King Kong

[cinemabon]

King Kong directed by Peter Jackson

Peter Jackson’s King Kong is presented on that same grand and glorious scale that brought us sinking ocean liners, parting waters, and thundering chariots. This is Hollywood (or New Zealand, in this case) at its finest. Everything about this film is big, including its star. I felt a bit overwhelmed by the size and scope of the picture. There is so much to take in. It’s like going to Disneyland, one visit is not enough. Jackson immerses us into a rich and textural world of life in the early 1930’s America. No detail has been left out. The depth of every shot is filled with so much to see and so little time to take it all in. Three hours flew by in a way that left me wanting more.

We film buffs know this very story well. The 1933 version has become a classic because of its broad-based appeal. Big promoter goes to mysterious island; abducted girl beguiles large ape; they end up in New York where the film reaches its pitiful climax. That synopsis pretty much sums up all the versions. However, their similarity ends there.

Peter Jackson has become, in a relatively short span of years, a master craftsman. This film clearly shows that “Lord of the Rings” was no stroke of luck or flash-in-the-pan. Jackson is at home in his element, having at his disposal the same unit that gave him everything he needed to tell his Tolkien tale. Now WETA has helped Jackson again deliver the goods.

The film opens with a long montage of life on the streets of New York, from the wealthy to the most destitute. This is not the usual clean back-lot set. This is the real nitty-gritty city with all its warts, grimy, dirty, smelly, under the shadow of towering buildings, indifferent policeman, and a business world intent on survival during the height of the Great Depression. We are introduced to each of the characters as they struggle to maintain their dignity in the face of utter hopelessness. Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) desperately clings to her old-fashioned virtuous look on life, although forced to steal out of hunger. Carl Denham (Jack Black) is an unscrupulous man who will do anything to complete his film. As the story progresses, we see how bit by bit, he loses all sense of humanity in the pursuit of fame and fortune putting aside friends and colleagues in an attempt to be a big player. Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody) is the timid author caught up in destiny, as Carl traps him on the boat and he falls in love with the beautiful Ann.

All of these characters, along with many other minor ones that shine, like the boat’s captain, pale in comparison to real star of this picture, Kong. There has never been a CGI character that I felt at some point didn’t disappoint me by looking as if he’d been “placed” into the film. There is none of that here. I was completely taken in by this rough bum resembling more primitive animal than has ever been attempted. I watched with fascination as Ann cleverly begins to figure out her place with the giant creature. As their relationship evolves, so too does the audience involvement. We are completely taken in by this cow-eyed dumb creature, until we discover that the real crude animal is man, not the ape. We are the cruel ones. We are the vicious creatures that plot and scheme and kill for pleasure.

There are so many great scenes in this film it is difficult to know where to start. Certainly, for the men, the fight between Kong and three T-Rexes has to go down in cinema history as the battle to end all battles. I wanted to stand and applaud at the finish. I felt completely out of breath. The power, the majesty, the might I felt in that scene alone, should sell tickets round the world. But Jackson does not let us rest there. He takes us on a journey back to that fateful rendezvous in the city, where we know Kong will meet his ignominious end. Yet, to Jackson’s (and Walsh’s and Boyan’s) credit, the tender scene is played out with such quiet compassion that everyone will be moved to tears.

King Kong is an instant classic. This film will go down in history as one of the greatest films of all time because it has the elements that will make it so. The score, the editing, the costumes, the sets, the sound, the picture, the acting, are all at a level compared to any of film's greatest works. Jackson has left out nothing. No detail was too small or too great. He delivers on every aspect. While the small independent films have beat a path to Oscar’s door this year, Kong will take a flying leap, and land in first place.

[Chris Knipp]

[color= blue]KONG BOMBS--BIG[/COLOR]

“Some fans exhausted by manic ‘King Kong’” -- recent headline

Review by Chris Knipp

You could do something useful with your three hours – or you could see King Kong. Jackson’s costly hi-tech period kitsch revival film, the third version, makes ample – make that excessive – use of the quite wonderful CGI tricks that enable filmmakers with the money to pay for it to spread quite credible monsters across the screen in almost believable landscapes tangling with each other and with humans. Sometimes, as of old, the humans are lighted wrong or there’s a telltale edge around them, but the monsters don’t look stiff or metallic the way they did a few years ago. If you think that advance is enough reason to redo King Kong, this is your movie.

This version goes back to the Depression era setting of the original. The girl is Naomi Watts. The writer is Adrian Brody. The indefatigable, brave, but mendacious movie director is comic Jack Black, who was so good in School of Rock. You could say Black’s hit the big time and the mainstream, but he’s really just been homogenized: the disreputable, dirty quality that made him real is gone. Here he’s part of a package, like everybody else, like Naomi Watts – though in her very limited, if central role as Ann Darrow, the monstrous gorilla’s tiny blonde plaything, she does provide a soulful warmth. The only one of the principals who doesn’t disappear is Adrian Brody. But that’s just because he’s so odd-looking, with his long crooked nose, big sad eyes, and wide mouth. Jackson wanted someone who didn’t look like a leading man, but he went too far.

Are you up for this movie? Prepare for the fact that every action sequence lasts at least three times what would be the normal length. The girl and the gorilla and a bunch of dinosaurs tangle in vines and fall, grabbing at each other and boffing each other away, for what seems forever. You may feel you’re stoned on acid, and that things usually lasting minutes now seem to go on for hours. But they do go on for hours, psychologically. The giant spiders and the outsize bats just keep on coming, and coming, and coming. Kong sits atop the Empire State Building for hours beating his chest, mooning at Ann, and absorbing bullets shot by little war planes. The CGI people must not have figured out how to do a “flinch” function, because he doesn’t flinch, but eventually he falls.

There has never been so under-edited a major film since Terence Malick’s Thin Red Line, and this time with less original and poetic results.

This is your American mainstream Christmas blockbuster. Last year it was Scorsese’s The Aviator. What a difference. And what a come-down after Jackson’s own masterful Ring Trilogy. His King Kong just reads like all those Lost Ark knockoffs about Egyptian mummies, with some glossed-up horror-cum-Sci-Fi sequences tossed in. It's bigger, and technically better, and it cost more -- but is it really better? I ask you.

The screenplay is simplistic – but it’s effective. People have found the intro excessive, but the first half hour or so moves us right along. It’s only when dialogue gives way to noise and violent movement that things begin to drag.

When the tramp steamer with the film crew runs aground on Skull Island and they see the dark, scary “natives” who eventually offer Ann as a sacrifice to Kong, it’s hard not to think of Apocalypse Now, especially given that the screenplay pointedly alludes to Conrad's Heart of Darkness, through Jamie Bell, who’s reading the book. “It’s not an adventure story,” somebody helpfully spells out. So, we’re expected to contemplate ideas and myths. This "isn't just an adventure story." Oh. But it’s also then that you realize Jackson’s dark wild humans, despite all his trouble and expense, just look like racist B-movie villains, rather than the genuinely exotic, mysterious, and terrifying people Coppola conjured up in the Philippines for his extravagant epic. Just think what an amazing creation Coppola came up with simply shooting from the seat of his pants and going berserk in the tropics without enough money. If only Jackson had gone berserk, but the only reliable thing about him is his dogged pursuit of the format.

Sure, Jackson’s dinosaurs and the bigger, faster, stronger Kong are increasingly agile and realistic, but in the end it just looks like a giant video game – one that, as too often in real life, is obsessively played too long.

Kong was “killed by beauty,” Jack Black’s character tells us. But such symbolic gestures toward the story’s roots in mythology and folk tale can’t save this movie from its sense of glossy overkill. Peter Jackson, who did justice to J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, has spoiled a B-movie cult classic with technology and money.

[cinemabon]

Did we wake up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning?

Your criticism sounds more like a matter of personal taste than one of insight, starting with the giant blue letters that shout your disdain. However, your feelings in regards to Jackson's take on this film are shallow at best. Here we will lock horns.

"People have found the intro excessive."

The only person that said that was the critic at the Village Voice. I've read many of the reviews and no other critic has mentioned the intro excessive. Personally, I found the montage refreshing. Jackson shows us the world Naomi steps from into potential stardom. How ironic when later she rejects the "high life" and returns to her humble beginnings.

"There has never been so under-edited a major film..."

Think back. Surly there are films that hold shots to the point of excruciating pain. I can think of several right off the bat. Three are Italian! Besides, I liked the comment made by Variety best. "Out of the nearly 200 minutes of running time for this movie, Jackson could have trimmed out some of the longer more boring stuff, making the running time 199 minutes instead."

"Jackson's dark wild humans...just look like racist B-movie villains."

Why? Because there are black? He employed aboriginal (now referred to as true Australians) men and women to portray the parts. I felt they were very effective. Racist would have been taking white men and women and putting them in black face. That kind of criticism is mean spirited and beneath you, Chris.

"In the end, it looks like a giant video game."

I have to admit, I hate commercialization. It ruins anything connected with it. However, the video game (as seen in the countless commercials on television) bears little resemblence to the film. The film is paced with a gradual understanding this ape is no dummy. How else could he have survived on an island inhabited with such creatures. We are also shown he must be the last of his kind (the sunset scene where he walks through the bones of his ancestors to the high perch). Jackson slowly introduces us to relationship because it is the most important one in the film. The story would be diminished if he took Kong away before he and Ann make their connection. I'm rather surprised a sensitive person like yourself could not see that.

By all accounts, most of the nation's critics (88%) agree that Jackson has taken a B-film and made it into a top grade classic. He's improved on every aspect of the original film, bring out more depth to the characters, including Jack Black's sinister side (instead of a parody of DeMille). I applaud his effort, and found the entire experience so enjoyable, I went a second time over the weekend with my son.

Michael: "That's the best movie I've ever seen, Dad."

Can't argue with a ten year old.

[Chris Knipp]

Not just the Village Voice, also Denby, The New Yorker, found everything too long and overdone. I'm not alone, cinemabon, but if I am expressing a minority opinon that's okay with me.

I had no intention of personally antagonizing you. I had not read your review when I wrote mine and I have no desire to "lock horns" on anything. I'm sorry that you are getting into name-calling with your "surly" and "mean spirited" comments on some things I said. I am simply stating an opinion that differs sharply from yours and stating it baldly. People can read both yours and mine and see what they agree and disagree with. No doubt the truth is somewhere in between....

NOt grumpy at all. When I love something, I love it. And I love movies.

The fact that there are other underedited movies isn't much of a defense.

You can't argue with a ten-year-old, no. But I don't have to accept his taste.

[cinemabon]

Touche

[Chris Knipp]

Let's just let others put in their two cents.

[wpqx]

A waste of time? That's the first thing I thought when I heard Peter Jackson was remaking King Kong, one of the most hokey and overrated of all classic films. It was already remade once to disastrous results in 1976, and I figured the man behind some of the best films of the last 15 years was seriously wasting his time and talents on an adaptation. Then I heard something that began to change my mind, and that was that Naomi Watts was cast to play Ann Darrow. I make no attempt to hide the fact that I find Miss Watts the most beautiful woman on the planet and will probably see any movie good or bad she's in, sooner or later anyways. Then I heard that they weren't going to modernize the story, keeping it in 1933, and this touch wound up working quite well. With the team responsible for LOTR in tow, I figured this film couldn't be too bad. I'm morally opposed to all remakes, but well I wasn't a fan of the original, so there was certainly room for improvement.

Then came the reviews, and the top ten lists, and lets just say there are some fans of this film out there. I was shocked to find Roger Ebert, who basically dismissed all of the Rings trilogy included Kong in his year end top ten list. Now it appeared I needed to see this film, three hours or not. There were techincal marvels to behold, bold entertainment pieces, and lots of CGI which usually makes me cringe, however duty calls, and just as I'll have to see Brokeback Mountain, so too did I have to pay my respects to Kong.

The film is a classic three act story. Each section of the film divided into a nice hour long segment. There is an hour of exposition, leading up to the arrival, or rather running into, of Skull Island. Then the story takes another hour or so to explore the island, fight random prehistoric monsters, and set up the relationship between Kong and Ann. Finally we get Kong in New York and on Broadway, with the inevitable climb up the Empire State Building. Broken down like this Kong doesn't resemble one film but rather three nice little films. One of which is expository and a collection of details and observations about the time.

The first hour is possibly the slowest in terms of plot and excitement. Jackson is trying to get us to feel for these characters. Jack Black's Carl Denham is set up as the renegade auteur. A constant showman, straight from PT Barnum. Denham never misses an opportunity to profit, and is convinced he is the greatest thing to happen to himself. He is out for glory, and he is out for profit, not necessarily in that order. We find ourselves on his side, because he is on the run. It is his film that's going to be scrapped and sold for stock footage, it is him that's got a warrant out for his arrest, he is dead broke and on the run, with hardly a script, a crew, or even a good idea of where the hell he's heading. We feel for him because he is down and out. Just as we feel for Watts' Ann. She is broke as is, due to the fact that it is the depression, and her vaudeville theater has just been shut down. Her only friend in town is leaving, and she is close to going into a peep show for money (a scene I desperately wish was included). Her and Carl seem to be a quick match, they need each other, but their possible connection and entanglement is bypassed really quickly.

The first film made numerous inferences to Kong being Denham's repressed sexual instinct, which is all but disregarded here. Kong is not the animal side of Denham, but rather his own seperate beast, which we'll explore later. The only character we don't get too much feeling for is Adrien Brody's Jack Driscoll, a writer very much admired by Ann. He shows up, quietly woos Ann, but we don't feel much of his pain, despite being conned into being stuck on a boat headed for a mysterious island never before seen by man. He is the only one really there against his own will, but as Denham says "If you really loved the theater you would have jumped". It is the instinct of Driscoll that keeps him on the boat, which winds up working in some way for him, because without it he wouldn't have met Ann.

On the boat we are introduced to several crew members. A touch military man, a foreign captain, and a somewhat pointless and stupid mysterious stowaway who happens to be a kleptomaniac. This is one character that I found completely useless to the story, and when the casualties were piling up on Skull Island, I really wanted his to be one of them. As a bit of a cheat we never really see what happens to him. Kong smashes the row boat with him in it, and he goes flying, but no body alive or dead is seen again, unless of course I missed something.

The hour on Skull Island is where the story really picks up. I must hand it to Jackson who got his start in comedy horror, the man has some idea of what it may take to make a scare. I found the natives cast on the Island to be among the creepiest "savages" yet captured on film. You truly were creeped out by them, and feared for the lives of those brave/stupid souls that wandered off the ship to go exploring. There is cut footage I'm told, and the scene from the original of Ann attempting to scream on camera for Carl is cut from here, which might have come in handy here. Instead we are shown Kong only in brief glimpses. Of course hearing him before we see him.

Ann is offered as a sacrifice, and I must say Kong has a nice taste in ladies. Her entrance into the world of Kong is one that we see can actually be a place for her. Kong is not going to kill her, as we quickly discover, partially based on the vaudeville talents of Ann, who discovers that falling down is the funniest thing to a 25 foot gorilla, not surprising to find him a fan of the low-low brow. It is this ability to make "people" laugh that saves Ann, and let's us get an early glimpse of Kong's heart. The fact that he beats the holy hell out of several dinosaurs for Ann is another clear indicator that he's out to prove himself. He's the King of this jungle, and in a touch taken straight from the original after killing one particular Tyrannosaurus, he checks its broken jaw to see if it moves.

During Ann's havoc she gets in contact with some rather hideous insects, always something to make me squirm, and two centipedes that would probably make me defecate on myself if in contact with them. These may be the creepiest moments of the film, but the creatues encounterd in the bottom of the canyon by the rescue party are what really get you rolling. Giant spiders, huge bugs, and 50 foot worms with various different mouths looking like creatures from a Star Wars film. In this aspect Jackson has free reign to create monsters, far eclipsing the dinosaurs and bugs of the original. He gets some generally creepy moments here, and as admirable as stop motion may be, it is no match for what is accomplished here.

It is during Ann's rescue that the greatest emotional weight is weighed. Kong's capture is heartbreaking, truly. I probably would have cried if I had tear ducts. It is a startling moment, and one of great power that I would have expected from such "Hollywood" entertaiment. Here is where Ann goes from more than just some animal rights activist to a lover of Kong. She is more than just lashing out at their cruelty, she is weeping for her lover, the one person/thing that could truly protect her, keep her safe, and give her a home of her own. She has lost that as they capture him, and this once might warrior, who battled dinosaurs, giant bats, and anything else on this island was powerless against some chloroform. A truly touching moment.

We get a little reprisal on Manhattan. Kong gets to run amuck and I for one was quite pleased. Unlike in the original where any girl who wasn't Ann was killed by Kong, here he just seems to fling them aside, not necessarily killing them or eating them. Come to think of it Kong doesn't have a taste for human flesh, we never see him eat any person. In fact the only thing we really see him eat is a branch off a tree, making perhaps a reference to him being a vegetarian? Although he does bite the head off of a creature or two, not so much for the taste but for the kill. Once he finds Ann in Manhattan the two have a date, complete with ice skating in Central Park, a romantic evening alone for many couples. It is a sweet touch, and we see that the love these two have is mutual. Here is where we start to feel a little for Driscoll, who can't really compete with Kong. Sure he was brave/smart enough to rescue her from the island, but how can he be more masculine than a 25 foot gorilla that kills dinosaurs with his bare hands? Kong is the "man" that Ann needs, and Ann is the woman that they both want.

I'll spare you much overanalyzing on the ending. It is kept relatively similar, including one cheesy line from the original, but it is what leads up to this that makes it superior. A truly fantastic achievement, and continuing a rather impressive run of films from Peter Jackson, who's making himself quite the bankable Hollywood player these days. Of course as always the film was shot entirely in New Zealand, so perhaps not as Hollywood as others might think.

Grade A

[tabuno]

I went into this movie knowing I wouldn't like it based on the trailers and I came out of this movie convinced personally that for me, this is one of the worst movies I've seen. It was so, so, so hard to sit through this manipulative attempt to humanize King Kong but ends up as a massive overly violence, horror thrill ride with bits and pieces of scenes that supposed to make this movie qualitatively better. Of the 187 minute film time, I would say I bought into the movie for about 15 minutes in those "beautiful" places in the movie where the beauty connects with the beast. Even the ending was a big let down.

[Spoiler]

Where our hero shows up late so that we don't get to have the emotional dilemma of the heroine having to choose between her beast and her man.

[Spoiler end]

Unfortunately, this is going to a difficult movie to discuss because as cinemabon mentions there is so much to take in and I don't know if I could even get through another viewing to recall all the plot flaws, the cinematography problems, the weak script. But I'll eventually attempt to review this movie based on other poster comments. I'm just angry at how I feel about this movie...it was that difficult for me to sit through.

[oscar jubis]

Peter Jackson is like a present-day Cecil B. DeMille or D.W. Griffith. He's got a rare combination of entreprenurial spirit and artistry of the highest caliber. At the very least, his King Kong realizes all the potentialities inherent in the 1933 original.

As a fan of The Lord of the Rings, I knew better than to doubt Jackson would deliver awesome spectacle. Yet I could never imagine a Skull Island this horrific AND edenic, or anticipate the exhilaration of sharing Ann Darrow's point of view as she's being carried through the forest in Kong's hand.

Perhaps the biggest improvement over the revered original involves the human characters, now as rich as the big ape thanks to extensive backgrounding during the film's first hour. The social conditions that impact on the individuals are carefully depicted before they embark on the journey to the unknown. Moreover, the racist overtones of the original all-white crew's struggle with the natives are offset here by the creation of a significant black character, first-mate Hayes. Jackson's Kong is more companionship-starved than libidinous threat and his Ann correspondingly empathetic. Andy Serkis and Naomi Watts are simply wonderful, never more so than during the scene where they share a hilltop at dusk. King Kong is a great movie.

[tabuno]

cinemabon posted:
The film opens with a long montage of life on the streets of New York, from the wealthy to the most destitute. This is not the usual clean back-lot set. This is the real nitty-gritty city with all its warts, grimy, dirty, smelly, under the shadow of towering buildings, indifferent policeman, and a business world intent on survival during the height of the Great Depression. We are introduced to each of the characters as they struggle to maintain their dignity in the face of utter hopelessness. Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) desperately clings to her old-fashioned virtuous look on life, although forced to steal out of hunger. Carl Denham (Jack Black) is an unscrupulous man who will do anything to complete his film. As the story progresses, we see how bit by bit, he loses all sense of humanity in the pursuit of fame and fortune putting aside friends and colleagues in an attempt to be a big player. Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody) is the timid author caught up in destiny, as Carl traps him on the boat and he falls in love with the beautiful Ann.

The films opening scenes cinematically were at times shot in a foggy, almost indistinct photographic technique and at other times in the more clear, nitty, gritty fashion which for me was confusing and inconsistent, especially in the the opening sequences. The shots themselves were so cliche and so obviously almost cloyingly comprehensive without really offering the audience a stick in your gut experience - it was almost a flyby of a multitude of supposedly emotionally poignant shots showing us the depression era but ending up making me think how simplistic and one-dimensional the set up was for me. Even the out of the job actress scene was so melodramatic and plain that I was offended. The movie viewing scene, immediately, I felt Jack Black was miscast in the role, because he didn't come across as that sinister, cold streak - I didn't know whether to like him or hate him, a scondrel or creative genius. Jack Driscoll, he didn't jump off the ship and I didn't know why he didn't. The whole beginning was just so almost of parody of the depression for me where instead I wanted hardcore drama, romance, and adventure but the beginning for me was just more of what I've seen before but made even more soap opera-like. It began to read like one of those detective paperback novels, the Star Trek Next Generation espisode where the Away Team gets caught in a casino where they find an astronaut who longed for death because he found himself in a second rate detective novel. This was how the opening sequence made me feel.

[Chris Knipp]

This is not the usual clean back-lot set. This is the real nitty-gritty city with all its warts, grimy, dirty, smelly, under the shadow of towering buildings, indifferent policeman,

This brings up the question: Is anything in this movie "real"? Is it even supposed to seem real? I don't know. I think it's supposed to feel like an old fashioned movie. Good point by tabuno about Jack Black. He probably has more energy than veniality about him, and he also may lack other qualities for the role, such as the pseudo-"artistic" air of the schlock director.

[cinemabon]

I don't believe Jackson wanted a villain; rather he intended a character that becomes villainous when he seizes an opportunity for money and power. He only fleetingly senses a tinge of guilt when the surviving member of his crew appears in the distance on the balcony in the theater. If you made the character evil from the start, where could he go, and how would he develop? When Black justifies his feelings for a lost crew member the second time, we see him excising the demons from his mind with excuses for what really drives his quest for glory, lust for fame and power.

Further, the scenes at the beginning are not trying to depict the true essence of the Great Depression; otherwise, Jackson would not have given them to the second unit. He merely wanted to establish a background with enough detail that Ann's character could live in that world. My eighty-three year old mother and I discussed the opening of the film. (I asked her how real the images were. "Quite" her succinct reply) She actually wanted to see more but realized the constraints of time in telling a story. (Having lived through the Depression, she thought the montage realistic) Films like "Grapes of Wrath" show the Depression in far greater detail with more depth. However, the scenes at the beginning of Kong are simply a device to help establish the setting of the story and then move on to the island. How else would you do it within the frame of this film. Remember, this is a fantasy. To shoot stark realism and bracket that against an island of fantastic proportion would be ludicrous.

[tabuno]

cinemabon posted:

I don't believe Jackson wanted a villain; rather he intended a character that becomes villainous when he seizes an opportunity for money and power. He only fleetingly senses a tinge of guilt when the surviving member of his crew appears in the distance on the balcony in the theater.

This scene with Jack Black is one of the fifteen out of 187 minutes that were really powerful and meaningful for me. The interaction and the timing and pacing were perfect.

[tabuno]

Chris Knipp posted:
This brings up the question: Is anything in this movie "real"? Is it even supposed to seem real? I don't know. I think it's supposed to feel like an old fashioned movie.

One of the most crucial elements of this movie is one that I don't think the director was at all successful. It seemed that Jackson himself was unsure as to how to ultimately shoot this movie and in the end ended up with a bit of a muddle of both realism and storybook, a bit of the artificial black and white 1933 fairy tale and a bit of the more updated, modern realism. This is seen a lot with the special effects which depended on a sharp, distinct direction of its ultimate look which came off more as just uncertainty. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) and Sin City (2005) had stark distinctive looks to their movies which enhanced the script and performances whereas in this movie, it seemed to be more of a restraining, confining element requiring even more of the script and actors.

[tabuno]

One movie that I feel successful did homage to an older era movie genre was Down With Love (2003) that combined many scenes from 1950s romantic comedies into a seamless script for an contemporary romantic comedy version directed by Peyton Reed starring Renee Zellweger and Ewan McGregor. Whether a good retro movie with a 50 year span compared to the 70 year span of the movie under discussion is made all that more difficult because of the lapse of time is unknown. Nevertheless, if we are to say that a director is great or a movie is great, it will be because it was able to raise up to this challenge. Jackson I don't believe was able to achieve or accomplish this.