Kong Kong (2006) Peter Jackson has an unparalleled ability to craft big-budget epic films that astonish audiences both visually and emotionally.  He understands story-telling in a way that few leading Hollywood directors are able to.  His characters have character, and his narrative never fails to capture one's interest or captivate one's imagination.  His remake of King Kong, the film he said inspired his career in cinema, is certainly impressive in its own right.  It's beautiful to look at, fun when it wants to be, and decidedly tragic.  The pathos that is conveyed throughout this film in the guise of unrequited love is simply heartbreaking.   Kong himself is brilliantly realized, with skillful yet restrained use of CGI bringing to life his humanity with seeming ease.  In actuality, Kong is infused with more personality than a good deal of real life actors, which is either an incredible accomplishment for the artists who designed him or an unfortunate testament to the "talents" of many present-day actors.  He actually would've stolen the film completely if not for Ann Darrow, played by Naomi Watts.  Her character provides the real heart of the film.  In the original, Ann was a terrified victim. . a helpless damsel in distress who wanted nothing more than for her Jack Driscoll to rescue her.  Here, she's strong, clever, and ultimately sympathetic.  Truly the only one who understands Kong, and subsequently the only one that could show him compassion.  The film is a bit of an oddity; it wants to be an epic, a thriller, and an old-fashioned romance all at the same time.  But I honestly feel that it succeeds as being a love story more than anything and that's because of how convincing Naomi Watts made her relationship with what was basically a green-screen. Peter Jackson's King Kong isn't perfect, however.  For one, the film is at least a good thirty minutes too long.  Too much of a good thing really isn't, and Peter would do well to keep his hubris in check, even when crafting an homage to his favorite piece of cinema.  It's not that the added thirty minutes wasn't quality work either, it's just that if it wasn't included it would not have been missed.  And while there were unbelievably breath-taking scenes unlike anything we've ever seen before, there was also a tendency for Pete to rely on age-old movie tricks like a gratuitous slow-motion.  For entire minutes at a time.  It wouldn't have been so bad had it not been so very, very prevalent.  Please, Mr. Jackson...everything in moderation.  The film falters mostly in it's unwavering ability to lose your interest just when it's gaining momentum.  Unnecessary characters and relationships persist throughout, such as Jimmy and the second-mate Hayes...and their reference to the book the Heart of Darkness.  I'm not sure what the writers Fran and Philipa were trying to say with this allusion, but it never really mattered anyway seeing as how Hayes died and Jimmy wasn't heard from or seen again once they got back to Manhattan. Still, this film was obviously Peter's love song to the original, and as such it's an exceptional piece of entertainment.  The fact that it's at once a celebration of artistic ingenuity, an exciting roller-coaster ride for the senses, and an emotionally complex, even moving piece of cinema easily puts the film in a league of its own.  I just wish that league had it's own editor. Rating:  A-     James Newton Howard wrote a beautiful, albeit melancholy, piece for this film which I'll play now.  His work throughout the film is generally inspired as well.

?>