"King Kong"

Reviewed by Chris Cappola
Starring Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, Jamie Bell and Andy Serkis. Directed by Peter Jackson. (2005, Universal)

By now, the story of 'King Kong' is a benchmark in American cinema and Peter Jackson's decision to remake the timeless tale was a creatively anticipated idea. The story was in the best of hands and Jackson's abilities to visually envision the beauty of the story is as mammoth as its title character. However, for its many strengths, it's clogged by the weakest pacing of any film in quite sometime, some damaging story decisions and a length that was way unnecessary.

The story itself hasn't changed from its blueprint. A damaged film director Carl Denham (a surprisingly restraint Jack Black) lures his film crew, an aspiring actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and a screenwriter Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) to a remote island where they stumble upon an assortment of dangerous creatures including the beast of all - King Kong who falls for the beautiful actress. They eventually lure Kong back to New York City where of course, he wrecks havoc. It takes a terminal three hours to achieve something that really could have been done in just over two hours but somewhere along the way, Jackson thought he needed to make an epic when effectively, this is supposed to be a popcorn action picture and that's his fatal flaw with 'King Kong' because he has no idea how to self-edit.

To break it down more simply, 'King Kong' is made up of sections. Some work, some don't but that makes the film severely uneven. The first act sets the Black and Watts characters quite well but once the characters set sail in search of Skull Island, the film gets way too quickly into a first-act slump that it never recovers for a long, long time. A lot of it was unnecessary and at least an hour could have been cut because it just drags on and on and introduces subplots that never work like the relationship between Ann and Jack that never catches fire. It's like that opening from 'Titanic' with Bill Paxton and his crew rambling on about the ship - it's unnecessary but where James Cameron only spent about 15 minutes with this idea, Jackson stretches his out for way too long establishing characterisation that could have been done more quickly. By the time they reach Skull Island and encounter the dangerous creatures, it begins to start firing and does so very convincingly. Every scene with King Kong is exceptional and Jackson evokes emotion, vulnerability and strength with the character and it's a terrific accomplishment. By the time, they reach New York again for the infamous finale involving Kong's rampage through Manhattan and the Empire State Building, it feels rushed and abrupt. Considering that Jackson had no problem spending an hour and a half at sea before even introducing King Kong, why only spend about a half hour with the finale?

Peter Jackson does a good job with the look and feel of the film and the CGI is amazing. The visual component is superior and it could have been so unauthentic like 'Godzilla' but the special effects are precise and particular and always convincing. However, the pacing is just too unbearable and it really is unevenly paced and even the great scenes involving the characters battling creatures on Skull Island are all exceptionally directed but he doesn't know when to move on and drags everything out for as long as he can and it is exhausting and uninteresting after a while. The first half is just too terrible and although it picks up and picks up tremendously in the second half, it's hard not to feel disappointed with what could have been a tighter picture.

The performances from the cast are generally solid though nobody is overshadowing the performance of King Kong, which is truly a remarkable effort for a CGI role. It's hard to become so immersed in a role that's technically not real but Kong is so convincing. As for his human counterparts, Naomi Watts is good in a quiet, understated role but she has been better. Jack Black is very good in a role that doesn't require him mugging the camera for laughs but then he disappears throughout some sections and it's hard to really get a grasp of his character. Adrien Brody doesn't work with the role and is bland, uninteresting and not heroic enough. The role of Bruce Baxter played by Kyle Chandler does more in so little screen time than Brody who never seems right for any role he plays. The "so-called" chemistry between him and Watts is pointless, contrived and never really played out. Jackson doesn't know how to mount a convincing romantic angle and struggles with a pay off. In smaller roles, Colin Hanks, Thomas Kretschmann, Jamie Bell and Andy Serkis are all good but don't get too much screentime to mount too much presence.

So is 'King Kong' any good? It's a decent film and some of it works tremendously well but a lot of it is terminally exhausting and uninteresting. To become somewhat bored after an hour before the title character has not even been introduced suggests that Jackson could have done with someone in the post-production process telling him that he needs to severely cut the film into a more structured running time. It all comes down to the Hollywood egotism rule that when your hot and Jackson is very, nobody will tell you if you have done something wrong and Hollywood allowed Jackson to execute his childhood passion of remaking the story but allowed him way too much creative control and its understandable. Directors need boundaries and limitations and Jackson did what he wanted but failed to understand that not every movie needs to be three hours long, especially a story as simple as 'King Kong'.
out of 10
- Chris Cappola's Reviews

Moviemarshal.com home