Peter Jackson's King Kong: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!

here's the set-up: you are in a mall. no companion. no cell phone. with only 500 bucks in your pocket. got three hours before companions meet up with you. what the hell do you do?

in my case. i had this very unusual impulse to watch King Kong... with a running time of three hours, why not?

honestly, i have no background at all of whatsoever regarding King Kong movies. all i know is a giant ape on the lose in new york city. with that, i paid a 150 peso admission ticket and crossed my finger for at least a pleasurable three hour wait.

thirty minutes into the film, loopholes are struggling against trying-to-be-a-good-backstory. so i said, okay, expected from a film like this. another thirty minutes and i so wanna effing walk out from the cinema!!! but no. it's a p150 investment and 2 hours yet to let pass. so i tried my best to fathom the super unexpected visuals and conflicting ideologies from Peter Jackson.

i am trying not to believe that there are wrong films. but King Kong gives me a reason to. i am letting the storyline's loopholes and weaknesses pass. but the messages and the explicit visuals give me a real trauma to the point of the film disturbed me so much, i had a hard time getting a shut eye that last night.

here are some of the wrong things i want to point out:

• first brouhaha is thirty minutes into the film, a battle between cinema and theater sparks. when jack black acts like adrian brody's Safeguard conscience, black tells that if brody did love theater he shouldl've jumped into the water. i hate that scene. it so others the theater. it is so unfair.
• the first parts of the film advocates corruption in movie production and there's no redemption in the end. not at the very least showing good passion for filmmaking but highlighting filmmaking more of a commodity. sigh.
• it still affirms that it is a caucasian male world after all.
• the film got one african-american character and one asian character. both are token characters (the sort of wisdom-laden iconic characters). but both were killed. brutally.
• how on earth can a skinny young woman survive being thrown away and juggled by a giant ape???
• and isn't it so wrong for a giant male ape's source of entertainment is a young woman doing silly stunts? chauvinist thing, i think.
• next scene: through a long and narrow valley, a group of men are being chased by stampeding stegosauruses (if there's such a plural term), which in turn are being chased by velociraptors. at the end of that staggering and excessive 5 minute scene, 100% of the stegosauruses (again, if there's such a plural term) are pinned down, while only 30% of the human males got squashed by the stegosauruses. talk about LUCK. ok ok, forget the comparison of fatalities. but is it really necessary to stage the whole scene for 5 long minutes or so??? and it is so unpleasing to see big fat bodies of stegosauruses oozing their way through a narrow valley. it so wanna makes me puke.
• and of course, there's your t-rex versus king kong scene. oops, correction: THREE t-rexes and A king kong. and naomi watts is your ever reliable damsel in distress. this is another 5 or to 10 minute scene. you know it is really unnecessary for such scenes to be long when YOU KNOW THE LEAD CHARACTERS DO NOT DIE IN THESE KINDS OF STUPID SCENES!!!
• now the jurrasic park creatures have been pulled out of peter jackson's sleeve, what's next? why of course, how bout calling in all the slimey creatures from all The Tremor movies??? those giant slugs sucking the whole head, arms and legs of that russian-accented character is the defining moment of the wrongness in the film. it would rather be satisfying if the slugs ate jack black instead.
• And when all the lead characters' ammunition and dynamites have been used and more creatures still come into the scene, dont't worry for DEUS EX MACHINA will save their pretty faces. can't they think of novel ways to get the lead characters out of trouble? or do they really have to save all the lead characters?
• you will know which characters will die. if they satisfy one or all of these: not white, not male, kind-hearted, full of wisdom, elderly; chances are, they will die.
• naming the film "king kong" is a big gimmick for it to gross high in the box office. naming the film "skull island" is more apt.
• there's a big problem in the billing. how come the title role appears for only 1/3 of the film?
• lastly, this film is definitely not for kids. it bothers me and disturbs me a lot to hear children seated near me in the cinema saying, "mommy im scared"... and seeing kids now seated on their parent's laps, hugging them. yeah, you get these reactions from other films and tv shows as well. but to get it from a movie like king kong? i don't think so. mtrcb really malclassified king kong. an r-13 is more just and fair.

of course, there are good things also i saw in the film. superb special effects. nice cinematography. and... that's about it.