King Kong

Nov 13, 2005 18:25

We’ve seen it before, and we’ll see it again, but Peter Jackson’s remake of the 1933 epic King Kong is the first to truly make the tale believable. Replacing the awkward movements of the 30s giant ape with fluid CGI grace, Jackson creates the sympathy lacking in the original release.

Naomi Watts (I Heart Huckabees, The Ring 2) delivered an imminently forgettable performance as Ann Darrow, outdone by a computer generated ape. Her chronic overacting leads us to wonder if she really was picked at random from the streets of New York and cast for her dress size. Jack Black (School of Rock, Shark Tale) rose to the occasion - albeit as a character actor - to become the obsessed Carl Denham. Adrien Brody (The Village, The Pianist) gave an equally admirable performance as Darrow’s competing suitor, Jack Driscoll.


The film certainly shows the $207 million dollars it cost to produce in its stunning visuals, all three hours and seven minutes of them. With its plot moving at the pace of a snail stuck in super glue, it’s a miracle the movie finished at all. After a good hour of being dazzled by depression era New York City, we finally arrive on “Skull Island,” where the legendary Kong resides.

A few dozen unnecessarily long and unbelievably ridiculous special effects bonanzas later, we’re back in New York for the well known conclusion - which goes off without a hitch. In fact, the only discernable CGI problems are evident only in Watts’ numerous transitions from Kong’s hand to the ground.

We’ll admit the movie was a stunning show to watch, like a series of paintings interrupted occasionally by the plot of an action movie, but do we really need Watts explaining the obvious? Yes, we know the sunset is beautiful.

Jackson isn’t known for making short films, his last took three to complete, but here he’s gone overboard. Beauty killed the beast - and hopefully there won’t be a director’s cut.
Previous post Next post
Up