After conquering Middle Earth, where does one go? If you are Peter Jackson, you head to Skull Island to revisit the story that started you on your career path: King Kong. Riding a wave of anticipation and hype that makes the ad campaign on the last Star Wars seem quaint, Jackson's mega-budget, effects laden update of the 1933 original has finally arrived to conquer the Christmas box office. One question remains: does the film deliver on its marketed promise?

A quick recap: it's the 1930s, and a brazen film maker named Carl Denham (Jack Black) leads his film crew, including actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and screenwriter Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), to a mysterious island to shoot his latest feature (and to escape the financiers out to shut Carl's production down).

Before you can say "monkey shines", Ann is kidnapped by the local island gentry and offered as a sacrifice to Kong, a 25-foot tall ape who is the last of his kind. While Carl and Jack organize a rescue party to get Ann back, the beauty and the beast become close, with Kong defending his new lady friend from creatures of all shapes and sizes. When Kong is captured and brought back to New York City, the island journey makes way for an adventure on an island of another kind.

The original ran 104 minutes and the dismal 1976 version 135 minutes. Jackson's take on the Kong story runs a whopping 187. Now, I have no problem with a film running this long, if the story warrants it. King Kong does not. I normally applaud any and all film makers who take the time to establish and develop the characters (Ann and Carl are nicely done; Jack still could have used some work) and story of their films, especially when you are dealing with a project as effects-heavy as this one.

But for approximately the first 70 minutes of Kong, Jackson's directing and screenplay, co-written by his Lord of the Rings partners Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, is not up to the epic standards he set with his last three films. Slapstick situations, awkward pacing and some heavy-handed dialogue are enough to make one raise an eyebrow, but did Jackson have to spend nearly an hour developing the crewmembers of the boat that heads to the island? Not if most of them either wind up as creature food or just completely disappear in the third hour - both which happen here.

But once you get past the creaky setup, King Kong gets down to business. Backed once again by the technical pros that helped him bring Lord of the Rings so vibrantly to the screen (one glaring omission: Rings composer Howard Shore was replaced by James Newton Howard, who produces a pedestrian music score here), Jackson fills the remaining two hours of his epic with all the brilliant production design, top-flight visual effects and show-stopping set pieces that money, in this case $207 million worth, can buy.

Jackson, however, doesn't just deliver a three-hour effects demo reel/thrill ride. He also gives us a monster movie with a heart and soul. The heart of King Kong has always been and always will be, naturally, the relationship between Ann and the Ape. Merian Cooper and Edgar Wallace realized this back in the 1930s and Jackson, with the help of a solid performance by the beautiful Watts, absolutely nails this vital aspect of the film as well, taking advantage of the film's epic length to develop it even further than in previous versions.

Visually, King Kong is the eighth wonder of the CGI world. But what is so surprising - and welcome - is how much emotion is mined from what is basically a computer program. Weta Digital pushes the envelope on Kong's exterior, but it is actor Andy Serkis' (who also appears as the ship's cook, Lumpy) brilliant, motion-captured performance that really makes Kong come alive. His movements and facial expressions perfectly convey the big simian's loneliness, anger and determination to protect his newfound human friend. It's a remarkable piece of acting that should be recognised, just as his performance as Gollum should have been, come Academy Awards time.

King Kong is a very good piece of popcorn cinema that stops just shy of being great. But be patient with the first hour and you will be rewarded with both a fun thrill ride and the year's most unexpectedly moving relationship. And make sure you see it all on the biggest screen you can find. A film as colossal as its title character is not meant to be viewed on a television screen.

  share with:  Facebook | Digg | other sites