in the movie's story, there are several billion people but only a couple of these apes (there are skeletons of other such apes to seen on the island, so there are, or at least were, others). and a small group of people bring that ape into a crowded metropolis (which is an environmental horror in its own right).



killing that ape means increasing the odds that this species disappears forever. if we endanger ourselves, then we should pay the price and not displace the cost for our stupidity onto other species.



btw, the fact that this ape learns, communicates and has emotion certainly says to me that it's not even just a "dumb beast" but a sentient intelligence like ourselves. just because Kong isn't human doesn't mean that he doesn't think and feel much as we do and therefore is deserving of not being enslaved and having a *life* involving liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



i have a really, really hard time weighing in on the "killing the ape saved people" line. the moment it showed up in captivity action to send it back to its native area should've been taken. and when things went amok, it should've been humanely brought under control.



if someone had just asked the woman to help out, she could've done it instead of shooting it from airplanes.



did you notice that a couple of those planes crashed into the city due to that course of action? that claimed not only the lives of the pilots but those who were on the ground where they slammed into the city.



but we wouldn't go blaming the airplanes, because those have humans at the controls. even when we kill, maim and destroy we don't see our own uglyness.

I think you are all missing the point. Its not an animal rights or environmental movie really. Its more to just make you stop and think about a morally complex situation, to make you unsure about who really is the beast.



I think the very realistic nature of the modern movie probably just kind of obscured the point. The 1930's audience were expected to use their imagination more.



That said... I wouldn't give up King Kong fighting two lifelike dinosaurs at once just for some added storytelling.



An interesting fact I read in another review... when the two actors are doing their corny lines on the ship those were lines from the original film.

Aaron:



1. It seems to me that the species *is* extinct, since there is only one (male, non-pregnant) specimen.



2. You are projecting 2005 morality on 1933 people. At the time, big game hunting was glamorous. They just didn't know better. So they deserve at least as much leeway as Kong, I expect?



3. Kong had a history of killing innocent women before he met Ann Darrow. Moving him to Manhattan simply amplified his actions. He should have been killed (or interned) for terrorizing the poor people of Skull Island.



Not to mention the T-Rexes. A T-Rex is a much more biologically valuable animal than a hormonal ape!



4. I know you are a vegetarian and all ;-) but equating animals and people, as you do speaking of an animal deserving a life and the pursuit of happiness... well, that's just not my thing.



Sure. Animals deserve to be happy. Until I am hungry. Then they deserve to be humanely killed, with respect to biodiversity, filleted and marinated.



5. In my mind people are special. The worse human being is better than Lassie. Lassie is loyal mostly because she doesn't know better. Her dog brain can't comprehend loyalty, only blind submission to her alpha pack mate, which is not even of the same species.



I know that view is unfashionable in the modern world. But hey, the modern world... it's getting old real fast.

Yeah. And when Denham says "Fay is a size 4" and is told she is not available, he is talking about Fay Wray, the actress on the 1933 version.

Good job!!!

Hi Roberto,



1) I didn't see the movie but my mom did, and she hated it. So, if she hated it, I hate it too.



2) I envy you store about the early dawn. You'll see, this is my first christmas in the north emisphere, and I hate it. It makes holidays *far* more depressing.



Take care.



Dario.

Good job!!!

Dario: at least you won´t melt after eating some turron as we do here :-]

Good job!!!

Steve: that whole "who is the beast" angle is just too shallow.



You are on one side proposing Kong is a intelligent, noble and responsible mass murderer, and civilization, which of course did act in self defense (since Kong was killing lots of people) is savage.



Oh, you may say, civilization started it by bringing Kong to NY. Sorry, "he started it" is only available to second-graders.



Sorry, but I find your post just weird.



As for ape and monkey, hey, that difference only exists in english, which is not my first language, so give me at least as much slack as you would cut a man-killing simian.



And yes, I am being intentionally annoying.