[Masthead] Overcast and Breezy ~ 44°F  
High: 47°F ~ Low: 40°F
Saturday, Apr. 30, 2016

Ross Rambles: Unseen movies reviewed

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Once again, I've decided to write a movie review, actually two movie reviews, on movies I have no intention of seeing.

The last one I did, almost two years ago, was on the Passion of Christ. I eventually did see the movie. A friend loaned me the DVD and it would have been rude not to view it. It was about what I expected and my lack of enjoyment of it was as I expected.

I do not mind violence and gore as long as it is used to develop a plot in a movie with elements of suspense. There was no suspense in the Passion of Christ, no unexpected plot twists to the familiar story.

It was simply a lengthy display of grotesque torture. I think I'd rather watch cowboys kissing, not that I intend to do that either.

Brokeback Mountain is being heralded as a courageous depiction of a romance between two cowboys. I'm not particularly offended by the idea of a romance between a cowboy and another cowboy, or between a cowboy and a sheep or between a cowboy and an inanimate object. I'm not a big fan of romantic movies of any kind, some less so than others.

I've given my definitions of good, bad and mediocre movies before and will repeat them here.

Good movie: Things blow up.

Bad movie: People have meaningful dialogue with each other.

Mediocre movie: People have meaningful dialogue with each other and then blow up.

I'm sure many males have similar tastes in movies. Brokeback Mountain might ironically be a "chick flick" in which neither main character is a "chick."

The quotation marks are there to denote that I'm using the word "chick" only in reference to the crude vernacular of others rather than as part of my regular vocabulary. I'm too sensitive to the feelings of those who are offended by demeaning terms to use them in the presence of broads.

Anyway, I assume that Brokeback Mountain does not meet my definition of a good movie or even a mediocre movie.

King Kong might have some things blowing up in it and other assorted special effects I like but I don't care for the basic premise of the movie.

I saw the original King Kong and wasn't impressed by the "giant gorilla falls in love with a beautiful woman" plot. Perhaps I'm being picky here, but doesn't love between a 40-foot ape and a women seem a bit, excuse me for saying it, unnatural.

OK, maybe it's not really romantic love. It's like the love between a pet and its owner, with some question as to who is the pet. I'm still not buying it.

I'm also not buying the possibility that a biped could reach that size, defying the square/cube law of physics which limits the size that a creature or structure can reach without a change in configuration or composition.

And I'm not buying the discovery of an island in which creatures are preserved from the distant past when dinosaurs and giant primates roamed the earth. Besides the fact that there were never primates of that size, there were no primates of any kind until millions of years after dinosaurs were extinct.

OK, enough with the science. A movie doesn't have to be realistic to be entertaining but I've decided that King Kong is not a movie I think is entertaining enough to see, unless a friend loans me the DVD.