At its core, King Kong (2005) is a romantic comedy between a woman (Naomi Watts, last seen masturbating furiously at the thought of sexing up Laura Elena Harring in Mulholland Dr.) and a 25-foot special effect that resembles a gorilla. Oh what capers!

Actually, King Kong (2005) is really about the White Man keeping the Black Man down. There is exactly one black character in the film, and he is killed in the second hour (second of three, by the way), just after he's given a small amount of characterization. Before that, he's part of the team of white imperialists who converge on the untamed native lands of Skull Island, which is evidently the native name of the place. Not unlike the technologically advanced Europeans who landed in Africa and promptly enslaved and murdered most of the wild population of the continent, these folks first try to bribe the locals (incidentally, the "locals" here happened to be white New Zealanders... in blackface. I'm not making this up) with chocolate, and then, when that doesn't work, with bullets! In their bodies! After this small misunderstanding, the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, master-race-looking heroine is offered up as a sacrifice to the blackest brother in the whole world: KONG (hereafter refered to as the Effect).

King Kong (2005) is also an exercise in greenscreen usage. Peter Jackson made a couple of good movies in his career; this doesn't mean he's a good filmmaker. I mean come on, if you're a man who has had sex with a few women, but then you stopped and now you only fuck other men, who would consider you heterosexual? By this same convention, Mr. Jackson cannot be considered a good filmmaker, because he stopped making good films a while back, and now only makes bad ones. However, if he ever made a completely computer generated film, I'd happily take it all back and call him bisexual instead, because his movies are basically all computer generated at this point anyway. In my wildest fantasies, I imagine him and George Lucas caught in an infinite loop of sucking each other's cocks and making shitty computer-generated movies that no longer involve humans on any level. In fact, it's possible that Peter Jackson and George Lucas are actually cyborgs, and they're working together to promote a sexy robotic agenda. It's bad for me, and it's bad for America.

I will say that there were maybe two scenes in King Kong (2005) during which I was actually able to momentarily suspend my total, complete disbelief. Both of them involve Naomi Watts and the Effect, and I really hate to say it, but the Effect is a slightly better actor than she is. I think the Effect should win the Oscar this year for Best Special Effect That Acted In A Movie With Naomi Watts. Although it has some stiff competition in that category from Adrien Brody, it's still a much better actor. I would also like to nominate the ten-second clip of Naomi Watts masturbating furiously in Mulholland Dr., looped for ten consecutive hours, as Best Picture of All Time and Forever.

Also, there are vampire bats the size of Volkswagons. Here's a question for you: if the Effect is bitten by a vampire bat, does it become a Vampire Effect? Sadly, the answer to this question will have to wait until they make the sequel: Robo-Vampire-Kong IN SPACE. Coming to you in 2009 from the minds behind Star Wars Redux and King Kong (2005).

Let's talk about the racism again, just to make sure I'm expressing properly how truly and remarkably offensive it was to watch a bunch of white people dressed up like savages, with bad fake teeth, and black paint all over their bodies. Maybe that sort of shit flies with the folks in New Zealand, but here in the civilized world, Peter, we expect a slight amount of decorum. Next time you make a movie that promotes an agenda of hate, please attempt to disguise it a little bit. See also: Triumph of the Will (1935), a light-hearted romp about Adolf Hitler and his efforts to make Germany the Best Darn Nation Ever!*

Of course, I don't think Mr. Jackson is a Nazi, nor do I think he promotes an agenda of hate; I do, however, think he is inadvertently killing film, by making bad ones while thinking he's making good ones. What ruined King Kong (2005) the most was the use of computer generated effects, which managed to single-handedly ruin any attempts at creating suspense. The great thing about practical effects in film is that when implementing any practical effect, the outcome cannot ever be predicted with 100% accuracy. Even if you do multiple takes of the same practical effect, such as an explosion or a car wreck, subtle differences will always occur. With a computer generated effect, once the effect is created and saved, it can be replayed with 100% accuracy every time. In this way, there is nothing at stake with computer generated effects; if something goes wrong, you don't waste any film on it until it is finished to your liking. But every time you attempt a practical effect, a million things can go wrong, and therefore what you finally end up seeing on screen has a bit of gravitas by virtue of the fact that real flames can kill people, and computer generated flames cannot.

I'll conclude with a cheap shot: Peter Jackson's idea of adding "drama" to a film is to include a ten-second slow-motion shot of an actor emoting; then cut to another actor (or Effect) emoting in slow motion for another ten seconds. Repeat for...ever. Then you have a movie that costs more than any movie ever cost ever, runs three times as long as the movie that inspired it, and underperforms at the box office, because it sucks.

Just like you, Peter Jackson. You suck.

*by killing all of the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and anyone else he didn't like