Films In Review » Naomi Watts

KING KONG (Greg)

Greg Lamberson — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:55:07 +0000

Universal Pictures / A Wingnut Films production
MPAA rating PG-13 / Running time 188 minutes

Saw KONG. I thoroughly enjoyed it, except for all the stuff I didn’t enjoy, like Jack Black, the phony dinosaurs and the long intro. The natives were scary, but I saw no hint of a society there. Fun stuff, but I’ll take the original any day.

Greg Lamberson is the writer/director of: SLIME CITY, author: PERSONAL DEMONS)

Cast:
Ann Darrow: Naomi Watts
Carl Denham: Jack Black
Jack Driscoll: Adrien Brody
Capt. Englehorn: Thomas Kretschmann
Preston: Colin Hanks
Kong/Lumpy: Andy Serkis
Hayes: Evan Parke
Jimmy: Jamie Bell

Credits:
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenwriters: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Based on the story by: Merian C. Cooper, Edgar Wallace
Producers: Jan Blenkin, Carolynne Cunningham, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson
Director of photography: Andrew Lesnie
Production designer: Grant Major
Music: James Newton Howard
Co-producers: Philippa Boyens, Eileen Moran
Costumes: Terry Ryan
Editors: Jamie Selkirk, Jabez Olssen

KING KONG (Gordon)

Gordon Jones — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:54:57 +0000

Universal Pictures / A Wingnut Films production
MPAA rating PG-13 / Running time 188 minutes

There is no need to cover the basic plot, so moving right in, overall, I was disappointed in Jackson’s KING KONG. It had streaks, fits of greatness amidst its otherwise long, mediocre haul, but tragically, it is a story that did not need to be retold despite the light years in technological advances. As if to remind you just how far we’ve come, Jackson has even given you a few dozen shots of Jack Black hand-cranking the camera. Not that I’m a big fan of the whole King Kong story in general. I’ve always been fascinated by gorillas, Tarzan, Gorillas in the Mist, and I’ve always followed Rick Baker’s struggle with a perfect representation of one. I wonder what he would think of this new, flawless-looking Kong, having worked on the previous 1976 version, even playing Kong himself in that film. However, I think Kong is a B-movie premise and you can’t make a $200 million B-movie. It doesn’t work, the grandness of the scope that money affords conflicts with the pulpy-premise, which is why the last three STAR WARS movies are dreadful. This is KING KONG, not as Jackson would have you believe, ‘Heart of Darkness’. You cannot shift Kong into epic mode, he’s an atomic one liner, even if he wasn’t created by radiation. I haven’t read the original 160-page (a clue as to proper length) novel, but I think it’s a very unsatisfying and pointless story on the big screen. The original was a gimmick, all about seeing sights you have never seen and wrapped around it was the most basic of adventure plots with a syrupy dose of simple tragedy thrown in. There might be depth in the book, but here it’s all skin deep. This ain’t Shakespeare (Adrien Brody is even called this by Andy Serkis, during his bizarre Popeye riff).

In an epic you need a theme and KONG’s, like the title character, is painfully simple – Man vs Beast – Man is cruelest. I get it and I hate that theme. I know we suck, don’t remind me with a $200 million brick to the head. It’d make an interesting half an hour episode of Amazing Stories or Twilight Zone, but as a three-hour movie it is negating its wham-bam-thank-you-m’am heart.

The first hour of KONG is completely pointless. When I say pointless, I really mean utterly wasted. It doesn’t build character or interest, it stumbles and falls around trying to find footing. It doesn’t set the stage, it kills time. Everything, character-wise and plot-wise, gleaned in the first hour could have been handled in five to ten minutes on the ship, heading to the island. And it would have been so much better to learn about these people during the island adventure. Instead, Jackson tries to cram it all up front so he can be free to blaze away on the action for the rest of the movie and not have to worry about developing his characters, but it’s the audience that needs to worry about the characters, and we don’t, so he does a disservice to the grand action he finally delivers. More on that later.
The dialogue is so bland it is non-existent. Not that it has to be Mamet or The Cohens…Actually that would have been great. Nothing said in KONG is funny, nor witty. Nothing endearing, or even expositional, it’s just there, as if Jackson wanted to make a silent movie (it essentially is one) but everyone told him it had to be a talkie. He even manages to make quotes from Conrad sound bland.

The movie is also fatally, even criminally, miscast. Jack Black is just the worst pick for this role. I can think of a hundred other actors, better suited, who would have had a delicious old time with Carl Denham. Alec Baldwin anyone? Black is incapable of delivering these stale, dry lines. Most sinful is the famous ending line, which here is almost laughable coming about of Black’s signature evil elf mouth. Black is capable of good acting; just watch his earlier small roles. I think the problem is with Jackson. He is not very good with borderline-actors. Orlando Bloom, fresh out of film school, and sexy as he may be, was the worst actor in LOTR (keep your hate-mail to yourself.) Everything is so over the top in Jackson’s films, acting always included, it took an incredible actor like Ian MacKellen to get a natural performance in LOTR (the only one nominated BTW).

Adrien Brody is the other terrible choice. Yes, he can act, he won an Oscar for it, and here he doesn’t look the part at all, so they make light of it, but he has no charisma as an action-hero or even screen presence in general, and you can’t explain that away with exposition. “Yes, he is a boring book worm, but he’ll save us all and we won’t find it compelling in the slightest.” Why Jackson couldn’t go to Viggo Mortensen for his Driscoll we will all be left to wonder. There is nothing wrong with re-using actors. There are great director-leading man parings throughout film history. I think maybe Jackson wanted to distance himself from LOTR, but it’s futile, he can’t, just like Spielberg will always be JAWS and RAIDERS. So here we are left with the Captain and the First Mate of the ship bringing more charisma than the lead, which takes us to a major problem. Other than the basic sympathetic fear of brutal mutilation we share with most humans, you feel nothing for anyone, most especially Naomi Watts. I don’t where all this praise is coming from for her performance, but almost all of her screen time is spent looking up at Kong, with varying degrees of awe and terror. Big deal. She provides no reason to like her, Ann is pretty and dumb. I hate to say it, but how about a little more moxie. She doesn’t need to be toting a tommy-gun, but this Ann Darrow is a damsel in distress and nothing more.

The only character to care about in the whole show is clearly Kong, and that is what Jackson devotes everything to. Jackson is obsessed with Kong as a character and his execution in every way. Kong is King of this show, but he’s not Dracula folks, you can’t spend this much time on a giant gorilla and have it be interesting. You like Kong and want him to destroy everyone, especially in the end, and Jackson seems content with this, problem is, our hero dies, and once again this isn’t Hamlet, so what is the point of this journey. Literally a three hour carnival sideshow?- No thanks.

I have no problem with killing off movie-heroes, in fact I support that, it’s a brave choice in a film, if warranted. You know from imagery already ingrained in pop-culture for 72 years that Kong is going to die, and everyone is going to do him harm, so in some way, surprisingly it feels like Gibson’s PASSION OF THE CHRIST, especially the last 45 minutes, only here Christ kicks some major Roman ass before kicking the bucket.

Now, of course the special effects are amazing and Kong is riveting, which makes you forget all of the movie’s other faults piling up until after the movie. This is by far the most jaw-dropping, flawless effects work I have ever seen. Kong looks 100% real. The animators and Serkis did an incredible job with Kong, his performance, like Gollum’s in LOTR, is the most natural and nuanced of the whole cast. I would dare to say Kong is an even better performance than Gollum since the ape can’t speak and only emote.

The action scenes are equally amazing. The middle hour is solid thrills. Which would, however, be so much more grand if you cared about anyone and if they were handled a little more realistically. People are either killed instantly, squashed into oblivion, or bounced around like they were related to Gumby. No scratches or broken bones. Dead or perfectly fine.

The music is probably the weakest part of this film. Forgettable in every sense. I don’t know what Howard Shore’s sounded like (he makes a cameo appearance as a conductor – and the music they supply is better suited), maybe on the four hour extended DVD we’ll get to hear, but I will bet it was so much better than this stock-score that James Newton Howard supplied (two month deadline or not). James Horner would perhaps been a better choice, he’s notorious for working under such deadlines (WRATH OF KHAN). Even Horner repeating himself in the worst way would have been better. Elfman churning out his most basic, signature work would have been better. This is nothing. No theme, no bravura, nothing.

Every year there are a couple films that get vastly overrated. I think out of hype and appreciation for breaking the glut of crap, anything remotely good is put up on a pedestal. Critics are letting Jackson coast on LOTR good cheer. Don’t get me wrong, I love the LOTR films and was looking forward to this as the savior of the year, especially after a painfully rote NARNIA and a boring POTTER, but KONG is not a relief, it is just as problematic as the rest. Hollywood has finally infected Jackson, the lone wolf has been caged.

He has definitely become a master in technical ability, perhaps surpassing Cameron, Lucas, and Spielberg, but he handles everything with a sledgehammer. Spielberg is a master manipulator and knows what strings to pull and how to pull them without you knowing. Jackson doesn’t know how to manipulate, he just knows how to thrill, blind roller coaster thrills. Thrills without investment in the characters is hollow, like a theme park ride. Roller coasters don’t pretend to be LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. KONG is not Roland Emmerich’s I-want-everyone-to-just-die type of hollow, but almost as ineffective. Perhaps this just shows how much LORD OF THE RINGS was source material, or maybe Jackson just chose the wrong movie to remake.

Still, KONG must been seen by any blockbuster fan, and seen in the theaters for proper affect. The island set pieces alone are an argument for $9.50 ticket prices. Jackson put Lucas to shame with LOTR and here he tried to put Spielberg to shame. He can’t, because Spielberg did it better with JURASSIC PARK twelve years ago, despite my major preference for rampaging Gorillas over rampaging Dinosaurs.

KING KONG (Dennis)

Dennis Daniel — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:54:56 +0000

Universal Pictures / A Wingnut Films production
MPAA rating PG-13 / Running time 188 minutes

THE ANTICIPATION:
I was talking with my colleague and friend Mark Ross about the disappointing first day box office tally on Peter Jackson’s new remake of KING KONG. Like many, I thought it would turn out to be #1 or at least #2 of all time. After all, the buzz was astonishing! All over the Internet I was reading about how wonderful the film was and how big it was going to be! The next TITANIC! The trailer and scenes that have been posted, along with all the hype and history about the production on kongisking.net had Mark and I salivating in eager anticipation! We knew it was going to be a history-making-blockbuster-first-day-of-release-cash-cow.

Not so.

It ranks #21 on the all time list…with films like POKEMAN THE MOVIE and MEN IN BLACK II beating it out! I was quite astonished by this. Not Mark. He said, “Well, I don’t find that to be so strange. After all, anyone under 40 probably doesn’t care as much about the film as we do. We grew up with it.” What he said really made me think, “Geez, how true! And…how sad.” That means that the original 1933 film is slowly sinking into the cultural abyss. A place where it won’t be held with the same reverence by the same number of people.

Link here to see the overall first day take and list rating: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=wed&p=.htm

When I was a youngster, back in the days when there were only 8 TV channels, the 1933 KING KONG was a staple of the holiday season, New York’s channel 9 used to run KING KONG every Thanksgiving, along with SON OF KONG and MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. It was the major reason why I loved Thanksgiving!!! These movies were ingrained into my DNA. There was even a glorious time when Channel 9’s Million Dollar Movie would run KING KONG at the same time, 5 days a week! Let’s face it; KING KONG was an annual event…a monumental moment of epic bliss. I also was in love with Fay Wray. She was hot, bro! To this day, the scene where KONG peels off her clothes and smells his finger is quite the turn on. The helpless white woman in the clutches of the monster! It still gives me wood.

Most important of all, it was scary. Honest. The black and white cinematography, the jungle, the monsters, the death and destruction…all heavy stuff. The special effects were, in a word, “charming.” I mean, we all knew it was a stop motion animated ape, but Willis O’Brien gave him life, character and depth.

Mark and I work at an advertising agency in New York. We are media junkies. We are also huge film fanatics, with KONG being at the top of the list. Our coworkers have become sick and tired of us talking about it! Our offices are filled with posters, models…even our desktops and screensavers are all about KONG. The trailers and photos for the new film gave us chills. I actually wept when I saw the shot of KONG jumping up and knocking the shit out of one of the planes. Man oh man…we couldn’t WAIT to see what Peter Jackson was going to do! It was a no-lose scenario! He was turned on to the film as a child like we were. He was going to maintain its reverence, time period and philosophy. He was going to update it without ruining it (like Dino did with his remake…Jessica Lange not withstanding.)

I dug into the first few reviews that were posted online two days before the official release. Most critics simply adored it. In fact, it received the most universal praise I’ve seen in a long time. Except for some gripes about the length, all looked well.

I actually took a half-day off to make sure I was able to see KING KONG on its first day of release without having to wait on long lines. I bought my ticket online to make double sure I got a seat. The night before the glorious day I could hardly sleep with the excitement churning inside me.

Then…there I was. In my seat…dead center, half way up from the screen. The theater was only half full, since it was a workday and 11AM. No crying kids. No crowd of idiots talking loudly as if they were in their living rooms. It could not be more perfect. I was in heaven! Bring on the ape!

THE REVIEW:
Rather than give a story synopsis that is familiar to all, I will concentrate on elements.

From the moment the credits begin, with their overall sense of 1930’s graphic design and kitsch, it is very apparent that Peter Jackson’s remake of KING KONG is going to treat its time period, setting and familiar storyline with reverence and respect, as well as a heartfelt belief in the magical wonders of the cinema.

The recreation of 1930’s New York is dead on, from the Hobo shantytowns, to the period clothing, to the language cadences of the time. In an effort to update the storyline while still maintaining respect for its familiar themes and history, Jackson chose to elaborate on the background of his characters. Ann Darrow is now a vaudevillian hoofer who has fallen on hard times. As played by Naomi Watts, she is the beautiful heart of the film and her performance is top notch, moving and believable. Yes…even within the midst of this cockamamie story…SHE is BELIEVABLE.

Carl Denham is still the megalomaniac movie producer/director of the original, but his motivations have become a bit more sleazy and egotistically self-centered. There’s a touch of Orson Welles in actor Jack Black’s eyes. Point of fact, I couldn’t really buy Jack Black as Carl Denham. He just felt miscast. Not that I don’t like Black…he can be quite engaging and hysterically funny in the right role. But Carl Denham he is not. He waters down the fire and machismo that Robert Armstrong brought to the 1933 version of the role and comes off as a bit of a fat creep.

Jack Driscoll has been upgraded from a first mate to a playwright (a la Eugene O’Neill) who is ship-napped by Denham so he can help write the screenplay as it happens during the adventure. As played by Adrian Brody, he is kinda foppish and doesn’t really have much to do but give Ann goo-goo eyes and always show up too late to save her.

Where I believe Jackson made a mistake is introducing other characters and plot elements that do nothing but slow down the first hour of the film. These include a father-figure type character to Ann that is neither explained, nor further developed after his initial appearance. A relationship between a sailor and a young boy is also introduced in an effort to make you care more about these shipmate characters destined to become dinosaur munchies, bug feces, etc. The sailor (who also happens to be an African-American) has taken this boy under his wing to teach him the wonders of literature (he has him reading Joseph Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness), which allows for bravery and courage metaphors galore when they arrive on the island.

I can’t help but wonder…did Jackson give this black sailor such cultural depth and intelligence to negate the stereotypes of the black man from that period in film history…not to mention an attempt to dilute that other tired old metaphor about KONG being a symbolic representation of the black who was stolen from his native land, put in chains and sold to slavery and torture? And let’s not even get into all that stuff about the black man kidnapping the lily-white woman, etc. etc. All I know is…it didn’t work, slowed things down, and was unnecessary.

Which brings us to KONG.

Mere words cannot describe the awe and majesty this CGI created giant gorilla encompasses. As digitally played by Andy Serkis, KONG is a revelation! For a creature that doesn’t even exist except in a computer, he has tremendous warmth, rage and…dare I say it…humanity. He is simply the most astonishing artificial creation I have ever seen in the cinema. Jackson pulled no punches and pulled out all the stops to create a KING KONG that is magical, believable and heartbreaking. From the moment he enters the screen, to his horrible death atop the Empire State Building, we are totally with him as a character and doomed figure. It is here that Jackson has performed a cinematic miracle. The team at WETA, Jackson’s FX Company, has done more than just create a KING KONG for the 21st Century, they have literally played GOD! KONG is REAL! 100% REAL! In every way imaginable. You BELIEVE. Regardless of the fact that no such creature has ever existed, you find yourself so totally enraptured by his presence and visual reality, that you become lost in it. What a tremendous feat of moviemaking! To create something so beautiful, so detailed, so utterly real, that you don’t even think about the fact that he doesn’t exist. HE DOES EXIST! This, combined with Naomi Watts empathy and connection to this non-existent CGI created KONG, make this story the greatest example of the Beauty and the Beast parable that has ever been filmed. The scenes between Ann Darrow and KONG are like watching a silent movie. It is all done through body language, facial expressions and eye contact. (I even read an article where a zoologist who studies apes was totally convinced in the KONG’s artificially created authenticity.)

There are scenes between KONG and Ann that are beautifully corny, yet heartbreaking. I don’t want to spoil it for you…you’ll know what they are.

THE ISLAND SCENES:
The island scenes in the jungle have their positive and negative aspects.

The Negatives: Did we really need a dinosaur stampede, with the giant behemoths falling all over each other in huge piles so fast and furious I couldn’t get focused on how they really looked? I know that Jackson wants to take out his paint box and dazzle the shit out of us, but sometimes it gets to be a bit too much! After going through so much to establish KONG’s believability as a character, he killed some of that credibility because NO ONE would have been able to survive being in the middle of a brontosaurus stampede, with a bunch of carnivorous dinos thrown in for good measure, snapping and clawing at our helpless heroes. I would have preferred he stuck to the original 1933 idea of running into a variety of dinosaurs, and having just one brontosaurus chasing after the men, both in the raft sequence (not repeated here) and the chase sequence. I know…I know…Jackson is trying to up the ante. Slow down son…we know you can impress us. Too much of a good thing Peter!

The Positives: The entire sequence with the T-Rex’s. Now, it’s not just one, but THREE! And KONG fights them all with Ann in his hand! This scene is just astonishing. I don’t want to give away much. All I can say is, he updates it magnificently in a very unique and believable way.

We also get the scene that was originally cut from the 1933 version where the men are attacked by giant spiders and bugs after being thrown from the log into the ravine.
This scene is truly horrifying and gut wrenching. (SPECIAL NOTE: Jackson’s team also re-created this edited scene for the 1933 version and it can be found in the extras section of the recent DVD release. It is lovingly recreated based on original models and storyboards. A true work of love and respect.)

Oh…and the natives are no longer stereotypical black jungle boogiemen. They are now a frightening clan of zombie-like aborigines. Chill inducing to the bone!

THE NEW YORK CITY STREET SCENES:
It is here where Jackson really shines. 1933 New York is lovingly reproduced, right down to the marquees and lights of Times Square. The scenes of KONG in chains on stage are given an all-new twist that works beautifully. He is a pathetic creature in these scenes…chained and miserable as a vaudeville show is performed in front of him. Jackson pays wonderful homage to the original by having the show be a recreation of the capture and jungle dance scenes from the 1933 film…including the same costumes and Max Steiner score. For those who know and love the 1933 film, it is a true delight.

Once KONG escapes and starts looking for Ann, we are given a spectacle of rage and destruction on the street of New York that is unmatched by any other monster-on-the-rampage-in-a-city film creation. KONG flings cars, destroys buildings, grabs and tosses people with reckless abandon. When he finds Ann, they have moments of tenderness and, believe it or not, fun, that will not leave one dry eye in the house.

And it all leads up to…

THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING SCENE:
I am at a loss for words to describe how right, how dead on, how magnificent, and how awe-inspiring this…one of the most iconic scenes in all of cinema…is recreated by Jackson. As I’ve mentioned before in this critique…it is 100% REAL. Jackson elongates the scene to give us every angle, every situation, every nuance we could ever ask for in this last moment on earth for KONG. I was totally captivated, mouth agape. I kept thinking,”I’m so lucky to be alive. To be able to sit here, in this theater, and see how this master craftsman has re-created this pinnacle moment in film history, giving it new life and depth and meaning.” It is the crowning achievement of the film and one of the most breathtaking, heartbreaking, amazing scenes I’ve ever seen put to film. You are THERE…at the top of the Empire State Building, with a giant ape fighting off biplanes. From every angle and point of reference, you are given a visual delight that is both beautiful and horrifyingly sad.

Peter Jackson’s KING KONG is the work of a man who is paying loving tribute to a film he loves, taking his audience along for the homage. If you loved the 1933 original, you’ll respect his efforts. For those who don’t hold the original film in any particular regard, you will just enjoy a great movie experience.

Flawed but still fabulous, this KING KONG is truly a wonder of the cinematic world.

KONGAHOLICS, Mark Ross & Dennis Daniel. Photo taken by Adam DiLernia

MARK ROSS, Dennis Daniel’s friend, chimes in….

I agree about Jack Black’s character. But all Jackson had to do about this
“fat creep” was have him in tears at the ending with realization that his
own self-destructive persona killed the most marvelous thing mankind had
ever seen.

The young boy and other characters on the boat would have worked better
had they been shown them in tuxedos at the introduction of Kong to the NYC audience.

Musical score. Coming out of the silent film era, there was more reliance on
music to support the imagery rather than sound effects. The original score,
especially at the ending, was much more dramatic and plot-enhancing, right
down to Kong’s landing on the 34th street.

King Kong is a baby-boomer infatuation. Given the current technologies of
1933, right through the 50′s and 60′s and 70′s when we watched Kong every
Thanksgiving, the stop animation worked, it WAS believable. This summer when I forced my sons (David and Daniel) to watch Kong one night in Montauk Point, they would laugh at the original versionwhen the crew fell into the ravine and bounce like Raggedy-Ann dolls, or when Kong fell and bounced several times off the ledges of the Empire State Building. I must agree, this could have been handled better. Recently, when I asked to see how excited they were to see Jackson’s version, they were disinterested. OUCH. “We don’t want to see a gorilla movie”, they said. OUCH. “But Jackson did this one, I said, hoping to win them over. “SOOOO?” they said. OUCH. With that, I fell off the Empire State Building. Fact is , I know when they see this version, they will thoroughly enjoy it. But it is unlikely they will give me the satisfaction of saying so. After all, teenage boys love not liking what their fathers like. It goes with the territory.

I am sure Jackson attempted to rectify a couple of mankind’s darkest moments. One being slavery. Having an African-American ship-mate who is well read mentoring a young white boy is a clear attempt to kill off an unacceptable part of human history which was symbolically documented in the original. Additionally, having Jack Driscoll become a sensitive screen-writer instead of a Bogart like tough guy is clearly an attempt to show that men have changed. (I always thought Kong was an analogy of the machismo in man.) The male lead actor’s role was an attempt to show just how foolish and untrue the tough guy really is further supporting this feeling.

KING KONG (Oren)

Oren Shai — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:54:54 +0000

Universal Pictures / A Wingnut Films production
MPAA rating PG-13 / Running time 188 minutes

“Peter Jackson is a great inspiration,” he claimed with pride, “a director who started making Troma-like films and now proved he can make great ones with LORD OF THE RINGS and KING KONG”. These outrageous words came from the mouth of an LA based, indie filmmaker, the type who is stuck doing independent films and strives for mainstream recognition. It proved to me, beyond all doubt, that in Tinsletown, big is beautiful.

I was preparing for a great film. The opening (and the best) scene – a montage of depression-era NY, was beautiful. The cinematography reminded me of Jackson’s early works (pay attention to the crate carrying the DEAD ALIVE Sumerian Monkey-Rat on the boat). And since this is a project he initiated long before his LOTR fame, it was refreshing to see him go back to his roots, although not refreshing enough.

The original KING KONG is not a perfect film, but it’s an extraordinary one that still stands out, more than 70 years later, as a remarkable achievement. The new KING KONG offers very few updates on the first: Jack Driscoll (Brody) became the film-within-the-film’s writer and unlike his tough persona in the original, to fit modern times (although the film still takes place in 1933), he is a sensitive writer. Carl Denham (Black) in now a renegade filmmaker-on-the-run, and a few new characters are introduced for additional drama.

Of the actors, two really stand out: Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow and Kong as himself. In fact, their scenes together are the only aspect of the film that surpasses the original. Watts is so good; the thought that she was not really standing in front of a giant ape is nothing less than shocking. Her Ann Darrow is intriguing – an emotional wreck in a tough shell. Did I mention how beautiful she was? Kong is an incredible CGI creation. Last time we were treated to such was… well… Gollum in LOTR. If this is all Andy Serkis is (who acted as both Kong and Gollum) doing, than he deserves more credit than he is getting.

While in the original film Kong and Darrow share a one sided relationship – he grabs her and she screams – the new version offers an interesting affair between two outcasts: She – a struggling actress, trying to survive the depression. He – the only survivor of his species, fighting to dominate a prehistoric world. The two share a bond that is bound for disaster. And disaster it shall bring. This relationship overshadows any attempt to create a compelling one between Darrow and her dream-guy, the writer, Jack Driscoll. Which ends up feeling forced and anti-climatic.

“It wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast”. The first time I heard these words, coming from (Robert Armstrong’s) Denham as he stands next to Kong’s dead body, I was moved to tears – I was also naïve enough to believe Denham had a shred of sincerity in him. When I heard Jack Black say the same line, I didn’t buy it for a second – as good as he was, lightning didn’t strike twice. I’m a great guy myself, but if you hear me repeat a joke you heard George Carlin tell, I doubt you’ll laugh. That smile on your face would be remembering how Carlin told it.

Jackson truly loves and adores the original film, he created the most respectful and faithful remake in recent memory – to the level that almost every scene form the original exists in the remake. The idea was to expose the children of today, who are not going to sit through a black and white film, to the great story he grew up on. He felt the 1933 film didn’t need much updating and made a very similar one. But the original has more than a great story going for it. The excitement and magic it brings derive from its groundbreaking effects, ideas and craftsmanship (and yes, Fay Wray). Even though they may seem amateurish by today’s standards, they are full of soul. The remake features some of the best CGI work I’ve seen, but in our age this happens 4-5 times a year. There is nothing breathtaking and surprising with CGI anymore since we’ve learned to expect it. Quite frankly, it just seems hollow. As amazing as Kong is, he only works because Naomi Watts is next to him. The best counter-point would be JURASSIC PARK, 13 years after it was made, it still features the best looking dinosaurs to ever grace the screen and will forever be engraved in the minds of children who watched it during its initial theatrical run.

Big can be beautiful, but it’s mainly big. KING KONG, for the lack of a better definition, felt synthetic.

Some classics should stay classic. I can understand the will of a filmmaker to remake his favorite films, it’s an egotistical quality I believe most filmmakers share. If common sense fails me, I would be first in line to re-do Russ Meyer’s MUDHONEY, but until then you can find it at your video store, in black & white, under “M”.

KING KONG (Victoria)

Victoria Alexander — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:53:47 +0000

Universal Pictures / A Wingnut Films production
MPAA rating PG-13 / Running time 188 minutes

QUOTE: The first hour is a bore but a necessary gift to Watts. Each remaining frame is awesome, though I could have done without Beauty’s version of a simian lap dance.

I was in the untainted Kingdom of Bhutan for the opening of KING KONG and got my first critique from New Delhi chocolatier Jyoti Agarwal’s 15 year old son Tejai. They had seen the movie together. Jyoti kept saying she didn’t understand why Kong didn’t eat his victim Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). Tejai had a definitive reply to his mother’s frequent question.

“Because she was a white woman!”

While Jyoti kept dismissing her son’s response, I had to keep instigating the dinner repartee: “So KING KONG is really a racist movie!”

Jyoti had not seen the original 1933 classic KING KONG by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack. Why, Jyoti asked, was the girl kidnapped by the natives in the first place? I can answer Jyoti’s question now that I have seen the movie: The tribe had an alliance with Kong. They offered him frequent human sacrifices for (a) protection against other predators, or (b) as a form of idol worship. Like the essential part of Aztec culture, with a daily human sacrifice, “the sun would stay in constant and beneficent motion across the Aztec sky, bringing fertility to crops and men alike.”* (At the time of the Aztec harvest festival a female victim was flayed and her skin brought ceremonially to the temple. The skin was worn by the officiating priest.)

Thankfully screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson do not bother with Kong exposition. There is no APOCALYPSE NOW nutty photojournalist to explain the backstory to us. But we do spend the first hour plowing through The Great Depression and how hungry Ann is.

This sweet, young vaudevillian hoofer is starving. She stares at people eating. She steals an apple. She is one hour away from selling matches. While beautiful and marginally talented, Ann has no family or friends. Out of work, when a producer suggests she do something rather unsavory, she declines. She’d rather go hungry. This boring first hour is a necessary gift to Watts, who must just scream and look terrified when the story moves to Skull Island. Unfortunately, naïve Ann doesn’t exhibit a hint of the kind of edge and smarts needed to seduce Kong and survive in a jungle filled with predatory dinosaurs.

Maybe Ann makes it because she is a “white woman.”

Ann’s luck changes when she meets producer-director Carl Denham (Jack Black). We continue to slog around Denham’s story of fighting with his film backers, losing his star, and his maneuvers to get to a South Pacific island he inexplicably has found a secret map for. Denham offers Ann an acting job in a movie, money, and food. She hesitates but finally takes the fatal step on board the junk steamer! What has really enchanted Ann is the fact that famous playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) has written the script.

But, to Denham’s dismay, Driscoll has only written 15 pages, so Denham “kidnaps” him to sail away with the crew. The only place for Driscoll to write the script is in an empty cage next to the streamer’s cargo of wild animals. So that’s what Hollywood does with writers!

By the way, why is Jack Driscoll even in KING KONG? It’s not as if he was Kong’s rival.

Showing more animal magnetism than Kong is the ship’s Capt. Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann). I could have done without overly enthusiastic crewman Jimmy (Jamie Bell), and there was just too much Denham for my taste in drama. The entire crew and Driscoll are underdeveloped. (Didn’t any of them see APOCALYPSE NOW? Never leave the boat!) But the lull is just Peter Jackson building tension and anticipation while trying to create chemistry between Ann and Driscoll.

Jackson creates a foggy, creepy landscape as the ship finally uncovers the mysterious Skull Island and its fabulous flipped-out natives. And then the film really takes off when its star, King Kong, turns up. He’s mean.

Kong accepts his sacrificial victim, but for some reason he takes a liking to his little doll. He playfully throws her around. It reminded me of that famous ape and her beloved kitten. But Ann wants to get free of Kong, even though she soon figures out that he has taken a liking to her. She has found her protector. They gaze at a sunset together. Ann sees the loneliness in the Ape Without A Mate. But instead of seeing herself as Queen of the Jungle, Ann wants to go home to homelessness.

Capt. Englehorn captures Kong and somehow everyone reaches New York City. What a trip home that must have been! Denham, finding a SoHo loft big enough to house Kong, plans a big opening night exhibit with Ann as Kong’s pay-girlfriend. You know what happens. It does not disappoint. In fact, the bar for big finishes has been re-set once again by Jackson.

Okay, the ice scene was limp. Ann didn’t once groom Kong. What did he ever see in her?

Maybe it was because she was a “white woman.”

Director Peter Jackson has made another classic thanks to his superior CGI team and his announced demand for excess. KING KONG dazzles with technical superiority. I could not believe the glorious dinosaur stampede. It looked damn real to me. I especially liked the fact that Kong never smiled or looked cute. I was worried. Weren’t you?

I was not put off by the long running time – it’s a spectacle after all! – until I sat and watched poor people waiting on a soup line and Ann’s painful stab at a career as a comedy star. (Watts is one film away from looking exactly like her best pal Nicole Kidman.) My advice would have been to cut that first hour out and start the film with the ship approaching Skull Island.

*From “Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice” by Garry Hogg.

THE RING TWO

Victoria Alexander — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:17:33 +0000

DreamWorks Pictures presents a Parkes/MacDonald production
MPAA rating: PG-13 / Running time — 109 minutes

QUOTE: The kid is a high-functioning autistic and the mother is terrified of him. It’s not a horror/thriller, just a tedious bore.

THE RING was clever and nasty. After all, the audience was held captive and made to watch the videotape! There was no place to go with the sequel and it does not take long for you to figure out that this is the creepiest mother-son relationship on film. Eventually, there will be incest if we see any more sequels. After all, the kid is twelve, growing fast, and likes to call his mother by her first name. At least in THE RING, the mother, Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) had a sexy former boyfriend. Here, though there is an innocent co-worker, Max Rourke (Simon Baker), who gets quickly caught up in their private drama, he is not Rachel’s love interest. Max is just a helpful shlub who pays dearly. And his rural cottage house gets trashed! La Di Da, Rachel doesn’t care. She makes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. And wait until you see how Rachel chooses to solve the Samara problem.

First CONSTANTINE, now THE RING TWO. I see a trend with water.

Rachel, having saved her son Aidan (David Dorfman) from the 7-day curse by making a copy of the video, moves from Seattle to the sleepy, little town of Astoria, Oregon. In order to start a new life, she takes a job at the local newspaper. No sooner are the boxes unpacked than a teenager dies a horrible death. Rachel investigates and, since she works for a newspaper, is allowed access to corpses, police station interrogation rooms, and private adoption records. (And I thought my Press Credential card was merely a goodwill gesture from Films In Review! I’m going to start flaunting it.) Samara (Kelly Stables) is still out there on videotape taking lives but now it seems she wants to replace Aidan. She needs a mommy.

What in the world happened to Sissy Spacek’s nose? Did she go to Mexico for cheap plastic surgery?

Aidan is a high-functioning autistic and Rachel is terrified of him. Their relationship is so weird not even the tape could be scarier. Their entire relationship consists of two sentences they repeat over and over to each other. Instead of clinging possessively to Rachel, Aidan is like the creepy “Fats the Dummy” from MAGIC (1978, starring Anthony Hopkins). THE RING TWO is not a horror/thriller, just a tedious bore. However, it is what we have come to expect from phenomenally successful films: the lousy sequel without the original cleverness. SAW 2 is now doomed for me.

Cast:
Rachel: Naomi Watts
Mark Rourke: Simon Baker
Aidan: David Dorfman
Dr. Temple: Elizabeth Perkins
Martin: Gary Cole
Evelyn: Sissy Spacek
Jake: Ryan Merriman
Emily: Emily VanCamp
Evil Samara: Kelly Stables

Credits:
Director: Hideo Nakata
Screenwriter: Ehren Kruger
Based on the novel by: Koji Suzuki
Based on the film by: The Ring/The Spiral Production Group
Producers: Walter F. Parkes, Laurie MacDonald
Executive producers: Mike Macari, Roy Lee, Neil Machlis, Michele Weisler
Director of photography: Gabriel Beristain
Production designer: Jim Bissell
Music: Hans Zimmer, Henning Lohner, Martin Tillman
Costume designer: Wendy Chuck
Editor: Michael N. Knue

THE ASSASINATION OF RICHARD NIXON (Stephanie)

Stephanie Rabinowitz — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:09:21 +0000

Presented by Anhelo Productions / Worldwide sales by Senator International
No MPAA rating / 103 minutes

If maintaining objectivity has never been your strong suit, have no fear. Watching Niels Mueller’s THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON could be that master class in stenographer-level impartiality you’ve been waiting for your whole life. With all the trappings of an Oscar contender – a thinking person’s A-list cast (Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, Don Cheadle), a title that reeks of indie-importance, a first-time director with hip writing credits (TADPOLE, SWEET NOTHING) and a December release – the film seems destined for grand-slam greatness. As any self-respecting, pugnaciously unconditional Penn fan would do, you’re already busy puffing up your chest and proclaiming you memorized the screenplay of THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN in college (de rigeur Penn-man behavior). Yes, before you even enter the darkened theater, you and your Carlito-loving Raisinets are already raving. Sadly, this studiedly grainy, claustrophobic contribution to the descent-into-madness genre is excruciatingly boring, monotonous and Julia-Roberts-movie predictable.

Inspired by a true story about an everyman’s attempt to assassinate the 37th President of the United States, THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON is a revisionist biopic of Sam Bicke (Sean Penn), a deeply lonely, paranoid office furniture salesman whose obsessive, irresponsible and unstable behavior has lost him his family. With a desperate and single-minded desire to win back his ex-wife Marie (Naomi Watts) and three children, Sam sets about pursuing his version of the American dream: to ultimately quit his job and open a tire-delivery business with his sole friend Bonny (Don Cheadle).

The year is 1974 and Sam’s progressive alienation from society is intended to mirror the corruption, scandal and hopelessness of that post-Watergate period. Operating increasingly from a dank apartment that’s cheaply reminiscent of Gene Hackman’s panic-inducing pad from THE CONVERSATION, Sam cannot endure the weight of perceived insults he experiences in everyday life. Moving through the universe with his weird blend of increasing hyper-sensitivity, nervous politesse and conspiracy paranoia, he finds the hard realities of life to be too much for him.

Sam’s relationship to work and responsibility constitute the framework for his ultimate meltdown. His attempts to put on a positive, conformist face for his sleazy, aggressive, controlling boss Jack (the fabulous Jack Thompson) quickly give way to a steroidal dose of malaise and distrust. Sam is “subject” to countless acts of “humiliation” and “abuse”. Jack gives him a copy of Dale Carnegie’s ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People,’ instructing him to live and breathe it. Later, Jack demands that Sam shave his mustache to look more like a “family man”. Sam nearly explodes. After making repeated, unscheduled and glassy-eyed visits to a loan officer at the Small Business Administration, Sam is sternly informed that his application will indeed take the usual two months for processing. After making repeated, unscheduled and glassy-eyed visits to his ex-wife’s house, Sam is sternly informed by Marie that she doesn’t want him coming around anymore. Obsessed with racial inequality and the idea that he too, the working stiff, is a second-class citizen, Sam wields a gun, pantomiming the killing of an ill-tempered customer of Bonny’s.

This all might be riveting if it weren’t for the fact that the events leading up to the highly aborted assassination attempt are painfully repetitive, quotidian and anti-climactic. Oh, and that includes the assassination attempt itself, too. Cinema’s rich and venerable tradition of anti-hero crack-ups are a tough act to follow, no doubt: De Niro’s Travis Bickle, Pacino’s Sonny Wortzik, Hackman’s Harry Caul, Nicholson’s Jack Torrance, Douglas’s William Foster, De Niro’s Rupert Pupkin etc. With those classic celluloid moments in mind, a leading man venturing into a loss-of-tenuous-grip-on-reality assignment might very well be itching for a beta-blocker, come his first day on the set. But, this isn’t any leading man. It’s a terrible thing to even think, but Penn’s Sam Bicke is more like Penn’s Sam Dawson (I AM SAM) than anything else.

Watching THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON, one gets the distinct, creepy feeling that Mueller’s directorial debut was held hostage by a major leading man’s insatiable need to fill the screen with an overwrought, over-acted two-hour close-up. If you still insist on plunking down a crispy Hamilton to witness this incredible act of onanism, a quick re-viewing of TAXI DRIVER and three to four boxes of Raisinets may be your only hope of survival.

Credits:
Director: Niels Mueller
Screenwriters: Niels Muller, Kevin Kennedy
Producers: Alfonso Cuaron, Jorge Vergara
Director of photography: Emmanuel Lubezki
Editor: Jay Cassidy
Production designer: Lester Cohen
Music: Steven Stern

Cast:
Sam Bicke: Sean Penn
Marie Bicke: Naomi Watts
Bonny: Don Cheadle
Jack Jones: Jack Thompson
Martin Jones: Brad Henke
Tom Ford: Nick Searcy
Julius Bicke: Michael Wincott
Harold Mann: Mykelti Williamson

THE ASSASINATION OF RICHARD NIXON (Victoria)

Victoria Alexander — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:05:33 +0000

Presented by Anhelo Productions / Worldwide sales by Senator International
No MPAA rating / 103 minutes

QUOTE: Penn’s performance commands attention.

I see more movies than I review. If you see as many movies as I do, you become anesthetized to bad acting. As long as actors say their lines and don’t make too many faces, you accept it as standard movie acting. Then along comes a performance like Charlize Theron’s in MONSTER. I was emailing back and forth with a fan and she wrote: “No matter what Theron does in the future, we’ll always have her performance in MONSTER.” Yes, I agree. Theron was brilliant. As Roger Ebert wrote, and I agree, it was the greatest cinematic performance of all time.

This year there are five terrific performances: Imelda Staunton in “Vera Drake,” Anne Reid in “The Mother,” Jim Caviezel in “The Passion of the Christ,” Christian Bale in “The Machinist” and Sean Penn in “The Assassination of Richard Nixon.”

THE MACHINIST and THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON are both small, dark films hardly getting the kind of exposure lavished on THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and THE AVIATOR. While Bill Murray is being hailed as an acting genius, these two performances by Bale and Penn are remarkable in their subtlety. Even Murray would agree his praise for THE LIFE AQUATIC is overblown compared to these performances.

In 1974 Sam Bicke (Sean Penn) decided to assassinate President Richard Nixon. The President was lying about Watergate and Bicke became so obsessed with Nixon’s deceit that he decided to hijack a plane and blow up the White House.

THE ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD NIXON is the story of what led Bicke to his far-flung plan. Of course, it was not based on anything Nixon did personally to him or Bicke’s political philosophy. It was an expression of Bicke’s failure to live the American Dream.

Bicke has been newly hired as an office furniture salesman. He is separated from his waitress wife Marie (Naomi Watts) and their two children. Marie has moved on and really wants no part of Bicke. His boss Jack Jones (Jack Thompson) gives him Dale Carnegie’s “How To Win Friends and Influence People” as a primer for selling furniture. He has to follow certain rules spelled out on tapes. He knows it is a bunch of crap but his boss is a bully he must placate.

Bicke had a contentious relationship with his brother and left the family tire business. He now wants to start a mobile tire shop with his black mechanic friend Bonny (Don Cheadle). He’s applied for financial assistance through a small-business aid plan but is caught up in a bureaucracy that is not interested in helping him. He eventually lays blame at the feet of Richard Nixon. Bonny, on the other hand, is not surprised.

First-time director Niels Mueller and his co-screenwriter Kevin Kennedy understand this character’s frustration and gradual desperation. Bicke’s crummy environment and lack of respect are catalysts that push him towards placing blame on Nixon.

It is Penn’s searing performance that beats through the hollow lower-middle class terrain meticulously recreated here. How in the world can Penn relate to this man’s sense of emptiness and frustration? If you want to see a little man’s steady decline while slowly getting pushed up against a wall, watch Penn intensely inhabit the role. He shows us Bicke’s inner thought processes. Like MYSTIC RIVER, Penn holds our interest by bringing emotional chaos to a complicated character and allowing us to understand his actions.

(Charlize, I understand you want to do several more “I’m still really beautiful” roles before you return to acting, but at your age and with your fierce dedication, you have the opportunity to galvanize the profession by forcing your peers to start acting for their paychecks.)

MULHOLLAND DRIVE

Victoria Alexander — Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:46:44 +0000

David Lynch’s extraordinary vision had a ‘use-by’ expiration date. Who would have guessed? The advance audience I saw his latest film with laughed derisively and talked throughout the screening. The exit comments were mean.

I used to be a great David Lynch fan. MULHOLLAND DRIVE is sloppy and lazy. Imagine being in your 50′s, wildly successful, yet still bitter about the high school kid who once made fun of you. Not only can’t you drop it, you keep going over and over the episode in your head. You erect a hate altar to the guy. You’re endlessly writing the same song about him.

You’d think Lynch would find a clever, unusual, or original way to keep mining his obsessions. MULHOLLAND DRIVE is a mish-mash of highlights from his previous works (ERASERHEAD, BLUE VELVET, TWIN PEAKS, WILD AT HEART and LOST HIGHWAY). Yes, it is a fantastic catalog. And this is why it is so upsetting to sit through MULHOLLAND DRIVE. I like surreal, psychological films with layers. I like trying to figure out the director’s psyche. Lynch’s latest work started out as a two-hour television pilot that got rejected by ABC. Someone had a great idea to make some more money on the project. Add some lesbian sex scenes and release it theatrically. Lynch didn’t bother to tidy things up. Characters appear and then vanish. Storylines go nowhere. Lynch just slapped on some scenes along with good old Lynchian standbys. He added the exact same music by Angelo Badalamenti – who also has only one haunting melody in his repertoire.

There is a story – sort of. It starts off with a car crash. ‘Rita’ (Laura Elena Harring) is about to be killed by some thugs but survives. She hides out in an L.A. bungalow. Soon Betty (Naomi Watts, playing the role Laura Dern had in BLUE VELVET) turns up. She wants to be an actress and is borrowing her aunt’s apartment. Betty becomes infatuated with Rita’s amnesia, especially since she had a purse full of money and a mysterious key.

Adam (Justin Theroux) is a hot film director who doesn’t know anything about business. But with his high forehead, deep black hair, pointy nose, severe thinness, and aloofness, can Adam be trusted? (We’d probably find out if this had become a TV series). There’s a criminal mastermind – a midget in a wheelchair in a velvet draped empty room – manipulating Adam’s career and making casting decisions. There are lip-synched songs just like in BLUE VELVET. There’s a man in the moon now dressed like a Cowboy (ERASERHEAD).

Women get beat up by men.

Lynch paints a creepy world that vaguely reminds me of a pedophile’s basement. He crowds his cast in small bare rooms and keeps the camera right on top of them. There’s still a sadistic streak that runs briskly through Lynch’s work. While Harring’s face mesmerizes Lynch, he just can’t decide what his film is about. It’s easy to label MULHOLLAND DRIVE a dream, but dreams do have plots.

It’s sad to say but maybe true: There’s only one character like Frank Booth per career.