Kong 2005 - A Big......Disappointment....why?...let me count the ways...

["Williams, Scott" <Scott.Williams@burpee.org>]

-Hopefully we can all agree the Jackson's Kong was far superior to the
1976 version.

That being said, here is my critique, for what it is worth. (Warning
Long)

I like many of you am an avid movie-goer.  In fact I just took inventory
of my 100 plus movies on DVD and my 200 plus movies on VHS, over the
Christmas holiday, and during the process thought to myself,......Scott,
you need to get a life.  But, because of my rabid interest in movies in
general, I hope my critique is JUST LIKE FOXS NEWS- Fair and Balanced
(Ha Ha!). 

I felt that Jackson's Kong was superior to the original regarding back
story. I liked the hour or so Jackson's spends leading up to the
expedition.  It gives a real feel for day to day living for some during
the depression.  Contrast that with the movie big-shots trying to figure
out ways to get that extra 15 cents from the down and out.  Enter Ann,
unlike the classic Fay Wray Ann; we are introduced to an Ann Darrow with
depth of character.  We see this depth throughout the rest of the story,
as opposed to a relentlessly screaming Ann, which made Fay famous.  

When it comes to Jack, we see a fly-by the seat of his pants, would be
megalomaniac.  However unlike the previous Carl Denhams (1933, 1976)
there seems to be just a smidgeon of humanity in that character.  I felt
that Jack never really went over the top, which he is entirely capable
of.  I think he even feels regret for all that has happened.

The subtle nods to the original movie as well as to some of Jackson's
earlier films were much appreciated for a film buff such as me.

When it came to action on the island, it was good fun.  A couple quick
complaints, perhaps the V.rex vs. Kong fight went a hair long, but no
longer than other classic sci-fi fights, ex: Superman vs. General Zod
and Co (Superman II), Arnold vs T1000 (T2), and Sigourney vs. Alien
Queen (Aliens), all of which are awesome fights.  I felt some sadness to
see all of the sauropods bite the dust because of a "traffic" jam.  Why
do sauropods always get the short end of the stick??  The large
centipedes, arachnids and other insects were very cool/creepy and
especially enjoyed by Mike Henderson who is an invertebrate nut.  The
meat-weasels were fairly disgusting. The scene were Kong walks by
skeletons of dead family members was wonderful, as it gives you, without
any dialogue or extraneous scenes, information on why Kong is grumpy,
lonely and perhaps a bit sad.  He is the last of his kind, and that has
to suck.  I actually felt they could have done a little more with this,
perhaps have Kong, touch the skull of ones of his family members, and
then touch his chest, to let Ann know he misses them.

The 3rd act back in New York, was especially emotional.  Obviously you
see a stronger bond between Kong and Ann, one that reminds me a little
of the old father, protecting his wide-eyed daughter.  I find myself
completely rooting for Kong, wishing that he could, as Darth Sidious
says, "Wipe them out, all of them."  Of course I am referring to the
overzealous civil defenses, which at one point are actually firing
exploding shells into apartment buildings just to get Kong.  The part
where Kong is playing on the ice with Ann is wonderful and completely
depressing at the same time, since we know that is about the last moment
of happiness the big guy is going to get.  Finally the climax with the
airplanes is great, seeing Ann trying to protect Kong was classy, and it
was nice to see Kong actually took out more planes than in the original
film. 

Overall I give the film a B+, and felt that thematically it was well
done.  I think it makes a great environmental conservation film, of why
not to mess with mother-nature.    

Now for the nit-picking; Jackson's Kong was inferior to the original in
the realm of scientific detail.  In the original Willis O'Brien
consulted with Barnum Brown, so for their time the dinosaurs were fairly
up to date.  It seemed from what I have read; O'Brien wanted his
dinosaurs to be as accurate as possible. Contrast that with Jackson's
where the dinosaurs seemed to still be stuck in 1933. The dinosaurs were
at best mediocre.  If Kong can be made to look realistic for a 24 foot
tall ape, then why not the dinos? The sauropods looked like elephants,
whose trunks were necks and heads.  The V.rex needed a serious visit to
the dentist, and appeared to have (and correct me if I am
misinterpreting) osteoderms?  Although I mostly enjoyed the fight, I
agree to keep the viewer from saying, "That would never happen." a
filmmaker/author must successfully juggle reality and fiction.  In the
fight with the 3 V.rex, never for a second did I, or would I, believe
that Kong could single-handedly defeat 3 V.rex.  As the fight continued
I believed it less.  Of course the fight was great for action, lots of
good action, but in the back of my head I knew that all it would take
would be one time for just one V.rex to get ahold of Kong with those
jaws, and that is all she wrote.  To my surprise I see Kong bit several
times only to break free and get the upper hand, dispatching V.rex one
by one.  Has someone done the calculations for the bite force of a V.rex
compared to a T.rex??  I have a feeling that Kong would have an 8 foot
hole in his body after V.rex chomped down.  The only way Kong could have
beaten all three was if he strapped on a 15 foot long bazooka, which
would have been just about as believable.  I actually booed when Kong
won, not because I wanted him to loose, but because it never should have
happened with those sets of circumstances.  I highly suggest booing when
the hero wins, you will receive many strange looks from the crowd. On a
side note, those vines everyone was dangling from must have been pretty
strong.

The lack of scientific detail, which often helps sci-fi films retain an
air of reality, is the downfall for a film which could have been a
contender.

Scott Williams
Collections Manager
Burpee Museum