Theatrical Review: King Kong

For me, Peter Jackson's King Kong is most obviously compared and contrasted with Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Here's why: With both movies, I went to the theater thinking that I probably knew what to expect. Both movies had a familiar, tragic story arc, and each was about an anti-hero who was at once monstrous and sympathetic. Both movies relied on special effects to carry the action, and because of that, both movies had the potential to end up being all spectacle and no drama. The most obvious comparison, however, is that I went into both movies knowing that they'd end with the main character's downfall.

Sith left me feeling disappointed... even ripped off. On the other hand, King Kong succeeds in every way that Star Wars fell short. In fact, King Kong was the best movie I saw this year. In a year that included the release of Batman Begins and Sin City, that's really saying something.

George Lucas is dead. Long live Peter Jackson.

Given the limits inherent in the material, what Peter Jackson pulls off in King Kong is nothing short of a cinematic miracle. I'd worried that the movie wouldn't be any good, and my worst case scenario was that the film would play like a three-hour gimmick. It isn't gimmicky at all, though. It's rock solid. Everything you could want in a classic film is here; I was engrossed in the story, I cared about the characters, and during the action sequences, I forgot I was watching a movie. Most surprisingly, the few changes that Peter Jackson made from the original story actually improved it. He didn't try to reinvent King Kong or dress it up for a modern audience. Instead, he simply seemed to have discovered a subtext that was already there. Jackson obviously loves the original film... but I think it's fair to say that he also gets it; that he understands the story in a way that could only have come from years spent thinking about it. With his version of King Kong, Jackson has read between the lines and shown us more of what must have always been there. I'm sure he'd be happy to hear that his remake has improved my appreciation of the original.

Credit for this wonderful new version of King Kong must also be shared with the actors, none of whom ever misstep during the movie's three-plus hours. I'm still not convinced that Jack Black was the best choice for Carl Denham, the story's megalomaniacal heavy. I'd liked to have seen what Willem Dafoe, for instance, would have done with the roll. Still, I can't find a lot to complain about with Black's performance. After all, it's not really his fault that I can't see him as anything other than half of Tenacious D. As Jack Driscoll, the screenwriter who discovers his inner-Marine on Skull Island, Adrien Brody does fine work. There's nothing really to complain about with Brody's performance, either. If I seem middling on Brody and Black, it's not because they fell short... it's because the movie was almost stolen by Naomi Watts. As Ann Darrow, King Kong's pet actress and Jack's love interest, Watts is amazing. If the incredible events of the movie seemed believable to me, it's because I never doubted for a minute that Ann believed that everything we were seeing on screen was real. It has to be hard to act against a green screen... and, watching this film, it's hard to believe that Naomi Watts was doing just that. She seems to really be interacting with dinosaurs, giant bugs, and a 25 foot gorilla. Now I see why so many people were underwhelmed by Jennifer Connelly in Hulk. Watts is in perfect pitch in King Kong. Jodie Foster, Sissy Spacek, and Meryl Streep had better make room for Naomi Watts among the ranks of great modern film actresses. Afer King Kong and 2003's 21 Grams, I'm convinced that she's one of the best out there.

Still, as good as Jackson's direction is... as beautiful as the film looks and as solid as the acting is, the real credit for the success of this movie goes to Andy Serkis and Weta Digital. Their combined efforts to bring the great gorilla to the screen resulted in something extraordinary. Kong is the best digital creation I've ever seen in a movie. He's amazing. Kong never comes across simply as a movie monster, nor is he some obvious, anthropomorphic symbol. When you see this movie, it's impossible to believe that Kong is anything other than exactly what the story says he is: an animal. A gorilla. A wonder of nature in size only. Otherwise, he's no different from any other gorilla in the real world. Kong's behavior always seems natural and real. Even during the bombastic action sequences in New York, Kong simply seems like an animal out of his element... wounded, terrified, and dangerous because of what's being done to him, not because of what he is. If you're an animal lover, bring two boxes of Kleenex to this movie. It's a tear-jerker.

As the story continues, it's impossible not to fall for the big ape. Kong doesn't want to hurt, he only wants to protect what he loves from forces that he can't control. My heart broke for him. I knew he was doomed, and I didn't want him to be. Kong was everything that Darth Vader might have been. This is the fallen-hero story of the year.


  ¶ 8:23 PM