King Kong (2005)
Peter Jackson’s King Kong is huge. I mean everything about this movie is huge - the action, Kong himself (obviously), the production design, the attention to detail, the budget, Jack Blacks head and yes the running length. Unfortunately for this latest venture into the extreme for Jacko and co, the sum is not as good as its parts. There are moments in this version that are so epic and cinematic that it almost overshadows all the flaws in the film (which there are many). This is an absolute must on the biggest screen you can find. The battle with the T-Rex’s in the ropes and the final Empire State building sequences are simply jaw-dropping. I doubt there is a better director working today who can stage action sequences like Jacko. Kong himself is also amazingly realised and Jacko knew exactly how far he could push the humanistic mannerisms before becoming an unreal character. But those elements aside, what you’re left with is quite a shallow, prolonged exercise into film geekdom. By that I mean Jacko has put so much effort into getting this film onto the screen and remaining faithful to the original that in the process, has forgone an attempt to change the trivial and clumsy plot.
My main gripe with the film (and always has been with the Kong interpretations) is that none of the supporting characters are realised enough to care about. At a running time of over 3 hours, perhaps 20 minutes is spent with Kong and Anne and even within that time, Jacko spends most of it having Kong and Anne look longingly into each others eyes. After about the third time, you tire of it. The first hour or so before the characters reach Skull Island, it’s pretty much a snooze fest and not particularly interesting at all. Yes Jack Black is miscast and the love story between Ann (Naomi Watts) and Jack (Adrien Brody) isn’t there at all. Jimmy’s (Jamie Bell’s) storyline was really weak despite spending enough screen time trying to develop it but I couldn’t even remember or care what happened to him or the rest of the crew. Once the crew reach the Island, things pick up pace and get more exciting. The natives make pretty freaky encounter and there’s a creepy bug sequence that kinda looks like left over footage from the Shelob sequence in The Return of the King but is still fun. There’s been a lot of talk of the CG and it’s all true. Sometimes it’s phenomenal (Like Kong himself and the ending sequence) and other times it’s pretty crap (especially when Kong is running through the jungle with Ann on his shoulder) but it was an ambitious undertaking from the beginning.
But Jacko really nailed the essence of the story which is Kong and Ann and it is quite moving at times. Kong himself even has a sense of humour which was great and there are undeniably magical moments scattered throughout. A hard film to review because it’s difficult to judge which elements win out, Kong still has enough grunt to recommend for a decent summer popcorn flick. But if you’re looking for greatness, I think you’re gonna have to stick with the 1933 original.
7 Responses to “King Kong (2005)”
Yep, I pretty much agree with all of your points, James. Personally, I’m getting tired of these mighty CGI action scenes that are just too over the top to follow with your eye, let alone believe. When CGI is used, the animation tools add motion blur to approximate what we’re used to seeing with fast live action movements captured on film. Sometimes this results in very confusing action on screen, especially when Jackson pushes his virtual camera in close too often. CGI worked best in this film when the POV was relatively locked-off or moving slowly, e.g. the centipede and Empire State Building sequences. Bravo for Jackon’s faithfulness to Lord of the Rings on paper. Sadly, that loyalty didn’t work here on this laughable pulp story devised in the 1930s. I’m waiting to see if it bombs at the box office. $200 million USD + advertising means it has to gross about $300-400 million to break even.
Pretty much agree with all of the above. Despite the amazing vertigo-inducing climax atop the Empire State and some sections on Skull Isalnd there’s little to recommend in this bloated self-indulgent epic.
If only Jacko had updated his pulp source material (not necessarily by moving it to the present day - keeping it in the 30s is one of the few things the film gets right) but by revamping the mechanics of the narrative and inventively structuring the character arcs. It is so muddled in it’s current form. The film spends sooooo long attempting to give stock characters “rich” backstories (none of which are pulled off) and sooooo long introducing one prehistoric nasty after the other (with varying degrees of CG accomplishment) that the whole enterprise collapses under it’s own Kong-like weight. While it could be argued that Jackson is attempting to tap into the film’s B-movie/classic Hollywood origins with such “slapstick” moments as Ann’s first meeting with Jack, every creative decision regarding the characters comes off as hamfisted and badly dated.
As you say - there are some great stand-alone sequences. But weren’t we all expected a lot more from King Jacko?
Rod - Yeah I think when there’s too much motion, the blur effect jars considerably and makes it incredibly difficult to know what’s happenning.
I also think the best filmmaker working today that utilises visual effects in a non-intrusive, seemless way would be Robert Zemeckis. Contact and Cast Away have a number of shots in them where you couldn’t tell they were CGI (or at least contain CGI elements). And yeah, most of them are when the camera is locked off.
Indeed, James. I also think that Jurassic Park and Starship Troopers did CGI better than many current films. Much of the animators involved in those productions, such as Phil Tippet, had a background in traditional animation. The current breed of animator (and it’s the director’s fault ultimately) seems to ignore physics in favour of flashy video game cut scenes. Good comments, too, Nick. Lastly, I almost watched Contact on DVD the night after I saw Kong PJ5.
Nick - Yeah I expected more from Jacko in a way but then again, he had no intention of dramatically changing the script from the beginning so maybe it was doomed from the very start?
Rod - Didn’t Tippet make the Starship Troopers sequel? Man that was terrible.
I have not seen Starship Troopers II, but yes it seems that Mr Tippett directed that flop, which scored a 3.9 on IMDB. Perhaps he should stick to special effects. Not only that, but the original writer penned this sequel, so it’s definitely a case of lightning not striking the same place twice…
Peter “I want lots of hurmping” Verhoeven didn’t direct that’s why.