A "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Review That Doesn't Spoil Shit

Straight off the top:  Star Wars does not feel right without the 20th Century Fox fanfare at the top.  I wish Disney could buy them just for the purpose of making Star Wars feel whole again.

Back in 2007, I tore apart Superman Returns, partially for holding the balls of Richard Donner's Superman movies as if it's trying to keep them warm and shielded, like Superman does for Metropolis.  Because of that, and because Bryan Singer didn't think Superman should fight anything, it never really comes together as an original work.  Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a lot like that.  It doesn't hold the original Star Wars' balls quite as tightly, but there's definitely some light ball-tickling going on.

In other words, I hope you like Star Wars, because JJ Abrams is about to show you how much he likes Star Wars.  Yes, I call it "Star Wars."  "A New Hope" is stupid.

Anyway, JJ Abrams is way into that movie.  So much, in fact, that he takes great care to recreate some of the scenes from Star Wars in his movie, but he JJ's them up so you don't notice what he's doing.  It isn't a knock on The Force Awakens, because his story is its own thing.  He just has a clear love for Star Wars that he can't help but let us see.  JJ loves Star Wars so much that I bet he still calls it "Star Wars."

As a result, two-thirds of the movie is really good.  He's really good about allowing us to find out what happened to the characters we really love while letting us get to know these new characters.  In true Star Wars tradition, you don't find out anything about the new characters so much as you get to hang out with them for a while, before realizing later that you don't know much about them at all.  They're just so funny and likable that you never notice.

Like, Finn, for instance.  Finn is what would happen if you took a regular person from here and dropped them into Star Wars.  Unlike every other character in Star Wars lore who grew up in a place where slugs become crime lords and people can be choked from across the street, Finn ain't about this life.  And it shows.  Everybody in the world who dreams about living in the Star Wars universe, thinks that if they went there, they'd suddenly learn the force or enjoy living in space, but Finn is your reality.  Finn is what you'd actually be like.  He's not a coward, but he's terribly confused about what life is like out here, and really doesn't get why we all need to be out here fighting when we can all get ships that go to the Outer Rim.  In a way, he's a twist on Han Solo, who didn't think it was worth sacrificing his life in the service of the Rebellion.

Then, there's Rey, a scavenger girl surviving on a desert planet.  She lives a difficult life, getting ripped off by the local scrap yard guy who pays her in food, and sleeping in the wreckage of an old AT-AT Walker.  When she isn't scavenging or fixing stuff, she sits and watches the ships fly off this barren desert planet.  And even though she lives this hard knock life, she still manages to have a heart for sad sacks that come stumbling across her front door.  She's almost the inverse of Luke Skywalker, because she doesn't dream of leaving this world at all, even though she should probably want to.

Kylo Ren isn't likable, though.  Not at all.  The previous villains were cool or charismatic in different ways, or carried themselves with a presence.  Darth Vader was awe-inspiring and ruthless.  Darth Maul was designed to be cool.  Christopher Lee's voice alone made Count Dooku memorable.  Even General Grievous was completely original, with some old school built in.  But Kylo Ren isn't like that.  He comes off like he's trying to be someone else, and acts very much like a spoiled child at times.  For all I know, that was the point.

As for what happens in the movie, there's a lot of action, it looks really good, and it is imaginative, because after all, this is a JJ Abrams movie.  If nothing else, he's going to take your breath way with his action scenes.  There was never a worry about that, because if he could make the Starship Enterprise exciting, imagine what he could do with the Millennium Falcon.

But then, there's that last third of the movie.  I remember reading a review about Revenge of the Sith when it came out that said that George Lucas was basically forcing the plot to go where he needed it to go, logic be damned (and that review was right).  There was an end point that had already been predetermined, and he needed to get these loose ends tied up before the credits roll, which is why Yoda just up and decided that he needed to go into exile.  There are moments like that, where it felt like they had decided where these characters needed to end up and they were gonna get there, logic be damned.  The last third of this movie kinda felt like JJ remembered that he needed to hit a couple more beats before he wrapped this thing up.

In my mind, it's like he delivers the script, and its brilliant, but someone at the studio was like, "There are no clips from the third act that we can put into the trailer.  Give us some trailer moments."  And he gets mad and hate-writes a new third act for them.  I mean, it's just kinda there, aside from discovering that Princess Leia had an army of Jedi babies without Han or Chewbacca deciding that he's had enough of Han's shit and they finally scrap it out.  The last third of the movie left me with questions, and not the kind where you're like, "I wonder where this is gonna go next?"  No, it's the kind of questions like, "Lemme rewind this and watch it again, because I must have missed something."

But it's a good movie.  Just one that's going to take some time for me to really appreciate.  JJ did a good job of working in the original trilogy's universe organically, and there are so many moments where I was pointing at the screen in excitement, because I suddenly saw something I recognized.  He also wrote this thing as if the prequels never happened, which is good, because I doubt anyone's gonna go into this like, "This thing better address the final fate of Watto, or I want my money back."  No, The Force Awakens dovetails out of Return of the Jedi, but in a way that is both familiar and new at the same time.  It's kind of comforting to spend another couple of hours in a that galaxy again.

Will Smith, Independence Day, and boring ass off-screen deaths

I don't think there's a person out there that likes off-screen deaths in movies.

Not the kind where they're killed off-screen, but then, you learn later on in the movie what happened.  I mean the kind where you spend two or three hours (or more) investing emotionally in these characters, then when the new one comes out, you find out that they died, and no one cares.  That shit sucks.

Some movies handle it better than others, because the Rocky movies killed off Adrian and Paulie that way.  But the Rocky movies dealt with it by making it part of the story.  Adrian's death was part of the reason why Rocky and his son had a wedge between them in Rocky Balboa, and (SPOILERS), it was the reason why Rocky gave up on his own failing health in Creed.

Then, you got those assholes over at Fox who gave you two and a half hours of Ripley trying to save this little girl from acid-bleeding aliens, in the middle of space, only to find out that Newt died anyway in between Aliens and Alien 3.  Alien 3 is almost twenty years old and people still list that as one of the reasons why they never liked that movie.  They just brushed all that joy and goodwill aside so they could tell their story, instead of giving the payoff that the fans wanted.  It's just one in a long list of reasons why Sylvester Stallone is a better filmmaker than you.

No one likes that second method, why is why Roland Emmerich did exactly that with Independence Day: Resurgence.  

Now, let's be clear:  I seriously doubt that anyone was emotionally invested in any of the characters in Independence Day.  I know I'm going out on a limb here, and please correct me if I'm wrong.  Tell me that you felt the emotional depth of the angry teenage boy who just wants to love his family, or the war hero President of the United States.  However, the way they got rid of Will Smith's character in Resurgence is kinda lame.

You didn't know Will Smith wasn't coming back for Resurgence?  My bad. Spoilers.

Because they didn't offer Will Smith enough money he's too big a star for this foolishness now Suicide Squad has a better shot at keeping his name hot they didn't offer Jaden a role as his stepson that looks just like him Will Smith declined to come back to the movie that started July 4th as "Will Smith Weekend," they had to kill off his character.  It only makes sense, because he can't be alive anywhere in the world while this is going on and not come back.  It had to be this, because only the Avengers can get away with not having to explain why Iron Man couldn't come help Captain America take down three flying aircraft carriers, or Thor had to fend off another alien invasion by himself.

And you know what, I'm fine with Will Smith's character being dead.  I get it.  It wasn't that kind of movie, where people get attached to the characters.  Really, we just like Will Smith.  But if you gotta kill him off, you gotta do better than this:

"While test piloting the ESD’s first alien hybrid fighter, an unknown malfunction causes the untimely death of Col. Hiller. Hiller’s valor in the War of ‘96 made him a beloved global icon whose selfless assault against the alien mothership lead directly to the enemy’s defeat. He is survived by his wife Jasmine and son Dylan."

You don't have to show any of this shit on screen, so there isn't a single reason why it has to be that boring.  Maybe the producers feel like they needed to show respect to Will Smith's character, but that's really dumb, because he doesn't work there anymore.  Besides, they already disrespected him by killing him off-screen.  We're already past the point of disrespect, so you might as well go all the way.  Because if I was writing the movie, Will Smith's Capt. Steven Hiller would have gone through some shit before he died.

Why the hell not?  It's not like you're limited by your special effects budget.  So why couldn't we find out that Capt. Hiller, despite all his confidence and bravado, had a really hard time dealing with the knowledge that the fate of humanity rested on his shoulders?  Maybe that led to some drinking, some depression, some PTSD.  Maybe he broke down completely, and believed that the aliens were still out there and were trying to control minfd.  No one really knew how to help him, and he believed he was alone in this.  So he tries to fight back against his perceived enemies in the government that he believes have already been compromised.  And his story ends with him driving his car off of a bridge, because he believes that the aliens have finally broken his mind as well.

Now, Vivica A. Fox is back in this movie, and evidently, her son (Hiller's stepson) is supposed to be one of heroes of this movie, because of course he is.  And I'm sure their characters will be sufficiently boring.  But it would be so much better if they came into the movie with something like this over their heads.  Of course they're gonna fight the aliens, but now, it's personal.

And maybe Will Smith sees that synopsis, and it looks interesting to him.  He could work with that material.  And he calls up Roland Emmerich, and asks to make that movie, because that's what Will Smith does now.  He just goes around making movies that seem interesting to him, and it's good to know that someone thought After Earth was interesting.  A movie about the complete mental breakdown of the hero from Independence Day is way more interesting than that same guy fighting the aliens again.  And Fox is dying to make a franchise out of this.  $50-70 million would be in their hands before Will Smith could come to his senses.

That sort of thing should be the template for off-screen deaths.  I'm not naive.  I know that those times can't be avoided sometimes.  But if you're already going to have to do it, you might as well make it count for something, and change the story going forward.

Total Recall and our Bland Future

Someone should tell sci-fi filmmakers that there are more visions of the future than the one in Blade Runner. 

I was flipping back and forth between Total Recall and Total Recall: Recall (*rimshot*) and I started explaining to my girlfriend what was wrong with the remake.  She was barely paying attention, because I can't compete with the riveting action of "Words With Friends."  Eventually, I gave up and decided to just write it down here, where the shame of being ignored doesn't hurt as much.

It's more than just Total Recall, though.  That's just one of the latest examples.  I, Robot, Minority Report, Equilibrium, even the new RoboCop; a lot of directors seem to have the same boring vision of the future.  The same round cars, the same guns, the same tech ideas, the same dried out backgrounds.  Everyone dresses in black and gray.  And if anyone listens to music, it's gonna be some techno offshoot.  It scares me because many of those flicks take place in a year that I'm probably going to live to see.  I like colors, everyone.  And I hate techno. 

It takes away from a movie for everyone to live in a future like that.  I get why Equilibrium looked that way; it was part of the plot of the movie.  But part of the appeal of the original Total Recall was the world where it took place.  It was vibrant and colorful, the people had personality and character, and there was comedy.  The filmmakers of that movie allowed themselves to think up all kinds of crazy shit to put on Mars, and they did.  That's why there was an exploding head bomb.  That's why they had a mutant with gold teeth and a jheri curl, who couldn't remember how many kids he had.  That's why there's a guy walking around with a psychic talking fetus jammed in his stomach. 

The remake took all of that away, presumably, because they believed that the charisma of Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel would be enough to compensate.  I mean, it wasn't a bad movie.  Just not anything memorable.  I can't think of anything that really stuck out as far as characters are concerned, and they had some good actors in this.  Hell, I like Colin Farrell.  That's why I gave the flick a chance.  And who doesn't like Bryan Cranston?  But did this movie bring anything memorable to the story at all?  The score, anything?  They didn't even give it a chance to be interesting, because they didn't go to Mars.

Same with I, Robot and Minority Report.  I like those movies just fine, but I'm tired of that antiseptic and bland version of the future.  To put it simply, Will Smith shouldn't stand out because he's wearing Chuck Taylors.  And if he does stand out, it needs to be for more of a reason than the fact that he's wearing Chuck Taylors.  Unless you're trying to make the point that the world is so defeated that all it takes is a pair of sneakers to completely upend everyone's sense of conformity.  Oh, my bad, he also drives a muscle car.  OOOOH, LOOGIT.  WHAT A REBEL.

There are far too many examples of the future in movies that are interesting and exciting for filmmakers to even want to do that.  Back to the Future Part II is 25 years old, and all folks remember about that movie is the 30 minutes that they spent in 2015.  RoboCop is even older, but who doesn't remember that version of "Future-Reagan's America?"  In my mind, I'd think anyone making a movie would want to go all out to express their vision of the future, but if your vision of the future is just different shades of gray, then you're probably about to make a boring movie.

Because let's face it: Pepsi, Nike, and KFC aren't going anywhere.  Might as well put them in the movie.

A Calm, Sensible Reaction to Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor

Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor, because Michael Cera is already booked.

I'm sure that's the kind of reaction that DC was expecting and I'm all too happy to give it to them.  And it's not even because I'm angry about the casting. I actually kinda like it.  I, unlike so many others, have perspective.  The perspective that comes from an reading too many comic books.  I understand that there are many different versions of Lex Luthor, and that Jesse Eisenberg fits into a few of them.  Dare I say, this casting is brave...and bold.  Please, hold your applause, because that joke was awful.

Still, you're gonna have to go through the initial shock of people saying, "The fucking dude that played Mark Zuckerberg is gonna be Lex Luthor?"

I saw a guy on Facebook that said, "Is he going to invent Facebook to defeat Superman?"  Really, that's the level of discourse DC has to face, and it's not like Jesse Eisenberg has given the fans a ton of ammo to throw back at him.  This won't go much past unfunny Facebook jokes and DC will be fine with that, because they already weathered the worst of this storm with Ben Affleck.  That was an epic tantrum, and once we got past that, it's like people couldn't really get that mad anymore.  It was like the world said, "Okay, we all know this flick is gonna suck. They really can't do any worse than this." 

And after that, Gal Gadot just got questions about her physique, mostly because no one knows who she is.  Jesse Eisenberg is just getting bad jokes, like the ones I've written just now.  It's all just been diminishing nerdrage, so we'll probably be done with this story by Monday.  No one even noticed that Jeremy Irons is playing Alfred.

I saw more outrage yesterday that Fox wants Channing Tatum to play Gambit in a future X-Men movie.  It wouldn't be a surprise that Fox was thinking about doing some more bad X-Men casting, but people were legit mad at that, I guess because Channing Tatum is too sexy or can't act or something.  As if Gambit is a character filled with such pathos that only a Shakespearean actor could capture it all.  Anyway, the X-Men flicks are filled with terrible decisions. I still believe that Halle Berry was cast because she was the only black person the producers could name.

Warner Bros. is supposed to be better than that.  Or at least Christopher Nolan is and Zach Snyder are.  And I'm willing to give it a chance, because as I've said trying to talk people off the ledge today, it all depends on what kind of Lex Luthor will be in the movie.  You got your "evil businessman" Lex Luthor (who could stomp ass), and you got your "sociopath scientist" Lex Luthor (who could not).  I think the second one is something Eisenberg can work with.  As long as he's not on there talking about being the "greatest criminal mind of our time," I think we'll be fine.

I Can't Believe I Rented It - The Karate Kid

I don't think it's any secret that I'm not a fan of remakes. I think they're at a point where they're ignoring original scripts just so they can remake something instead. Doesn't matter if it was good or well-known, which means the announcement of the "Ghost Dad" remake should be coming any day now.

I think the thing that bothers me most, though, is that they're remaking movies that were released in my lifetime, that I remember watching as a kid. It used to be that movies were remade because the original was so old that it needed to be made current so modern audiences could appreciate it. I get why they remade "King Kong" and "The Day After Tomorrow." Nothing against the folks who made those, but in a world where "Avatar" exists, those movies looked like shit. Even "Planet of the Apes" was pushing it. It probably needed to happen.

But "The Karate Kid" came out in 1984, not 1948. It wasn't a sci-fi extravaganza or anything; no dinosaur technology that needed to be improved upon. It was about a kid who kept getting his ass kicked by bullies. I didn't think anything needed to be updated in that story because I'm pretty sure America's feelings on bullying hadn't changed, unless Muslims are involved. So when I finally got around to watching "The Black Karate Kid," I was all ready to tear this movie to shreds.

Then, the movie had to go and be all enjoyable and shit. Thanks for ruining my day.

Sure, the villains were faceless sociopaths (these kids are fucking scary) and the soundtrack was crap (I mean, "Bieberific"), but other than that, it was a good movie. I just thought that the bad guys were missing the charm of the Cobra Kai. There was no overacting from the sensei, and no obnoxious henchmen. I don't even think they bothered to give the bad guys individual personalities, which makes sense, because it's not like Americans were smart enough to tell any of them apart.

I was just looking for that "Sweep the leg," moment and it wasn't there. I mean, I'm sure they said it, but it was in Chinese. To my uncivilized American ears, "Sweep the leg" sounds exactly the same as, "We're out of toilet paper." I can't quote their lines, because for all I know, they were actually saying, "Sprinkle some foot powder on it."

But that's okay, because Jaden Smith had enough personality for everybody. It was like watching a little Will Smith, only if Will Smith's acting had never developed past "Independence Day." All of the sarcasm and all of the goofiness of a young Will came out in this movie, and I gotta admit, I kinda dug it. Jaden did a great job.

And one place where this movie exceeds the original is the fight scenes, which is to be expected, because we're living in a post-Matrix world, and Jackie Chan is playing Mr. Miyagi. Or Mr. Han, because he's Chinese. Whatever. But this isn't 1984, where some flying kicks are enough to impress folks. No, they got these kids jumping off walls, doing all kinds of crazy shit; trying to kill each other. And I believe they really were trying to kill each other, because almost everyone in this movie is fucking miserable.

Jackie Chan almost never smiles, which is hard to believe, because it's Jackie Chan. If he could smile in three movies with Chris Tucker, I figure the man could smile through anything. But he's all sad, and Jaden spends half the movie picking his teeth out some some Chinese kid's Nike, so he can't be the ray of sunshine. Even his girlfriend is up and down, but she should be glad she's even alive and not rotting in a landfill somewhere. Everyone knows that the Chinese hate girls.

Taraji P. Henson smiles all through the movie, because she's living in her own little world, staring at all this Chinese shit with wide-eyed wonder. Then again, her character is from Detroit, so at this point, she'd probably be impressed with a trip to Nashville. But because everyone else is terminally depressed, about midway through the flick, I wanted to grab her and ask, "Bitch, do you see what's happening here? These motherfuckers are crazy." Then, I would rub up against her until security took me away, because it's Taraji P. Henson. Damn, she's just ridiculous.

One other good thing about the movie is that they show what China actually looks like, without the Chinese government trying to block our view with umbrellas. They actually humanize China a little bit, which is impressive considering the Chinese characters themselves only seem to be able to express one emotion: Punch.

No, it's not MY "Karate Kid," but it doesn't shit all over it, either. It can actually sit on the same shelf as the original, which is more than I can say for "Karate Kid Part III." I mean, really. It was the "Rocky V" of "Karate Kid" movies. In this case, they made me like a movie I was all prepared not to like, which either means they actually did a good job or I'm getting soft in my old age. My "Transformers" review is only five years old. My anger couldn't have died out that quickly. Either way, I gotta give them credit for "The Karate Kid."

I Can't Believe I Rented It: Michael Jackson's This Is It

Well, actually I went to the theater and saw this.

I had no plans on talking about this movie, but on a whim I decided to hop on the keyboard and see what comes out. I don't even know if I'll complete this.

By now, we all know the story leading up to "This Is It." So what the "movie" actually is, is just what they said it was. It's rehearsal footage, with some short interviews and back-backstage stuff sprinkled in. You get to see when the crew showed him things they had been working on for the show, how in awe the dancers were at the prospect of working with Michael, things like that.

For some, that won't be enough. There is no narrative holding things together. It's more like a barebones concert film, and the only audience was the dancers and crew. Someone's probably already complained that there's no footage of the paramedics trying to revive him.

For me, it was bittersweet, but still fantastic.

Bittersweet, because it's a reminder of what might have been. I don't want to over dramatize this thing, but that's what it was. And it would have been a great show. Michael going at 70% speed (he was saving himself for the shows) was better than any of the headliners out today. He still had all the moves, he could still sing all of the songs. As everyone who was around him at the time of his death has already said, he was in great shape and ready to go.

But while it was great to see him perform (even if it was a dress rehearsal), we also got to see sides to him that we never got to see.

We've all heard him speak in interviews, and most of us probably imagine that he's this soft-spoken dude all the time, who doesn't speak up, but when it comes to his shows, the man is in total control. Of everything. If he doesn't like something, he's cutting you off and that's the end of discussion. And he has no problem repeatedly stopping something until it's to his liking. But he's polite about it, and he ended everything with some kind of loving statement. It's like he's saying, "It's nothing personal and we're still cool...but you're not about to f*** up my show."

And there's also some glimpses into how he interacts with people. Not really on a personal level, because it's not like they're just lounging around. They're putting together the biggest concert of his career. But that doesn't mean that there can't be some jokes and some lighthearted moments.

There were a couple here and there, and it was good to see them, because we forget sometimes that Michael Jackson was a real person, because we only ever see him as this larger-than-life figure on stage, or as this weird guy, hiding behind masks, with post-its all over his face. We don't ever just see him sharing a joke with another human being. Well, we get a couple of those moments here.

But if you're not into Michael Jackson's music, then there's no point in even putting your money down to see it (which is a decision that I'm sure you made long before this was released). Like I said, there's no storyline running through this, because it's not a true documentary. It's just footage that was taken to document the process. And everyone else wasn't waiting for a review before they decided whether or not they should see it. It's Michael Jackson in concert. And for his fans, that's more than enough.

Which means, I really wasted my time watching this.

I Can't Believe I Rented It: King Kong

I was watching "King Kong" and I was wondering how many people didn't like it. Maybe it's the fact that they knew how it was going to end. After all, who doesn't know that Kong is gonna die? And then I thought, "Only idiots think that way. There hasn't been a brand new ending to anything outside of Christopher Nolan purposely telling the story backwards."

Some people didn't like "Titanic" because they knew how it was going to end. Well, sometimes, that isn't the point. Every movie can't have a twist ending. Sorry that M. Night Shamalyan can't write everything, but Hollywood isn't in the business of purposely offending their customers.

They might not think that the movie's realistic, but that's the point of imagination. Most of the stuff we imagine isn't real, like when you imagine sleeping with your boss's hot wife on his desk, while he's tied up in the corner. We all know that in real life, the only sexual pleasure you're getting out of this scenario is being sodomized by your own leg. If you were so concerned about realism, you wouldn't have turned on a movie about a giant ape getting shot off the Empire State Building.

I mean, come on. When you're dealing with giant apes that are worshiped by a lost civilization of savages, you just gotta let some shit slide. It's not like people have a frame of reference for dealing with 25-foot tall gorillas to make things "just like real life." And the ironic part is, no one ever complains when they see dinosaurs in movies. At least someone on Earth can say, "Hey, I've seen an ape before." You can go to the zoo and see one that's eight feet tall, but where can you go to see a dinosaur? It's been 70 million years since anyone's seen one, but how do we know we're doing those right?

When Jurassic Park came out, everyone was in awe of how real they looked, but how the fuck would we know how real they looked? For all we know, their mating habits included a hip-thrusting sex dance and they always washed their hands before chasing down a tasty brachiosaur.

And maybe they weren't able to buy into the fact that a white lady is sympathizing with a giant ape.

Maybe it's because I read shit, I understand that while it's a stretch, a white lady could try to get people not to shoot the giant monkey. After all, he did save her from the dinosaurs that were so fake, right? Isn't it within reason to think that she'd realize that Kong wasn't a bloodthirsty killer some of the time? The least she could do is try to keep him from getting shot.

Now, if she gave it up to Kong, that might be a bit of a stretch. I'd walk out on a movie like that, too, mainly because bestiality is only acceptable on the internet.

Not only that, some people like to talk about the supposed racial undertones of the movie, and when the original came out, you might have been onto something, seeing as how it came out in 1933. Even though white people had been around black people for 500 years to that point and hadn't seen any of us swing through the trees or communicate with jungle creatures, it was still widely believed that we were just like monkeys. White people back then were just really stupid.

But in 2005, if you sought out racial undertones, you were either J. Anthony Brown or someone else who just isn't funny. Okay, so the monkey caught hell chasing after a white woman, and wound up chains. How can I not see the symbolism, right? Probably because I don't identify with the silverback experience. Sure, I like bananas, but then so do white people. I don't eat them because of my genetic predisposition; I eat them because they taste good.

The irony is that even though people think that the point of the movie is to tell black men to stay away from white women (as evidenced by the beating Kong took all through the movie), the white woman stood still by her man. Since "King Kong," in actuality, is a thinly veiled exposition on the evils of race-mixing, I should still get with a white woman, because I know she'll be loyal, even in the face of machine gun fire from bi-planes. The movie told me so.

So putting all of that aside, in my mind, there's no real reason not to like "King Kong," other than not having the attention span for movies that don't have a joke or an explosion every ten minutes. Anyone who's ever had a dog can relate to this movie, without the dog having to carry them up the side of the building. It's got all kinds of characters who feel like real people, lots of action, and a sad ending that makes sense, because there was no other way that it could go down. Sure, there were no gay comedic foils or potential action figures (but Lord knows, they tried anyway), but it was a remake that actually made sense to make, and actually exceeded the original.

But that's not hard to do, considering that it relied on stop-motion special effects.