Boston Common Theater, Boston, MA

** / ****

After three entries in the Lord of the Rings series the master of the overly long computer graphic extravaganza, Peter Jackson, is back. This time, instead of orcs, wizards, and uruk-hai, Jackson tackles the topic of a multi-ton gorilla (Andy Sirkis provides the movements, WETA graphics provide the animation) and its fascination with a blonde actress wannabe in a skimpy negligee (Naomi Watts). The result is an abundance of gratuitous action scenes one after another, a never-ending array of Watt’s open-mouthed, wide-eyed innocence, and a mish-mash of stories and just plain gratuitousness. The verdict: many well-respected critics are singing its praises while a large contingent of general moviegoers seem less than impressed. Count me out of the intelligentsia.

The first thought that comes to mind in considering King Kong 2005 is: why? Just because we now have the technology to fully render a giant gorilla, an entire city of the past (in this case 1930’s New York), and an unlimited amount of explosions, crashes, creepy crawlies, and all-out destruction does it mean we absolutely must? Apparently, the answer is “yes” and Mr. Jackson pulls out all the stops in taking full advantage of his 207 million dollar budget. Some of this indulgence is good. Kong in particular, is lively and chock full of more character, emotion, and rage than ever before. Other indulgences, however, are not good. For example: is it really necessary to end an extremely long chase scene with another extremely long chase scene and end that with yet another extremely long chase scene? Or how about giving an hour of back-story that fills in little about the nature and character of any of the movie’s many players? I mean, doesn’t Movie Tension: 101 and Enter Late, Leave Early: 202 give very firm rules on avoiding such indulgences? I suppose Mr. Jackson must have missed those classes on his way to 11 Oscar wins. But I digress… this is Jackson’s party so if it worked for him once then he seems to have no doubt it will again. Unfortunately, the story of Kong isn’t 1/100^th as epic in composition as The Lord of the Rings even if it is just as heroically impressive. Let’s agree to disagree.

The story that Jackson’s Kong tells is the same familiar tale from the previous Kong efforts, with a bit of character switching and certainly more chutzpah. Megalomaniacle movie director Carl Denham (Jack Black) is down on his luck and desperate to do something before he winds up just another depression era victim. Enter Ann Darrow (Watts), a struggling thespian looking for an acting job and a hot meal. As the saying goes, desperation loves company (or something like that) and thirty minutes later we’re on a boat with the two and a gaggle of others including a hunky, self-obsessed actor (Kyle Chandler in a movie stealing role), the requisite sensitive guy/writer/love interest Jack Driscoll (a boring Adrien Brody), and a motley crew of shipmen including Sirkis in his second role as Lumpy the cook all on their way to Skull Island. There, it is Denham’s intention to film sites that have never been seen before. Oh, the horror!

I won’t tell any more (other than that the big ape does indeed make it to the top of the Empire State Building by movie’s end) as the surprising sights are certainly the movie’s most palatable aspects, even if they do remind of the Rings Trilogy and perhaps border on racism (if you’re that type who likes reading too deeply into your action films). Instead I will note that Jack Black’s performance is just plain silly and borders on camp, and not in a good way. His one-dimensional tyrant and swindler is unconvincing to say the least. Naomi Watts, certainly better than Black, is fine in her role as the screaming vixen but she really doesn’t have much to do outside of the aforementioned wide-eyed, gaping mouth stare. She does well one on one with the ape and is very likable but it’s all a bit blah after a while. And sadly, her biggest scene, when Kong first sees her in New York City, fails because it’s just that same look again. Where the scene does succeed, however, albeit in an opposite manner than intended, is in its accidental humour. Here we have Watts tip-toeing down a snowy fifth avenue in a negligee, not a goose bump on her, but nipples at full attention. Nice one, Peter. Real nice. But I must admit: I did chuckle. Like this movie in general, “unnecessary” is the word that immediately comes to mind.

Despite the films many flaws I still very much admire the sights and sounds in Kong. They are all unquestionably top-notch and awe-inspiring. Even when slightly unrealistic, they certainly go far enough to suit the story and the characters and that’s what makes effects special in the first place. If only more cleverness had gone into the big picture of story, character, and editing rather than fulfilling his childhood dream with overindulgence after overindulgence, Jackson might have been able to trim this movie in half and have a true winner on his hands. George Lucas often gets chastised for favoring technology and graphics over story and acting but at least he has the sense to end his movies after an hour and half. Maybe Peter Jackson still has something to learn from Lucas after all.