Kelly WandKing Kong
September 19th 2006 00:49
But modern audiences yawned at its charms. The seventies remake was so terrible that most rational people pretend it never happened. I guess it was ripe for a re-make and who says no to Peter Jackson these days? Well, somebody should. This modern day monster monstrosity opens itself up to one particular interpretation. It is an analogy for the massive swelling occurring atop Jackson’s rather broad shoulders.
Viewing “Bad Taste” recently, I would have voted him the man least likely to succeed in cinema not because “Bad Taste” is a bad film (it isn’t). It is because it is bogged down in the kind of floppy hippy shit that is fine when you’re playing tongue in cheek (or tongue torn out and thrown in blender.) Continuing down that path in a budgeted film tends to lead to a dreary cinematic experience.
Alfred Hitchcock famously stated that the length of a film should be restricted to the size of a human bladder. Whilst Hitchcock’s girth suggests diabetes and a need for frequent toilet breaks, he does present a valid point. It is certainly one that escaped Jackson. “Return of the King” should have ended the second the dude took the crown. Story arc ends there. We don’t need to know everyone’s life story after that point. They went back to the Shire and sod all happened. Nice one, Pete. Especially as that Jumbo sized coke works it way through your system. Didn’t anyone tell the guy that the added wank should be saved for the DVD Special Anally Obsessive Edition.
Well, clearly they didn’t. What is worse is that this self indulgence was rewarded by a shower of Academy Awards. My mistake. Self indulgence is a pre-requisite for a shower of Academy Awards. When the cameras started rolling on Kong, our Pete must have started dusting down shelf space in eager anticipation.
A competent producer and a halfway decent editor could have taken thirty minutes off of the beginning of this flick to no-one’s discomfort. All the essential information in these scenes is repeated often enough that all you would lose is some overly detailed observations of a semi-mythical New York that do not benefit the story one iota.
Two sailor’s discuss Conrad’s Heart of Darkness in a piece of attempted subtext that Jackson has neither the intellect nor the testicular fortitude to carry through to its rational conclusion. Instead, the dumb side kick sailor suddenly realises that the book is something other than an adventure story. At this point, the film takes an impressive tonal shift towards “Cannibal Holocaust” country. It doesn’t last and the film quickly degenerates into something that is little more than an adventure story.
The action sequences roll out like a Playstation game. The action is too big to be at all credible. I’m not a guy who is adverse to a little spectacle but, here, Jackson mistakes fury for excitement. When you play a computer game, oversized action works because you have a part to play in that action. Your own desire to survive guarantees your involvement. In a film, we live vicariously through the actors. If a director does not provide space for us to associate with his characters’ plight, he may as well be just flashing lights in our face.
Look, I don’t want to get too picky but… You will probably question how I know this but, if you are caught in a stampede of Brontosauri, you have a future as a meat patty. You do not skip happily between their legs untouched – particularly if you have a physique like Jack Black. Three T-Rex would be unlikely to fight over a morsel the size of Naomi Watts. One snap and she would be gone. Instead, the tumbling mess of dinosaur limbs, tails and jaws resembles an old cartoon where a cloud appears to shield us from the action. Jackson needs a lesson in Minimalism possibly delivered by a club wielding Neanderthal. “Less is more”. Whack! “Less is more” Whack! “Less is more.”
The one thing I will say in favour of this movie is Naomi Watts. She does make you believe it is possible to fall in love with the big ape. As much as Jackson would like to claim credit, that all comes down to her skills. Not his. Not his CGI and effects budget and not his appalling script. Watts is a genuinely talented actor; the kind of actor Nicole Kidman thinks she is but isn’t. Despite everything, the movie is worth renting for her.
| 91 |
| Vote |
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
What most people experience with Schindlers List I experience with Watership Down.
I wont argue the film was too long and certainly opted for visual over story but it resonated for me anyway. I wont be watching it again for sometime because it made me so sad.
Funnily enough the other big glaring fault of for me was Naomi Watts, she just appears flat and lifeless to me as an actress. In this she looked very self conscious and seemed to be trying to hard.
Comment by Bob Short
One of my big likes about her performance was its characterarc. She starts as a dreary vile sub humanoid who you hope gets killed before she reaches the ship (perhaps in a particularly unpleasant tram accident).
She only blossoms in the hands of Kong.
There is no shame do be had over finding a devestating emotional response from Watership Down. I remember the apocalyptic effect Ring of Bright Water had upon my childhood.