The Kong Show
I have never seen The Passion of the Christ.
Many people are surprised by that fact, but Mel Gibson has been making me increasingly uncomfortable over the last two decades. If you look back at his acting and directing career, it’s pretty obvious that the man has a grotesque fascination with pain, punishment, torture, and death. It has been there since the beginning (think Mad Max and the aptly-named Punishment) but by 1999 it was so bad that he actually fired the director of Payback and took over the film so he could insert torture scenes showing his character getting his toes smashed with a hammer.
The guy just totally creeps me out.
So, no matter how worthy the subject matter, there was no way I was going to go see The Passion of the Christ. People kept telling me that I just had to see it, but I always politely demurred. Then one day, when a gentleman was giving me a great deal of grief about it and questioning my Christian cred because I still hadn’t see the film, I finally snapped and said, “No, I haven’t seen it! I’ve got better things to do than subject myself to a two-hour snuff film!”
That didn’t go over very well.
And this probably won’t either: Don’t bother going to see King Kong. Why? Because you’ve got better things to do than subject yourself to a three-hour snuff film.
A Three Hour Tour
At a cost of over $200 million and a running time of 3 hours and 7 minutes, King Kong is not what you would call “economical storytelling,” either in monetary or narrative terms. It takes over an hour just to get to Skull Island, and once we get there we can’t just meet Kong, capture him, and take him to New York. Oh, no.
First, we’ve got the extremely unfriendly natives, then the stampeding brontosauri (with accessory raptors), then a rampaging Kong, then the really, really big lizards, then a battle with not one…not two…but three Tyrannosaurus Rexes simultaneously (WHILE DANGLING FROM VINES, for heavens sake), then the really, really big bugs, then a rampaging Kong again, then the really, really big bats, then another rampaging Kong, etc, etc, etc.
There’s the initial scouting party, followed by the scouting party’s surprise rescue party. Then there’s the second rescue party, followed by the second rescue party’s surprise rescue party. Then there’s the fourth rescue party (of one), followed by the surprise capture party.
It’s all very dramatic and thrilling and technically adept, but after a while you feel like shouting, “Get the ape and get thee to New York already!”
From Marvelous to Torturous
I was really hoping to be able to take my daughters to see the film, but there’s no way in the world I would make them sit through it. This is easily the most violent PG-13 film since Mr. Jackson’s final installment of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But at least the violence in that film was an integral part of the story about the ultimate battle of good and evil. Here, the violence is just an integral part of the entertainment.
As Jack Black’s film crew gets knocked off one after the other and he keeps giving his little “He will not have died in vain!” speech, we’re supposed to be appalled by his rather transparent entertainment-at-all-costs mentality. But how is that different from Mr. Jackson’s own entertainment-at-all-costs mentality? The body count in this film is outrageously high and Mr. Jackson seems to take great delight in offing his characters in ever more awful and gruesome ways. By the time Andy Serkis has his limbs and head devoured by the really, really big lamprey-worms, the film has pretty much made the transition from the potentially marvelous to the merely torturous.
How this film got a PG-13 rating is beyond me. I’ve heard that it escaped an R rating because the violence is relatively bloodless, but that almost makes it worse. While the animal violence is depicted in great gory detail, the human toll is completely sanitized. Almost-inhuman natives are gunned down in large numbers, nameless lackeys are crushed beneath dinosaur hooves or smashed against stone surfaces, entire rows of theater patrons bite the dust, dozens of drivers and passengers on New York streets become casual casualties, anonymous blondes are snatched up and then cooly tossed to their deaths, and faceless military personnel are swatted out of the sky like flies.
The Problem of Pain
But this presents a real problem. To get his PG-13 rating, Mr. Jackson has to treat all of the death and carnage as if it’s no big deal. But if the audience is completely calloused to death by the end of the film, how do you make the audience feel badly about Kong’s ultimate demise. Well, you can’t. So instead, you make the audience care about Kong…and then you make him suffer.
You have him save the girl, you have them bond, you separate them, you get them back together, you send them on a cutesy ice-skating date, and you give the beast the ability to convey an understanding of abstract concepts like “beauty” through the speedy acquisition of Koko-esque sign language skills. Then you subject him to every human, reptilian, cetacean, geological, gravitational, chemical, theatrical, automotive, architectural, aerial, and ballistic indignity possible.
You put the King in shackles, his arms outstretched, being mocked by the crowd that has gathered to see the horrific spectacle. And then you make him pay the ultimate price for the sins of others. (At times, King Kong makes The Chronicles of Narnia look like a Christian allegory lightweight.)
Unmoved
But while poor Kong is abused to no end, Naomi Watts makes it through the film with no signs of trauma other than some teary mascara smudging. The woman must have a titanium endoskeleton. After the “baby shaking” she is subjected to on multiple occasions her brain should have been mush, her neck should have been broken, and her limbs should have been snapped off. And yet she seems completely unaffected by the experience.
She also has the ability to spend hours in sub-freezing temperatures in a thin, sleeveless white dress and can make it to the top of the Empire State Building with every curl and sequin in place.
But in the end, just as Naomi’s hair remains unmoved, so do we. Sure, we feel sorry for Kong, but for all the wrong reasons. We’re sorry that he had to endure 3 hours and 7 minutes of abuse, pain, and humiliation, when 2 hours and 7 minutes would have been sufficient to tell the story, yet would have inflicted much less damage on both him and the audience. We’re sorry for being part of the crowd that has gathered to see the horrific spectacle. And we’re sorry that he had to pay the ultimate price (and we, upwards of $12) just so the industry could have its Event Film of the 2005 Holiday Season.
Movie Review Redo
So, using Christopher Lynn’s Movie Review Redo methodology:
- Expectations: ↓
- Price: $5
- Ideal Viewing Time: <11pm
- Mood: :-x
- Age: >13
- Other Factors: Those with a low tolerance for animal cruelty (or a high tolerance for Charlize Theron) might want to rent Mighty Joe Young instead. Those with small bladders might want to consider either forgoing their regular moviegoing beverage or catheterization.
Comments
western dave
yeah… i haven’t seen that ‘snuff’ film either. but i’m confused… kurt loder says that, “Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” sets a new standard for action movies, and maybe for movie romances, too. You feel almost privileged to be in the presence of such an awesomely accomplished and exhilarating picture.”.
wait a minute… since when does kurt loder review films? scratch that.
Alex
Ahem. King Kong is a creature movie. Creatures eat and maim people a lot. At least the kinds of creatures that we put in creature movies do.
I think the attraction to scary or horrific movies is that fear and danger create empathy, which generally reinforces feelings of kinship. Ergo creature movies need no subtantial plot, and I never expect them to have one, though it can break up tedium or be its own reward when they do.
One barrier to empathy in film going is getting caught up predicting plots, which is a very mental activity that sullies the otherwise very straighforward emotions. Trying to predict a plot for a creature/horror film can be an added dissapointment when they either don’t have one or have a rediculously unpredictable, wild plot.
All this said, if you aimed to entertain with your post, you did, and I laughed out loud several times. Jelly brains of a film babe. Mmm. Brains. I should also betray that I haven’t seen it.
I cannot explain the love for the purely morbid beyond the love of fear. I don’t understand that.
My agenda of converting your aesthetics to mine was dissapointed by the opener that seemed like a conversion introductory confessional. Drat.
James Caveziel gave hands down the best performance of Jesus I have ever seen, and there are several poigniant moments in The Passion of the Christ that made it well worth seeing for me.
My stats for The Passion of the Christ: less expectation, price $6.50, ideal viewing time morning, mood even-keel everyday, age 18. If you are squeamish just blindfold yourself half the time and have a friend tell you when you can open your eyes. Prepare to process what you have seen for a week.
grettir
Make no mistake, I’m definitely in the minority on this one.
And, Alex, I have absolutely no problem with creature movies, horror movies, or shlock movies. I’ll always have a special place in my heart for John Carpenter’s version of The Thing, which is all three. And I quite enjoyed Mr. Jackson’s The Frighteners. Even Dead Alive had its charms.
King Kong has its moments, too. For instance, the T-Rex battle sequence is so absolutely, brilliantly over-the-top that I laughed out loud twice at the sheer audacity of it. But, there are a lot of other things in Kong that have me worried that Peter Jackson might become the next George Lucas. With an established brand name, absolute power, unlimited budgets, and nobody in his employ brave enough to say, “You know, George, this dialogue is unmitigated crap,” it could be all downhill from here.
(Actually, that’s an unfair comparison. Peter Jackson is a gifted writer and director who just happened to make a film that everybody else loves, but that I don’t care for very much. George Lucas, on the other hand, owes every inhabitant of the earth a personal, heartfelt apology for Star Wars: Episodes I-III.)
cooper
The original was violent enough, I am not looking forward to the 2005 version. I am glad you reviewed it cause now I have a reason not to see it. I think everyone believes it’s easy to do a remake (there are so many in hollywood these days) unfortunately it isn’t easy. I am more and more disappointed with the lack of real creativity in movies these days. It seems original thought has died.
I recently read a book that would be a holiday classic. I just wish I knew how to convince someone to make it.
Alex
Cluing in more now (re those quoted reviews, thank you) - so much spectacle and fear it’s absurd. .. sounds fun to me! But I expect it will also strangely numb and disable me. I’m glad I swung the vote in my work place to treat us all to Narnia, which was dissapointing in many other ways, but surely a more worthwhile experience.
On the dangers of creative isolation: A-flipping-men.
Cooper: which book?
HoB1KenOB
Kong had a few things on his side for me from the outset:
- I love movies
- I love big hairy creatures such as Kong (oh, those eyes!)
- I love Adrien Brody (oh, those eyes!)
- I must admit to being already swayed in the Peter Jackson??s favor on this one. I shouldn??t, but will, admit to watching ALL the special features on ALL the LOTR boxed sets.
- Jamie Bell??my beloved Billy Elliot in any role, albeit a small, contrived one
- I enjoy the view from the top of the Empire State Building
I read your review just as I was heading out the door to the movie, so I was on my guard. Yes, I will side with you on the violence (the killing of the final t-rex almost had me on the floor in fetal position) and over-indulgent action sequences. But for some reason, the movie as a whole worked for me. My reasoning: a remake with such iconic subject matter requires a suspension of disbelief. If there is ANYTHING which is ??larger than life,? it is King Kong. I felt that the movie was poking fun at itself from the outset. Jackson pushed the envelope in so many ways, making everything so much MORE than it needed to be: longer pauses, bigger characters (almost caricatures in some cases), more drama. Adrien Brody as the hero and romantic lead? Cartoonishly large bottles of chloroform arranged in a lovely display? The vaudeville comedy routine as animal taming tactic? Climbing a ladder in heels? Actors using guns? Please! Perhaps it is also that we women-folk have an innate need to tame wild beasts. Really. We understand her need to relate to this giant creature, all while looking like she just stepped out of a salon. I thought the cinematography in the Empire State scene ( all 30 minutes of it or so?) was beautiful. I guess what I??m saying is that:
1- I knew I was going to King Kong
2- I knew it was going to be spectacle
3- I knew I??d be a sucker for big, brown gorilla eyes
Yes, there were far too many dinosaurs and bugs and vines. Yes, people were squashed with far less ado than aforementioned critters. I knew what I was in for, I bought the large coke, and I enjoyed. I wouldn??t take kids. I probably wouldn??t take anyone who wasn??t familiar with the image of Kong hanging from the Empire State Building. But I would see it for the sheer spectacle of it all. And I??d probably be one of the first to bite the dust when the audience got squashed by the giant monster they??d come to stare at.
cooper
It’s book by David balducci called The Christmas Train.
It is a perfect book just made for remaking in celluloid - Love story, holidyas, snowstorm, jet setting successful reporter; I think it would make a great movie.
Alex
Sounds good.
cooper
Ooops that is David Baldacci, not Balducci.
s'mee
Thanks for the heads up (or down?) When our eldest son was about five he saw the original film and had nightmares for about ten years…even though he is now big, burly and a firefighter guy, I’ll pass on the info. Nothing says quivering hero like a big burly guy shaking in his turnouts!
s'mee
oh, and speaking of a good book for film… how about “The Giver”?
Chris
Lois Lowry drives me nuts. I made it about a quarter of the way through The Giver before I wanted to throttle her for her overly romantic descriptions of the “creative process.”
Maria and I just got back from The Chronicles of Narnia and I must say, from your description of King Kong and what we saw in Narnia, I think the MPAA is getting a little lax. I couldn’t believe that it got a PG rating. It was innocent enough until the battle sequence, but once again, it probably slid by because there was no blood and it was mainly violence directed at animals. But it was pretty intense.
These Christians and their lust for violence… There must be some kind of resurgence of Old Testament thinking in the Christian world or something. Ooh, if they do a movie of the Old Testament in all it’s debauched glory, they might be able to tack down an NC-17. Let’s get Mel on the phone.
Jodi
Even though he has already said “Yes!”, I am, once again, proposing marriage to Grettir based solely upon a blog entry. (Disregarding, of course, his good looks and beautiful body.)
grettir
Jodi, I’ve still got two more years of alimony to go. So, if you have your heart set on an engagement ring from somewhere other than the Fine Jewelry counter at Wal-Mart, we’re going to have to put off the engagement until at least October 2007.
grettir
Correction, make that “…somewhere other than the bubble gum machines near the entrance of Wal-Mart…”
Jodi
You could fashion an engagement ring for me out of a chewed-up gumball (preferably a purple one) (and chewed by the teeth of my betrothed), and I’d be more than happy, my dearest.
jenny
Just go pick out a spoon together from the silverware bucket at the local thrift shop, and I know a guy who can make one of them spoon rings for ya.
You never know what you’re gonna get from those machines at Wal-Mart. Sometimes you have to go through 3 or 4 quarters before you get anything good…
kylie
oh why oh why didn’t i listen to you….
Alex
[Hello, coming back to an aging post here]
I watched this film last night. It was Lousy.
And lol @ better things to do than subject yourself to ”.. a two-hour snuff film!”
They should have crucified Kong. It would draw in more of the Christian audience, at least.