King Kong is hands down my favorite movie this year. After having treated the world to his filmmaking prowess with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson has demonstrated that he is very much here to stay.
Just about everyone knows the story of King Kong in the same way that everyone knows the story of Superman; a giant gorilla found on an island who...well, let's allow the three people on the planet who don't know King Kong's story some measure of suspense as to what happens in the story.
This movie presents no significant variations to the basic story, but what it does give us are incredibly fleshed out characters, including the eponymous ape. Without a word of dialogue, Peter Jackson has created a character who makes us cringe, laugh and cry in rapid succession. The most amazing thing about Kong is that at no point, and I mean no point does he look even remotely digital. Digital creatures are too often betrayed by their slickness, by their impossible symmetry. It's Kong's imperfections and awkwardness that give him flesh, that made me wonder if any point in the film, like maybe for the closeups, the filmmakers used latex and foam instead of CGI to depict Kong. I don't believe they ever did (though I could be wrong on that score).
Another skill that Peter Jackson displayed with the LOTR trilogy which sets him apart from the epic filmmakers who came before him like George Lucas and James Cameron is his ability to mine richly nuanced and textured performances from his stars. He is every inch their match, pixel for pixel, in the F/X department, but they simply cannot touch him when it comes to commanding powerful performances from the most unlikely actors (Steven Spielberg is exempt from such a comparison, having coaxed a number of brilliant performances from actors such as Liam Neeson and Tom Hanks, among others). The skill remains evident in this film.
Naomi Watts is pitch perfect as Ann Darrow. Though there are admittedly a number of skilled enough actresses out there, there is simply no one who could have pulled it off with that incredible mixture of innocence and sadness with which she imbued her character. What amazed me most about her portrayal was that, after so many roles as a mom, or a wife, and despite being 36 years old at the time of filming, she was able to play a frustrated young actress with the most amazing...freshness. Maybe some of the credit goes to the cinematographer, but it wouldn't have worked if Watts hadn't played her the way she did. You can only cheat so much, after all.
Jack Black was probably one of the more eyebrow-raising choices Jackson had to deal with when he cast the film, and the qualities that have annoyed some viewers and have pleased others are quite evident in his Carl Denham, but ultimately, the gambit works. One might say that Phillip Seymour Hoffman could have pulled off the role, but there is one thing that Black has over anyone else who might have been considered for the part, and it can be described perfectly in two words: MANIC ENERGY. His Denham is an asshole, a huckster, a fiend, but I could never bring myself to hate him because he believes too strongly in what he's doing to be all bad.
Oscar winner Adrien Brody is a good choice as Jack Driscoll, but his role is not exactly a meaty one, given that he's basically the straight-up leading man with his heart in the right place and with very little in the way of distinctive character quirks. Still, to paraphrase Driscoll himself, Brody makes it his own. Well, if nothing else, he knows how to act scared, even considering King Kong isn'et real. The problem isn't his acting at all; he just isn't given much to do but be a hero. If Universal ever ponies up money for a Hulk sequel (which I don't suppose is likely) I would LOVE to see this guy replace Eric Bana as Bruce Banner (just as I'd love to see Peter Jackson replace Ang Lee, but that's for another post altogether).
The rest of the cast is a bit uneven, though. In the case of Thomas Kretschmann (The Pianist) as Englehorn, I couldn't figure out if Jackson really wanted a guy who talked like Ah-nuld Shwarzenegger or if Kretschmann just couldn't get rid of his accent. His acting was otherwise okay, though. Although he was a tad cartoony, Andy Serkis provided us with some lovely comic relief as Lumpy the cook.
Two characters, however, irked me, both because of the way they were written and the way they were portrayed. These were Mr. Hayes, the ship's first mate played by Evan Parke, and Jimmy, the stowaway turned crew member played by the kid everyone remembers as Billy Elliot, Jamie Bell.
(spoiler alert)
First off, Parke isn't really that good an actor. You don't really get a sense of his purpose in the film, and he never elevates Mr. Hayes past the level of the black dude who gets wasted by the monster. Even before his fate in the film is ultimately revealed you never form enough of an attachment to him to really care what happens to him. He really feels like a throwaway character, and you can't help but blame both the script and the actor for this waste of running time. One wonders why on earth they spent as many minutes as they did developing the dynamic between him and Jimmy, considering the film clocks in at 187 minutes. THAT'S footage they could have cut out, really.
Second, and more annoyingly, the character of Jimmy, while adequately played by Bell (who adopts a fairly convicing American accent), feels like an unfulfilled promise. When Jimmy is first introduced, Hayes talks about his origin, describing him as "wilder than the animals in here" referring to the wild animals often shipped on the tramp steamer the characters ride to Skull Island. One gets the impression that Jimmy has been to Skull Island, and would either be terrified of it, or a useful guide when they're actually there. The film lives up to neither promise, and it's as annoying as hell. That's all, really.
Another real problem with this movie, however, is that from a narrative perspective, there are a number of things wrong with it that can make the requisite suspension of disbelief a little difficult at times.
(spoiler alert)
First and foremost is the wall that the savage natives of Skull Island have built to keep Kong trapped in his even more savage jungle. It's a hundred-foot structure made of stone. It's not topped with spikes or poison or anything. And yet, we're supposed to believe that it's able to keep out a twenty-five foot gorilla who can climb the goddamned EMPIRE STATE BUILDING with one hand holding Ann Darrow. And considering they don't want Kong to get it, why the hell would they put a wooden door right smack in front of their village?
Another absurdity surfaced a little later, when we're enjoying the beauty and danger of the Skull Island jungle, we notice a number of ruined temples, evidence that once upon a time people attempted to settle there. This is, in a word, ridiculous. We have an island populated by several (at one point) giant gorillas, more than one species of carnivorous dinosaur, and Shelob/Starship Troopers-sized BUGS, and yet...we're supposed to believe that everyday human beings WITHOUT machinegunes were able to erect magnificent temples and hew flights of stairs out of mountainsides hundreds of feet high BEFORE these various monstrosities pushed them to the fringes of the island. Preposterous, really.
Then, of course, there are all the usually convenient coincidences and deus ex machinas that are usually present in big films filled with peril. And Englehorn is used a little too often to bail out Denham and his crew.
In the original 1933 film, it would have been easier to overlook such narrative silliness. It was a simpler time, and filmmaking was a lot less sophisticated. Nowadays, such inconsistencies look sloppy, especially from Jackson, whose meticulousness made the LOTR films modern classics. Rather than obsessively blow the film up into a three-hour running time to cram everything he wanted into it that wasn't in the 1933 film, he should have spent more energy trying to make sure that everything that went into the storytelling made sense and was germane to his narrative vision.
Considering everything that's wrong with it, it's a wonder how I was even able to enjoy this film.
But enjoy it I did. The highlight, of course was the throwdown between Kong and what looked like three crossbred T-Rex/Crocodiles. Since Jurassic Park I'd been itching to see a T-Rex get its ass kicked by another creature, and after twelve long years, Peter Jackson has scratched that itch for me.
Also, because of Naomi Watts' tenderness, and WETA's unbelievably detailed rendering of Kong, the love story between them is utterly convincing and ultimately heartbreaking. This is the love story Titanic wishes it was. Without a word of dialogue, the gorilla made me feel more for his plight than Leonardo DiCaprio ever did spouting out three hours of James Cameron's putrid script.
Furthermore, while there's no denying that Titanic was, admittedly, at the time the pinnacle of digital magic, King Kong is, for all its flaws, pure moviemaking magic.
No comments:
Post a Comment