Snarkastic

You see, I agree with you on Kong, but it made my list because deep down inside, I've always wanted to go into hand-to-hand combat with not one, but three t-rexes. At that point, I was reduced to little more than my imaginitive core. There was simply no other part of me that existed. I was a badass, and so was everyone else in the theater. Also, a herd of brontasauri, well....I won't spoil that little surprise.....

Also, riding the old Gizzum trail I believe, the Brokebacks are makin' out at Downtown West. For serious.

Addendum: Actually, that's on January 6th. Downtown West.

Hee...I was hurtling down the interstate, sopping wet and freezing and achy (I gave up grave-hopping this afternoon for some quality time with my board at Silvercreek), logged into Gmail from my phone, saw your second comment, and was frantically texting a deliriously excited reply about its impending release (is that accidentally filthy?),...and your third comment popped up. Khan!!

Ebert makes a point in his Best Of '05 list that the top ten movies this year could never have been made, and he would have had no problem picking ten more. He's right.

It's been weeks, and I still can't decide what I think of Kong. Had you been online last night, you might have noticed me putting it on and taking it off that list about eleventeen times. It rocked me back, HARD, but here's the thing: I had immeasurably less emotional investment going into LOTR (I read the books when I was about ten, and never much liked them), and was bowled over three years in a row by Jackson's celluloid imaginings. The 1933 Kong is one of my all-time favorite flicks, and...I could've watched this one with the sound off. And I hate that.

Of course, the three counterarguments to this are:

1. Film is a visual medium.
2. The visual stuff in KK? Elysian.
3. The original, emotionally speaking, isn't exactly pedestal-worthy either, so why am I holding the remake to a standard I never imposed on the older film?

And a counter-counterargument to third point:

Because it's Peter Jackson, and not to belittle his work, which is amazing, but after the past five years, I expected to cry at more than just in awe at a car-chase-but-with-dinosaurs.

All valid points. I'm in one of those places where I agree (and also admit that the movie could've lost enough portent and extra (superfluous) detail to shave off about 90 minutes), but I still have a deep love for it. In spite of its problems, it took me somewhere. It's such a one-track-minded movie. I mean, the ape is the main character. Everything leading up to him is inconsequential, isn't it? We are all King Kong by the time he shows up. He embodies us and we embody him. This is why it works so well for me, I guess, is that I felt so utterly onscreen from Kong's entrance right through to the end. King Kong is probably what Kael would've called a brilliant failure; a master filmmaker indulging himself to the point of excess. At least in PJ's case he drags us in with him, eh?

P.S. Yeah, I saw your Top Ten before you altered it, which is what drew my attention to Kong and inspired me to comment. I could tell watching you watch Kong that you were going to be figuring out what to say about it for weeks to come. C'est la Vie (SEST LA VAI!!!)