we had the misfortune of seeing an advanced preview of the new peter jackson version of king kong a couple of weeks ago. it was, in a word, sucky.
now, don’t get us wrong. we love peter jackson’s work. we love popcorn action movies. and more than that, we love the original king kong. so we were quite looking foward to it.
but it was more than disappointing, it was down-right boring. clocking in at more than three hours, the movie would be great, if you’ve never seen another movie before in your life. but it steals so freely from other films, that the only way we could amuse ourselves in the theater was to play “what flick is that reference from?”
our review after the jump.
one of the the biggest problems was, and we are not exaggerating at all here: the original king kong movie would be over by the time the monkey is first seen in this new version. and then, he doesn’t get a close up or establishing shot. you see a shadow jumping through the jungle. then a big arm reaches towards naomi watts (doing jessica lange doing faye wray). then you see a big gorilla, or at least half of him, from the side, as he looks at the blonde beauty. then he grabs her and scampers off.
it’s a good thing this kong was a computer effect. if it was a real actor, he would have demanded a full-frontal shot for his first entrance. it is, after all, his film.
other problems: pacing, as we mentioned; computer effects looking pretty tired (if you saw sky captain and the world of tomorrow, you’ve seen this version of new york; if you saw the return of the king you’ve seen this version of skull island); too many unimportant characters given too much screen time (the cabin boy and first mate were pretty disposable); terrible miscasting (jack black is no charles grodin, and when we think of action heroes, adrian brody does not leap to mind); and a terrible emphasis on the “more is more” school of film-making (kong doesn’t have to battle just one tyrannosaurus rex, and not just two, but three of the computer animated beasts).
and as to the set pieces of action…gee, we haven’t seen a dinosaur stampede since…well, the jurassic park films a few years ago. and those stampedes were less than 20 minutes, and actually looked like something. king kong’s brachiosaur stampede through the canyon, as the human actors tried to run out of the way, was murky and befuddled, and looked less like living creatures running and falling then masses of liquid grey blobs lumbering around…it became indiana jones and the lava lamp of doom for a while.
now, we will have to admit something terrible here. we had a christmas party to attend that night, and so we walked out 2 hours and 10 minutes into the movie…and the characters still hadn’t gotten back to new york! even more to the point, our christmas party did not really have a set time for beginning, so we could have stayed if we wanted to…and we would have, if there was something interesting to look at.
so after our disappointment at the movies, we have been both confused and vindicated about our feelings. confused because the film received practically universal raves from the national critics. (not-siskel and ebert gave it two thumbs up! we are crushed!)
but then, vindicated, because if you read the reviews, you see all the points we made above. even not-siskel and ebert admitted jack black and adrian brody were horribly miscast. most critics concede the film is far too long, and steals from other movies.
so, it’s a poorly-written, over-long, terribly miscast plagiaristic remake. but other than that, it’s fantastic!
and, we are feeling a bit more vindicated, because, like the remake of godzilla a few years ago, this monster is doing far less than expected (hoped?) at the box office. latimes:
although “king kong” was no. 1 at the box office, the unexpectedly sluggish opening adds to growing fears that u.s. audiences might be forsaking the multiplex: for the first time in more than 40 years, hollywood by year’s end will have recorded declining attendance for three consecutive years… “this was one of the films that was supposed to help get the business back to last year’s levels, and clearly it didn’t happen,” richard greenfield, a media analyst with fulcrum global partners, said of “king kong.” “the bottom line is that this is a surprisingly low figure.”
universal conceded that the film’s first day was unimpressive but said “king kong” is nevertheless on track to be a blockbuster.
“the one thing we can say is that a geek fan base did not storm the gates,” said marc shmuger, universal’s vice chairman. he said returns earlier in the week were hurt by the film’s long running time and cited faulty estimates. “i don’t think anyone who was prognosticating had the right model,” he said. universal also believes that as more school-age children begin their winter holidays, they will start snapping up “king kong” tickets.
“i’m incredibly encouraged by where we are right now,” shmuger said sunday, adding that positive word of mouth should make “king kong” a top audience choice for weeks to come. “i couldn’t be more bullish.” universal also stressed that in overseas theaters, “king kong” grossed $80 million.
it will have to gross much more to turn a profit, given its $220 million price tag and tens of millions more spent on marketing. (studios keep only about half of a film’s theatrical receipts, and a hefty slice of the “king kong” proceeds will then go to jackson and his team.)
“king kong” carries all the possible elements for a sure-fire blockbuster: an oscar-winning filmmaker coming off three “lord of the rings” smashes, breathtaking special effects for teens, a heart-wrenching story for adults, consistent rave reviews, and hardly any competition in theaters.
that’s why, when “king kong’s” wednesday ticket sales were so comparatively weak, executives across hollywood spent hours on the telephone obsessing over the numbers. it’s something they’ve become accustomed to this year as one anticipated hit after another has received a lukewarm response from moviegoers.
if you want to see a good movie this christmas, see munich (not an easy film to watch…but worth it) or memoirs of a geisha or harry potter.