Joe Karlosi

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

You mean you didn't get to see the Kong ice skaing sequence with our loving and affectionate leading lady? Lucky you!

Here are my thoughts on this thing:



Peter Jackson has said he's a great fan of the original 1933 classic, and yet he's gone ahead and "re"-re-made it, this occasion being even more needless than the first time it was attempted in 1976. As far as I'm concerned, the best way for a filmmaker to express his alleged respect for an original classic is to just leave it the hell alone. That said, I did approach this over-inflated wink to Kong with an open mind, because I've been wrong before about a minority of these unnecessary re-do's in the past. But not this time.

KING KONG 2005 (and oh, how I despise having to always go through the trouble of adding a specific year onto a movie's title nowadays just to be able to decipher which of the renditions I'm speaking about) is only "fair" at best, and nothing more. The movie is way too long, because it "feels" too long. This is a story that easily could have lost an hour and emerged all the better for it. The first hour in particular is too padded and chock full of extraneous subplots we don't need.

Jack Black is a horrible choice as Carl Denham (the man who brings Kong to New York) but he does do a capable job of portraying the character as a sleazy and unlikable sort of louse. But the question then arises as to whether or not one wants to see Carl Denham portrayed as completely unscrupulous or not. Personally, I don't.

Adrien Brody's hero might as well have been written out of the film; he's given very little to do and serves no real purpose. So that takes care of that. Naomi Watts was the best cast of this new crew, though her modernized character here displays far too much fondness for the big lug and not nearly enough primal fear (if any at all!). One of the more cringe-worthy sequences from the other 1976 retread was when Jessica Lange asked King Kong what his astrological sign was, and then called him a "male chauvinist pig ape!" and told him to "eat her and choke on her!". Well, this new Peter Jackson movie doesn't fare too much better in this department, as there's a ludicrous scene where Naomi tries to win Kong over by dancing, doing cartwheels, and even juggling rocks for the monster ape! Another silly moment occurs later in New York City where Kong and his lady take time out from what's supposed to be the gorilla's intense and deadly rampage to do a little cutsey ice skating in Central Park. "Kong On Ice" -- Oh, brother.

The CGI effects were hit and miss -- King Kong himself was very realistic and appeared incredibly detailed at times, but a lot of the jungle scenes looked cartoonish. Either way, there were far too many assaulting effects sequences which tend to bore rather than thrill. Too much overkill in the case of a multi-dinosaur stampede. By the time we mercifully got to the third act in Manhattan I was so numb from CG overindulgence that I was beyond fascination. And though I realize that we have to suspend our disbelief while watching a fantasy such as this, it's still inconceivable to me that Watts' damsel-not-in-distress wouldn't have broken an arm or snapped her neck during some of those violent swings to and fro while in Kong's hand during the gorilla's many violent battles. Heck, she could have been hurt or killed even by innocent play from Kong, though her laid back demeanor would never give you a hint that this ever crosses her mind nor concerns her. This is especially true for the puke-worthy climax where Watts risks her life atop the Empire State Building to protect Kong, in an ending that can't hold a candle to the first film's.

I have to wonder where the "love" for the original film is evident, when Peter Jackson is too ashamed to use the original 1930's dialogue, even though he intentionally set his story in that same decade! Men back then on ships often said things like "you women are nothing but trouble", but here Jackson caves in to the 21st Century by using this type of talk as a laugh, only allowing it to be spoken in the context of a fictional film Denham is making with his actors. Similarily, the extravagant "native dance" that was so effective in the '33 classic is now resigned to a hokey and gimmicky stage number on Broadway. Some of the original dialogue is uttered by Jack Black, but he's no Robert Armstrong and in his hands it comes out as forced and obligatory.

This was worth looking at once, but it's not something I'll ever want to see again. It's too big, too bloated, and complete Overkill. In fact, if you would have told me that someone else made this film other than Peter Jackson and was a director who wasn't necessarily a big fan of the original '33 classic, I'd believe you.