Writers and poets have such a love affair with death and the afterlife. Death plays chess in our world in Ingmar Bergman’s THE SEVENTH SEAL and Orpheus is romanced by Death herself and travels to her world in Jean Cocteau’s version of the film ORPHEUS. Both films are solemn and glib. Peter Jackson is the latest to guide us into his lollipop version of the afterlife for a 14-year-old murdered girl in THE LOVELY BONES. It’s Disney for the Dead.

In the 70′s, a new resident pervert digs a subterranean den for killing beneath the cornfields outside of Philadelphia. George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) cowardly lures innocent defenseless Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronanand) inside and her soul escapes, not yet understanding the mutilation its body has suffered. Susie wanders in a world watching ours, desperately trying to get back to her family. George hides under the radar in an investigation led by Michael Imperioli and converges on the path of Mark Wahlberg’s paternal revenge. Thirsting for the thrill of the kill once again, George gazes towards Susie’s sister Lindsey (Rose McIver).

The Salmon household is shattered as both parents react to their daughter’s death differently and their bond falls apart. Mark Wahlberg immerses himself in an investigation to catch the predator and his wife (Rachel Weisz) flees to California to work in the fields as a day laborer. The Mother-in-law (Susan Sarandon) is a drunk who adds some comedy to a tense situation.

This is where the film is at a loss. It is unbelievable that the mother just upped and left to work with migrant field workers. Sarandon’s character really adds nothing except time to the 135-minute film that should be trimmed by at least 15 minutes. It was as if Sarandon had a cameo role and Weisz decided to leave the set and return for one last scene. The third act is rather drawn out. And Susie’s love interest looks much older than she, and he comes off rather creepy. A while back I saw the trailer for the film and believe it is he who exclaimed that he did not kill Susie, yet this does not appear in the film.

As the 14-year-old wanders in LaLa Land, Susie wishes herself back in the room where Sean Cassidy is plastered along the walls and the memories of her first romance, only to be jaded by her murder, causing her much angst. Her world is filled with color. Dazzling

sun-filled days seamlessly mesh adjacently to star-bright nights, and all of earth-bound realities and laws of physics are suspended. Susie encounters a young girl with the message “Don’t look back.” She continues to hold on and witnesses that her actions manipulate the world in which she is now only a memory. Her father looks out into the night and faintly hears and sees her. Hysteria and anger overtake him and he smashes the dozens of ships in bottles that he and his daughter spent time building. His violent actions and emotions appear on the shore in the afterlife as large ships in bottles float close to the shore and begin to smash and sink in this magnificent CGI world.

The acting is first rate. At first, I didn’t recognize Tucci. He transformed into a pedophile. His character has such depth. He portrays the concerned citizen to the police, he gives off a menacing evil look that causes girls to shudder, and he deploys so much by doing so little in terms of dialogue. He is neighborhood creep, concerned citizen, friendly neighbor, reclusive clean freak, unassuming man in the mall, and meek mild-mannered somewhat bumbling fool. He is deserving of an Oscar.

The film combines action, drama, and suspense in a world of wonderment, juxtaposed against the bleakness of the cold northeast. Did you read the book? I did not and those that have are criticizing the script for its lack of depth and simplification of the characters. Susan Sarandon is one that is harping about her limited role. This is true for so many films. For instance, ANNA KARENINA is stripped to its barest and loses what Tolstoy’s 800+ page epic brings forth. However, a film is meant to stand alone. To all of those moaning about this, please present your script.

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

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.

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

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.

---

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

]]> http://www.filmsinreview.com/2005/12/05/king-kong-dennis/feed/ 0 http://www.filmsinreview.com/2005/12/05/king-kong-oren/ http://www.filmsinreview.com/2005/12/05/king-kong-oren/#comments Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:54:54 +0000 Oren Shai http://www.filmsinreview.com/archives/2005/12/05/king-kong-oren/

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”.

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

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.

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

New Line Cinema / Wingnut Films
Running time — 200 minutes / MPAA rating: PG-13

I was naively unaware of the vicious assault I would get from foolishly daring to write a negative word about LOTR: THE TWO TOWERS. (I loved LOTR: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING but was on an arduous trek through Nepal and was not able to review it in a timely fashion.) I was, therefore, unprepared for the Taliban-like response to my LOTR: THE TWO TOWERS review. The LOTR’s fanatics are still calling me “a whore.” It certainly makes me wonder about Tolkien’s empirical influence and the true affect the books and movies have had on people.

I’ve come to the sad realization that all of the thousands of ugly emails I got were from Tolkienites who would have slavishly kept The Ring.

With crazy fierce disregard for the LOTR’s fan base, I attended a screening of LOTR: THE RETURN OF THE KING and, determined not to be intimated by LOTR’s fedayeen, have decided to write a critique of the film.

It is gorgeous, breathtaking, astonishing, and engrossing.

But wait! Fans, be forewarned: I’m reckless enough to continue. Emails and curses be damned!

I too practice black magic.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING has my Las Vegas Film Critic’s Society nomination as Best Film of the Year. Even with, and let the wrath begin – the most man-tears and “the love that dares not speak its name” than any other epic I have ever seen.

Sam (Sean Astin) cries and stares longingly in Mr. Frodo’s (Elijah Wood) eyes. Sam takes the notion of loyalty and devotion to a level of piety. I haven’t seen such love since St. Catherine of Siena starved herself for Jesus. Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) gaze at each other with adoration. Yes, I understand that Hobbits are characteristically touchy-feely and tend towards idolatry but the sexual undercurrents are hard to ignore.

Perhaps just being around the Ring makes one lose one’s focus.

[Move over Mel. It’s my turn to be crucified.]

Have Frodo and Gollum (Andy Serkis) been subtly transformed since TTT? In RETURN they both have the biggest, bluest eyes that mirror their comfortable duality. It was disturbing that they were filmed by director Peter Jackson in such obvious cinematic rapport.

It is the skill and artistry of a director to hold a glance, fix an actor’s eye, and through staging and placement, to convey non-verbal subtext. Jackson achieved his purpose here in making certain directorial decisions that cleverly telegraph his subterranean point of view on the characters.

Once again I will admit that I have not read the LOTR’s saga. In this case, it works wonderfully. I was surprised. I was intrigued. I anticipated nothing. It was a joy to see the story unfold so masterfully.

Not a devotee, I was thrilled the film opened with Hobbit Smeagol finding the One Ring. His physical and emotional evolution from Smeagol to Gollum puts context to the story. Gollum is by far the most fascinating character to emerge in RETURN.
RETURN moves fast. No more forced marches, tree-talking philosophy, or dwarf wise-cracking. Mercifully, Arwen (Liv Tyler) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) have small, meaningless roles. Taking center stage is the dynamic Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who leads the survivors of the Battle of Helm’s Deep to Isengard. Here, Aragorn again meets Rohan fighters and unrequited love interest/warrior Eowyn (Miranda Otto).Thankfully, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) is back in the action while my favorite, the Elf bowman Legolas (Orlando Bloom), finally steps out from behind Aragorn’s sword. Jackson and co-writers Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh skillfully introduce new characters with luxurious, and conflicted, dimensions.

Fantastically realized creatures such as the Black Captain of the Nazgul, the Mumakil, and the wondrous Army of the Dead make RETURN a visually captivating extravaganza. The attention to detail is unparalleled. The enormous battle scenes are brilliant. The technical achievements of RETURN mark a new standard in filmmaking with second and third theatrical viewings mandatory.

The battles won, the Ring destroyed, a king is crowned (and finally washes his hair), and sensibility returns as Sam marries and has children.

Credits:
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenwriters: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Based on the book by: J.R.R. Tolkien
Producers: Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson
Executive producers: Robert Shaye, Michael Lynne, Mark Ordesky, Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein
Director of photography: Andrew Lesnie
Production designer: Grant Major
Editors: Jamie Selkirk, Annie Collins
Costume designers: Ngila Dickson, Richard Taylor
Music: Howard Shore
Visual effects supervisor: Jim Rygiel

Cast:
Frodo: Elijah Wood
Gandalf: Ian McKellen
Gollum/Smeagol: Andy Serkis
Aragon: Viggo Mortensen
Sam: Sean Astin
Gimli/Voice of Treebeard: John Rhys-Davies
Merry: Dominic Monaghan
Pippin: Billy Boyd
Arwen: Liv Tyler
Legolas: Orlando Bloom
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
King Theoden: Bernard Hill
Faramir: David Wenham
Eowyn: Miranda Otto
Eomer: Karl Urban
Denethor: John Noble
Galadriel: Cate Blanchett

New Line Cinema / A Wingnut Films production
Running time — 179 minutes / MPAA rating: PG-13

I’ll be the reckless, foolish messenger and endure the wrath of LOTR devotees: Compared to THE FELLOWSHIP, THE TWO TOWERS is a big, sprawling disappointment.

The Fellowship splintered at the end of part one of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” film trilogy. The complicated stories of the surviving men of the Fellowship takes center stage. THE TWO TOWERS begins with Gandalf’s (Ian McKellen) spectacular hurling-into-the-abyss/supposed-death- match with the fire-breathing Balrog of Morgoth.

The Two Towers are Orthanc Tower in Isengard, where evil wizard Saruman (Christopher Lee) reigns, and Barad-dur (Tower) in Mordor, the fortress of the dark Lord Sauron (symbolized as a resplendent, fiery eye). It’s the eve of a war for the fate of Middle Earth that culminates in a brilliantly executed, visually stunning battle.

But it’s a two-and-a-half hour lonely journey through woods, mountains, and fields to get to the CGI/live action battle.

Hobbits Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) are still on their perilous journey. Frodo toys with The Ring hanging from a chain around his neck. Yes, The Ring has a seductive lure but Frodo is strong. He avoids temptation and doesn’t put it on – not even to save his life.

Why did Biblo give The Ring to his nephew knowing the danger it brings?

Frodo and Sam are being followed by a near-naked, split-personality creature (once the hobbit Smeagol) called Gollum (Andy Serkis), who either wants to kill Frodo and take back “my precious” ring, or loyally serve “Master” Frodo. He becomes their captive/guide to the Black Gate. Gollum had The Ring for 500 hundred years. Gollum represents the complete degradation visited upon possessors of The Ring (but it does take hundreds of years). Introduced in FELLOWSHIP as a menacing, lurking presence, here Gollum is a whimpering crybaby (Good Gollum) and a nasty troublemaker (Bad Gollum).

Fellowship warriors human Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli the dwarf (John-Rhys Davies) are also on an arduous, long foot journey to find captured Hobbits Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). Merry and Pippin escape their cannibal captors during a fierce battle and find refuge in Fanghorn Forest. The Ents are living trees who walk, talk, and get mad. A CGI character, Treebeard (voiced by John Rhys-Davies), decides to help the Hobbits and joins the war against Saruman. Carried by Treebeard, they also go on a long, solitary journey. Treebeard is poorly conceived with eyes darting around like people forced into cartoon costumes.

Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli must pass through the kingdom of Rohan. Gandalf miraculously returns to save Rohan’s dying king, Theoden (Bernard Hill). Saruman has cast a spell upon Theoden. His death will bring Saruman’s slimely cohort Wormtongue (Brad Dourif) to the throne, since the spellbound king banished his nephew and heir Eomer (Karl Urban). Wormtongue desires the King’s niece Eowyn (Miranda Otto), but she prefers to take a sword to battle when Theoden’s curse is lifted by Gandalf.

Eowyn falls for Aragorn, but he is still in love with elf Arwen (Liv Tyler) who visits him in a dream. Eowyn’s father Elrond (Hugo Weaving) makes a brief appearance, as does Galadriel (Cate Blanchett). Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli fight in the battle of Helm’s Deep alongside Rohan warriors against Saruman’s formidable army of Uruk-hai, Orcs, and Easterlings. Aragorn, believed to be killed in the battle, miraculously returns.

That’s two miraculous returns from the dead. (Well, yes, Gandalf technically didn’t die, he was transformed.)

There is no denying the brilliance of the battle sequence that ends the film. Sauron’s army is made up of fantastic creatures: the massive elephant-like Oliphants, the Ringwraiths, and Wargs. Yet, there’s an impersonal feel to the battle.

Sometimes directors have screen alter-egos and here director Peter Jackson obviously favors Gimli. He has more screen time and close-ups then The Ring, Frodo, and Aragorn combined. He’s also the comic relief. My favorite character, Legolas, who I had hoped to see more of, just trails behind Aragorn on the long, forced march. Frodo spends a lot of time walking through the woods as a minor character. Sam gives a speech. Gandalf, a clever and formidable personality in FELLOWSHIP, is a secondary, one-dimensional character here. The charm of his scenes with Bilbo are gone as he becomes a white-robed, haloed wizard. Theoden and his nephew Eomer come to the forefront but obscure the importance and potency of the destiny of The Ring. It’s the battle for Middle Earth that dominates THE TWO TOWERS.

Yes, THE TWO TOWERS is visually impressive and the months spent on the battle scenes is noteworthy (and acknowledged), but the stunning images and carefully drawn characters are not advanced. The haunting, memorable score is now minor background music. The wonderful visual illusion of the tiny Hobbits in the world of wizards, elfs, and humans – so beautifully rendered in FELLOWSHIP – is not shown since Frodo and Sam spend most of THE TWO TOWERS alone in the woods with a crawling, naked and dirty Gollum.

While LOTR devotees will adore the grandeur and special effects, the battle for Middle Earth is played out against a standard medieval backdrop. THE TWO TOWERS is about real estate. The strong presence of a villain to hold the drama together is missing. Saruman spends his screen time gazing into a crystal.

The enormous vista of THE TWO TOWERS cannot be dismissed. Yet, the story is not intriguing. I understand that many of my story criticisms will be answered in the last part of the trilogy when all the pieces come together. However, THE TWO TOWERS must stand alone in its own right.

Cast:
Frodo: Elijah Wood
Gandalf: Ian McKellen
Arwen: Liv Tyler
Aragorn: Viggo Mortensen
Sam: Sean Astin
Saruman: Christopher Lee
Gimli/the voice of Treebeard: John Rhys-Davies
Merry: Dominic Monaghan
Pippin: Billy Boyd
Legolas: Orlando Bloom
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
Gollum: Andy Serkis
King Theoden: Bernard Hill
Faramir: David Wenham
Eowyn: Miranda Otto
Eomer: Karl Urban
Galadriel: Cate Blanchett

Credits:
Director: Peter Jackson
Screenwriters: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair, Peter Jackson
Based on the book by: J.R.R. Tolkien
Director of photography: Andrew Lesnie
Production designer: Grant Major
Editors: Michael Horton, Jabez Olssen
Music: Howard Shore
Visual effects supervisor: Jim Rygiel