I don't usually care to review movies so long after they've come out. King Kong has been out--what?--two...three weeks? However, Kathy and I only got around to seeing it over this past weekend, so I wanted to post a few brief thoughts. As of this writing, the movie has already made $400 million worldwide, and you've probably seen it if you're going to, or you won't see it at all. If you haven't seen it yet, but have heard others talk about it, I thought I'd comment on some of the buzz.

Peter Jackson's Reward. King Kong was Peter Jackson's reward movie. After making a kabillion dollars with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson could make any movie he wanted to. King Kong was the movie he wanted to make since it was his favorite (the original 1933 version, not the 1976 remake with Jessica Lange) as a child. However, not only was he rewarded with the opportunity to make any movie he wanted to, he also got paid $20 million dollars to direct King Kong, the most money any director has ever been paid. Jackson is now the new Steven Spielberg, so I guess we can start expecting his movies to get snubbed at the Oscars, too. Further, as long as Jackson has a string of successful hits, I imagine he will continue to get to make whatever movies he wants. I've heard rumors that The Hobbit is coming soon. I hope so.

Jack Black (and the rest of the cast). Black is one of my favorite comedic actors. To me his funniest role is still in Orange County, although he did not have the lead in that movie. But initially, before seeing Kong, I wondered why Jack Black was chosen for this role which was inherently more action-oreinted and serious than his usual fare. However, after the first few minutes, the reason for the choice became clear. Black plays a movie producer caught in quite a bind, and the role calls for someone who is good at being...how do I describe this?...less than sincere. Black turns out to be perfect for the part. The "hero" of the film is Jack Driscoll, played by Adrien Brody. Supposedly, he was chosen before the script was even completed and no one else was even considered for the part. Definitely a high compliment for any actor. Naomi Watts (whom I had only seen before in the American version of The Ring) plays the heroine, Ann Darrow. Watts played the role as more than a screaming victim, and delivers a striking performance considering most of her scenes were undoubtedly shot in front of a bluescreen. However, she is forced to deliver an inordinate number of "pained-expression-shots." And I assume that a number of the scenes where Kong is carrying her must be CGI, because I can't imagine her coming out of such an experience without whiplash otherwise.

Fay Wray's Almost Appearance. Evidently, the 1933 Ann, Fay Wray was originally supposed to say the last line of the movie, "It wasn't the airplanes; it was beauty that killed the beast." Unfortunately, she died in 2004 before they could film/record her saying this. The movie is dedicated to her memory.

The Movie is LONG. Yes, this movie is fairly long at 187 minutes. This has been a criticism of the film as Jackson has been accused of being so in love with the film that he didn't know where to cut it. According to the trivia page at the IMDB site for the movie, many of the exact lines, costumes and props that were in the original went into this movie. Further, the entire first act of the movie, set in New York, is provided as back story and was never in the 1933 version. Once I saw dinosaurs on Skull Island, the little boy in me took over, and I think I could have sat there for six hours. However, my personal opinion is that in any film that is three hours or longer ought to have a five-minute intermission. I had to excuse myself to the restroom twice--TWICE--during this movie. I haven't had to do that since Return of the King. Hmmmm...

Can This Relationship Work When He Has All the Manners of an Ape? Yes, the relationship between Kong and Ann seems a bit bizarre. And yet, I must confess--perhaps it's good acting on Watts' part and good directing from Jackson--the two of them actually had chemistry together. I don't mean that in some kind of perverted sense, but perhaps more in the sense of the genuine affection between a pet and its owner. Of course, with Kong and Ann, I'm not sure which was which. But there were some very moving scenes between the two of them such as when she chooses to let him be her defender from the tyrannosaurus rex or when they "danced" together in Central Park. But such relationships are doomed to fail, especially when others are firing bazookas at you. By the way, I'm assuming you know how the movie ends, but Kathy had never seen either of the previous versions, and she cried at the end. "You mean, he's not going to get to go back to Skull Island?" Actually, she cried a couple of times during the movie. That's how well the chemistry between Kong and Ann is portrayed.

Incredible CGI and What Should Have Been in the Credits. If I had been Peter Jackson, I would have inserted the following statement into the credits just for fun: "No actual dinosaur or giant ape was harmed during the making of this film." CGI has come a long way from its first use in Total Recall fifteen years ago. The dinosaurs looked incredibly real. If the dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park thrilled you, this movie's even better. I was also delighted that Jackson kept brontosauruses on skull island in his version just like the original, even though we now know they never actually existed. Of course, the big winner in terms of CGI was Kong himself. The original 1933 Kong was only 18" tall in actuality and animated through the use of stop-motion photography, albeit it was groundbreaking for its day. I recently caught a few minutes of the 1976 version on American Movie Classics (I'm not sure how AMC defines "classics" anymore), and I was disappointed to see that most of the shots of Kong were nothing more than a man in a gorilla suit surrounded by miniature sets, much like the Godzilla movies of decades past. Yet this Kong, created entirely in CGI, looked exactly like a twenty-five foot-tall silver-back bull ape. I've said that with the introduction of quality CGI, only now can certain movies (The Lord of the Rings movies, your average super-hero movie, etc.) be presented believably on the big screen. With genuine apologies to the classic 1933 version, perhaps Jackson's King Kong is one of them.

[By the way, note to parents: take the PG-13 rating seriously. Some of the scenes, especially on Skull Island, are going to be too intense for young children. I saw more than one parent take their children out of the movie.]

What's the Point of the Movie? I was thinking about this even before I went into see the film. What exactly is the point of King Kong? Yes, "it was beauty that killed the beast," but in the end, so what?I mean with Jurassic Park, there was definitely an ethical angle to the movie about setting self-imposed limits to what we can do with technology. And I'm sure some animal activist group will seize upon the picture as an example of why animals should be left in the wild and not put on display. But that was certainly not the message that Jackson was presenting in the movie. Perhaps not every movie has to have a message. Perhaps this movie can allow someone such as myself to occasionally put aside critical thinking and just let that little boy that's still in me somewhere be entertained. King Kong did that for me, and as much as I enjoy movies, very few of them do anymore.