King Kong (2005, USA)

Lordy, this was awful. The pacing and the structure of Peter Jackson's remake were all over the place - I think he suffers from what I like to call "George Lucas Syndrome," in that he should NEVER be allowed this much control over a project. Jackson simply doesn't have the internal capabilities to rein himself in. With the Rings movies, there was a strong underlyinng structure provided by the book. With Kong, the entire film devolved into endless minutes of creature fights - ape vs. man, ape vs. dinosaur, man vs. bug, man vs. man . . . the middle section could have lost a good 20 or so minutes and come out being twice as forceful. Add to this crippling problem some very bizzare character choices (what was with the overwrought relationship between Jimmy & Hayes?), gross miscasting (Jack Black, who was enjoyable if you could imagine that he was in on the joke), and lazy acting (adrien brody). I thought Naomi Watts looked perfect, but I just can't believe her as a comedianne - she's only funy in farce, like her role in I <3 Huckabee's.

I know there were many critics who found Kong to be quite enjoyable, even a good film. I see it as a pointless exercise. Not just in that it is an unsurprising remake, but because much has been made of Jackson's painstaking recreation of Depression-era New York. But why does a particular time and place need to be recreated unless the audience is going to be given something new to chew on? If the period detail is matched with a good story and thematic depth - for instance, in Tim Robbins' Cradle Will Rock, not a great film, but a really interesting one, which shares some thematic similarities with Kong - then there's a purpose to be had. Otherwise, I'll just pull out my DVD of the original My Man Godfrey, which was actually made in the 1930's, to get my fill of authentic Depression-era New York.