Review of King Kong
this entry brought to you by modest mouse, "ocean breathes salty"
There's a moment when Kong, confused, scared, and more than a little pissed about being put in shackles and on display in a theater, freaks out and escapes his captors, and begins destroying the theater. In this confusion he looks up and sees the object of his despair, Jack Driscoll, who is played by Adrien Brody. The look on his face turns from fear and confusion to a focused, single-minded hatred, and the transition between the two emotions is as fluid and distinct as that of a real actor.
It really hasn't been that long since the Jar-Jar Binks debacle, and here we are, just six years later, with a computer-generated main character, and one whose acting ability completely overshadows that of the human cast. For the record, the humans seem to purposely act in a very broad, over-the-top manner, either to enhance the feel of a 1930's movie, or as a contrast to Kong's vast subtleties. The ape out-acting everyone else doesn't neccesarily speak bad of the cast, but speaks volumes as to how much intimate attention was lavished on him. Kong has a dearth of emotions and subtlety with which to execute them, and it's a good thing, because while Lord of the Rings could have survived with a so-so Gollum, Peter Jackson's King Kong just wouldn't have worked if Kong wasn't so beautifully and thoroughly acted-- extra nods go to Andy Serkis for his uncanny ape-acting, and the geniuses at WETA who excecuted the monster so thoroughly while making it look so effortless.
The original 1933 movie was fun and strictly an action movie, and while it opens with a parable about beasts falling in love and ends with the director character smugly announcing that beauty killed the beast, it didn't actually attempt anything approaching a love story between King Kong and Anne Darrow, the latter who never showed a moment of sympathy. Jackson's version, on the other hand, completely embraces the story of the ape falling in love with a beautiful girl, and that girl having a connection with him and being powerless to stop the tragedy that happens. Although some critics complained of bloat, this really couldn't be farther from the truth. The plot allows almost every second of the film to be completely gripping, with easily the most exhilerating action scenes in cinema since, well, the Lord of the Rings movies. When Kong does takes a moment to calm things down and allow the audience a breath it still doesn't remove its grip-- despite a gigantic three hour plus running time, bathroom breaks are practically nonexistent because missing the quiet moments is missing the entire point of the film.
The movie itself is just shy of perfect. Jack Black is still not completely convincing as a serious actor, but to his credit his character easily has the most depth out of the humans-- although a man you don't like at all because of his greediness, he is easily the most well-rounded, but that touch of mania that he adds is too distinctly Jack Black. Adrien Brody's character seems more and more unneccesary as the movie goes on, especially during the climax. Still, neither of these very minor quibbles detract from the final product.Film historians have complained for years that too much reliance on special effects, particularly in the digital age, creates a lack of emotional depth in today's movies. King Kong further-- and definitively-- proves that, in the right hands, emotional depth is not a problem, even when the bulk of the movie was created entirely by computers.
-----
with love from CRS @ 10:34 PM
Friday, April 14, 2006
There's a moment when Kong, confused, scared, and more than a little pissed about being put in shackles and on display in a theater, freaks out and escapes his captors, and begins destroying the theater. In this confusion he looks up and sees the object of his despair, Jack Driscoll, who is played by Adrien Brody. The look on his face turns from fear and confusion to a focused, single-minded hatred, and the transition between the two emotions is as fluid and distinct as that of a real actor.
It really hasn't been that long since the Jar-Jar Binks debacle, and here we are, just six years later, with a computer-generated main character, and one whose acting ability completely overshadows that of the human cast. For the record, the humans seem to purposely act in a very broad, over-the-top manner, either to enhance the feel of a 1930's movie, or as a contrast to Kong's vast subtleties. The ape out-acting everyone else doesn't neccesarily speak bad of the cast, but speaks volumes as to how much intimate attention was lavished on him. Kong has a dearth of emotions and subtlety with which to execute them, and it's a good thing, because while Lord of the Rings could have survived with a so-so Gollum, Peter Jackson's King Kong just wouldn't have worked if Kong wasn't so beautifully and thoroughly acted-- extra nods go to Andy Serkis for his uncanny ape-acting, and the geniuses at WETA who excecuted the monster so thoroughly while making it look so effortless.
The original 1933 movie was fun and strictly an action movie, and while it opens with a parable about beasts falling in love and ends with the director character smugly announcing that beauty killed the beast, it didn't actually attempt anything approaching a love story between King Kong and Anne Darrow, the latter who never showed a moment of sympathy. Jackson's version, on the other hand, completely embraces the story of the ape falling in love with a beautiful girl, and that girl having a connection with him and being powerless to stop the tragedy that happens. Although some critics complained of bloat, this really couldn't be farther from the truth. The plot allows almost every second of the film to be completely gripping, with easily the most exhilerating action scenes in cinema since, well, the Lord of the Rings movies. When Kong does takes a moment to calm things down and allow the audience a breath it still doesn't remove its grip-- despite a gigantic three hour plus running time, bathroom breaks are practically nonexistent because missing the quiet moments is missing the entire point of the film.
The movie itself is just shy of perfect. Jack Black is still not completely convincing as a serious actor, but to his credit his character easily has the most depth out of the humans-- although a man you don't like at all because of his greediness, he is easily the most well-rounded, but that touch of mania that he adds is too distinctly Jack Black. Adrien Brody's character seems more and more unneccesary as the movie goes on, especially during the climax. Still, neither of these very minor quibbles detract from the final product.Film historians have complained for years that too much reliance on special effects, particularly in the digital age, creates a lack of emotional depth in today's movies. King Kong further-- and definitively-- proves that, in the right hands, emotional depth is not a problem, even when the bulk of the movie was created entirely by computers.
-----
