Skip to main content

Who the hell do you think went through there, some guy in an ape suit?


King Kong
(1976)

Which is the best version of King Kong?  Even though the 1933 original is one of those universally acclaimed classics that leaves me a little cold, it would unquestionably be my pick. Mostly because it conjures a sense of the mythic that both this and Peter Jackson’s bloated CGI spectacular singularly fail at. That Dino De Laurentis was the producer of the 1976 remake should come as little surprise to anyone familiar with his publicity first, quality a distant second, approach.

But John Guillermin’s film isn’t all bad. Guillermin is very far from being an auteur; a safe pair of hands blessed with minimal panache. But De Laurentis seemed to like it that way. To be fair, he was possibly just blind to the differences in skillset; that Polanski and Pecinpah were offered the chance to direct but also Michael Winner says it all. All directors are equal, but some directors are cheaper than others. Guillermin was fresh off The Towering Inferno so there was no doubt he could handle the scale and the effects-heavy nature of the picture (reportedly it was people he had problems with, De Laurentis threatening to fine him unless he treated the cast and crew better).

Ah yes, the effects. Much of the publicity for the film concerned the 40-foot robot Kong built by Carlo Ramabaldi (E.T.); ironically it ended up on screen for less than a minute. Most of what we see is Rick Baker in a gorilla suit (to be fair to Rambaldi, he also supervised the construction of the giant hands and the mechanics involved in making the various Kong masks work). Anyone can see that De Laurentis at least got his money’s worth from the giant hands, which feature prominently throughout.  But, given all the expense involved, it’s ironic that the effects in the finished film are mostly on a par (or inferior to) your average Japanese Godzilla movie. At one point Kong battles a giant snake, which he shreds into a bloody pulp. It looks for all the world like a guy in a hairy suit bursting an inflatable sausage.

While composer John Barry does his best to give an emotional underpinning to Kong and his “relationship” with Dwan, the problem is that a giant ape just isn’t really very interesting. For all the faults of the 2005 version, Jackson at least understood that the most exciting thing about the original, for most kids, was the dinosaurs Kong battles on Skull Island. The first 45 minutes, before Kong arrives, are actually quite enjoyable. But once he shows up any momentum evaporates. Dwan frolics in a lake while Barry’s score blossoms romantically. He blows her dry, eliciting orgasmic gasps from his tiny amour. You can see the serious intent, but a guy in a gorilla suit tickling Lange’s fancy can only elicit mirth. Effects-wise, things don’t get any better once the location shifts to New York. We’re asked to believe that the enterprising Charles Grodin managed to stick a giant crown on Kong’s head and keep it there. And we don’t even get to see the big gorilla topple from the World Trade Center. The ape suit is memorably splattered with ketchup in the big screen’s bloodiest end for the beast.

The best aspect is the one overshadowed by its titular star attraction; the supporting cast. The interaction between Charles Grodin’s boorish oil magnate and Jeff Bridges’ hirsute paleontologist is highly enjoyable, and they’re much more fun to watch than their counterparts in the other versions. You can see that Grodin’s performance is wholly informed by his moustache. I’ve read some criticisms of him here, but I’d argue he’s suitably over-the-top and provides some much needed humour. Bridges has the proto-Dude thing going for him nicely; it’s amusing that in his first leading man role in a really big movie he’s gone for the “dishevelled tramp” look. He also get's the film's best line, acknowledging the limitations of the special effects. 

As for Jessica Lange, it isn’t hard to understand why Kong had an enormous gorilla boner for her. This was her first movie role and she must have taken its critical mauling to heart as it was another three years before she featured in another (All That Jazz). Given how at variance with her later career Dwan is, you can understand if she needed a rethink before taking other parts. Lange by no means gives a poor performance, but she’s playing such a complete bimbo you’re given pause too consider whether her character is intended to be a comedy imbecile. She’s more akin to one of those self-consciously dim-watt Monroe roles from the ‘50s.  When Bridges’ character testifies that he loves Dwan, you know it can’t for her brains.

This version of Kong is widely derided today, but it was a reasonably big hit for Paramount. Unbelievably, it also garnered an Oscar for Best Special Effects. In that respect, it marks the end of an era; the next recipient was Star Wars. While Kong innovates in some respects, there’s a gulf in the approach to filmmaking between the two spectacles; the old school versus the wunderkinds. A further irony is that one Steven Spielberg was apparently considered as a director. Whether he turned it down or he was never made an offer, it’s fortunate for that it passed him by. If he’d embarked on this special effects disaster following the problems that beset Jaws he might have retired from filmmaking all together.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.