Thursday, June 29, 2006

Does the New King Kong Rule, Too?

Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005) deserves several entries, so the next couple or few will be devoted to analyzing and teasing out some of the strands Jackson includes in his latest epic. This one, however, will simply review it as a film.

Not that that task is as simple as it sounds. The problem is that Jackson is an auteur. In The Lord of the Rings trilogy, he was held back by a giant story that was in some ways unmanageable. As the series went on, it became more and more tangled and messy, eliminating certain necessary plot points and adding in some others. In King Kong, however, he doesn’t have that problem. The original story is actually quite simple, and Jackson knows what he’s doing here. That’s the auteur in him. Because the story is simple, he can and does do whatever he wants. There is no part of King Kong that is not absolutely purposeful. He wasn’t held back by anything, and he thus created an epic film that defies simple reviewing.

Not that it’s that great, however. It’s worth watching, certainly, and there are parts of it that are amazing. As a whole, however, it’s actually too epic. I told my movie-watching partner that the movie was too overdone, and he asked me, “What, you expect subtle out of a giant monkey movie?” And I wonder: is it a “giant-monkey movie” or a “giant monkey-movie.” It’s both, of course, and that’s where the problem comes in.

There is so much action here that we don’t get to really see these characters. In fact, they become caricatures. The first half of the movie is a vaudeville film, an example of an early comedic drama. The second half turns horrifying, especially as we watch King Kong bounce through the jungle destroying his beloved prey. Where the characters developed in the first half are caricatures, the characters we see in the second half bear no relation to them. Characters are killed off willy-nilly, and we see these characters do things that are completely uncharacteristic.

But this isn’t a movie about characters, you may try to tell me. It’s an action film, right? Yes, it is, and the action sequences are astounding. The fight between King Kong and three tyrannosaurus rexi is incredible, possibly one of the best action sequences I have ever seen. The dinosaur sequences don’t let up, and I found myself wishing they would stop. While it was too much, I still could not look away.

But that’s really it. Sure, it’s also a monkey love story, but that part is actually kind of beside the point. It’s touching, but then we see the main female lead go back to her standard male beau at the end. Why doesn’t she reject him completely?

So as a film, King Kong doesn’t really hold up. It’s all purposeful, yes, and Jackson certainly knows what he’s doing, but that doesn’t mean that it makes for a great movie. It’s a good one, of course, and it’s a lot of fun to watch—a spectacle, in fact—but it doesn’t get ranked as high as I thought it would. Yes, I'm disappointed.

Grade for King Kong: 7

No comments: