 |
Technically any good? Comparing it to most films today it's absolute brilliance, however, comparing it to other Peter Jackson films, the film, for me, came up short. I expected to fully believe everything in this film because Jackson is that brilliant a film maker. However, I didn't. This is far from saying the film is bad or sucks or anything like that. It's a wonderfully exciting film--SEE IT. Just don't expect the level of believability you get from Jackson's other films like the three Lord of the Rings films, Heavenly Creatures or even Dead/Alive. FX in many places were breath-takingly brilliant while somewhat disappointing in others. Acting is spot-on by every damn member of the cast, including Andy Serkis as the basis for the CG'ed Kong. I loved everyone in this.
How did it leave me feeling? Disappointed but only because I made the mistake of expecting a Peter Jackson film. It's the greatest popcorn movie of all time instead. This is still nothing to fling crap at. (Sorry, monkey joke ;) ). I should add that the film is very intense, so it's not all popcorny. Even though I kind of wasn't into the climax, my hands were still sweating and my stomach was still tense.
Final Rating? GSN (If you like adventure movies, you will enjoy this movie, I guarantee it! Just be careful about the kids--it's really pretty damn scary and very intense in places.)
Check out page 2 to read a longer, VERY spoilerific review. DON'T READ IT unless you want the movie completely ruined for you.
DO NOT READ THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE OR DON'T EVER PLAN TO. I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RUINING THIS FILM FOR YOU. (Hell, you probably shouldn't even read this if you saw the film and thought it was flawless!)
Zowie, what a let down. Peter Jackson has consistently thrilled me with his films over the years. I have not seen a film he has made that didn't blow me away. Each film made me believe what was going one could really happen. Whether it's the hilarious zombies in Dead/Alive, the homicidal teenage girls in Heavenly Creatures or the adventures of Frodo and pals in the Lord of the Rings films. However, in King Kong, I just didn't buy 70% of what was going on.
Yes, I know it's a movie about a 25-foot gorilla. I have no problem with that. What I did have a problem with was that Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) would have snapped her neck within five seconds of being in Kong's hands as he's running away from the infamous big wall. We are treated to midshots on Watts' being jerked around violently by Kong as he runs through the jungle making it obvious that she has a spine made of steel and carbon fiber.
Christopher Reeve fell from a horse and snapped his spine--yet this skinny little Depression-Era-starving actress survives being whipped around in Kong's hand for an hour?
Later, she is knocked around and to the ground by Kong. She also makes several escape attempts, one of which has her sliding on her ass down a slope. Now, I've never been chased through a jungle by a regular gorilla, let alone a giant one, but I'm guessing I'd end up with helluva more scratches, bruises and maybe even a couple of broken bones if all I had protecting me was a flimsy nightgown. Darrow, instead, comes shining through looking a little scuffed, but as gorgeous as she is in any scene in this movie.
There's a great scene that, frankly, drops Jurassic Park to its knees where Carl Denham (Frank Black) stumbles upon a group of grazing sauropods (I think) who then proceed to turn and stampede. Now, ignoring the logic of simply stepping out of their way back into the jungle from which they found the sauropods (and the road the dinos are stampeding down) they choose to run ahead of the dinos. Now, if they would outrun them somehow to safety, I'd have been fine with this.
However, this is not what happens. Several humans die, but along the way, we are "treated" to shots of various lead characters running literally underfoot of the sauropods. These, giant dinos with long necks and feet similar but much larger than elephants some how manage to miss these full-sized humans. It was the most absurd sequence in the film. It was also very silly.
"D'oh! Look out for those dinosaur feet!!" I expected someone to yell.
What was worse was that you could see a little green line around each of the actors where the green screen was still visibile. So, if it wasn't enough that the scene was silly, it was also unrealistic.
Later, there is a scene where Ann Darrow gets chased by T-Rexes. Now, I was very happy to see this sequence because I love the basic idea of it. Kong comes in and saves her from these guys. The catch with this film is that he grabs her and kicks their asses while she's in his hand. So, depending on which hand (Kong has four, mind you) he needed to use, he'd toss her up with one hand and catch her with another while using the other three to fight the T-Rexes. This gave us more opportunities to marvel at the amazing engineering of Ann Darrow's stainless-steel spine.
Several times during this fight, the dinos bite down on Kong's shoulders but at the end of the fight, not only is Darrow alive, but Kong is not showing any shoulder wounds at all.
Before the fight ends, Darrow is knocked off a cliff to her apparently certain doom, along with some T-Rexes, only to be caught by conveniently placed vines that caused me to immediately flash back to a nearly as-unbelievable-scene in The Island. Once you get past the contrivance of these vine/net/things, it's a pretty cool scene where T-Rexes, also ensared in the vines, try to eat Darrow. Of course, Kong quickly enters the fray saving Darrow once again.
When they finally hit the ground (hundreds of feet below the vines) Darrow is still generally unscathed as she watches Kong seriously kick the final T-Rex's ass in a fight that was very well done. But to get to the well done part you have to wade through contrivances, wounds that disappear and more chances for Darrow to snap her spine or at the very least scratch herself.
Now, I'm willing to accept that a woman can be chased through the jungle and not have broken limbs--it's a giant ape movie, I KNOW, but why show off your unrealisms so overtly? Why not just play past them and not draw so much attention to them by showing us close ups of Watts' head being jerked around or Jack Black not getting trampled by dinosaurs?? Why ruin the reality you've established by drawing such real and human characters (including Kong)?
In the end, I found this new King Kong movie to be the ultimate animal rights movie.
Not once do we hear characters talk about how dangerous Kong is. Not once does a single character question the logic of bringing Kong to New York City. Not once does Darrow show any hesitation before marching stupidly into harms way to protect Kong. There's a theme of subtext in the movie, I get that, but there's a difference between subtext and leaving something out of your movie. And this danger, this idea that Kong must die to protect the lives of human beings is completely missing. We, the audience, must infer all of it.
When the biplanes show up to shoot Kong off of the Empire State building, we don't really know why. Sure, it's obvious "we've got to kill the monster!" but there was no debate, no concern, no "but he's a misunderstood beast!" not even a "duhhhh, maybe we shouldn't have brought him from his island in the first place?"
It just seemed like every single person in the movie was motivated to kill Kong simply because. Because what? Because, because because. Like when you ask your mom why you have to turn of the TV when she says so and she doesn't give you a reason, saying simply: "Because!"
Sure, we can insert our own reasoning that Kong was clearly a danger to the people of the Big Apple and needed to be killed. But we never see this in the film. Hell, I figured there'd be a moment where someone wonders aloud: "Hey, what happens when that big ape gets shot off that building? Isn't he going to do some serious damage to people on the ground or the ground itself?"
The film sort of forgets any responsibility to realism once we get back to NYC (or even from when we first see Kong, really). From the Big Apple on the film feels like a farse but falls woefully short of making any actual commentary. As soon as Kong sees a stand-in Ann Darrow on stage, he, quite literally, goes ape-shit killing all sorts of people, though we don't get to see many bodies--or in fact any. I'm guessing this is because Jackson had to provide a film that could get a PG-13 rating--unfortunate.
Kong bursts out of the concert house and into a beautifully CG'ed Times Square of 1933--seriously, it looked amazing. The catch here is that it's winter time. So when Ann Darrow steps out of the theater she actually is performing in, I wonder why I can't see her breath. There's snow on the ground in New York City and she's wearing a gorgeous, but somewhat skin-exposing, evening gown.
Yet, she hears the sirens and somehow knows that Kong has escaped. She manages to run to Kong who immediately recognizes her.
OH and that reminds me--I'm no gorilla expert, but do gorillas have such good eyesight that they can spot and recognize the faces of people they've seen before at a distance of 50-100 feet? At one point, Kong sees Adrian Brody's character inside a 1930's taxi cab and recognizes him. I guess Kong's giant eyes let him see that well.
Regardless, Darrow finally catches up with Kong (after Kong kills every blond he spots up until that point) and Kong is happy to see her. He grabs her and they go for a romantic walk in Central Park.
I'm not kidding!
It's winter, she's not wearing a coat and it's cold enough for the ponds in Central Park to be frozen over and thick enough for Kong to slide across. It's a playful scene that is both hokey, but nice in the same still invisible breath. However, I could tell it was just a set up for the US army to catch up to Kong and hurl a shell at him in the middle of this uber-sweet scene. Without missing a beat, as soon as Kong hits the shore, he's off and running again. At this point I'm really getting tired as there are very few slow points in this film.
The entire film also feels like it took place over the span of a few days instead of the few weeks it must have really taken for the events to occur. So, Kong not even taking a moment to think to himself "WTF?? What the hell just exploded near me??" is frustrating. Especially when Kong is such a real character up to that point.
For no apparent reason (I can suggest a few, but none were apparent in the film) Kong then climbs the Empire State Building. At the top, once again, Kong and Darrow share nice moments. They watch the sun rise as they did back on Skull Island. It's a nice moment. But I'm still wondering 1) How is it that her lips aren't blue and 2) how is it that the wind hasn't just blown her off of the top of that building? After all, she's just hanging out up there as though she's feet off the ground instead of hundreds of feet.
Then, the biplanes show up. They don't care about hitting Darrow, clearly, so we have to assume that all the guys with guns care about are bringing down the gorilla (because no one tells us this--no wait, I get it--it's in the subtext). Kong then climbs up to the absolute top of the building and starts pounding his chest. Meanwhile, Darrow decides to follow Kong the rest of the way up.
This is where the film is the ultimate animal rights movie.
Based on Kong's behavior, it is obvious that there is NO WAY he can safely exist on Manhattan island. It's clear that Kong must die at this point. Yet, Darrow stupidly climbs up to try to stop them from killing Kong. Now, she stands on the absolute top of the building where winds would definitely blow her away or at least be so cold in winter as to give her hypothermia or AT LEAST let us see her breath.
Everyone knows how the climax ends. It was a tense sequence, my hands were sweating for sure. But there were things that characters did that I didn't understand. Like Darrow, stupidly climbing to protect Kong. Were women that dumb in 1933? Hell, just the fact that so many guys go back to save Darrow from Skull Island made me wonder about this film. There's no debate for these cut-throat guys. It's just: "The girl's been kidnapped by natives! We've got to go get her!"
"We're 14 guys versus a couple hundred natives that have already killed some of us, LET'S DO IT!"
Then when they know Kong has taken her away they go after her anyway. Several men die just to save one woman.
Anyway, back to the climax. So, Kong ends up on the street, dead. The final line from the 1933 classic Kong has Carl Denham admitting "Twas beauty killed the beast."
So, naturally, Jackson needs to recreate this line. Sadly, despite the change of the line to "it was beauty that killed the beast" it doesn't come off as anything buy hokey in my mind.
Now, I'm not saying that any of these problems I list above are dead ends. I think every scene that Jackson included in his film could have been portrayed in a manner that was 100% realistic. Starting with that last line--make it "It was beauty that motivated Kong. It was beauty that killed the beast."
Then, instead of making it winter in NYC (which is known for it's rather bitter winters) make it summer. Sure, you can't have your romantic ice dance, but instead you can have Kong and Darrow hanging out in a tree. Kong can be at home here for a short time until the army shows up. Then, we can see the army actually drive Kong and Darrow to higher ground. First to buildings along side Central Park, then higher and higher until he makes his way to the Empire State Building.
None of this is to say that it's a bad movie--it isn't. It's just frustrating when you know Jackson is capable of better. I'm not a perfect storyteller and no one is, but it's frustrating to me, to pay my $11 and sit there and be able to instantly spot holes that could easily have been plugged before Jackson even started shooting. It's like Jackson has Bill Gates Syndrome or something. Let's release it before we've got all the bugs out of it!
Well, in actuality, I think it's more of a case of Andrew Lloyd Weber Disease. Remember when the Phantom of the Opera musical was first a big hit on Broadway? Remember what show he did first after Phantom? No? Well, there's a reason. Aspects of Love sucked. He made all this money off of Phantom he didn't really bother with Aspects and you could tell. Now, I'm not saying Jackson "didn't bother" with Kong--this is anything but the case, but I definitely think he "didn't bother" to stop his imagination from running so wild that it conjured up scenes that were just absurdly unbelievable or at times silly and at best were inconsistent with the rest of the film (like the Keystone Cops bit that was the Sauropod Stampede Sequence).
So, was it a good movie? You're damn right it was.
Could it have been better? You're damn right it could have been--and that's something I can't usually say about Peter Jackson's films.
I gotta see it. Gotta see King Kong.
ReplyDeletei wanted to like king kong. i'm happy that you liked so much, but i was kinda upset. the film, to me, winds up being nothing other than a 3 hour video game. one could literally walk in the film after an hour and STILL enjoy the film. peter jackson tries to do too much at once. plot, action, effects, kong, love story, thrills...dinosaurs?! the film itself looks wonderful. i will say that--the art direction is amazing and you really feel as though you've entered this other world. but the humans, alas, are still acting...or trying to at least. watts spends most of her screen time looking up and crying or juggling in effort to make king kong smile. brody did a terrible job. jack black was bursting to be funny, but wasn't. then, there are side stories that take you no where. a young boy and his black mentor on the ship--what's this deal? why do we care? ultimately, you wind up not caring for any of the characters except for kong. in large part, because jackson gives you too much to focus on. they get on the island and this segment alone is about an hour and a half. jackson utilizes the "slow mo" action shots that he also used in the rings films...but it doesn't work well in this and winds up looking like something from oliver stone's cutting room floor. what else? corny scenes? yup! it has them...plenty of them. he tries to tug on your heart chords with some stuff, but it doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteit's a sad story. that much is conveyed well. it's really a film about our society and the displacement of those that belong where they came from and our need to exploit. but i wish that the action and hub-bub came about two hours sooner than it does. i kept thinking i was watching the titanic at times!
overall, i felt the film was fun...but not as strong as say Narnia (now THAT'S a great film!). jackson did his thing though and it looked great. but i wish they used lesser known actors...as there's no need to use such great talent only to give them weak lines and minimal direction.
Christopher, I can see why you'd think that. I too felt like I was watching Titanic in spots. However, I do disagree that the acting was bad. I bought them in every situation just fine. I just think the "subtext" thing Jackson was clearly going for was weak. You can't have EVERYTHING in the subtext or else you won't give your audience anything tangible to grab onto.
ReplyDeleteYou're right on the length and some of the subplots. I loved the dinosaurs--they were in the original--I would have been disappointed if they weren't there. However, as I mentioned in my extended review, I didn't like what was done with them. But you're right--90 minutes just to get to Skull Island. That kid and his mentor seemed like a waste of time. The mentor dies for no good reason and the kid lives on until the end of the Skull Island stuff and then.... what? The film loses him like luggage at LAX.
Also like I said in my extended review, I think this is Jackson's Aspects of Love. We can hope his next film will be better. I've haven't been following the entertainment scene lately so I have no idea what that film might be, but still, I trust Jackson to generally get it right.
Oh and thanks for posting!