FINAL CUT / RED ENVELOPES: The Once and Future King

Why is it that two hours seems like a reasonable length of time, but three hours seems like an eternity? It's uncanny. A dinner, a plane flight, you name it. Add an hour, and it's like you added a week.

Perhaps this explains why it took so long to generate the proper enthusiasm to go see King Kong. Anybody I asked, they said it was definitely a must-see. A bunch of us contemplated a post-show outing to enjoy Peter Jackson's latest epic. But the film's duration had preceded it: three hours. It sat like a heavy meal, and turned the enthusiastic into the beleaguered.

(Approximation of an actual conversation at dinner a few weeks back. The last line is a direct transcript.

SOMEONE: You wanna see King Kong?
JASON: No. Who wants to watch a movie for three hours?
PADRAIC: Yes, when has Peter Jackson ever managed to entertain us for three hours?

It really does defy logic.)

Which is why it's such a joy to report that, once we cleared the space in our calendar to accommodate King Kong, the time just sped by. It's a fantastic film. Perhaps most impressive is that it manages to be faithful to the original, yet improve upon it in almost every way.

To watch the original King Kong is to see a film that succeeds almost in spite of itself. The 1933 version has a difficult time holding up for today's audiences. The special effects, though primitive by today's standards, are still remarkably effective, such as when a model Kong lifts up a log bearing several real-life sailors. A little tougher to take is the stylized acting, led by Fay Wray (fine, but in a helpless role), Robert Armstrong (essentially a carnival barker), and Bruce Cabot (useless, especially in his hilarious reading of the line, "I guess I love you"). Worst of all is the unavoidable cultural imperialism of the time. You could call it racism, I suppose. But it's really just a sense of people (yes, white people) thinking they know more than others. It's definitely a product of its time.

And yet the film still works incredibly well. Most of the credit belongs to Kong himself, an incredibly sympathetic character who overcomes every manner of indignity. You can tell that the filmmakers, led by directors Merian C. Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack, think they're making a monster movie. And Kong is quite the monster, killing any number of island natives or hapless New Yorkers. But while Kong is destructive, he's far from a mindless killing machine. No, he's flesh and blood, which is literally demonstrated to us when Cabot stabs his finger with a knife, and Kong looks at his wounded hand in anguish and surprise. Kong has very expressive eyes, and they are the window to Kong's innocent, childlike soul. A child prone to violent tantrums, true, but still a sweet, very confused child.

Peter Jackson knows that the secret to King Kong is the title character, so it's no surprise that he turns to the same team that made Gollum in The Lord of the Rings such a success: his brilliant special effects team and actor Andy Serkis. The new Kong is a majestic creature, capable of great tenderness with the girl he adores (sad-eyed Naomi Watts), as well as thunderous violence with a vicious Tyrannosaurus Rex. He remains the center of attention, and I would contend that it's impossible not to be moved by his inevitable fate.

What makes the new version special is the way Jackson has upped the ante in every other element of the story. Jack Black, for example, lends an element of megalomania to the part of Carl Denham, who was previously a confident exploiter of nature. Watts and Adrien Brody carry off a convincing romance, as compared to the love of convenience in the original script. And Watts' character of Ann Darrow is given real heart which necessitates the biggest change in the new script (the reason for Kong's Manhattan rampage). The previous Kong was a great entertainment, but the new one is a thoroughly-imagined experience.

This isn't to say that it couldn't have done with a little more editing. Chase scenes grow particularly wearying, especially a lengthy scene best described as "Pamplona with dinosaurs". I think Jackson means well, hoping to show the extreme hardship or danger of a situation, but it can get a bit much. Maybe the film could have been 2:45. But the expanded storytelling provides a fullness that I would not trade.

To get a feel for how much Jackson reveres to original, look no further than the Special Features disc in the King Kong DVD set. A lengthy documentary (produced by Jackson's company) affirm's the film's role as one of the first special effects blockbusters, and goes to great length to praise the groundbreaking work of special effects designer Willis O'Brien and composer Max Steiner. The case is strong that everytime you go see a July 4 movie spectacular, you owe a debt to Kong. But that's not enough, and shows why Jackson is one of the most wonderfully odd people in the movies today. A significant portion of the documentary is devoted to Jackson's efforts to re-create the long-lost spider pit sequence. We see a remarkable number of man-hours poured into research and construction on a scene which is only intended as a tribute, and which only appears on this bonus disc. (And all this while he was rushing to finish his actual film.) It's a fantastic stunt, the act of a film geek given the tools to do whatever he wants. Every filmmaker should hope to be adored in such a fashion.

To enjoy King Kong -- 1933 original, documentary analysis, and 2005 remake -- is a lengthy undertaking. If you're concerned about time, then yes, you could find a two-hour movie that would take less of it. And you'd have a lesser experience, to be sure. So stop complaining and just go see the movie. It'll remind you of why you like going to movies in the first place.