Looks like just another monkey film ...

[Stefan Wood]

Variety's King Kong Review

12/08/05, 11:56 am EST - Xoanon

Dec. 6, 2005, 5:39pm PT

VARIETY MAGAZINE REVIEW

KING KONG

A Universal release of a Wingnut Films production. Produced by Jan Blenkin, Carolynne Cunningham, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson. Co-producer, Philippa Boyens. Directed by Peter Jackson. Screenplay, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Jackson, based on a story by Merian C. Cooper, Edgar Wallace.

Ann Darrow - Naomi Watts

Carl Denham - Jack Black

Jack Driscoll - Adrien Brody

Capt. Englehorn - Thomas Kretschmann

Preston - Colin Hanks

Jimmy - Jamie Bell

Hayes - Evan Parke

Choy - Lobo Chan

Bruce Baxter - Kyle Chandler

Kong/Lumpy the Cook - Andy Serkis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By TODD MCCARTHY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the Return of the King all over again, and he's got a dazzling Queen. Almost too much of a good thing, Peter Jackson's remake of the film that made him want to make movies is a super-sized version of a yarn that was big to begin with, a stupendous adventure that maximizes, and sometimes oversells, its dazzling wares; but, no matter how spectacular the action, "King Kong" is never more captivating than when the giant ape and his blond captive are looking into each others' eyes. Universal and Jackson's B.O. haul in all markets is destined to be huge -- "Rings" or even "Titanic" huge.

Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack's 1933 "Kong" was one of the sensations of its era, and Willis O'Brien's stop-motion special effects set a standard that went unsurpassed for decades. The 1976 Dino De Laurentiis remake wasn't as bad as its current reputation would have it, although the pic never took hold of the public imagination as the first one did and this one is likely to.

Given the extent of Jackson's accomplishment on "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, there was never any doubt this "Kong" would excel in the effects department -- that its Kong vs. T-Rex battle would be one for the ages. The looming question, rather, was what could justify expanding a 100-minute classic into a three-hour-plus extravaganza.

The answer is that Jackson and his "Rings" screenwriting partners, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, have elaborated nearly every aspect of the story, providing backgrounding, more thorough characterization, physicalization of events that were previously elided, and expansion of incident. From the vivid opening montage of Depression-era New York City, it's evident Jackson intends to paint on a very broad canvas that will include a thousand-and-one Kong-related details he's been storing up since childhood.

As richly rendered as all of this is, not all of it is necessary; Jackson's "Kong" plays more like a Director's Cut, with scenes that could easily be dispensed with or tightened. One cringes a bit at the thought of a DVD expansion of this version.

Still, what's up on screen is rarely short of staggering. Wisely sticking to the original early-'30s period, Jackson & Co. have adhered closely to Cooper and Edgar Wallace's grandly tragic story of a mighty beast brought to ruin by beauty and civilization. Crucially, the emotional content is just as potent as the enormously impressive visual effects, as Kong's sad solitude and embrace of companionship are conveyed with simplicity and eloquence.

Taking 70 minutes -- 70% of the original's entire running time -- just to get to Kong will be too much for some viewers, especially impatient youngsters. Leisurely though it is, the opening stretch does a solid job of welcoming one into the story, especially into the tough prospects faced by pretty struggling actress Ann Darrow (Watts) once her vaudeville show closes down. Facing similarly desperate straits is filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black), whose financiers want to shut down his new adventure-themed picture and who suddenly lacks a leading lady for it.

Carl's motto is, "Defeat is always momentary," and when he chances upon Ann, who believes that "Good things never last," he solves both their problems by spiriting her aboard a ramshackle tramp steamer bound for an unmapped island where Carl hopes to find the subject for his new production. Unlike the original, this "Kong" takes the trouble to flesh out passengers and crew.

Carl essentially kidnaps writer Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), a serious playwright enormously admired by Ann. In a droll move, Carl houses Jack in a large below-decks animal cage, and the scribe spends most of the voyage behind bars toiling on the scenario. Carl also brings along an assistant (Colin Hanks) and preening leading man Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler). The rusty bucket itself is staffed by the sure-handed Captain Englehorn (Thomas Kretschmann), first mate Hayes (Evan Parke), learning-on-the-job youngster Jimmy (Jamie Bell) and heavy-lidded Lumpy the Cook (Andy Serkis, who also "plays" the title character that was animated around his movements).

Voyage takes long enough for romance to blossom between Ann and Jack (the latter no doubt spurred by the additional motivation of escaping his Noah's Ark-like quarters), for Jimmy to brandish his choice of reading matter ("Heart of Darkness") and for Carl to reveal their actual destination is fog-enshrouded Skull Island.

The place lives up to its name when, after a perilous arrival between soaring rocks, they go ashore to find countless skeletons at a bleak coastal fortress. In due course, the adventurers are surrounded by possessed natives both terrifying and terrified, the latter caused by whatever lurks in the jungle behind an enormous wall. Pic wastes some time by returning the crew to the ship after an initial conflict with the islanders, only to have them come back to see Ann captured and served up as an offering on the far side of the wall.

The 67-minute second act bracingly begins with something we've never seen before -- what it's like from Ann's point of view to be carried in Kong's hand as he bounds through the forest; Jackson shows her lurching about and the surrounding environs whipping past her eyes, helter-skelter. As her colleagues follow in pursuit, the pic becomes a veritable Creatures on Parade, as one sequence after another trots out ever-more dangerous giant critters.

The first of these, a Brontosaurus stampede in which enraged lumbering beasts roar right over the men in a tight ravine, is an instant classic. After an emotionally crucial break during which Ann both captivates and stands up to the 25-foot gorilla, she encounters a giant centipede and three T-rexes, all of which Kong must battle while dropping through a tangle of vines in a chasm.

As if this weren't enough (and it actually is), immediately thereafter follows the film's ickiest sequence, in which a succession of giant insects and arachnids, along with gruesome man-eating tentacles, lay siege to some unfortunates in a cave. Cooper and Schoedsack filmed a Spider Cave sequence for the original "Kong" and, deeming it excessive and extraneous, immediately cut it. One can see why.

For all of the excitement, however, Kong's status as the lonely old man of Skull Island is cemented in a touching scene between him and Ann on his craggy promontory, from which he can endlessly watch the beautiful sunsets and contemplate his status as the last of his breed (Jackson thoughtfully includes a glimpse of a giant gorilla skeleton at one point). Cradling a sleeping Ann, Kong is suddenly forced to fight one more battle, against some toothsome giant bats, which gives Jack time to rescue Ann, leading to Kong's eventual capture.

One detail Jackson decides not to clarify is how the beast is placed aboard the ship. Kong is next seen onstage in New York, the subject of a much-ballyhooed presentation by the vindicated Carl. As before, Kong escapes and runs rampant through the city searching for Ann. The Empire State Building climax is spectacular, dizzying, even vertigo-inducing. Kong's farewell to Ann atop the landmark's spire is a tad protracted, but authentically moving.

That the unlikely relationship at the movie's core comes so plausibly alive is a huge tribute to Watts. Ever-reliable thesp does her share of requisite screaming, but she makes Ann resourceful when she tries to amuse and distract Kong, bold in the way she defies him and open-hearted in her accessibility to her captor's plight, which is wonderfully expressed in the eyes and animated facial expressions. Ann Darrow is no Hedda Gabler, but Watts' expressiveness more than vindicates Jackson's decision to use a first-rate actress in the role.

In a part originally and once again highly reminiscent of "Kong" creator Merian Cooper, Black broadly projects the character's dominant canny and opportunistic traits but finds little else to add. Brody proves a good choice as the slim and lofty playwright forced into unaccustomed he-man heroics on Skull Island, although his role could have been sharpened with erudite asides, particularly during the worst of times. Supporting thesps are solid, but essentially all male human character development ceases upon Kong's entrance.

Opening reels views of Manhattan are breathtaking in their detail and sense of a recaptured past. Curiously, there's a more artificial feel to the areas depicted during the climax, at least until Kong ascends the Empire State Building, whereupon the perspectives are extraordinary.

One never knows precisely where Grant Major's production design leaves off and the work of the digital artists begins, but the evocation of Skull Island's forbidding landscapes and impossibly dense tangles of foliage are exceptional. Effects work of all kinds is of the highest level, credit for which begins with Jackson; special makeup, creatures and miniatures creator Richard Taylor; and senior visual effects supervisor Joe Letteri; and extends to the entire Weta Workshop and Digital staff.

Lenser Andrew Lesnie's work not only integrates beautifully with the effects but is highly flattering to the actors in classical Hollywood fashion. Score by James Newton Howard, a last-minute substitution for Howard Shore when his work was abandoned, is muscularly supportive.

---------

Camera (Technicolor, Arri widescreen), Andrew Lesnie; editors, Jamie Selkirk with Jabez Olssen; music, James Newton Howard; production designer, Grant Major; supervising art director/set decorator, Dan Hennah; art directors, Simon Bright, Joseph Bleakley; set designers, Philip Thomas, Darryl Longstaffe, Barry Read, Christina Crawford, Miriam Barrard; costume designer, Terry Ryan; sound (SDDS/Dolby Digital/DTS), Hammond Peek; supervising sound editor, Mike Hopkins; supervising sound editor/sound designer, Ethan Van der Ryn; re-recording mixers, Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges, Tom Johnson; special makeup, creatures and miniatures, Richard Taylor; special makeup, creatures, weapons and miniatures, Weta Workshop Ltd.; senior visual effects supervisor, Joe Letteri; digital visual effects. Weta Digital; associate producer, Annette Wullems; assistant director, Carolynne Cunningham; second unit director, Randall William Cook; second unit camera, Richard Bluck; casting, Liz Mullane, Victoria Burrows, John Hubbard, Dan Hubbard, Ann Robinson. Reviewed at the Arclight, Los Angeles, Dec. 5, 2005. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 187 MIN.

[DukeCity]

Thanks for posting the review, Stefan. I'm intrigued, but not sure if I'm willing to invest 3 hours of my life to satisfy my curiosity.

Interesting that in a review as lengthy as this one, McCarthy feels compelled to use Variety jargon-y stuff like referring to it as a 'pic' and the actors as 'thesps'. I also like referring to the cinematographer as the 'lenser'.

I wonder why Howard Shore's scoring was abandoned. Did it sound too much like early Saturday Night Live?

[7/4]

Thanks for posting the review, Stefan. I'm intrigued, but not sure if I'm willing to invest 3 hours of my life to satisfy my curiosity.

Interesting that in a review as lengthy as this one, McCarthy feels compelled to use Variety jargon-y stuff like referring to it as a 'pic' and the actors as 'thesps'. I also like referring to the cinematographer as the 'lenser'.

I wonder why Howard Shore's scoring was abandoned. Did it sound too much like early Saturday Night Live?

I wonder too. Maybe too much like Naked Lunch?

[DukeCity]

Just finishing watching the 1976 version (Charles Grodin!?!?). Doesn't really hold up very well. And it's kinda creepy watching Kong and a bunch of 'copters on the World Trade Center...

[RDK]

The 1976 version sucks. The new version isn't perfect, but it is spectacular in lots of ways. I urge everyone to see it; I think you'll be pleased.

[Alexander]

WARNING!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!

Saw this last night. The 3+ hours just FLEW by. At the point in the film where the action reaches Skull Island, I recalled a review that noted that it takes over 70 minutes for Kong to actually appear, and I thought: "That was 70 minutes? It felt like 20!" I thought that all of the performances were excellent. Jack Black really surprised me. He left me thinking that he could play Orson Welles in a biopic. Adrian Brody played the "unlikely" hero to perfection. Naomi Watts is easily the best actress to ever play this (frankly unrewarding) role. She gives Ann a humanity I don't think she's ever had. And she has a RELATIONSHIP with Kong. You understand how they bond (in a kind of "Stockholm Syndrome" way). Jackson SHOWS us their bonding without extranious dialogue (Ann never has to say, "You're all alone," or "You're the last of your kind"). But the prize for best performance goes, once again, to Andy Serkis! As he did with Gollum, Serkis lends his humanity to the monster in a way that makes him both realistic and sympathetic. His character role as the ship's surly cook is also a real treat.

As he did in "The Lord of the Rings," Jackson has created a spectacular film in which special effects are prominent and yet only exist to serve the story. One never has the feeling that something has been tacked on simply because it is "cool." All the dinosaur stampedes and giant bug attacks are there to show what an amazingly hostile environment these hapless humans have wandered into. And to show just how hard it was for Adrian Brody to get to Naomi Watts. This film was also made with so much geniune affection for the source material. One feels that Jackson didn't make this to supplant the original "Kong," but to enhance it; To stand alongside the original. While Jackson DOES outclass its stop-motion effects, there's no sense that he's trying to do so (as was the case in the abysmal 1976 remake). It is really as though David Lean had attempted to make a monkey film. This is truly the "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Doctor Zhivago" of monkey films. Jackson has taken the melodrama of the original, and turned it into real drama.

I also loved the little tributes to the original (Jack Black actually suggesting Fay Wray for his movie, and being told that she's exclusive to RKO (the studio that made the first "Kong")). I also LOVED the conversation between the first mate and a young sailor about Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." It's a brilliant piece of writing, for one thing. It also assumes a certain level of literacy among the film's audience since you have to have actually read "Heart of Darkness" in order to understand the scene at all (Jackson never spells anything out). "It's not an adventure story, is it?" The young sailor asks the first mate. "No, Jimmy. It's not." The mate replies. That line could refer to the movie itself...

Edited December 17, 2005 by Alexander

[7/4]

Too many spoilers Alex.

[Alexander]

Too many spoilers Alex.

Sorry. I've amended my post to include a spoiler alert. I just REALLY LIKED this movie!

[7/4]

Too many spoilers Alex.

Sorry. I've amended my post to include a spoiler alert. I just REALLY LIKED this movie!

Too late. I better see this one before anyone else ruins it for me.

[Larry Kart]

Haven't seen it myself yet, but here's a review from IMO the best film critic there is, Dave Kehr -- formerly of the the Chicago Reader, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Daily News, and now the DVD reviewwer for the New York Times. This is from his new web site, Dave Kehr.com. (I'll add that, based on the clips I've seen on TV and in theaters, there's something off-kilter, again IMO, about the way Kong moves, especially in NYC -- there's a rubbery-reboundish feel to him whenever he or any part of him that's attached to a surface changes directions; it's like he's a creature in a Tom and Jerry cartoon.)

Kehr: There are few if any surprises in “King Kong,” Peter Jackson’s affectionate but reductive remake of the 1933 film that has long since taken up residence in the nation’s subconscious. Like far too many recent remakes of older horror films, like the Michael Bay-produced, music-video remounting of Tobe Hooper’s down-and-dirty “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (not to mention Bay’s own “The Island,” with its purely coincidental resemblances to Robert S. Fiveson’s 1979 “The Clonus Horror”), Jackson’s film invests wads of money and expends vast technical expertise in trying to be more “polished” and “professional” than the original films, and in so doing extinguishes the uncontrolled, unpolished and sometimes suicidally unprofessional impulses that motivated their making in the first place.

Rather than the fecund, poetically messy metaphor that was King Kong in his first screen incarnation, Jackson’s giant ape is a tidy, compartmentalized creature, stripped of the sexuality and rage that he displayed in the Cooper-Schoedsack film and reduced to an ultimately pathetic figure, a lovable plush toy who no longer chomps his human victims in his mighty jaws or grinds them beneath his massive feet but, at worst, tosses them aside rather carelessly when he’s done playing with them (Jackson doesn’t even show these hurled bodies hitting the ground, allowing the viewer to assume that they bounce back to life like so many Yosemite Sam’s in a Warner Brothers cartoon). He’s allowed to do very little that might jeopardize the audience’s sympathy for him – which, of course, renders him as bland and placid as Barney the Dinosaur. The rich ambivalence of the Kong character – at once childlike and savage, innocent and blindly destructive, as ultimately inexplicable and pre-moral in his actions as nature itself – has been replaced by the sentimentality of a PETA brochure, in which Kong becomes the latest baby seal to be clubbed to death by greedy capitalists (now incarnated by Jack Black’s Carl Denham, a purely cynical showman rather than the far richer blend of Hollywood showman and dedicated adventurer played by Robert Armstrong in the original, as producer-director Merian C. Cooper’s engagingly candid caricature of himself). In a gesture of outright classism, the first mate (Bruce Cabot) who was the love interest of Fay Wray’s Ann Darrow has now been replaced by a successful Broadway playwright (played by Adrian Brody as a very slight variation on John Turturro’s Barton Fink). These days, we cannot have our heroines falling for unassuming blue collar types: nothing more than the toast of the town will do (although the character, Jack Driscoll, is allowed to keep his original name).

Jackson has accomplished the seemingly impossible – he’s made a de-Freudianized “King Kong,” in which the mighty rivers of sexual desire (equated by Hollywood, then as now, with the “primitivism” of invented native cultures) have been diverted into tiny rivulets. Kong is no longer linked to Ann (and she by him) by the erotic tensions that run unspeakably but unmistakably between them, but because he finds her an amusing novelty. An unemployed dancer in this version, Ann executes a few soft-shoe routines for her new jungle companion, who finds them eye-rolllingly corny (has he been hanging out in Skull Island’s vaudeville houses?) but diverting enough to keep her around. The brilliant character touches of the original Kong’s stop-motion animator, Willis O’Brien, have been largely eliminated: no longer does Kong delicately peel off Ann’s peignoir and explore her body – and certainly, no longer does he sniff his fingers afterward. This is a PG Kong, ready for the merchandizing racks.

Yet, for all of Kong’s boosted lovability factor, he arouses less sympathy in the audience than the rip-snorting original. About the only genuinely engaging character moment – when Kong works the broken-jaws of a dinosaur he has just dispatched, wondering why they don’t work anymore – is a direct lift from Willis O’Brien. And while the motion capture technology used to transform the actor Andy Serkis into a 25-foot-tall primate is impressively smooth and realistic, it can’t beat O’Brien’s consistently inventive and expressive gestures. Serkis provides a depressive, Prozac-ready Kong, content to sit on ledges of mountaintops or skyscrapers and brood over the injustices of fate.

Back in New York, Kong’s martyrdom at the hands of the civilized world is played out with a length and attention to grisly detail that finds its only rival in Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ.” Pathos seems Jackson’s only end in these scenes, as the giant ape is reduced to a tiny speck clambering up the Empire State Building, and taking a futile last stand at its top (again, a couple of pedestrians are flicked away as Kong rampages through Times Square, but there is nothing like the horror of Kong plucking a likely-looking blonde from a hotel room, realizing that she is not his lady love, and pitching her off into the darkness – as the camera follows her screaming descent to the pavement). The CGI evocation of 1933 Manhattan is, on the other hand, quite stunning, perhaps even too much so – it is hard to pay attention to the foreground mayhem when the background is filled with such detailed recreations of lost architectural treasures and art deco signage.

As the old saying runs, everyone kills the thing he loves. And while Peter Jackson hasn’t quite snuffed out the life in “King Kong” – the movie, he says, that inspired him to become a filmmaker – he’s definitely reduced its oxygen supply.

[Alexander]

The guy's entitled to his opinion, I just think he's way off base on this one. He's resentful that anyone would even approach a Hollywood classic. He thinks that there can be but ONE "Kong," and that if the audience accepts THIS one there will be no room for the 1933 original. But this isn't about the alpha-male chest-beating that Kong is so prone to. This town IS big enough for two "Kongs," and this one isn't about to roll over and go to sleep.

[ghost of miles]

Love the original, looking forward to the re-make. But the notion of a sexual attraction between Kong and the Anne character is ludicrous to start with; understandable, perhaps, in the 1933 picture as a symbolic portrait of interracial love (even Kehr points out this element--seeming simultaneously to criticize Hollywood for it and then lament its absence from the current version), where Kong represents the Super Black Male, in an age when film could never depict a romantic relationship between an African-American man and a white woman. Not to say that remnants of the taboo don't still exist today (they clearly do, as witness the controversial "Desperate Housewives"/NFL moment last year), but for Jackson to retain that aspect of the original in 2005 would seem a bit bizarre and goofy. The notion of an animal and a human finding a certain kinship, less so.

[sal]

I liked the movie very much. It is flawed in some ways, but the high points are what truly stand out in the end.

[BERIGAN]

Sounds like the film is tanking, boxoffice wise. Hopefully the weekend will bring it's numbers up. So many people I have talked to wanted to see it just because it's a Peter Jackson film....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178983,00.html

[Alexander]

I'm disappointed that this film isn't finding an audience, but I'm not terribly surprised. As I was leaving the screening last night, several people were making comments like, "It was so long!" "I thought it would NEVER end." "Why did she try to keep the planes from shooting the monkey?"

Cultural illiterates...

[7/4]

"Why did she try to keep the planes from shooting the monkey?"

any more spoilers?

[RDK]

Sounds like the film is tanking, boxoffice wise. Hopefully the weekend will bring it's numbers up. So many people I have talked to wanted to see it just because it's a Peter Jackson film....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178983,00.html

It's hardly tanking, though it didn't open as strongly as we'd hoped. (Don't believe everything you here in Drudge ). Lots of theories about that, but we'll see. Reviews have been generally good, word of mouth mostly terrific. It is a long film, and it did perhaps open a week too early, with many still in school. Most, though, feel that Kong has legs and will make its money more slowly, like Titanic. Buth these things are always a crapshoot.

And can we all get off the "ah hell, another remake" criticism. The original Kong came out in '33, with a less-than-memorable (and quite different) remake in '76. This film is much closer to the original and vastly superior to it in many ways. It is over 70 years later after all. Everyone seems to forget that such Hollywood classics as The Maltese Falcon and Ten Commandments were remakes as well.

[Guest Chaney]

The 1976 version sucks. The new version isn't perfect, but it is spectacular in lots of ways. I urge everyone to see it; I think you'll be pleased.

Ahhh.... but the 1976 version did feature the Eighth Wonder of the World: the legs -- and especially thighs -- of Jessica Lange. I won't admit to the number of times I've sat through this monstrosity simply to get one further gander at the gams of Ms. Lange. Academy Award categories are created for just such contributions to world cinema.

Hmmm... Not quite getting the symbolism:

Now back to more serious topics...

Edited December 18, 2005 by Chaney

[Quincy]

But the notion of a sexual attraction between Kong and the Anne character is ludicrous to start with;

I don't know about that. I mean, there is no Queen Kong on the island is there? The poor fellow is pretty hard up, so if he has to settle for an under 6 foot lovely starlet, so be it. Genetically she's closer than the big spider or dinosaurs. Presumably his mother is dead so at least we don't have to go there.

And not to go too far off into the unsettling area of zoophilia, there are many cases where domestic animals show sexual attraction to their human companions. I've known people who own birds who receive a courtship dance when it's that time of the year for their male bird. I think we've all run across someone's dog that acted inappropriately or have heard other stories. Maybe it depends upon how rural your upbringing was.

As far as humans being sexually attracted to animals, studies throw out numbers anywhere from 1-2% of the population to a whopping 8-10%. Yowsa, that latter number is hard to believe! Given that the original was made when America was a more agrarian country...

OK, enough of that. I've never been sure that it's a 2 way street between the 2, but the finger sniffing is a bit of a tip off regarding the big guy. I don't blame Jackson for wanting to get that out of the way (if only David Lynch had had a crack at the remake ), but it certainly adds a certain something to the original and even the lesser 2nd sequel.

[RDK]

Come on, guys, it's not about the sex but about the love.

[Alexander]

"Why did she try to keep the planes from shooting the monkey?"

any more spoilers?

Okay, if you didn't know about the thing with the planes, I don't know what to tell you. Do you also not know what "Rosebud" is?

[Jim Alfredson]

I saw it yesterday while stuck up north on a three-day gig. I enjoyed it, although I thought it was a little over-the-top at times. King Kong himself was bad-ass. I could've done without all the creepy-crawly scenes. The end seemed a little... forced.

Naomi Watts.

The most disturbing thing (and keep in mind, we were in northern Michigan) is that a couple was sitting behind us with their kids, all under the age of 13, and one as young as three or four. I kept thinking, as scene after scary scene passed by, what kind of parent would take their young child to see a movie like that!? It's not a kids movie by any stretch of the imagination and who knows what the impact of seeing all that imagery has on a developing mind. At one point I swear the little girl was crying and yet the parents just sat there.

Both Greg and I felt like we should've said something. People can be so stupid, its incredible.

[BERIGAN]

"Why did she try to keep the planes from shooting the monkey?"

any more spoilers?

Okay, if you didn't know about the thing with the planes, I don't know what to tell you. Do you also not know what "Rosebud" is?

It was the name William Randolph Hearst gave to Marion Davie's clitoris. Marion mentioned this to a "friend" while drunk, and somehow Orson heard about it....And now you know the rest of the story....Hope it doesn't ruin Citizen Kane for anyone!

Edited December 18, 2005 by BERIGAN

[Man with the Golden Arm]

"Why did she try to keep the planes from shooting the monkey?"

any more spoilers?

Okay, if you didn't know about the thing with the planes, I don't know what to tell you. Do you also not know what "Rosebud" is?

Another spoiler 7/4 ... Watts does not reprise her Mullholland Method! Rosebud!

Fantastic movie - virtually empty big theater so got to sit right smack dab where I wanted to! Two bananas way up! Not quite as bowled over by Black (a bit read-y), but Watts was fantastic and really made the green screen work - very much rivaling beyond the Hoskins method in 'Roger Rabbit'. Being able to suspend belief a bit and look at this like you did the original when you saw it for the first time as a kid helps alot. The time flew by.

Hey, Coleman Hawkins is great and all but "Body and Soul" is still a good tune when played by someone with talent!

Edited December 19, 2005 by Man with the Golden Arm

[Man with the Golden Arm]

The most disturbing thing (and keep in mind, we were in northern Michigan) is that a couple was sitting behind us with their kids, all under the age of 13, and one as young as three or four. I kept thinking, as scene after scary scene passed by, what kind of parent would take their young child to see a movie like that!? It's not a kids movie by any stretch of the imagination and who knows what the impact of seeing all that imagery has on a developing mind. At one point I swear the little girl was crying and yet the parents just sat there.

Both Greg and I felt like we should've said something. People can be so stupid, its incredible.

Don't ya hate that!

I remember seeing 'Serial Mom' when it had just come out and leaning forward prior to the start to kindly warn a mom who was there with her three kids - maybe 6-10 yrs - that the movie might be a tad inappropriate for the kiddies. She turned on a dime and lambasted me with a "why don't ya mind yer own f----ing business, a$$hole!"