Before we get too far into this, I have a terrible admission to make: I am not a movie journalist. And I'm definitely not a critic. I'm a fan of stories, you see. And I'd like to tell a few of my own one day. That is why I found myself in New York City last week, because let's face it: who better to learn from about the intricate process of creating epic stories well-told than Peter Jackson and his merry band at the WETA workshop in New Zealand? I can't think of anyone on the planet.

Now that that's out of the way, I have to say: Movie journalists are a really bitchy lot.

I found this out when I had the misfortune of being trapped in a tiny bus in New York City with many members of one of Hollywood's most prestigious critical organizations (which, yes, will remain nameless. Even I, who could care less about Hollywood politics or who's divorcing whom this week, don't want to get blackballed for the rest of my life.)

Nevertheless, all disclaimers aside, this statement isn't going to make me terribly popular. Nevermind that anyone who writes about movies professionally knows it's true. They all want you to think that they know everything there is to know about movies and that they're really nice folks (and yes, some of them are). But holy cats. Are they a cynical, jaded bunch?

You betcha.

What does this have to do with KING KONG? Stick with me.

You see, big-time critics want you to think they're walking, talking film encyclopedias because they want you to have confidence in their opinions. If you do, you'll buy their publications, and thereby keep them employed, and keep putting food on their tables. And there's nothing wrong with that. Everyone needs to put food on their tables. Even me. But I do it by working a day job, just like you. So I have no agenda when I say: I liked KING KONG. A lot.

But if you want to listen to the literati, and allow them to tell you what to think about movies, be my guest. There are, in fact, a few critics out there who do have your best interest in mind, and genuinely want to save you from blowing eleven hard-earned bucks at the movie theater on a steaming pile of lukewarm celluloid that would be better used to line a catbox than to grace the silver screen.

For the most part, critics are all really smart people who watch movies for a living. They're good at expounding upon films in poetic prose that is as elegant in its evisceration as it is polished in its praise.

So what does my slightly pathetic rant about movie critics have to do with whether or not you should see KING KONG?

Simply put: KING KONG is not a movie for cynical people. Especially this version of KING KONG. This Kong is a lovingly crafted, entrancing adventure film that was made not for the back-biting adult, but for the nine-year-old, in all of us. I have now seen this movie twice: once in New York, and once in Los Angeles, and the experience was completely different both times.

I left the theater in NYC with a bunch of jetlagged critics who were pretty blasé in their reaction to the movie. As a result, my own first reaction was sort of blasé, too.

See? Even I am susceptible to their powers.

Then, I saw KING KONG again in Los Angeles after working my average-joe job with a crowd of people who just wanted a good flick to fly them away from the mundanities of their day. And these folks had a completely different reaction. And so did I. We laughed. We were grossed out. And yes, when the inevitable fall of the giant came, we cried. Because Peter Jackson took the time to tell his story. Because Andy Serkis gives not one but two incredible performances in this movie.

I can tell you right now, there are going to be critical gripes about pacing. And "too much character development." And "Jack Black isn't likeable enough."

Pacing? Peter Jackson has been wanting to tell this story since he was nine years old. He wanted to take his time. Is it a bit indulgent in places? Sure. But when you direct a trilogy that makes close to a billion dollars, you'll get the chance to be a little indulgent, too. When you watch KONG, keep in mind that Peter Jackson getting to remake KING KONG is akin to a 30-something like myself getting to remake STAR WARS. If I ever got that chance, I like to think I'd do it with as much reverence as Jackson pays to Kong. (On a side note, Peter Jackson's KING KONG project has been in development for more than a decade. Before he got the green light to go ahead with THE LORD OF THE RINGS, he and his workshop spent six months developing KING KONG as a stop motion epic. Fate intervened, fortuitously for all involved… but you can tell that this film is a labor of love.)

KONG never felt like a three hour movie to me, which it is. If you're in such a damn hurry, wait until the DVD comes out and watch it on 2x. But then, if Peter has his way, KONG will get an extended DVD treatment just like LOTR did. He's got at least 47 additional minutes of footage he'd like to put back into the film.

Too much character development? Oh, boy. Most action adventure stories these days are about cookie cutter characters with cookie cutter plots. KING KONG is neither. We get to learn more about characters in this flick than we usually do. That's a good thing. Not a bad thing. You just can't please some people.

Jack Black isn't likeable? True. Sort of. This is a different Jack Black. Finally. There's less schtick here, more substance. And here's a fun little exercise for you: Black may be playing Carl Denham in this movie, a man obsessed with his own vision, his own fame, and his own fortune. While they didn't change the name, Black is really playing Orson Welles in search of King Kong. Check the hair. And the take-no-prisoners-praise-the-lord-and-pass-the-ammunition movie making attitude that made Welles such a fascinating character. Carl Denham is not a clown. And in this role, neither is Jack Black. Deal with it. You'll get to see him screw around in TENACIOUS D AND THE PICK OF DESTINY.

So when you go see KING KONG, take off your grown-up mask, and put on the guise of yourself at nine. Picture Peter Jackson at that age, watching RKO's original KONG from 1933 in front of his little TV in New Zealand. Imagine the young lad, the very next day, grabbing his dad's super-8 camera, and making his first stop motion movie: a play dough brontosaur, just like the one he'd seen on TV.

And if you are in fact a nine-year-old, I envy you… KING KONG is a great new world for you to explore. Take some lessons from Peter Jackson. Maybe one day, you'll get to make your dreams come true like he did.

And don't use swear words like "bitchy" or "cynical" until you're a little older.

Tony Teofilo is a Los Angeles-based entertainment guy. He works an office job at Universal to pay the bills, just in case you think he's not honest enough to admit that. But he assures you he didn't get one red cent to say the nice things he's said about KING KONG or Peter Jackson. Whether or not you think he's objective about the movie is up to you. Which is sort of the point of this whole article. He hopes you'll let him know if you think he's full monkey poo. Or not.

E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | ARCHIVES