Movie Review: "King Kong"
Breath-taking love story, but do fun and soul suffer?
I'm no professional film critic when it comes to movie reviews, so don't expect anything here on par with Roger Ebert or Christopher Null or Bob Longino. Those guys are professionals, and they get paid to do these things. I'm just a college student with an opinion and a blog from which to share it for those with nothing better to read.
Now that we have that settled, here's my critique...
It's no secret that the film industry has been anxiously awaiting the arrival of director Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame) and his 25-foot mega-blockbuster remake of King Kong. In comparison with recent years, the box office has been in a noticable decline. 2004's hit The Passion of the Christ, which grossed $370 million in domestic revenue, helped gloss over that fact last year. It helped funnel in more money than the box office would have seen otherwise because it lured wide varities of audiences like conservative Christians to check it out. This year's offering of films, while not terrible, hasn't quite met expectations, and the late-season surge made possible by films Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe can at this point only chip away at the deficit. But this is the big monkey everyone's been waiting for.
Kong grossed a solid but comparitively unspectacular $9.8 million in its Wednesday premiere this week. But the critics and film analysts have kept a guarded optimism about its longevity, supported by initially positive reviews. This film isn't slated to be an overnight hit like The Return of the King or Spider-Man 2, but a steady success. The goal is to win the marathon, not the opening lap. Think Titanic. That's the strategy that Kong is banking on.
So what did I think? Does the movie deliver?
Yes and no.
Jackson's three hour length gives him the freedom to go for the jugular in many areas and it shows. Chase scenes piled upon chase scenes, gory battles with gigantic insects and T-Rex stampedes all provide a sensory thrill ride. You feel like you're being entertained, that's for sure, but just the same, you can't help but wish the movie would cut to the chase already. The first third of the movie prior to Kong's first appearance felt like filler material. Just the obligatory establishment of the Great Depression era (which was filmed in such a way that it came off a little too documentary-ish) and trying to flesh out a crowded cast as we wait for the title character to take the stage.
Don't read me wrong on that last point. There were some fine characters in the ship's crew that got some great moments to shine. Jamie Bell as Jimmy and Evan Parke as Hayes were fun to watch, and you definitely felt for Jimmy as he watched his father figure Hayes ripped away. But in the back of your mind, you know in the end that the side characters are doomed to either be devoured or stomped. Only a few are going to survive to see the climax (Ann, Jack, Carl). So while they had some good scenes, their lack of importance to the main plot made them feel like unnecessary fluff. Maybe I'm being too critical. A newcomer to Kong may like them more.
One scene from the side characters that struck me as an critical theme was Jimmy's reading Heart of Darkness and Hayes' monologue of the Marlow character. It made for a nice parallel to Carl Denham. Very neat touch.
The first third of the movie feels painfully stilted and awkward, and what's worse is that even the characters seem to be aware of it, because they save their best for later. It's not until the ship crashes ashore on Skull Island that it really starts to get cranking. Very elaborate scenery. The island natives were downright creepy, but still, the part where Carl tries to hand the little boy a piece of chocolate ... and the ensuing result ... cracked me up. The flick does a good job of building up to the first appearance of Kong, with just the right level of foreshadowing given by the island legend and the chants of the native tribe. The CGI in the rescue boat scene was a little too obvious.
King Kong, the"eighth wonder" himself, really shines as a living, breathing, emotional character. I have never seen a CGI creature with believable expressions and feelings pulled off so brilliantly. His movements were spectacular and you couldn't help but tear up when he looked upon Ann coming toward him in the city spotlight. I really liked the constant focusing on the pair's eyes. His fight scenes were stunning and downright brutal. Every time you had thought Kong vanquished a creature, back he came to tear into the mighty ape. That added a palpable sense of drama and unpredictability to the fights. The constant changing of scenery and landscapes also helped with that.
As we all know, the real crux of this movie was Ann and Kong, "beauty and the beast." And I have to say that Jackson creates a vivid portrayal of love between two different species here. We feared for them, laughed with them, cried for them (well, those of us willing to show emotions). This relationship was powerful and believable, and it succeeded in besting the original in that category, which primarily featured Ann screaming and doing little else. Sure, Naomi Watts' Ann has her moments to scream, but she gets a whole bag of emotions to show in it. The silly, ludicrous frozen pond scene (that's some REALLY thick ice) was pushing it, but I can overlook that.
What seems to be missing from this movie, however, is a sense of fun. Despite all of Jackson's efforts, sometimes he works too hard to pay homage to the classic by wringing every last drop of emotional angst out of the scenes. This movie is a remake, and he never lets us forget it. This is especially true in the first part of the film as Jackson tries to flesh out too many characters and pack in enough backstory to distract from where the movie eventually goes. It's okay to play it a little loose and have fun with the source material. There are moments, but not enough.
A sense of soul is also not quite there. We all remember the classic, final line of the '33 film. "'Twas beauty killed the beast." This time, although Jack Black makes a good effort, it doesn't quite recapture that same feeling. It is almost canned, just tossed in there in a moment of enlightenment. And we're left searching for what the nature of the film is. True love is sometimes sacrificed in the greedy corruption of a money-driven world? Kong wasn't the monster, but the men who tried to use both him and Ann for their own purposes were? Both of these are good themes, and I'm sure there are others in there, but I wasn't sure which, if any, that Jackson sought to convey.
All in all, though, King Kong did enough things right to entertain me, respect the original masterpiece, and smash me into my seat with a vast array of phenomenal special effects, CGI, and animatronics. It could've been shorter and perhaps been better, but give them credit for having the ambition to go the distance. I'll be watching to see if Kong indeed wins the marathon. In my opinion, it's off to a good start.
Grade: B
I'm no professional film critic when it comes to movie reviews, so don't expect anything here on par with Roger Ebert or Christopher Null or Bob Longino. Those guys are professionals, and they get paid to do these things. I'm just a college student with an opinion and a blog from which to share it for those with nothing better to read.
Now that we have that settled, here's my critique...
It's no secret that the film industry has been anxiously awaiting the arrival of director Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame) and his 25-foot mega-blockbuster remake of King Kong. In comparison with recent years, the box office has been in a noticable decline. 2004's hit The Passion of the Christ, which grossed $370 million in domestic revenue, helped gloss over that fact last year. It helped funnel in more money than the box office would have seen otherwise because it lured wide varities of audiences like conservative Christians to check it out. This year's offering of films, while not terrible, hasn't quite met expectations, and the late-season surge made possible by films Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe can at this point only chip away at the deficit. But this is the big monkey everyone's been waiting for.
Kong grossed a solid but comparitively unspectacular $9.8 million in its Wednesday premiere this week. But the critics and film analysts have kept a guarded optimism about its longevity, supported by initially positive reviews. This film isn't slated to be an overnight hit like The Return of the King or Spider-Man 2, but a steady success. The goal is to win the marathon, not the opening lap. Think Titanic. That's the strategy that Kong is banking on.
So what did I think? Does the movie deliver?
Yes and no.
Jackson's three hour length gives him the freedom to go for the jugular in many areas and it shows. Chase scenes piled upon chase scenes, gory battles with gigantic insects and T-Rex stampedes all provide a sensory thrill ride. You feel like you're being entertained, that's for sure, but just the same, you can't help but wish the movie would cut to the chase already. The first third of the movie prior to Kong's first appearance felt like filler material. Just the obligatory establishment of the Great Depression era (which was filmed in such a way that it came off a little too documentary-ish) and trying to flesh out a crowded cast as we wait for the title character to take the stage.
Don't read me wrong on that last point. There were some fine characters in the ship's crew that got some great moments to shine. Jamie Bell as Jimmy and Evan Parke as Hayes were fun to watch, and you definitely felt for Jimmy as he watched his father figure Hayes ripped away. But in the back of your mind, you know in the end that the side characters are doomed to either be devoured or stomped. Only a few are going to survive to see the climax (Ann, Jack, Carl). So while they had some good scenes, their lack of importance to the main plot made them feel like unnecessary fluff. Maybe I'm being too critical. A newcomer to Kong may like them more.
One scene from the side characters that struck me as an critical theme was Jimmy's reading Heart of Darkness and Hayes' monologue of the Marlow character. It made for a nice parallel to Carl Denham. Very neat touch.
The first third of the movie feels painfully stilted and awkward, and what's worse is that even the characters seem to be aware of it, because they save their best for later. It's not until the ship crashes ashore on Skull Island that it really starts to get cranking. Very elaborate scenery. The island natives were downright creepy, but still, the part where Carl tries to hand the little boy a piece of chocolate ... and the ensuing result ... cracked me up. The flick does a good job of building up to the first appearance of Kong, with just the right level of foreshadowing given by the island legend and the chants of the native tribe. The CGI in the rescue boat scene was a little too obvious.
King Kong, the"eighth wonder" himself, really shines as a living, breathing, emotional character. I have never seen a CGI creature with believable expressions and feelings pulled off so brilliantly. His movements were spectacular and you couldn't help but tear up when he looked upon Ann coming toward him in the city spotlight. I really liked the constant focusing on the pair's eyes. His fight scenes were stunning and downright brutal. Every time you had thought Kong vanquished a creature, back he came to tear into the mighty ape. That added a palpable sense of drama and unpredictability to the fights. The constant changing of scenery and landscapes also helped with that.
As we all know, the real crux of this movie was Ann and Kong, "beauty and the beast." And I have to say that Jackson creates a vivid portrayal of love between two different species here. We feared for them, laughed with them, cried for them (well, those of us willing to show emotions). This relationship was powerful and believable, and it succeeded in besting the original in that category, which primarily featured Ann screaming and doing little else. Sure, Naomi Watts' Ann has her moments to scream, but she gets a whole bag of emotions to show in it. The silly, ludicrous frozen pond scene (that's some REALLY thick ice) was pushing it, but I can overlook that.
What seems to be missing from this movie, however, is a sense of fun. Despite all of Jackson's efforts, sometimes he works too hard to pay homage to the classic by wringing every last drop of emotional angst out of the scenes. This movie is a remake, and he never lets us forget it. This is especially true in the first part of the film as Jackson tries to flesh out too many characters and pack in enough backstory to distract from where the movie eventually goes. It's okay to play it a little loose and have fun with the source material. There are moments, but not enough.
A sense of soul is also not quite there. We all remember the classic, final line of the '33 film. "'Twas beauty killed the beast." This time, although Jack Black makes a good effort, it doesn't quite recapture that same feeling. It is almost canned, just tossed in there in a moment of enlightenment. And we're left searching for what the nature of the film is. True love is sometimes sacrificed in the greedy corruption of a money-driven world? Kong wasn't the monster, but the men who tried to use both him and Ann for their own purposes were? Both of these are good themes, and I'm sure there are others in there, but I wasn't sure which, if any, that Jackson sought to convey.
All in all, though, King Kong did enough things right to entertain me, respect the original masterpiece, and smash me into my seat with a vast array of phenomenal special effects, CGI, and animatronics. It could've been shorter and perhaps been better, but give them credit for having the ambition to go the distance. I'll be watching to see if Kong indeed wins the marathon. In my opinion, it's off to a good start.
Grade: B
posted by david @ 7:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home