Eighth wonder? I beg to differ.

While sitting back and watching Peter Jackson's "King Kong," I started thinking. Thinking being a rare occurrence for me, it kind of stuck out. What I began to notice as this story was coming to life on the silver screen, was that Hollywood, through subtle nuances, wants me to feel sorry for this gigantic gorilla. This threw me for a complete loop because I had seen the original film and can't recall it invoking such crazy of a notion. Now let's get something out of the way first, although I like Peter Jackson, and I think he's come a long way from his first film "Bad Taste," I think this multi-million dollar remake should not have been made. \nComing back to the story, we are supposed to feel sympathy for this mammoth ape. Jackson tries to get us to feel this by having this non-human fall in love with another character, a character that is not even of the same species. \nAfter sifting through roughly seven hours of close-up shots of Naomi Watt's face, prompting us how to feel, I got the message. However, I still wasn't buying it. Why you ask? I'll tell you. It's because I seemed to remember this same huge ape killing about 27 or 30 of the crew sent to film the so-called "nature film" that brought the protagonists to the island to begin with. Not only that, but while this gorilla was imported to New York City to be some kind of freak sideshow, the primate flips out. He then proceeds to tear through the city, breaking as many things as he can. \nWhat about all the dead people in New York, many of whom were merely innocent bystanders to the whole affair. Now let's set up a scenario here, your family is barely making enough money to eat, this being the depression and all, and your husband just got a new job. He's merrily skipping along and out of the theater comes a huge ape, the likes of which this guy has never seen. He is killed, instantly, and now his family starves because there is no way to get food and eventually end up expiring prematurely. Bam. Four lives ruined by one gigantic, poo-flinging beast. \nAre you telling me that the message of this movie is that just because this beastly animal has the affection of a struggling actress we should ignore every family he's broken up or ruined? \nThe original "King Kong" reminds me more of a monster movie, which should probably have been the film's first intention. In the '30s version, the filmmakers trump up the fact that he went on a rampage and acknowledged these killings. The new film barely covers this angle and wants us to focus on Naomi Watts for three and a half hours. Oh, we need to sympathize with a huge monster because there was love between him and a no-name actress. \nNow let's forget that he's an enormous gorilla and imagine it was a 70 foot tall robot (like the Terminator, only REALLY tall). Would you, for one second feel bad about taking that robot down just because his programmer loved him? Not a chance, but the fact that he has fur and blood makes everyone melt in his hands. \nNo matter how much dough is invested in CG technology, it's not going to change the fact that Kong is a monster that killed hundreds of people. I just can't feel compassion for that, no matter how much you play it up. This leads me to another point. The villagers in "Frankenstein" didn't seem to care that Frankenstein's monster had a loving caretaker. So, I guess my question is this, "where are the angry people with pitchforks and torches for King Kong?" They seem to be non-existent. They don't show the aftermath, even in the original, which shocks me. I mean, if there were protestors in the early 19th century you can bet there would be some in 1930. Everyone seems to not care about death and destruction when there's a giant loveable primate to gawk at. \nAll I can say, is although I didn't find the film intolerable, I would rather have spent my time with a good coloring book or seeing a new, original film (however hard to find that may be). The original Kong wowed audiences when it was released all those years ago and it continues to stand the test of time. Let's not let CGI special effects be what makes movies, because it completely gets rid of the idea of "Movie Magic." Cause instead of "How did they do that?" I just go, "oh, CG ... yay!" in a heavily sarcastic tone. And along with this buildup of CG, there's been this need of movies to shove morals down our throat. I look back at "Godzilla," the original "King Kong," "Dracula," and several other monster movies and can't help but sit back and be entertained. Bottom line, there is no need for elaborate story lines when you have rampage and chaos. People need to realize this.