposite Serkis in a silly suit. She's the one convincing us that there's a soul in beast. We believe it, because she does. For all of the $200 million-plus budget, Watts' fragility is the key to the movie, not Kong's muscularity.
Much of the rest of the cast is onboard to provide varying degrees of comic relief. Black mugs his way to making his character into Tenacious Denham, a winking and nudging idea of what a pompous director might look like. Chandler, mostly known to television audiences, is a hoot as the Tyrone Power or Errol Flynn stand-in, playing off his square-jawed good looks. Jackson's admiration for Serkis is evident in how broadly he lets the actor play Lumpy, the brave cook on the Venture.
For all of its flaws, and there are many, because "Kong" errs toward abundance viewers who followed Jackson through more than a dozen "Lord of the Rings" hours won't feel short-changed. They may have headaches when they're through, but they'll probably have been thrilled and moved in the process
The new "King Kong," all 180 minutes of it, is the kind of daunting achievement that could only have been made by Peter Jackson. That goes for all of the film's virtues -- the breathless action scenes, groundbreaking special effects and sympathetic human characters. That also goes for the film's myriad problems -- its abusive duration, technological excess and bouts of bombast. Any other filmmaker who'd turned in this movie -- and that includes Steven Spielberg -- would have been gently patted on the head by a paternalistic studio head and told to go trim 45 minutes. But Jackson, bedecked with Oscars and sleeping on cushions stuffed with his "Lord of the Rings" millions, seems to have been the true 10-ton gorilla on this film. And if you're Universal Pictures, you're so happy that you get to deal with him, that you don't worry about the risks.
Jackson and regular collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens wrote the update, which sticks very close to Merian C. Cooper Ernest B. Schoedsack's 1933 original (truly the greatest adventure yarn of Hollywood's first 50 years). Carl Denham (Jack Black) is a risk-taking nature filmmaker planning his biggest film yet in the midst of the Great Depression. He's got a treasure map to an unknown island, a script by respected playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody in a part that was less brainy in the original) and movie star Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler playing a new character) as his lead. The main thing he's missing is the girl, until he finds Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an out-of-work vaudeville comedian. They take off, fleeing from Denham's creditors, in a rickety wreck of a ship.
The map, while geographically ambiguous, leads the S.S. Venture to Skull Island, a Lost World-style realm where the natives have become frenzied primitives huddling behind a giant wall from a creature they call Kong. Because we know this story, we know that Kong is huge, furry, feral and easily attracted to blondes. The attraction between Kong and Ann is so immediate (albeit initially one-sided) that he's willing to battle all variety of prehistoric beasts for her honor.
Jackson's Kong is a weary old beast. He's scarred, a tiny bit deformed and, thanks to the behind-the-pixels work by Andy Serkis, he's been totally anthropomorphized. Much more than in earlier "Kong" features, it's possible to see what a delicate balance this creature existed in. There's a sense that as a young gorilla, Kong probably battled all of the island's creatures and reached a stalemate. The dinosaurs and other critters learned to stay out of his way and he out of theirs. Then these stupid white explorers come traipsing into the jungle and destroy the equilibrium. There's a message about colonialism here, just in case the repeated literary references to Joseph Conrad and "Heart of Darkness" fail to sink in. I think that Kong is supposed to represent Kurtz, but I'm not convinced that thinking of it in those terms actually helps the movie.
Much has been made in early reviews of the fact that Kong himself doesn't make his first appearance until roughly 70 minutes in. That sounds like a lot unless you consider that in the original, he doesn't pop up until 47 minutes have passed, which is probably proportionate. Both movies have an awkward three-act structure between New York and the boat, the island and then the extended climax in New York.
The problem with Jackson's "Kong" isn't that the movie is too long, because I was never bored for a second. I understood that the filmmaker was trying to build a little extra sympathy for Ann and that he was trying to give her relationship with Carl some depth that it lacks in the original. The problem is that every one of the ever-escalating set pieces falls victim to overkill. Jackson isn't content to have a single dinosaur charge after our heroes when he can have a dozen. Why would Kong fight off one T-Rex when he could fight off three? It's not enough to just have the S.S. Venture run into a storm approaching Skull Island when they could get caught in a 10-minute monsoon. The famed spider pit sequence that was pulled from the original movie has been restored here and while the assortment of worms, bugs and other nasties makes for a freaky, creepy sequence (moments in "King Kong" achieve a "Temple of Doom" level of PG-13 scariness), the scene is just one of several that could have been trimmed to help the pacing without any loss to characterization or narrative. The movie is bloated with an abundance of riches that would really have been better used on a director's cut DVD. Editor Jamie Selkirk has been with Jackson since the director was making 85 minute zombie movies and really should have stepped up.
I say that it's all too much, but that war between Kong and the dinosaurs is a splendid scene, as sustained a rush as you'll get at the movies this year. It's almost impossible not to clap when it ends. The scene helps create a rooting interest for Kong that sustains for the rest of the movie. He's got expressive eyes, a wide variety of mannerisms and he's more of a man that Brody's Jack will ever be. He's such a good digital effect that the rendering of the dinosaurs is a bit disappointing in comparisons. He's such a leap forward from previous CGI characters, that you'd expect a big step from "Jurassic Park," but there really isn't.
The best effects in "King Kong" are the less obvious ones, like Jackson's depiction of 1930s New York, where the computer work blends perfectly with Andre Lesnie's precise and colorful cinematography (more artful than anything in "Lord of the Rings"). Grant Major's production design and the costume work by Terry Ryan. The cars, the buildings, the sets, the pageantry -- it's all award-worthy.
Amidst all of the expensive bells and whistles, Watts runs the risk of getting lost, which would be a shame. It's difficult to emphasize how difficult her chore is. We believe that Kong is in love with Ann because some guy with a keyboard pressed the right buttons, but Watts is the one acting opposite Serkis in a silly suit. She's the one convincing us that there's a soul in beast. We believe it, because she does. For all of the $200 million-plus budget, Watts' fragility is the key to the movie, not Kong's muscularity.
Much of the rest of the cast is onboard to provide varying degrees of comic relief. Black mugs his way to making his character into Tenacious Denham, a winking and nudging idea of what a pompous director might look like. Chandler, mostly known to television audiences, is a hoot as the Tyrone Power or Errol Flynn stand-in, playing off his square-jawed good looks. Jackson's admiration for Serkis is evident in how broadly he lets the actor play Lumpy, the brave cook on the Venture.
For all of its flaws, and there are many, because "Kong" errs toward abundance viewers who followed Jackson through more than a dozen "Lord of the Rings" hours won't feel short-changed. They may have headaches when they're through, but they'll probably have been thrilled and moved in the process
