King Kong
The best way to rent movies!
|
The
plot in a nutshell
I'm pretty sure you know the story, but in case you just moved here from a mud hut in outer Elbonia - sleazy movie producer Carl Denham (Jack Black) is looking to make his blockbuster movie, but is running into a few snags, not the least of which is the loss of his leading lady just moments before setting sail. He stumbles on Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), a poor actress down on her luck. She agrees to the sudden trip when she finds out her writing hero, Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), is penning the screenplay. They're off to Skull Island, where they run into some truly unattractive natives with even less pleasant dispositions, who offer up Ann as a sacrifice to a big monkey, Kong. Fortunately for Ann, Kong is nicer than the natives, and he spends much of his time keeping her out of trouble. Stupid women.
The theoritically good guys manage to rescue her, and trap Kong to bring him back and make money. Stupid men. They debut him in New York, and things go badly for Denham and worse for Kong. Stupid
monkeys.
|
Relatively
Spoiler Free Thoughts
Remakes are generally a bad idea. Oh, it's not that Hollywood doesn't try, with remake after remake churning out. But the only remakes that ever succeed are either based on films that a) were an interesting concept, but sucked concrete through a straw in execution the first time around or b) were great films to begin with, but the current viewers had little or no tie to the original. For example, you can remake Ringu into The Ring, because most American audiences had never seen the original. Likewise, you can do a film like Fun with Dick and Jane and people will laugh at Jim Carrey, or do Alfie and the ladies will swoon for Jude Law, because 80% of the audience never saw George Segal or Michael Caine do it the first time. While these movies are unlikely to win awards or make a billion dollars, they will turn a profit and few people will whine about the fact that they are remakes.
Ah, but Hollywood has this obsession with remaking the absolutely wrong movie to remake - the classic that everyone loved. While films like Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory aren't technically remakes by my definition, they are to most people, and they were doomed from the start. People are invested in these films, they love these films, and the last thing they want to see is another director's take. It's almost universally true that the people going in are already against the general concept, so convincing them you've made a great movie is an uphill struggle at best.
So Peter Jackson becomes the God of Hollywood, making many people rich beyond their wildest dreams with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and doing something no one thought possible - turning an old dusty set of books into a mega blockbuster series of films that will became instant classics. That means Mr. Jackson got to do anything he wanted - no project was beyond him. And he chose...King Kong.
The moment it was announced, people started debating. What in God's name was he thinking? Poor Kong had already been remade once, badly, so what could Jackson possible do with a big monkey movie that hadn't already been done before? 50% of the movie going population thought he was crazy - the other 50% were sure he was. And Hollywood? I always had the impression that Hollywood figured this was his payment for bringing such wealth and esteem back into movies for the 'regular' guy. He'd do this flick, maybe make a little money, get it out of his system, and they could get him back on track with the big winners once it was done.
Surprise, surprise. Not only has Jackson made an amazing movie, but he's made a remake that is better than the original. How many times has that happened? And has it ever happened before with such a well loved original? I can't think of one.
Oh, sure, there will be monkey purists who say nothing can be as good as the original and refuse to see what's in front of them. It was a great film in
1933, but played today and the acting flaws are far too obvious, the script issues glaring, and the pacing weak. Perhaps when we look back on this Kong in 60 years, we'll say the same, but it's certainly an improvement over the original film of long ago.
Much of this is due to an excellent script. The movie takes three hours. Yes, three hours to tell the tale of a big monkey, a tale you think you already know. The beauty here is that you DO know the story - there's no major plot changes or story alterations. The changes come in the quality of the writing, acting and directing. Of course, some seriously kick ass special effects help.
Jackson takes awhile building up the characters in the first 30 - 45 minutes of the film. I suspect the action nuts - you know the type, if something isn't blowing up or getting eaten on screen every 3 minutes, they complain - will probably find this section boring, but it's critical to the development of all the personalities, especially Ann Darrow. Naomi Watts is excellent in the role, easily slipping from the character of Ann in our film to the character in Denham's movie.
Let me explain that a little more - acting in the 30's had a much different, more theatrical and exaggerted style than it does today. In the early scenes when she is 'acting' in Denham's film, it fits perfectly with your expectation. But she doesn't appear this way during the normal interactions in the film, but comes across as vulnerable yet tough, sweet yet sad. Her performance in the first half of this film was key to making her performance in the last 15 minutes the powerful emotional experience it is.
People have also wondered about Jack Black's ability to carry a serious role, and Adrian Brody's ability to be a leading man. Black was a perfect casting, and this film should broaden his career further. Brody's not your typical handsome leading man - and that point is actually addressed at least twice in the film, and quite well - but he's certainly got the emotional range. He was the least effective for me though out of the main cast, and didn't make a big difference (at least for me) in the overall quality of the movie.
The surprising performance here comes from Kyle Chandler, who I didn't even realize was in the film. You remember Kyle - he played the lead in the television show Early Edition. He's perfect casting for the 1930's leading man, and turns in a great performance.
Let's not forget Kong of course. Andy Serkis did body work for Kong, similar to what he did for Gollum in LOTR. Once again, the combination of his work and the amazing effects creates a truly humanized beast. You understand Kong, you feel for Kong, you cheer for Kong, and yes, some of you are going to cry for Kong, although you know how this is going to end.
What makes the ending work though is that Kong knows too, just like you. You see it in his actions and in his eyes - he knows how this is going to play out, just like you do. Oh, Ann is holding out hope, but Kong has that final resignation, grabbing a few last enjoyable moments where he can before the final act plays out.
The film spends the majority of it's time on Skull Island, a place that's not going to show up in any travel brochures any time soon. I've never seen anyone in as much constant peril as both Ann and her 'rescuers'. Something is trying to eat them around every turn, and escaping the snapping jaws of one hideous creature just sends them into the maw of another. And these things ARE hideous - if you don't like insects, you'll be squirming in your seat constantly.
The action is fast paced and brutal on the island, a roller coaster ride of thrills. Jackson was wise to keep most of the film here, where he could exploit the widest range of bizarre threats, and his depiction of the natives is one of my favorite aspects of the entire movie.
Once the action on the island is done, there's no wasted scenes on the trip back. Poof, you're just back in New York, and Kong is on stage. While the finale plays out predictably, Jackson has managed to deposit enough into the emotional bank account early in the film to make the impact of these final scenes strong and resonant.
This is the best action/adventure flick I've seen since Indiana Jones, and that's saying a hell of a lot. I suspect Watts will get a nomination for best actress, and perhaps the film and director will get nods as well. It's definitely the best blockbuster of this year,
and is well worth seeing as a holiday treat.
|
|
Rating - Hit the Theater.
This is a movie that demands the big screen experience. Get lucky, and the crowd will make it an even better time. Of course, you could get unlucky and see it with a bunch of morons, but that's the crapshoot that is attending movies these days.
|
|
Spoiler Laden Thoughts
Here's a few points...even though you'd think nothing could be a spoiler...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some reviewers have called this the 'next Titanic'. I wouldn't go there, since Titanic was an epic love story, and the only real love story going on here is between Ann and Kong. Jack might be pining for Ann, but that's an aspect of the story that never really connects.
There are at least two scenes though that really reminded me of Titanic, so much so that they couldn't have been by mistake. The first is when Ann is on the bow of the ship, wearing the evening gown. I expected her to let us all know she was on top of the world any moment. The more poignant - and obvious - is when Kong finally slips off the top of the Empire State Building, falling silently down, just as Jack slipped away from Rose in the water.
There were a couple plot line nits to pick. For example, when Carl tells the Captain that the 'beast' will chase Jack and Ann back once he rescues her, the Captain replies "And you think we're going to capture the big ape?" How does he know there's an ape at this point? No one has let him in on this, and he's not seen it for himself.
Another one that bothered me is when Jack jumps in the taxi to lure Kong
away...away to where? They're in the middle of NYC, where does he
think he can take Kong that he isn't going to smash up buildings and kill
people?
But you know what - those were the only times in the entire film that I noticed an inconsistency, either in script or character action. Those things tend to jump out at me, so to avoid any in such a large picture is quite the feat. Not the same level of accomplishment as remaking a classic and doing it better, but still something to be proud of.
|
 |
