Here’s the scene: a giant gorilla and a beautiful woman are gliding over the surface of a frozen pond surrounded by Christmas trees in the middle of Central Park. As I watch it, tears are streaming down my face. It’s a small moment, a simple moment, a tiny thing really. And yet it’s a scene of such stunning beauty I can’t think of anything in the history of cinema that’s quite like it.
I cried during this new “Kong”. Right there, you should know that this is a different film from the usual, big-budget, effects filled extravaganza that gets tossed into theaters. There is a soul behind the spectacle of “Kong”, more soul than any big film since “Titanic”, in fact. This is glorious, old-fashioned filmmaking. It’s a remake that’s on the same level as the original, despite the fact that it’s really a completely different sort of film.
Okay, it’s not COMPLETELY different. Both films tell the story of a ship full of adventurers who journey to an undiscovered island, a “lost world”, if you will, to make a movie the likes of which no one has ever seen. In both films, the film crew stumbles upon a world beyond their wildest dreams. In both films, a gorgeous young woman who is the star of this film is sacrificed to an enormous ape. And, in both films, his love for this woman is the big ape’s undoing.
The original was a glorious adventure story with amazing special effects (the effects in the original Kong are still great by any standard, mostly because there’s a handworn craftsmanship to them lacking in most other effects films from any period) and a unique story. This new film, for all its adventure and chases and narrow escapes is, at its heart, a romance between a woman and a giant ape. And as silly as that sounds, it’s one of the most heartbreaking romances of all time. The real discovery for me about this movie was how seriously I took this potentially silly world.
The film pounds with emotion from the very beginning. It sets up the world of Depression-era New York quickly and flawlessly. The film gives you an amazing feel for the time period, and for the poverty and desperation of everyone in this world. When the director of the film within this film and leader of the quest to Skull Island, Carl Denham (Jack Black), dangles money in front of these people, they can’t help but to take it. Even if they suspect the check they’re getting isn’t worth the paper on which it’s printed, they can’t pass up a chance at cash. It’s Desperation (with a capital “D”) that drives the opening hour of this film. Denham has to prove himself with this film he is making, otherwise not only is his career finished, but he even faces jail time. Jack Black is excellent as Denham, who bluffs his way through every situation and uses every ounce of charisma he has access to in his desperate grab for success. Denham has worn out his welcome in the film community as we first meet him, grabbing his film cans before they can get turned into stock footage and jumping on a ship one step ahead of the authorities. This all makes him a fascinating character, even if he is a bit of a shitheel. Thus, the first hour becomes a fascinating exploration of a huckster making a final grab at the success which has long eluded him.
Along for the ride is Adrien Brody as the screenwriter of Denham’s film. He’s a celebrated New York playwright who’s been practically kidnapped by Denham and hauled along on this journey. It’s his involvement that helps win the participation of Naomi Watts’ Ann Darrow, a starving actress who sticks by her principles despite her poverty. Hers is the best character in the story, even before she is handed over to the mighty Kong. Watts displays genuine pluck here (there’s really no better word for it) and she’s got the skill not only to make us believe that she’s really reacting to the giant ape (when we all know she’s probably standing in front of a green screen the majority of the time) but that she’s even coming to love the big galoot. This is, sincerely, the best female performance I expect to see this year. If she’s not nominated for Best Actress, then the Academy isn’t even trying.
Once the movie gets us on Skull Island, it becomes a second kind of movie: in short, it becomes the best damned "Jurassic Park" movie ever made. Spielberg probably wishes he could still stage action sequences this exciting (the closest he’s recently come was “Minority
Report”). There may be some lapses in logic here, but the sheer momentum and inventiveness of scenes like the dinosaur stampede and the fight between Kong and the T-Rexes kept me from even considering them until long after I’d left the theater. This is the most excitement I’ve had at the cinema this year. I sometimes had to remind myself to breathe.
But the reason the film is so stunning is the last hour, when the film and Denham return to New York with Kong in tow. We all know how this is going to play out. We all know what’s going to happen here. And yet it all feels fresh and unexpected. I attribute that to the passion of Jackson’s filmmaking and the greatness of Watts’ performance. They give the film a heart lacking in most modern blockbusters (though this has been a damn good year for fantasy film, in my opinion: aside from this movie, the two best movies I’ve seen thus far were “Revenge
of the Sith” and “Serenity”, they worked with more intriguing ideas and had more pathos in them than any of the so-called “respectable” movies I’ve seen this year). I wasn’t surprised to find myself on the edge of my seat for a lot of the film. After all, this is the guy who gave us the amazing “Lord of the Rings” films. I was, however, surprised to find myself gasping at the aching beauty of it all and openly weeping for the beautiful tragedy of the film’s finale. And it wasn’t just the tragic final third that brought tears to my eyes. I can’t ever remember crying simply because a movie was so damn beautiful or because a scene made me so utterly happy. I did at “Kong”.
It’s not quite perfect. The natives are a bit too much like the orcs in Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” flicks for my taste. The use of slow motion in this film is sometimes obnoxious. Some of the dialogue is best described as clunky. And where the original film had a love triangle, this one is all about the love of Kong for Ann Darrow which, this time, actually gets reciprocated (there’s no sex scene, don’t get nervous). Brody is good enough, but he can’t compete with Kong, who lives and breathes like no digital creation ever has. I don’t blame Watts’ Darrow for choosing Kong over the real man in her life. Andy Serkis’s behind the scenes work is, no doubt, a vital ingredient to making that work. After all, the only other special effect creation that felt so utterly alive in recent memory was his portrayal of Gollum/Smeagol. The effects teams have outdone themselves here. But I have no doubt that the script by Jackson, Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh provided the framework for this fine work. Effects films are only as good as their script, and this one is excellent.
So, no, it isn’t perfect. But I’m still giving it four fists, because it’s close enough. “King Kong” is every reason we go to the movies in the first place: to laugh, to cry, and to experience grand, creative thrills and excitement. Only the finest films provide these elements so splendidly that they are raised to the level of art. “Kong” is on that rarefied level, beating with a heart as large as that of its title character, but without sacrificing any element of quality in order to do so. With this and the “Lord of the Rings” films, Jackson has officially become this generation’s leading myth-maker, taking the place Spielberg and Lucas once occupied. Lucas has, for the most part, lost his touch and Spielberg has forgotten how to stage a great ending. And it’s been quite some time since either man brought as much sheer passion and love to any of their projects as Jackson infuses into his.
Until James Cameron decides to grace us with another narrative film, there’s simply no one out there making these big movies with the skill and grace of Peter Jackson.
