Jackson dropped the ball, in my opinion... - King Kong Reviews

Having heard that this iteration of "King Kong" was faithful to the original really had me hopeful. After all, the legend of King Kong has endured over 70 years largely because it was a compelling story. As such, I went into the movie with reasonably high expectations. A great story plus modern technology that could really due it justice - how could it NOT be a winning combination? Well, as you can tell from my detailed ratings, I thought all aspects of the story were great - except for Jackson's directing. Yes, it is basically faithful to the original, but it seems to me that he failed to capture the spirit of the original, the elements that made the original so compelling to begin with. That's why I walked away with such a bitter taste in my mouth, despite the incredible CGI and great acting. *** Because some who are reading this review may not have seen the movie yet, be warned that what follows are examples of how I think Jackson failed to serve the story justice. Read on at your own risk, keeping in mind of course that if you saw the original, then you already know what happens! *** On a positive note, I like that the first third of the movie was spent in New York, laying the foundation for the trip to Skull Island. This is one element that was expanded upon the original, and I think it was worthwhile. On the other hand, I disliked nearly the entire set of scenes on Skull Island. First, Jackson severly diminished the role that Kong played in the lives of the local tribe. Instead, he portrayed the tribe in a revolting manner, completely belittling their ways of life and rituals. In the original, it was clear that they revered Kong, perhaps seeing him/it as a god. It was also clear in the original that they were startled by the presence of the crew, not necessarily hostile and outright antagonistic. In this version, however, Jackson chose to portray them as muderous, self-mutilating creatures fully intent on killing the entire crew without reason. He didn't even explain or offer implicit justification why Ann Darrow would make a suitable offer of sacrifice to Kong. In short, his portrayal of the native tribe and the foundation for the sacrifice was unjustly truncated and disgusting. Second, many of the action scenes were completely ridiculous. Now before I expound, I fully realize that NONE of the story is realistic, and that's it not meant to be. However, just because the basic premise of the story is unrealistic by design (ie, fiction), it does not mean that every sequence has to be completely impossible. For example, there is NO WAY the crew would avoid getting trampled by the herbivorous dinosaurs as they fled down the narrow channel like a Pamplonian running of the bulls for what seemed like miles. First, the bulk of the dinosaurs on the run were plant eaters, so they posed no imminent threat to the crew. As a result, why wouldn't the crew simply press itself against one side of the cliffs and allow the dinosaurs to trample through? And why again were the dinosaurs running? Afraid of Kong? Why? He showed no signs of being their predator. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. So was the fight scene between Kong and THREE T-Rexes. Fine, let's assume that Kong could take three T-Rexes at one time. I don't have a problem with that. But doing so with one hand while Ann Darrow is in the other, being violently thrashed to and fro as he fights? Her neck would've snapped after one violent arm swing, much less after TEN MINUTES of constant thrashing. Why couldn't he just have put her down? Would that have somehow ruined the fight scene? Want more? How about when the young crew member was shooting those flesh-eating creatures off Adrien Brody's body WITH A MACHINE GUN while Brody himself is thrashing about trying to get them off? AN INEXPERIENCED WEAPONEER FIRING A MACHINE GUN DIRECTLY AT BRODY, AND BRODY COMES OUT UNSCATHED??? The above examples are but a few of what I see as Jackson's overriding error in judgment - he was more consumed with demonstrating the admittedly fantastic CGI at the expense of the story. CGI aside, I think what was most distressing to me about the story was the creepy love triangle that Jackson created between Ann Darrow, John Driscoll (Brody), and Kong. To me, what made the original so compelling was the fact that Ann Darrow was able to see the purity of spirit in Kong, despite the obvious fear he/it instilled in others, and thus truly empathized with him/it when he was removed from his natural environment for human expoitation, and then gunned down when the exploitation when awry. In this version, though, Jackson took Kong's ability to love(?) as a human so far, that he actually had them (ridiculously) frollicking on ice in Central Park. How creepy is that? A love triangle between two humans and an ape. Compassion and empathy are one thing; potential bestiality is quite another. I can only imagine how Jane Goodall must feel... In the end, I walked out of King Kong 2005, disillusioned not only by it, but by what mainstream Hollywood fare has become. I read news articles all the time about how box office receipts are down this year, and no one's quite sure what to make of it. Some blame the advent of home theaters; others blame steep ticket prices. As far as I'm concerned, though, this movie epitomizes the real problem with Hollywood. Directors, producers, and studios alike still think that special effects will win the day. Well, guess what, they're wrong. 2005 hasn't been a down year because of home theaters and ticket prices. It has been a down year because the lion's share of movie plots that get produced are pitiful. And King Kong 2005 is not only no exception, it is the quintessential example.