Movie Review: King Kong

Okay, so this guy, Kevin Jackson, makes three movies about his most favorite book and they give him an Oscar. Frankly, I don't want to review that movie, for I hate fantasy tales, but I have to say something. I've read Lord of the Rings etc. and you know what? Those are boring books. Really long and they encouraged me to hate the genre more. But still, when I bought those tickets to see what everyone was talking about--wow, just wow. It was obvious to this reviewer that the film maker really loved those titles. He must have, for he took a fanboy tale and made it something for the masses.

So, for his next run, seeing he's already got an Oscar, they gave him the pick of what he wanted to do next. And he, like his favorite book, goes with one of his favorite movies--King Kong. And really, was what great and wrong with the Lord of the Rings was what was great and wrong about King Kong.

Folks, this is the reason we go to the movies. Huge monsters, depth of characters and ongoing action. The concept of spectacle goes one better here, even though Kong is an animal, a CGI one to boot, I felt for him and that only means that the creature was created with enough expression and interaction that I could connect. I found myself cheering and weeping at the right places, so that's all a good sign.

But there are things people won't tell you about this movie. It started long and I knew, hearing from tabloids, that it was threatened to be edited. The studio execs, however, decided not to touch it. Which is, really, one of the things they probably should have. Every sequence is milked for one last CGI shot, as if the director was bragging about his bag of tricks. A three Rex/King Kong sequences just KEEPS GOING, to the point where the casual viewer literally falls from exhaustion at it's completion. Is there a denouement after that? Nope, he then has a bug fight sequence that also keeps testing the patience of it's audience.

It's as if the screenwriter, which I believe is Jackson and his wife, went to the James Cameron School of Egocentric Authorship. Cameron's movies go on and on, and you can practically hear the producers' meetings with Cameron arguing, "no, no, no--You HAVE to keep that part, because..." Same goes here. Dear filmmakers, if you have to explain it, it means that the sequence is not coming across as you are planning, cut the blasted thing and move to a more direct mode of communication.

Since screenwriting is so essential and so key to the film, that takes it's toll on this movie, but really, it survives because so many other important elements take place. I mean, the acting is impecable. Jack Black, an excellent but underused performer, is perfect. I'm unsure if I'm supposed to like him or not--he's a jerk for so long that when he entones the famous final lines, they fall flat. Again, a problem with the writing. Naomi Watts? Perfect, if only given most of her screen time to screaming (more problems with writing). And Adrian Brody? Also well cast--an actor of his talent almost dropped off the screen in some really bad pics, so it's good to see him back.

Now comes the major issue for Mr. Jackson. What next? Without satisfingn his need to elaborate on his fanatic adoration of movies and books...will he try something totally original?