Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 20, 2005


I finally saw Peter Jackson’s remake of KING KONG yesterday and while it is in no way a bad movie per se — and is infinitely better than Dino de Laurentiis’ 1976 cinematic atrocity — I have to say that is not for me.

Despite the fact that the 1933 original is my favorite movie, I divorced myself from the classic KONG for a few hours and trudged to the local multiplex, a strategy that helped me kill time until a cozy dinner party with some dear friends whom I hadn’t seen in months (barbecue joint schedule, dontcha know). Girded with a big sack of “buttered” popcorn and a fruit punch large enough to last through a three-hour-plus flick, I scoped out a seat that gave me a perfect centered vantage point in the virtually empty cinema. The lights dimmed, the commercials and trailers — all of which were pretty feeble — cranked by and then the film started.

We all know the basic tale: an ambitious filmmaker/showman leads an expedition to an uncharted island to film a fantastic monster. Said monster gets a major hard-on for the blonde starlet of the piece when she is sacrificed to him by the local crazy Negroes (in the South Seas???), hauls her up to his mountaintop crib through an island full of every horrifying creature imaginable while the film crew and sailors follow and meet hideous deaths, and is eventually captured and put on display on Broadway. The monster then escapes, snags the blonde again, climbs to the top of the then new Empire State Building, battles some biplanes, gets shot off of the building, plummets to a messy end and inspires the filmmaker/showman to state that “It wasn’t the planes that got him…It was beauty killed the beast.” THE END. The Jackson remake follows the same basic plot, but with a few tweaks and I will discuss in detail, so if you haven’t already seen the new one stop reading now for HERE THERE BE SPOILERS.

As you know the basic plot, I’ll just break certain elements of the film down, plain and simple.
  • IT’S TOO DAMNED LONG. The story of Kong is already epic enough and it in no way needed to be expanded to over three hours of running time. The length also causes the film to seriously drag at times, so much so that I almost walked out during the last third due to its glacial pace and the fact that I already knew how the story ends. But I was good, and I stuck it out.
  • THE DEMYSTIFICATION OF KONG. In the sixty-two years since the original we have learned a lot about apes — specifically gorillas — and how they behave, and Jackson has approached Kong as pretty much an ordinary gorilla, only one who happens to be twenty-five feet tall. He’s no longer an ageless deity/monster, but a sensitive anthropoidal puppy dog when in the presence of Ann Darrow. In other words, Kong is now mediocre.
  • THE REIMAGINING OF THE ANN/KONG DYNAMIC. Ann Darrow is now a multitalented vaudevillian who, once she figures out that Kong isn’t as bad as he seems to be, entertains the big ape with somersaults, soft shoe schtick and juggling antics. There is no danger to Kong’s interest in Ann, other than the fact that she is in constant threat of being devoured by every critter on Skull Island as long as she sticks around. I really hated this development, especially when after rescuing Ann the crew hauls ass to avoid Kong, and Ann is ready to stay behind on the island so Kong will leave the rest of the cast alone. Now I don’t know about you, but no one in their right mind would volunteer to remain with Kong; sure, he’s a bad motherfucker and all that, but he can’t be there to protect your ass every waking second, and it is abundantly clear that Skull Island is a Lovecraftian hellhole full to bursting with carnivorous nasties. Ann may be blonde, but she didn’t strike me as stupid until she was ready to stay with Kong. And once Ann and the big guy become pals the saccharine factor goes through the roof, especially during the "Kong on ice" sequence that's meant to be charming but made me want to hurl, and Kong’s weepy demise. This is Kong, for fuck’s sake, not Old Yeller. I do NOT want to see Kong as a pussy.
  • UNINVOLVING CGI. Special effects grandmaster Ray Harryhausen (JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS, THE SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, THE VALLEY OF GWANGI, CLASH OF THE TIITANS) has stated that he felt that making special effects monsters too realistic rendered them mundane; there should be a certain unreality about them to give the fantasy a certain magic. The effects geniuses at New Zealand’s Weta studios have created some technically incredible creatures for the film, a virtuoso display of just what is capable of being unveiled before our wondering eyes, but the magic that Harryhausen sought and achieved is glaringly missing and the monster battles felt to me like I was watching someone else play a video game, an experience that I am sadly finding to be quite common in big effects-laden pictures. I did not care for Kong as a character and was utterly uninvolved in his exploits, but I was able to appreciate the artistry that brought him to life. And at least the plant-eating dinosaurs stick to their leafy ways and do not attempt to chow down on the sailors.
  • AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RAVINE. What happens to some of the cast after they are shaken off of the log bridge by Kong into a deep ravine is the one truly horrifying moment of the film and I wish that the rest of the movie had one iota of the intensity found during this sequence.
  • DISAPPEARING NATIVES. Once the heroes return to the native village after their pursuit of Kong, the multitude of natives has disappeared with no explanation. Where did they go?
  • THE FINALE. I honestly did not give a damn during Kong’s Manhattan rampage — although I have to give Jackson thanks for using Max Steiner’s 1933 score during Kong’s Broadway debut — and when Kong did the slo-mo plummet from the zeppelin mooring, all I could think of was how much it reminded me of one of Wile E. Coyote’s falls in any of Chuck Jones’ Road Runner cartoons. The only thing missing was Kong fading from view only to be replaced by a muted “smack” sound effect and a tiny cloud of impact-disturbed dust.
  • JACK BLACK SUCKED OUT LOUD. Sorry, folks, but Jack Black’s Carl Denham was a study in arch overacting. If it weren’t for SCHOOL OF ROCK I would never forgive the guy for this performance.
And that’s pretty much all I have to say about the new KING KONG. It’s an acceptable time-waster and really isn’t a bad movie, but as previously stated, it just wasn’t for me and as such disappointed me greatly. I seriously doubt that I could endure a second viewing thanks to its pacing, and I also doubt whether I’ll ever shell out the cash for the DVD. There's just no trace of "movie magic" to be found here. But don’t let my somewhat negative review keep you away from the box office; the giant monster genre needs a serious shot in the arm, and if KONG is a success it may pave the way for superior successors.


Anonymous said...

I'm not surprized at your review of Kong because the "blockbuster" movies coming out of Hollywood are uniformly mediocre (and that is being kind). I don't know how you hold out hope for an improved sequel. I never understood Kong's love for the blond woman either (even in the original). He's a 25 foot tall ape and she's a 5 1/2 foot tall woman. What the? That's like having a movie where an elephant falls in love with a duck. That made no sense even to ten year old me.

Anonymous said...

I am now envisioning a porno version of Kong. Presumably the female lead would end up being turned into a human about Lovecraftian.

But I think you're being too hard on Dino D.'s version. Remember his plan to make a sequel? The one where a mad scientist was going to "make Konk come back from the dead like Fronkenstein", and when Dwan jumps up on his hand and says "Hi, Konk, remember me?" Konk smile and then WHOMP - he eat her?

Okay, some of that was from Belushi's version of Dino on SNL, and I think the rest was from one of the Medved brother's books, but still...

Seriously, I know that you don't agree with me on this, but I never thought Peter Jackson was all that great. You'll probably want to kill me for saying this, but I suspect that The Frighteners was probably his best movie.

Anonymous said...

The Frighteners???? Are you on dust? Acid? Whippits? Opium? Hepped up on goofballs?

That's maybe his 6th best movie after

1-3 Lawd of de Rings Trilogy (pick any order)
4 - Dead Alive
5 - Bad Taste
6 - The Frighteners

Although, a porno version of Kong would be kinky/kool!! Bukkake to the extreme...

Anonymous said...

"I'm not surprized at your review of Kong because the "blockbuster" movies coming out of Hollywood are uniformly mediocre (and that is being kind)."

Mediocre is WAY too nice a word. Most suck balls. 99% suck balls. Kong not withstanding, Jackson (occasionally along with Brian Singer and Spielberg), however, seems to be one of the few movimakers who can pull it off.

I'd love to see him make "The Hobbit" and finish the whole Lord of the Rings thing. Wouldn't it be great if he used the incredibly goofy, folksey Glenn Yarbourogh original songs from the Rankin-Bass cartoon?

"...The greatest adventure..."


Anonymous said...

I gotta tell ya, Buncheman, John and I LOVED it! ESPECIALLY all the neat references to the original (which I also ADORE!)...the comment Denham (Jack Black) makes about getting Fay, but she's doing an action picture with Cooper, the titles (which exactly match the orignal), the scene on the ship when Black is filming, and Anne and what's-his-name (okay, I give you this one, he wasn't really necessary to the film, y'know, the actor Black hired--who was he, by the way, he looked so familiar!) were repeating verbatim the dialogue between Ann and Jack from the first movie, the hokey natives from the first movie recreating the scene from the first movie, down to the dance, the music, and the costumes, on the stage, the fake Ann exactly reproducing Fay Wray's desperate attempt to escape from her ropes when Kong is threatening her on the stage...I'm sure there were a lot more, but I'll have to see it again to catch it.

As for the updating of gorilla behavior, well, that didn't bother me, because today's audience IS more aware and sophisticated, thanks to books and movies like GORILLAS IN THE fact, I enjoyed it.

That scene in the ravine was absolutely horrifying and totally delicious and cool!

Some things did bother me...the scene in Central Park on the ice bothered me because OF COURSE Kong would have broken through the ice (unless it was solid all the way down)--again, the addition of the action movie star instead of Jack Driscoll being the first mate as in the original...I thought the fake Ann was unnecessary, and I would have like to have seen Jackson copy the orginal and have Ann on the stage.

I did like Adrian Brody, however, very much...and I got a kick out of the subtle irony of the writer being kept in the cage by Hollywood (symbolized by Denham, of course.)

Did you know that Denham's assistant was played by Colin Hanks, who is Tom Hank's son?


Anonymous said...


Haven't seen it, but I'm hearing that Peter Jackson has been taken by the dark side. I thought he was the only guy who understood how to pace CG so you actually were impressed when it came along. Now is he clobbering us over the head with it like every other sucker? *sigh*

P.S. Loved the card, tho' it confused the wife.
I like "Creaturemofo"!
Thanks, I think I'll take it!

Yours truly,