Review: King Kong

[andrewducker]

There's a moment near the start of Gladiator, where a bunch of German barbarians, armed only with the most basic of weapons, charge headlong into the well-oiled military machine that is the Roman army. I spent the few minutes leading up to this mostly feeling a sense of hopelessness of the "Jesus Christ, you're all dead and you don't even know it yet." variety, before having to actually watch them being turned into pate.

The final quarter of King Kong had much the same effect on me; Kong might have been the lord of his own jurassic jungle, but from the second he's captured he stands about as much chance as a Chinese protestor in a tank-filled square.

A few people I know are actually avoiding the film for exactly this reason - they know how it ends, they _already_ feel sorry for the poor ape and they don't need to see him transported out of his depth and then killed for the crime of not knowing how to behave in downtown New York.

I can understand that, but passing up on an incredible filmic experience because of that is something I wouldn't advise. Because if you can stand to have the tears jerked from your eyes King Kong is one of the best action/adventure films I've ever seen.

I know that some people just wanted to get straight to the monkey, but I enjoyed finding out a bit of background on the various characters who were about to arrive on the tastefully named Skull Island. They're a good mix of people, and you get a few defining moments for each of the major players, all of whom are well played. Jack Black is perfect as the untrustworthy film-maker, who would clearly have been PT Barnum if he'd been born 50 years earlier. Adrien Brody plays the book-ish writer with aplomb and Naomi Watts screams expertly, as well as managing to make the relationship between her and Kong believable. Speaking of which, Andy Serkis once more excel as a synthespian, bringing Kong's actions to life in a completely believable way.

But enough about 'actors' and 'background' and all of that nonsense. What you really want to know is "Is there a giant monkey, and does it kick ass?" The answer to which is "No, it's an ape, you zoological incompetent." and "Yes, of course it does."

I shan't spoil things too much, except to say that I went in there worried that the trailer had already given away too much about the dinosaur combat or Kong loose in New York, and was then completely blown away when I saw what surrounded those snippets in the movie itself.

It is _slightly_ too long - I would have shortened the Empire State Building scene by about two minutes - but other than that I thought it was magnificent from beginning to end.

9/10
Quotes:
Carl Denham: I'm someone you can trust, I'm a film producer.
and
Carl Denham: Fay! Fay! What about Fay? She would be perfect!
Preston: She's already filming something for RKO.

Comments

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

Let's just not mention Jackson's massive blindspot when it comes to racial stereotypes, OK?

Oh, you didn't :oP

Serkis was indeed excellent - you realise he was the cook too?

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Let's just not mention Jackson's massive blindspot when it comes to racial stereotypes, OK?

This is something I get a little bit fed up with. So the natives of skull island were black and the majority of the other characters were white. Who cares? I don't - I didn't leave the cinema thinking it was a racist film or a racial slur or anything else for that matter. I just saw them pretty damn scary (for a 12 cert).

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

I didn't say it was a racist film but that it used racial stereotypes, of which the "savage, murderous dark-skinned native" is one, and a lazy one at that. There enough movies out there already that use it, and precious few that challenge it.

I don't think Peter Jackson makes racist films or is a racist person, I just think he doesn't think. And somebody in his position really ought to.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I am strange, but it never even occurred to me that these were racial stereotypes. It just never crossed my mind. But perhaps that is down to my naivity - I hadn't even thought it was a problem.

My next question is what race should he have used for the natives? It would have been a bit strange if they had been caucasian, living as they did on an island supposedly in the middle othe pacific.

I remember when it used to be the case the all bad characters were Russian. Then the cold war ended and they became Chinese. Then film companies started to see China as a potential market so they became British. I don't know what is acceptable nowadays!

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

**Spoiler warning**: anyone who hasn't seen the film should probably skip this comment.

I don't claim to have all (or even any) of the answers.

I don't have a problem with the skin colour of the natives per se, more with their simple characterisation. And while lack of time to flesh out the broad strokes would be an excuse in a 90 minute movie, in one twice as long I find it unforgivable.

Another thing that was painfully obvious was that the only black main character, while sympathetically portrayed, was the very first one to get killed by Kong (I do realise that the natives killed a couple of the others before this). This is so common in action/adventure flicks that it is often commented on in the films themselves (By Orlando Jones' character in Evolution, for example).

Once you have these things pointed out it is almost embarrassing how often they crop up.

[andrewducker]

more with their simple characterisation.

They didn't seem to be badly portrayed to me. The men arrive back from somewhere to find their women and children being harrassed by strangers, one of whom has just been (kinda) attacking a child. It's not that strange that they get remarkably upset and try to kill them all.

Dinosaurs killed several people before the first-mate died; and he died heroically, unlike almost everyone else...

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

What did you think of Andy Sirkis's portrayal of Kong? I thought it was a beautiful piece of work. Unlike Gollum there was no voice to fill out the character - this was all about subtle movements and actions. Some of the movements and the facial expressions really helped make an emotional connection with the big ape.

[andrewducker]

As I said above:
Speaking of which, Andy Serkis once more excels as a synthespian, bringing Kong's actions to life in a completely believable way.

:->

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree here. I was hugely impressed by the work on the body language and even vocals. Everything, the displaying, the eye contact.. it all felt 100% right.

So predictably I was crying from his first appearance onwards.

[andrewducker]

I think my favourite bit was the tantrum. Absolutely perfectly portrayed.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Heh. Course what she should have done after that was have one herself and smashed things up. Not sure it would have actually worked on a non garden variety ape, but it would have been entertaining. :)

What was my favourite bit? Hmmm. Well I loved the laughing. I think overall it was the bit when he was avoiding eye contact when they're at the top of the ruin/hill on the island. Absolutely sold me on him being 'real'. I was pretty much a wreck for most of the film.

[andrewducker]

I may have been somewhat moist for parts of it myself.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Perv. ;-)

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

I think my biggest problem with the film was that, as I think I said elsewhere, a lot of it could have been cut to reduce the excessive length without harming the film. Personally the whole subplot with the kid and the first mate could have been lost.

Unfortunately, I suspect that quite a bit is going to be added to the film in its inevitable extended DVD cut to 'beef up' the unnecessary elements. (I also suspect that we'll get the screaming bit on the beach we all saw in the trailers). He could have been a lot more economical. The cynic in me says that he's not really approaching it from the perspective of artistic merit, he's just looking at ways to make more money. Why not get things right first time and stand by them?

Annnyway, in a rambling sort of way that's my one and only problem. I enjoyed the film. I wonder if he'll remake Kong Lives? ;-)

[andrewducker]

Well, he _could_ have lost vast amounts of things. But he chose not to. And he paid for about $40m of the film itself, when the budget increased from $160m to $200m, so he can hardly be accused of doing it for the cash. I think he just likes really big movies.

With the LOTR movies he was contractually obliged to release shorter versions of the films for the cinemas, but I'm glad he then went back and put the stuff back in - the extended versions were definitely better than the cinema version each time.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Neither of us know for sure really, so I think both viewpoints are equally valid here. (Personally, although a lot of the extra material in the LOTR extended versions was great, there was a hell of a lot of unnecessary filler too: the awful 'Game Over' scene in ROTK is an example).

IMHO certainly there were a lot of weak elements that didn't need to be there. However, I'm sure lots of people enjoyed them anyway. I personally don't think that a "big movie" is the same as a long movie - I think the writing (and pace) needs to accommodate that.

Splitting hairs, and I think we should continue this another time. I enjoyed Kong and I'll probably see it again over xmas.

Peter Jackson has said ...

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

... that the "short" versions of LotR are the Director's Cut and the longer versions have extra stuff in beyond that. How much of that was dictated by the studio I don't know.

If he wanted to make money with King Kong he would/should have cut it down to two hours so that it could be shown more times per day per screen (one of the criticisms of LotR is that if you had a 6:30pm showing, you couldn't do the next showing until 10pm, so it was effectively one evening show a day per screen, while two hour films you can have a 6:20 and an 8:45 and fill the cinema twice (and sell twice as much popcorn, coke etc.)

Re: Peter Jackson has said ...

[andrewducker]

Well, I suspect he was told to say that - the studio probably didn't want everyone waiting until the DVD came out...
And he was always battling them to put more in, so it certainly sounds like he wanted the longer versions.