I Finally Saw KONG!!!

That's right; there's been a lot going on with the holiday's and all. Not to mention gearing up for one of our own, Doc's, wedding. There's been a lot of parties; it's the wedding that never ends. Just kidding, Doc. Congrats! Can't wait to booze it up this weekend. But last night, I finally saw "King Kong." The movie that a lot of people, including myself, thought that when all was said and done we'd be looking at one of the top five or so highest grossing films of all time. However, people can moan and groan about the domestic revenues all they want, but this film is nearing $600 million worldwide, and I can't even imagine how much it will blow up on DVD. I think Peter Jackson and Universal will be able to feed their kids when all is said and done.

I discovered Peter Jackson in high school when "Dead/Alive" (Braindead in New Zealand) made him an underground sensation in the U.S. I was actually one of the lucky ones who got to catch a midnight screening at Cool Springs Galleria 10 (Damn, that takes me back a bit). Got to catch some of his other fine New Zealand oddities on video like "Meet the Feebles" and "Bad Taste." He was and still is New Zealand's answer to Sam Raimi. And now they are both getting to play with the big budgets and better toys with the Spiderman and Lord of the Rings films.

Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was a massive undertaking, and I respect the hell out of it. Those movies will always be some of the most impressive visual epics I have ever seen, and they are movies, like "Kong," that need to be witnessed on the big screen if you're going to see them. But as much of a fan as I am of horror and sci-fi films, I've never been what you'd call a lover of fantasy. Movies like "Willow" and "Legend" are treasure chests to a lot of film lover out there, but they don't really do it for me. And "Lord of the Rings" was really no different. At the end of the day, I was still watching elves and trolls, or golems, swords and sorcerers, or whatever. And as much drama as Jackson wanted to get out of this material, it came off rather silly to me.

The crazy thing to me is that Jackson poured all these sweat and tears into the trilogy over a four year period just so he could make "King Kong." This was the movie he thought he was going to make at Universal after he did "The Frightners," but that movie bombed, and Universal didn't want to spend the money to make "Kong." Although for special effects lovers should be happy this was the case, because "Kong" then would look nothing like "Kong" now. The abilities and equipment just weren't there for this kind of undertaking. "Kong" was Jackson's pet project, his baby. It's his favorite film, and he wanted to make it bigger and better. Well, he definately made it bigger.

I hate to be the asshole on this site. I really do. After Chris and KW write such beautiful praising reviews of this film, I feel like I'm about to shit all over your Cheerios. And I am just going to have to do it, because we at L&N like the honesty. You can also say I'm just trying to be different, the devil's advocate (Call me Dad), but I will go into detail that will leave little doubt in your mind. That's right, I did not like "King Kong." Not only did I not like it, the more I think about it, I kind of hated it, or at least parts of it, but I will get to that. So, quit the build-up, I know, I know. Here we go with why this movie moved me greatly at times, and pissed me off quite a bit as well.

First off, let's start with the idea of this being Peter Jackson's pet project; his dream project if you will. You want to hear some titles of other dream projects from some our most famous filmmakers: "Toys," "Far and Away," "Hook," "Bram Stoker's Dracula," etc. Not the most commanding list of films; well, don't worry, I thought "Kong" was quite a bit better than those. But I have no doubt after watching this that Jackson is in love with the original film. He loved it so much, he didn't take the misstep of the awful 1976 reimaging and put it in present day. He kept it in the thirties; he used the Great Depression as the backdrop. But does that give him an excuse to keep the cheesy ass dialouge that bombarded and hurt the original as well. Does anyone really think that people talked like this in the thirties? I'm pretty sure they talked about like we do now with different slang, maybe. But most of the dialouge in this film is just terrible; there is some really bad writing in this film. Why couldn't he have kept the other characters in check like he did with the characters of Kong and Ann Darrow? They say more in expression than words could ever convey. I would go so far as to say that Naomi Watts gives the best silent screen performance since Buster Keaton in "The General." If you've seen the movie, you should know what I'm talking about.

The performances for the most part, with the exception of Watts, are off the mark as well. Jack Black does what he can with the character of Carl Denham, but gets very little bang for his buck. In the original, Denham might be a little money hungry, but I never once thought he was the one-note ego maniac that Jackson decides to present. He just wanted to give the people something they had never seen; he was never really supposed to be a villain. But in Jackson's version, he's a fucking cliche. He's like Billy Zane in "Titanic," give him a mustache and have him tie a girl to a railroad track for Christ's sake. Adrien Brody's performance as been touted as something special; I thought he just looked lost. I did like the touch of having the screenplay writer get to play the hero, but after his heroics on Skull Island, he falls into the background, and really has nothing to add. When Watts gives him the hug at the end, I didn't get it. It's the most useless and pointless ending embrace I've ever seen in a film. Why all of a sudden is she in love with this man after giving so much of her heart and life to saving Kong? Is she just so exhausted she needs to lean on someone; I don't know, but it's a false note on an otherwise pretty terrific ending sequence.

As far as what a lot of people are calling the three films that make up the whole, a lot of moaning and groaning has been made of the first hour leading up to Skull Island. This area of the film left me a little indifferent in the end, but I appreciated the effort. Jackson really wants you to care about all of these people, from Denham and Darrow all the way down to the ship's cook (Andy Serkis), before they start getting picked off on Skull Island. The problem I have with all of this is it ends up being all for naught. We get into these character's heads; we care about them for the most part even though I never felt their development was that strong, but there are a handful of nice scenes with all of them. Then we get to the island, and in one of the first major sequences, the dinosaur chase, seven of them just get stepped on by big dinosaurs. Wow! What a way to go. See you later, sorry we didnt' know you better.

As for the big chunk of the movie that takes place on the Island; it is an overload of incredible, and very expensive special effects. From the first time we see Kong to the big T-Rex battle, to the spider sequence that was never shot in the original. We see all kinds of amazing CG creatures that you never think for one moment are CG. It really is quite impressive how Jackson uses the technology he has at hand. He took a lot of time and care with all of these sequences, and visually this movie never lacks a damn thing. I just never was that invested in the people that are having to take part in all of this mess. And it also gets a little tiring after awhile. By the time the spiders started killing off the few people that were left, I was exhausted. Dinosaurs, an Ape, and Spiders, oh my.

Then we get to the final sequence where we're back in New York. And it's the best part of the film in many ways, and also the worst. This is where the character of Denham really becomes flat. But this is also where we get the best sequence of the film. The final fight atop the Empire State Building is a beauty to behold, and made me wish I gave a damn about what led up to it. Kong swatting at the planes, and trying to keep Darrow safe at the same time really moved me. The scene on the ice pond is also a nice touch, and a sad note, becuase thats when the first attacks on Kong start coming from that military outfit that showed up rather quickly and convienently.

And here's the last thing, and the biggest thing that bugs me about this film. This is a cold and brutal tale. Call it a love story if you want, but that's not how I see it. I'm not trying to sound like an advocate for PETA here, but where is the justice in this film? What are we really supposed to feel when all is said and done? How can you be mad at Kong? He was just chilling on his island not hurting anyone unless they were stupid enough to go after him, and this group of rag tag movie cliches decide to bring him to civilization. Any deaths he causes here are purely in self defense. But, at the same time, how can we hate the humans? Aren't they also defending themselves when placed in this situation? I'm sure anyone who praises this film could find some deeper meaning in all of this, but I just don't see it. Jackson has made a purposeful tear jerker; he is pulling at our strings wanting us to be sad and cry. But why, and for what? You can say all you want that movies that make you question the bigger things are movies that are trying to make us think, and that's not a bad thing. I agree, completely, but there still has to be a center of gravity. There has to be something that is pulling us in different directions and making us question the decisions made by our hero or villain. "King Kong" just doesn't have that; it has no center. Beauty didn't kill the beast, flat out greed and cruelty did, and there is nothing pleasant and rewarding in that scenario. I'm not talking about feel good endings either. I don't really have a preference between feel good and depressing, I just wanting an ending that feels true to me, and in "Kong" I didn't get it. I just left the theater depressed and annoyed.

Kong is not only a great special effect, it is arguably the greatest special effect in the history of film, and I'm sure will be topped in ten or so years, but for now it's gangbusters. Naomi Watts gives a hell of a performance here; she makes everyone else in the film look like a bunch of amateurs. The T-Rex fight sequence is one of the most amazing things I've laid my eyes on in the past twenty great years of going to the movies. There are also a lot of nice little touches that I will always remember fondly, but I just couldn't give two shits about the big picture. Peter Jackson really comes off no better than the character of Carl Denham. And maybe it's not his fault; it is my opinion that there is no way to make this story work, and that in the end is the main reason I can never actually say I liked this film. As much as it awed me from a technical level, it doesn't work on any emotional level like all of the great films I treasure deeply. But I'm going to be in the minority here, and this will probably get nominated for a lot of Oscars, and people will tout this as Jackson's greatest film ("Heavenly Creatures" is my personal fave). But when it's all said and done, the movie just doesn't work for me. And I don't know how to be more honest than that.