December 6, 2005

The man and the monkey…

Who would have thought that King Kong and Munich would have so much in common? But without being unnecessarily glib, the central themes for Kong himself and Eric Bana's Avner are shockingly similar.

But let's dig into each film first…

Simply put, the Academy Board of Governors are REQUIRED to give a special Oscar to Andy Sirkis, Christian Rivers, Eric Leighton, Kong, Peter Jackson and whoever else Wingnut thinks deserves to have their names engraved in the award for the creation of Kong, the single biggest move forward in movie effects since the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. But it is so far past that. Smeagal/Golem was great and all, but Kong gives the first truly great performance by an animated, unstylized (read, oversized odd-shaped eyes) character in history. Really, Kong gives the best performance in the film. You look into those CG eyes and you see emotion, layer the way the very best actors offer. It is truly extraordinary.

Now… the movie.

I will avoid spoilers, even though some things (Kong ends up on the top of The Empire State Building) are a given in a new version of this classic story.

The story starts in New York City, which is rendered with a level of CG skill that hasn't been seen before. NY, circa 1930something, is fully realized, from Times Square to quiet streets to El tracks in Manhattan. Early reports suggested that the NY segment went on too long, but those reports were exaggerated and wrong. The script sets up all the backstories for the film and sets one of the repeating themes… that Jack Black's Carl Denham is movie crazy. He will do anything to make his movie happen. Quality may not be deadly serious, but getting the film done is life and death.

Things do slow down a bit on the ship, as the one weakness in the Jackson/Walsh/Boyens game is exposed… human romantic interaction. If there is a weak element in the film, it is our interest in the romantic relationship that is supposed to develop between Naomi Watts' Ann Darrow and Adrien Brody's Jack Driscoll. It just never catches fire. Ms. Watts is terrific in this role in many ways, but she has never really come off as a romantic firecracker. Jessica Lange couldn't act when she made the last Kong film, but she screamed sex. And Jeff Bridges had that wild-eyed look that made you believe that he would fight a giant ape for the lust of a blonde woman. Here… just doesn't work very well.

A lot of other relationships are also revved up that really don't pay off in the film. Chatter, chatter. Jamie Bell and Evan Parke are both strong in their roles… but their characters - and particularly their relationship of older brotherish camaraderie - never go anywhere much. I understand the idea that you develop relationships so you have a stake in the action when it comes later. But Andy Serkis' human role, for instance, manages to vest us in him in just a few lines and a few jokes. And ultimately, the action in the movie is so intense that you don't need as much set up as some movies might. The boat ride is the section that could be trimmed most easily.

They hit Skull Island at about the hour mark and the movie never really stops running apace from that point on. (There are slowdown moments, but even those are an eyeful.) You know the drill. Restless natives. Ann "sacrificed" to Kong. Kong falls in love. Kong gets captured and taken to NY. Kong escapes. Kong gets killed. Beauty killed him.

And I pretty much want to leave you with that simple infrastructure because the second two hours are when Kong really rocks.

Included is what will go down in history as the greatest CG action scene ever, which includes the trailer shot of Kong, Ann, and the T-Rex. Imagine Jurassic Park times 10 and a whole lot more. That scene will be held up to the Ben Hur chariot race, the opening of Saving Private Ryan, the opening chase of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the first Matrix chase sequence, the T2 car chase, the Heat bank robbery, and others unnamed as the very best in history.

There is a magnificent quiet scene with Ann and Kong on the island and another in New York City that I think is one of the late adds… and if it is, it was tens of millions well spent. (Beware spoilers in other reviews... Jami Bernard gushes in the NY Daily News, but right at the top gives up a great third act scene that I wish I didn't know about going into the theater.)

There are plenty of "movie unreality" issues you can take up against the film. The most obvious is Ann Darrow's bare feet and negligee surviving a series of events that would shred the wardrobe of a fully dressed fireman, boots included. And Jackson simply skips the part where they load a 25 ft ape into a relatively small and shaky boat and transport him to New York. But that kind of thinking is for people who want to find fault.

There is one unnecessary action sequence (in my opinion) involving giant bugs, which seems cool, but somehow ends up less than overwhelming after 20 minutes of non-stop never-before-seen kind of home run action.

Kong in New York is terrific. And you even get the surprise of former Kong composer Howard Shore doing a cameo as a conductor.

Jack Black is excellent as Carl Denham and is badly missed in the last 20 minutes. (I have a feeling about how he should have been included in the climax that fits his thematic role, but I'll keep it to myself for now.) He has a couple of moments where he "overperforms," but for all intents and purposes he delivers a completely truthful performance.

The film may be a little much for the under-10 crowd, though I suspect that with mom and dad around, they will make it through… and when word of mouth gets going, the parents will become willing to bring the over 6s to the theater.

The only question at the box office is whether the film does $750 billion worldwide or $1.2 billion worldwide. The difference may be the running time. At 2:30, this movie would have been a lock to be the third film in history to pass a billion.

The Best Picture Oscar (or nomination) is probably out of the question, but Peter Jackson could be the "director who gets a nod without a Best Picture nomination." That is especially likely if Fernando Meirelles' The Constant Gardener gets a Best Picture slot. And the screenplay could well make a surprise appearance in the Best Adapted group.

But really… Kong absolutely deserves an honorary Oscar. (Unless, of course, Serkis' performance is qualified for an acting slot... though even if the Adademy allowed it, it would be a hard get in a tough race.) Even in a year with a very progressive effort from Lucas with the last Star Wars film, Kong is a brave new world. I can't wait to see him again.

SPEAKING OF OSCAR, Munich is the hot buzz title of this year. And the truth is, the film deserves a second viewing before I really settle in on my opinion. More so, it needs more than the couple of hours it's been since I saw the movie. But here goes a first impression…

The title of this film should have remained "Vengeance," because that really is what the film is about. From all sides of the experience, how does the pursuit, achievement and the reflection upon vengeance affect those involved?

Fears from pro-Israel folks are completely unfounded, though undoubtedly, someone will find some reason to complain. That someone will be a braying jackass. There is one speech from a Palestinian about how he perceives the conflict with Israel, but it is really about his perception and not a direct attack on Israel, even if he believes in the end of Israel. Moreover, there is a lot of Jew love in this movie. The discussion of honor being inherent to the Jewish religion is repeated a few times.

But most importantly, the film really isn't so much about Munich. The murders at the Olympics are the match that lights the fire. But once the team of assassins gets together, they are doing a job, person by person, and the morals and lessons of the film are about something greater than the one tragedy. Bana's Avner is through the looking glass, endlessly surprised by everything he doesn't really know or understand and desperately trying to figure it all out.

As with Kong, it's way too early to be discussing too many details of the storyline. But I will say this much…

There isn't a bad performance in the movie. Bana is a standout, and really holds back until the third act, which is when he starts reflecting and dealing with his actions. That's the act that will get him the Oscar nomination. Geoffrey Rush is perfect in his role as a government handler, though he probably doesn't have enough big speeches to get more than love and admiration. Daniel Craig, Hanns Zichler, Cieran Hinds, and Mattheiu Kassovitz are all tremendous in support of Bana. None of the other team members probably have enough of a role to score an Awards nomination… maybe Craig.

But Michael Lonsdale is the home run supporting performance here, though it is a near-cameo. The delicious irony of the man who chased The Jackal more than 30 years ago still being in and around the spy game is wonderful. (No, it's not part of the movie... but Spielberg is more than movie savvy enough to have intended the connection.) But more so, Lonsdale scores with every line he reads. It reminds me more than a little of the well-loved cameo by Lois Smith in Minority Report.

Janusz Kaminski does his usual brilliant understated job with the camera and lights here, delivering the 70s with aplomb. Few will really see how sophisticated his work is here. But it is a treat. It is the least Spielberg of Spielberg movies, so no rack focus… no big camera moves. Just tight and clear work from start to finish… you never see the seams.

Also unSpielberg-like is the amount of sex in the film. Most of it is between husband and wife. But it can be pretty untense. And Marie-Josee Croze is more than an eyeful in her brief appearance.

Really, much like Match Point and Woody Allen, you would not know this was a Steven Spielberg movie if you didn't see his name on it. He really gives up his style crutches for the cleanest telling of this story. And as a result, it really has the feeling of early 70s film, particularly The Conversation, The Day of the Jackal, and even a bit of The Godfather.

For me, the theme of this film is the dehumanizing nature of violence over time. No matter how well founded - in your mind or in reality - the "right" to kill is, in order to maintain focus on the effort, one must dehumanize both their target and themselves. There are other big issues on the table, such as being inevitably revisited by your sins, the question of whether violence can ever improve a political or moral situation, and whether the politics of governments can ever clear enough to be trusted. But much like The Thin Red Line, Munich speaks to the need to subsume your humanity in order to do your duty when your duty calls for more than humane action.

And maybe that is a controversial idea. It will be interesting to see how people interpret the last lines of the film… and even more so, the last shot which includes the World Trade Center towers in a blurry, but perfectly visible background. (Have I mentioned before that The New World ends with the acorn not falling far from the tree… literally?)

Munich is not quite, at least on first blush, the unstoppable Oscar powerhouse that I first thought it might be. Spielberg has given up too many of his manipulative tricks for that to be the case here. But it is still the likely winner of this year's Best Picture Oscar, in my opinion. It is serious. It is excellent. And it is about something important beyond its own storytelling parameters. Brokeback Mountain will have its supporters, but I don't see it overcoming this film, which speaks to bigger issues, though the issues in Brokeback are extremely important to its constituency.

I am really interested to see how this movie sits with me in the days to come. I suspect that it will open up further. I hope to see it again soon and to connect both to its receiving simplicity and its depth of emotion and insights.

More on both films in the weeks to come...

E-ME.