King Kong

Okay so here we go with Peter Jackson’s first film since the Lord of the Rings phenomenon. King Kong has a much less distinguished pedigree than that extraordinary trilogy, and it probably pays to keep this in mind. It took me a while to adjust to this film after LOTR, as the original King Kong – whilst iconic now and revelatory at the time – was certainly never screen literature. Naturally the 2005 version’s running time is way too long – I suppose no one really expected an 100 minute quickie from Jackson, but 187 minutes is still a case of overkill for me. The build up to the central characters’ arrival at the immensely overpopulated Skull Island is a drag, and whilst I appreciate that there is some intense ‘character development’ going on, I’m sure it could have been handled much more efficiently.

Once things get going, however, it’s one helluva rollercoaster ride. Spielberg’s big action work seems rather meek and unassuming by comparison, but his is probably the more effective. Kong feels rather unbalanced, with huge chunks of action pieces clumped together, making the calmer moments all the more mundane. Unfortunately one of the first things that struck me was the special effects – in a bad way. It may simply be a case of attempting too much, and the first couple of big action moments look pretty awful, featuring some appalling examples of blue/green screen. Whilst the film is constantly over the top, Jackson thankfully keeps it fun.

The beast himself is fantastic. I may complain about a lot of the other creatures in the film, but Kong is great – powerful, emotive, and most importantly believable. The filmmakers (or perhaps stand in Andy Serkis himself) manage to strike the perfect balance between the animalistic and the human. Even more impressive is Naomi Watts’ (Stay) performance, which is extraordinary when one considers she was most likely acting opposite a complete absence of ape. (Not to mention the fact that the poor thing seemed to spend most of the time barefoot – I’m referring to Watts, not Kong). When it comes down to it she has very little in the way of dialogue, and in fact much of the film rides on her silent expressions. Jack Black (Shark Tale) is great as the obsessed filmmaker – this must be one of his first serious roles (excepting that short moment in JFK) and his inspired grin is almost gleefully megalomaniacal at times. The two main characters’ silent moments perhaps serve to honour the original, at a time where film sound (whilst not entirely new) still had a long way to go.

I suppose my main criticism with King Kong, aside from the length, is that there is simply too much. Too many monsters, too many action scenes one after the other. The much talked about ‘giant spider’ scene that was deep sixed from the original 1933 film has been recreated in this version, but (surprise, surprise) it feels kinda superfluous.

King Kong is certainly one of the major cinematic events of 2005. Much of the film is supremely entertaining, but completely lacking in complexity or narrative maturity. But isn’t that the point? Big dumb fun? I guess so, and I don’t mean that in a negative way. This is a special effects extravaganza, with a strong emotional core. It stops short of brilliant, however.