quote:

Mark f posted 14 December 2005:

But Jackson, while keeping the story set in the Depression, has managed to make a thrilling adventure, a poignant love story, and a commentary on our current age's fixation on all things new and how quickly we get rid of most things we love just to find something newer and "more-exciting".

Thrilling adventure. Jackson's thrills with special effects are just that...an excited director with his toys. The movie made me think of some youngster so excited and caught up with this fancy computer game that what half of the movie seems to be is a continous deluge of computer animated graphics, the first kid on the block to try his toy with dinosaurs in a narrow canyon and a giant ape gone berserk in New York and all the more the better. When I recollect back to 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968 and how the ape scenes were so magnificent or even Planet of the Apes (1968) released the same year, I failed to really feel that our adventure had really gone much further cinematically and dramatically in 27 years. If one really wanted a thrilling adventure movie, I recommend instead Brainstorm (1983) that apparently, even today's special isn't really all that special from a visual exhilirating experience. I was bored with a lot of the "thrilling" adventure scenes. They depended on special effects to the nth degree.

The poignant love story seemed to be pushed far into the background, secondary to the thrilling action adventure. And whether this is a love story between a man and a woman or a beast and a woman was also unclear. I'm reminded of one of the best such scene in Frankenstein (1931) between the monster and the little girl. In this new version of King Kong there is something again manipulative and Adrien Brody's character seems to come on so fast and so quick, there isn't any dramatic play build up, intimacy except for the obvious shots that I've seen a so many other movies. Even how the comedy written by Adrien's character is discovered by Naomi Watts is fumbled and its power of intimacy lost to the wideside. And with the beauty and the beast, the development of a relationship and the beast instead of Naomi seems to be the one who initiates with his paw instead of her hand. Again, this update is more concerned with action than the more important relationship build up that made the whole movie more a perfunctory excercise in dazzle but no sizzle. I only momentarily felt an emotional closeness, but it was lost in King Kong's violence without apparent purpose even though Jack Black's last words would suggest overwise. There's a scene with Steve Buscemi in his portrayal as a serial killer that is even more powerful in the action adventure Con Air (1997) where he's found with a small girl, what happens next is emotionally riveting.

Our ages fixation on all things new, is the summary of this movie, this movie demonstrates the excessiveness by which the public is apparently fixated as is the director with his new toys, but such newness doesn't mean as Mark f has implied in this statement which he apparently didn't mean to actually apply to this movie itself. This supposedly overly exciting movie itself falls into its own over-indulgence and itself becomes a victim of exactly what it tries to portray itself.

I think maybe they could have cut it down a little bit, like the random stuff about jimmy and mr. hayes, but other than that it was an awesome movie with a lot of heart

I thought in this movie Jackson did a pretty good "flip flop." He made Kong more human and made humanity look inhumane. I mean, Kong was the one who thought the sunset was beautiful while Jack Black was worried over losing money. There was also some politic here. The human creature is portrayed as taking our guns and shooting at what we can't understand, or what frightens us. I agree on the weak acting, and there was too much "Jurassic Park" (though I did enjoy much of it). Also, I am wondering if anyone hated Black's last line in the movie as much as I did, "It was beauty that killed the beast," he says as he walks away into the crowd. This movie had great special effects and they could create no better dialogue than that??? Still, I enjoyed the movie, though I wouldn't see it again.

Over the holiday I did see it again after all. The second time I was surprised at how much more I liked the movie. I rated it a 9 from the beginning, so I appreciated it. I had a few minor problems which probably had more to do with length than anything else. However, the second time around you realize that this is great movie in an otherwise mostly mediocre year. I still think after reading some of the dialogue that one of the powerful things Jackson does in the movie is to reveal the humanity in Kong and the animal in us. This creates an interesting perspective from which to watch the movie.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rev. Rikard,

The actual last line is taken from the original film: "It was Beauty killed the Beast." Carl Denham is just trying to make himself feel better in this one when he says that lie. In the original, you could almost believe that Denham doesn't understand his culpability.

Anyhow, it's a great film.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark f:
The actual last line is taken from the original film: "It was Beauty killed the Beast." Carl Denham is just trying to make himself feel better in this one when he says that lie. In the original, you could almost believe that Denham doesn't understand his culpability.

Anyhow, it's a great film.

Thanks for the reference. Makes more sense now. At least there was a good reason for it.

It's so hard to remember this movie because it was so long and so much was happening but several scenes stand out that make me furious at the director and this movie:

Spoilers

1) We see King Kong fall but never hit the ground. After all the emphasis on this magnificent beast, his last swan song is only a "small" glimpse actually from afar as he falls even further done into invisibility - such invisibility almost is a minimization of Kong's death, his impact, a supposedly innocent creature where his fall to his death is actually hidden.

2) A faint scream is heard in the first instance of Kong's appearance but it's not clear from where it comes. This break away from Naomi Watts muffles and deadens the shrill horror and terror that may be coming from her.

3) Slow special cute effects seemed to an attempt at artistic cleverness but for me it just comes off just that. The scene were the crew attempt to capture the beast and Naomi is scene in slow motion just seems cloyingly patronizing to its audience.

4) There were just too many, too long, continuous scenes just to show off the special effects forever and forever and what for me seemed to be bizarre forced scripted action just continue to scene for screen time sake. A big pretentious show of waste screen time.

5) Naomi Watts finds out that she's out of a job, the whole set up seemed artificial just like out of a black and white stage play. Yet I don't think the director can have it both ways, this exaggerated, simplified plot and his attempt to be clever with the humanizing of this movie and the sensitive emotions which require much more subdued, deliberate acting that wasn't achieved in the opening sequences. Naomi's colleagues upon learning of their unemployment did presented performances that seemed to be so clique and weak with steretypical reactions.

6) Naomi Watts was never given a real opportunity to develop an endearing relationship with King Kong. There were attempts but much too little, too late. It was the giant, male King Kong not the sensitive female Naomi Watts that offered his hand for Naomi to touch not the other way around. Her parting effort to save King Kong was lukewarm as there wasn't the struggle between her and her new found boyfriend who conveniently came too late. My what a last scene where Naomi could have been seen struggling mightedly with her conflicted emotions between staying with King and leaving into the safe arms of her boyfriend.

7) What's with this young kid who isn't given a lot to do and acts really strange and has an attachment to Naomi that was never explained. So mysterious waste of time and money.

8) What can't Kyle Chandler have become a more realistic, three-dimensional character? He goes from narcissistic bastard, to saving Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts, back to stereotypical it's all about me again. Where's the conflict, the struggle between his new found conscience that gets to be turned on and off like an artificial script writer?

9) I don't know what the depression era was like in terms of law enforcement, but I still feel some moral, ethical standards may have been in place about shooting suspects while innocents were at risk. The almost, perhaps deliberate army and airforce is scene without any dialogue, no communications or instructions as to what they were supposed to do. Like the below par remake of War of the Worlds (2005) which left out a lot of the military jargon and interplay that made the original more understandable, this remake too seems to simplify a much more complicated military maneuver that leaves out why it was so simple to shoot at Kong while Naomi Watt's life was at risk not from Kong but from the military. And how did the military response time get to be so unrealistically, unbelievably fast, rapid?

10) Even the relationship between Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts seemed unevenly unveiled, awkwardly trying to comic interest in their meeting but never having that finely honed dramatic, comedy interplay that Steven Speilberg found in Jaws (1975) with the straight-laced Roy Scheider getting played for real laughs, not forced ones. The budding love development was underdeveloped, while screen time was developed for the action adventure. The whole scene where Naomi discovers the comedy script being written for her by Brody was not handled well, the director Jackson missed a wonderful opportunity to really make the scene come alive with discovery and import.

11) Jack Black as the opportunistic director was miscast in my own mind. His comedic background and his patent expressions made it so that the separation between his role in this movie and his past characterizations made it crucial that this role be distinguishable and I feel the Jackson failed in his direction. The beginning of the movie felt too light, too comedic in tone for what the rest of the movie truly presented. Mr. Black just didn't seem to have the depth, seriousness that this role required to pull off successfully. The director's emphasis on his eyes as if looking for some real subtle emotional resonance, only seemed to be just that...a director trying to use technique instead of allowing the performance to make the scene.

12) I would have loved to see much more of the movie from Kong's viewpoint, even though Jackson purported does a little of this with his bouncing camera shots of Naomi in Kong's hands. There wasn't even the usual going out of focus shot from Kong's perspective when he goes unconscious from the chloroform.

13) The whole movie felt forced, manipulative, the script being written, in par, as it was being shot and supposedly cute directorial, script changes added without explanation just to keep the continuity of the action going. Adrien without much explanation jumps into a taxi, the driver jumps out (because of course we can't have him in the scene), and only later does the audience perhaps figure out that Adrien may be trying to save people? I don't know. Of Naomi Watts arrives mysteriously in this big city as if on cue. This arriving on cue seems to happen quite often, actually impossibly so often that it can only happen if the script writer needs it to keep the movie going. There's only so much of this one can suspend belief over a three hour movie.

14) The cinematography selection was in my opinion the wrong approach for Jackson's intent, if it was, to really produced a gritty, in your face, monster-sized movie. The many times of fuzzy photography only served to imply a fantasy removed animated version instead of what I would have wondered what the movie would have been like if Terrence Malick had had an opportunity to helm this update using his cinemagraphic approach that he took with his new gorgeous looking movie The New World.

There a lot more problems with this movie but so many that I'd have to see this movie again which in my mind would be almost torture for me as one might be able to deduce from my thoughts about my first experience with it. Only an Mission Impossible (1996) experience with a second viewing could perhaps alter my distaste for this movie (it's only happened once in my lifetime).

I really don't know what to say about your array of charges you have inflicted on a basically sweet, razzle-dazzle monster movie with a heart. You said in advance that you wouldn't like it, so it's not surprising to me that you didn't, but most of your arguments seem to be bass-ackwards, so I don't really see any point in refuting any of them. They are your opinions, so I feel no need to try to change them. I'm just sorry that you couldn't find more to enjoy and had to take what I consider wonderful film storytelling as some personal affront and torture.

The film is about a 25-foot gorilla on an island with equally astounding creatures. I don't think you could have possibly thought you were going to see a documentary or a Terry Malick flick where everything is gorgeous but basically nothing happens. There are explanations for everything which you mentioned (except the comments which are nonsensical or misrepresentations.) I don't understand why you believe things like the script was being written as it was being filmed. That was Lost in Translation, not King Kong. The latter had to have a completed, coherent script just to be able to logistically accomplish the filmmaking.

That's about all I care to say now, except that I don't quite understand the concepts of "pretentious special effects" and "black and white stage plays". King Kong is about the least-pretentious flick I can think of, especially at this time of year.

But I wrote a long time ago around here that people love to hate and knock over whoever's the reigning popular director. Why is that?

quote:

Mark f posted:

I really don't know what to say about your array of charges you have inflicted on a basically sweet, razzle-dazzle monster movie with a heart. You said in advance that you wouldn't like it, so it's not surprising to me that you didn't, but most of your arguments seem to be bass-ackwards, so I don't really see any point in refuting any of them.

Mark f is a well respected, articulate expert of films as easily attested by his many films he has seen and he high standards he has maintained. I appreciate his ability to be civil in his response to my lengthy "bass-ackwards" negative commentary. Yet I can't but wonder about this response. Perhaps its the holiday season, a festive and busy time of year. Yet, when a discussion board, a serious one at that, becomes "I really don't know what to say," then the integrity of the discussion becomes self-defeating. It is too easy to pass over comments, many specific ones at that and based on the fact that many people are apparently awed by this film and the many compliments it has but also the concern I have regarding the possible decline in film-making this movie represents, I believe that it is very important to have a meaningful discussion on this films merits.

If as Mark f has described this movie as a "a basically sweet, razzle-dazzle monster movie with a heart" than I can offer up Godzilla (2000) who at least is looking for a lost kindred spirit. Razzle-dazzle is something that Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) does in Chicago (2002) and as in the court room, I believe that Peter Jackson is doing the same number with the film-going public.

One of the most significant scenes of the movie midway through that will be referred to later at the end of the movie in probably the most emotionally telling scene in the movie on top of the Empire State Building,

[spoiler]:

When Naomi Watts attempts to communicate with the beast and referring oddly enough to herself when she says this "beautiful" but actually referring to the beautiful sunrise (which in layman's terms is extremely confusing in and of itself - I personally would have pointed to the object of my reference the sunrise and said "beautiful"). Nevertheless what is this beauty and she is referring to and that the beast also refers to at the end of the movie with of course Naomi having to by script dictates and how everything has to be spelled out verbally offers acknowledgement of the beast's hand onto his (its) chest and says "beautiful" what is this beauty? Instead of some amazing, awe-inspiring, beautiful scene, we have a shot of the Naomi and the beast in the foreground blocking in part the supposedly wonderful sunrise in the background. Of all the great beautiful sunrises with the hundreds of millions of dollars that Jackson had at his disposal, I believe I've actually accomplished even more with a Pentax 35 mm camera using 400 ASA speed film with only two shots I took of the runrise along the La Baja coast six years ago. I seen hundreds of sunrises in State Fair competitions, in high schools that I consider would put this scene to shame. I have to shake my head at what Jackson continued to do with his material and ask why? Notably the Golden Globes failed to recognize this movie in its Best Picture nominations and none of the performance nominations.

When it comes to knocking off the reigning popular director, Kevin Costner knows all too well. But if you actually look at Peter Jackson's filmology, he has to his credit ten directorial accomplishments which does not represent a lengthy history to judge the overall merits of this man. As to the Lord of the Rings, because it was so huge and big and spectacular, the number of people responsible for this event make it awfully difficult to begin pointing to who was actually responsible for putting it all together. To his credit, Jackson will always be remembered for Lord of the Rings trilogy. But historically, a masterpiece is a difficult accomplishment to live up to and Jackson may be remember only for this one movie event twenty, thirty years from now. I don't believe that King Kong will be one of them.

quote:

Mark f posted:
I don't understand why you believe things like the script was being written as it was being filmed.

I can't fault Mark f here. I apparently became brain dead as of course Mark f is completely correct in at completed script in order to accomplish the many technical aspects of this film. What I probably meant in my emotional state was that the movie as it was unveiled seemed to be having been written as the movie was being played out as if one action sequence then required a made up sequence and then another one and then another one without really taking into account the actual whole scene. The required made up action sequence almost seems mechnical, divested of any real naturally consequential, flowing chaine of reasonable action activity. It became so artificial for me that it became more about the special effects however illogical than about the movie, the substance of the movie and more of a video computer game where scenarios are just chained together.

I'll try to maintain whatever slight civility I may have shown. If you honestly want me to go down through the entire list and offer responses to each and every one, I will do that. I don't believe it will change your mind, and it won't make me feel any better, but I guess it will mean that I'm serious. I just think the film should speak for itself. I've already said what I feel and think about the film. I hate rehashing things just to try to get the last word. I honestly believe that by some of your points that you just missed something which was there for you to see and/or hear, but I'll agree that there are lots of things going on sometimes. However, at other times, there are very subtle, shaded things being revealed by the acting and direction.

Look, I believe that your opinion is valid and it doesn't make me get nearly as angry as you apparently are at Peter Jackson. Sometimes I get the feeling that you are angry at me for having my opinion. You certainly don't have to preface any comments regarding me or my responses by noting that I'm respected, etc., etc. That's not necessary and off-topic. Being around for awhile, having a little power and not being afraid to post doesn't make me respected at all.

I just don't think that we are in some one-on-one contest. There are lots of other posters who might want to add to the discussion. At least, that's the way I see it. I have to constantly weigh whether to respond, how much to respond, etc., because I don't like to run roughshod over threads, plus I don't really like to hurt people's feelings or start fights. I LOVE movies. The passion isn't really dying; there are just other things to love. I feel a little taken aback when I hear people have such violent, negative reactions to something which speaks so honestly and directly to my heart and to the hearts of my friends and family. It kinda makes me feel like I don't belong in this world, which is a pretty bad feeling to have when you're a teacher and you're also trying to teach your child right from wrong and some form of aesthetics.

Kong is only a movie. I don't feel it's the downfall of civilization. People will always react to things differently and that should bring them closer, not drive them apart. That's my basic reason for spending so much time around here when my family's busy.

Anyhow, now that I've gone off topic, I will still offer to respond to some of your points if no one else does. Are there any specific ones which I should go for first, my dear friend tabuno?

I value Mark f's dedication to films and his grasp of multitude of experience with movies that I shall never have. Because this movie has made such a positive impact on many critics, I really would like to know what about this movie that I'm missing. I think that responses in order as they appear (at one's convenience) including the later comment about the sunrise scene would be just dandy.

I think I can sneak the "sunrise" scene in quickly right now. First of all, on Skull Island, the scene is a sunset. After all the battling which Kong has done to save his sacrifice, bride, etc., during the daytime, he feels like a rest, so he goes to one of his roosts and relaxes. This is where Ann's earlier vaudeville scenes come into play since she's still not sure what to expect from the beaten-up, lonely old ape. She does some song-and-dance, juggling and stunts, and Kong's not too impressed, but eventually she warms his heart and protects herself. It's only after she can sense Kong's humanity that she can even understand how much Kong cares about the simple joys he can experience, especially after another hard day where all the other monsters on the block are trying to topple him for his King's crown.

The thing which Ann does when she pats her chest is not proclaim herself beautiful. She's patting her heart. She's trying to communicate the inner beauty of a sunset and a shared experience. It doesn't seem that big a stretch to me, especially considering how the scene builds from intensity, anxiety, playfulness, quizzicalness, tenderness, to a shared understanding. Later on, they're both asleep in the dark when Jack Driscoll shows up to "save" Ann and cause all hell to break loose.

quote:

Mark f posted:

on Skull Island, the scene is a sunset. After all the battling which Kong has done to save his sacrifice, bride, etc., during the daytime, he feels like a rest, so he goes to one of his roosts and relaxes. This is where Ann's earlier vaudeville scenes come into play since she's still not sure what to expect from the beaten-up, lonely old ape. She does some song-and-dance, juggling and stunts, and Kong's not too impressed, but eventually she warms his heart and protects herself. It's only after she can sense Kong's humanity that she can even understand how much Kong cares about the simple joys he can experience, especially after another hard day where all the other monsters on the block are trying to topple him for his King's crown.

A good description and set up. But can't find any response to the sunset scene itself which I specifically had problems with. When I recall sunrise/sunset scenes, one of my standards comes from one of my favorite movies Manhunter (1986) that contains a great sunset at the beginning of the movie and another great sunrise scene later in the movie. The focus on the beauty of the scene in King Kong was significantly diminished by Peter Jackson's choice. I found beauty masked and unable to appreciate such beauty that was partially hidden away from the audience that Naomi Watts and King Kong supposedly experienced. Again because of the importance of this scene in connection with the ending, how this scene was shot takes on all that more added weight for it to be done well.

As to Naomi's character vaudeville antics, personally for me it didn't seem either well done or improvised well considering either of the circumstances. It fact it appeared clumsy and awkward beyond what was actually intended for comic effect. I was hoping to see some close up of Naomi's face to see the uncertainty, the fear, the awkwardness to would explain her somewhat disoriented antics. The transition between tentativeness to deliberate acting wasn't convincing for me. Something was missing in this sequence.

quote:

Mark f posted:

The thing which Ann does when she pats her chest is not proclaim herself beautiful. She's patting her heart. She's trying to communicate the inner beauty of a sunset and a shared experience. It doesn't seem that big a stretch to me, especially considering how the scene builds from intensity, anxiety, playfulness, quizzicalness, tenderness, to a shared understanding. Later on, they're both asleep in the dark when Jack Driscoll shows up to "save" Ann and cause all hell to break loose.

Thanks for the additional supplemental background explanation which makes good sense. I agree with your explanation, however, the scene was only partially successful as the connection between the sunset and beauty (heart) was missing. How can one expect a giant ape to get a multiple series of meanings that Naomi's character tries to communicate, particularly omitting any reference to the connection between sunset and beauty. Additionally, I had hoped for a more complex relationship between Adrien Brody's character and King Kong instead of the usual, typical black and white, stereotypical response. So much for Naomi Watt's sympathies in the scene when Mr. Brody comes to "save" her. Mr. Brody's entire character and his role in the movie was ambigious in regards to King Kong.

I said earlier I didn't want to get into a back-and-forth thing, since I don't intend to change your mind. The sunset itself is irrelevant. It's clear there's a sunset and it relaxes Kong, and it relaxes Ann too. The beauty is the shared experience. If Kong can beat his chest to express his emotions, I think Ann can pat hers to express emotion. I have no problems at all with Jackson's staging of the scene, and you do. We knew that before. Nothing I say will change your mind. I just find it difficult to relate to the scene the way you do, and vice versa. Apparently that's what our posts mean. The only difference is that you knew that you'd dislike the movie, while I didn't bring in any such preconceptions.

I'm sure you would try to rescue your wife from King Kong. He's a wild animal and cannot be held to any comparisons with humans. That is a very good way to look at wild animals (see Grizzly Man.) But Ann is the only one who's allowed to see the gentler, playful side to Kong. My wife thinks the Ann-Kong scenes really are a good comment of human male-female relationships and communication, both understood and misunderstood.

quote:

Mark f posted:

I said earlier I didn't want to get into a back-and-forth thing, since I don't intend to change your mind.

I am sorry you believe that the purpose of dialogue on this discusson board is to change people's minds. If that were the case, then perhaps we may as well decide that all relevant artistic dicussion is just a matter of taste, that film making and artistic technique is just something relative like whether or not one likes vanilla or strawberry topping. We may as well decide that there is no valid school of filmmaking that can if followed enrich the moviegoing experience and that we can decide now that the avoidance of discussion will not help to expand our understanding of how we perceive movies and appreciate them. Or perhaps I could assume that you may be busy with your own life, including the watching of so many films that limits your time to discuss films, except to make valid comments at times on elements people overlook and to enhance observations.

Your response still discomforts as a simple dismissal of a statement I made using the terse sentence The sunset itself is irrelevant. You of all people must know that to any good director and appreciate film critic there are no irrelevant shots in a movie, each impacts on the other. As to my other reference to the unfortunate stereotyping of Adrien Brody, you seem not be directing your comments to mine.

I am impressed by your superior knowledge and experience of film to which I shall never be able to rise up to. Yet by the same token, it is because of your experience with films and your judgment that this film is an A, something you acknowledged you rarely do, that there is some slender implied obligation to provide some rationale that can hold up to discussion or else perhaps such judgments may easily become weakened and open to question. I know it is a fine balance between your life priorities and your immense contribution on this board, but these are judgments in themselves you must consider.

I only worry that if your opinion as well as many other critics are the direction that film judgments are going that there may be something fundamentally missing and that such a movie as this represents a significant decline in our standards in this art form. As of yet, some of your observations seem to be standing without a solid foundation that you have established in many other areas of this website.

On the surface, any film can be "picked apart." I find it best to understand the broad stroke of Jackson's artistic brush, for only then do the small, colorful strokes makes sense. (I am speaking personally and non-authoritatively, for I am a novice to adding film to the list of genres that address the human condition; still, I do not back away from sharing what I experience from the movie). Jackson seems to be saying, broadly, that though the animal-human worlds are miles apart, and each is shrouded in mystery to the other (thus, the fog and unpredictable world of the island and New York), there is an emotional/spiritual bond that transcends that distance, that "clears the fog". The sunrise and sunset scenes are important in that both human and animal share an innocent sense of wonder over the beauty of a natural event that most of us never bother to observe. It is this connection of wonder and innocense that allows the world to function with any semblance of harmony; and, allows us to function at deeper levels of existence. All expressions of life are connected by something deeper than the "survival of the fittest" activities in which we engage. Every living thing knows when the sun sets and rises. It is a beautiful moment when two forms of life "connect" around the beauty of these natural, everyday events. Jackson reveals (whether intentional or not) that those who are not looking at the beauty that connects us are not looking because their eyes and minds are elsewhere. They are looking toward self-preservation: some toward the loss or gain of money, some toward the fears we face in life, etc. I found that as I looked at the "big picture" I did find heart and experienced something that has been difficult to experience since my childhood: wonder. Yes, a scene here and there seem a little out of place, or out of kilter. But, combined with all the scenes they form one good movie. I think we do a disservice to the movie when we peal off its layers. It was created to be the "sum total of all its parts."

Rev. Rikard posting is a awe-inspiring message and I am glad that he was able to experience this beauty in King Kong. Unfortunately, the message was diluted, the experience clouded for me and apparently by some others based on reading other posts and other websites by the less than specular sunset images that Jackson chose for his movie. Sometimes, the overall movie, can be easily weakened and fail from too many foibles that detract from the experience like a thorn that hurts through the movie no matter how important and sensitive the message is. How much greater and indelible would have been the movie experience if many of the minor irritations had been addressed so that this movie would be one that would be remembered as a classic for decades to come instead of a good movie that will likely be forgotten by most people in a year. Your powerful message and perhaps that intended by this movie will be lost. Naria already apparently is having a bigger and longer lasting impact on the general public.