I put the year in the title because I think that is the proper delination when there are several movies with the same title: you distinguish each by adding the year in parenthesis, right? I'll have to check my Elements of Style to see if it covers proper film annotation.
Anyway, this is the Peter Jackson film. Just fresh from seeing it and I must say I don't really understand all the hype. This film just "feels" as though the director, having just come off his megalithic Lord of the Rings, is under the mistaken belief that ALL movies must be 3 hours long.
This is NOT true, Pete! Lord of the Rings is a total of 14 blissful hours simply because we're going step by step through a war in a mythical land involving many different races and creatures and you've got over 20 main characters and we're also talking about the ultimate battle between good vs. evil, and King Kong is the story of an ape who's got the hots for a blonde. Which is a story that is no more than 2 hours, if that!
Seriously, you're left thinking to yourself, where was the editor of this film? Did the director have him shot and dumped his corpse in the sea? Because a good hour of this lumbering monstrousity could have been left on the cutting room floor and we'd have ourselves a dam'fine movie!
However, what we have is a ponderous, self-important piece of self-introspection, introspection such as this:
How can I bring myself to love this big-nosed writer when I've fallen madly in love with this huge 25 foot gorilla?Take the writer, baby - no one wants to kill him.
Death scene was too long, by the way. It was right at hour three and the monkey had been being shot by airplanes for a good while and if we had another close-up of his "sensitive" eyes I was going to tear mine OUT!
Finally, he let's himself go - takes the big plunge, right there on 7th Avenue or wherever, and Jack Black (who, by the way, played his role very nicely - I was truly impressed) steps up and delivers the worst line EVER
"'Twas Beauty killed the Beast"
Now, let's take a minute on this one, shall we? First of all, we as the audience already got the point: Monkey loves girl. Monkey realizes will never work out. Monkey makes ultimate sacrifice.
We had that figured out before he left the island. To give us this pretentious little line is to beat the audience's head with the dead fish of the "Theme!" By this point, Jackson is telling us that we're too stOOpid to get it and has to have Jack hand it to us on a platter.
Second, his character wouldn't really have said this. His character was the film-maker/charlatan who thought only of his career and the grandness of his own design. Sure, Jackson may be trying to tell us that his character has changed, that he now sees the true beauty of love and what you're willing to die for, but I personally thought that it would have been much more within character if Black had just looked at this dead monkey and muttered something like, "That's my career. Right there. Smack dead on Broadway." and then turned around and walked off through the crowd.
That actually would have redeemed the end.
But right now, this is the end.
Before I go, though, I will thank Peter Jackson for Lord of the Rings. I liked those and if he never makes another film again, he will always be remembered for giving the world the definitive film epic of the Tolkien books.
No matter what the Tolkien fans think, those movies were very good adaptations.
VG