King Kong Review
by [email protected] (dnb AT dca DOT net)December 19th, 2005
KING KONG (2005)
A film review by David N. Butterworth
Copyright 2005 David N. Butterworth
*** (out of ****)
It's that old, well-roasted chestnut: what do you give to the man who has everything? In Peter "The Lord of the Rings" Jackson's case the answer was a doozy. The go-ahead.
Jackson's Christmas present, one he kindly passes along to us this holiday season, was the green light to remake that mother of all monster movies, "King Kong." After all, when you've just made three of the most popular motion pictures of all time, a trilogy that has thus far netted over two *billion* dollars worldwide, what can you possibly do for an encore?
In a word: Kong.
You may have heard by now that Jackson's "King Kong," a film that stars Naomi Watts, Jack Black, and Adrien Brody, is a little over three hours long. What you may not have heard is that it's equal parts miraculous and monotonous. Jackson is guilty of a lot of things in "'Kong" but restraint isn't one of them. I suppose if one is given $200 million to remake a film--one that's already seen multiple remakes by the way--then one is bound to succumb to a little hubris from time to time (an observation that proves to be a colossal understatement).
Clearly none of that $200 million went to editor Jamie Selkirk, who's left with all but his thumbs to twiddle. There are several sequences in "King Kong" that run on *forever*--the dinosaur stampede, for one thing, and boring stuff on the boat, and illogical stuff with the islanders. And then there are redundant, ridiculous scenes that should have been exorcised completely (an icky sequence featuring Buick- sized bugs, especially). Even the climactic, sweaty palm-inducing scenes atop the Empire State Building seem to drag on longer than necessary. Jackson sure loves his spectacle, but a few trims here and there would have tightened up the pacing immeasurably.
There's no knocking the look of "'Kong," however. The period work is divine, from its sprawling New York City streets circa 1933, its inhabitants caught in the grip of the icy Depression, right on down to Ann Darrow's soft felt hat. Likewise the production design and special effects are staggering, including Skull Island's towering wall, restless natives, and marauding menagerie of dinosaurs--not since the "Jurassic Park" films have we been subjected to such impressive Tyrannosaurs... although if you ask me there's a little *too* much man/beast interaction--you're better off tossing all credibility aside and just going along for the ride (although to be fair nobody, even Jackson, should be accused of a lack of plausibility when positing humans and dinosaurs side by side).
Then there's Kong himself, another triumph for actor Andy Serkis ("'Rings"' Gollum), a convincing, Goliath-sized gorilla who's just a big softy at heart, captivated by the untamed beauty of Watts's vaudevillian clown.
From the art deco of its homage-to-RKO opening titles to its immortal closing line ("It was beauty that killed the beast"), Peter Jackson's "King Kong" is a grandiose entertainment on a scale as big as its simian protagonist, a loving exercise in excess that (fortunately) hits more time than it misses. If only someone at Universal Pictures was big enough to rein in Jackson's ego this could indeed have been the eighth wonder of the world.
As it is, it'll still likely give "Titanic" a run for its monkey.
--
David N. Butterworth
[email protected]
Got beef? Visit "La Movie Boeuf"
online at http://members.dca.net/dnb
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
