Apparently some people just can't recognize movie magic when they see it and have to jump on some sort of hate train about King Kong. Maybe it isn't a film that stands up to a graduate seminar on story structure, but unless you are just blinded by hate, how could you not love that film?

From what I have heard of Brokeback Mountain it sounds like one of those well made dramas that gets released every year to a tizzy of high praise while in a few years it will just sit on the same forgotten dust heap of competant dramas along with The Piano, The English Patient, Out of Africa etc. All these movies are good, but can we stop acting as if it is some special achievement to create a good drama?

Kong on the other hand is a remarkable achievement for its ability to create a believable relationship between a human and a CGI character. It saddens me to no end to see so many dump hate on the film. If you really love film then it is almost impossible to watch King Kong and not be awed by the achievement in cinematic arts that it represents. For its ability to create a truly believable CGI character who interacts with a human it will go down as a major moment in motion picture history.

Stephanie stated, quite clearly, that this list was a "favorite" Top Ten, not a mythical (her word) "best". In perusing her choices and her Honorable Mentions, it is clear that she has seen a remarkably diverse range of films in 2005, most of which will never be playing in my little town. It's a joy for an ex-metropolitan dweller to be kept apprised of the cinematic situation, and I will always be grateful to Stephanie for her reviews, maddening though they may be at times.

So enough with the phony outrage, please! It's her list, not yours.

Peter Jackson's version of Kong was way more than just a remake. I heard many people claim that he just did an unimaginative rehashing of the original, so I just recently rented the original.

I found the original pretty disappointing. The effects are amazingly better than I would have imagined, but the Ann Darrow character in the original is nothing more than a screaming damsel in distress.

Peter Jackson completely changed the Darrow character by showing her as being much more in charge of her own destiny, which then makes her eventual befriending of Kong to be more than just her passively being admired by Kong. Their relationship is a two way street, and I thought that effectively changed the entire sensibility of the plot from the two previous films.

As long as I live, I will never be able to understand why people turn into raving lunatics whenever an opinion different than their own is printed. So a lot of you loved "Brokeback Mountain" and hated "King Kong." Fine. Why does it absolutely infuriate you that one person - Stephanie Zacharek - felt differently? How is it not obvious to all concerned that art is inherently subjective, and a person's "ten favorite movies" list is just that - a list of her ten favorites? She's not claiming they're yours, or even that they SHOULD be yours.

If you disagree, fine, but try to retain the least bit of ration and dignity in the process. For crying out loud, calm down - talk about intolerance!

This is an interesting list, even though it is quite a bit different from my own. I think film lovers should be thankful that not all critics' lists are the same, and allow for a certain element of subjectivity. The multitude of lists coming out this month have provided me with several suggestions both for theaters and my nextflix queue. I highly suggest looking at as many lists as possible, in order to appreciate contrasting opinions.

Rather than criticize this list, here's my personal top 15 of the year (out of the 40 or so ive seen so far):

1) grizzly man

2) history of violence

3) downfall

4) the squid and the whale

5) howls moving castle

6) good night and good luck

7) crash

8) kung fu hustle

9) me and you and everyone we know

10) brokeback mountain

11) capote

12) king kong

13) batman

14) broken flowers

15) walk the line

I don't understand why critics are fawning over King Kong. It's a nice-looking flick with some cool special effects, but at its core it's just a dumb, overlong B-movie.

Several people in my screening-- me included-- laughed at Jack Black's final line about beauty killing the beast. Speaking of which, what's with the endless, frequent, longing looks between woman and ape? Creepy! That relationship is at the heart of the film, and it makes zero sense.

I suppose critics feel obligated to like the movie because it's an homage to the original. But I just don't get it.

While I didn't agree with SZ's every choice, I am intrigued by her list.

There are differences between movie critics, movie lovers, and people who enjoy a good flick. The critic (which I think SZ certainly is) isn't in the theater necessarily to enjoy herself or to be wowed or to cry or to leave with warm, fuzzy feelings. Ideally, she should have no preconceptions, though she can have expectations. Knowing the director of King Kong, you'd expect to be wowed. But an honest critic would still make the movie to its work; she wouldn't come in pre-wowed. So each movie would have to succeed or fail on its own merits--not on the hype that preceded it, nor by the names that are attached to it.

Further, movies are all part of a cinematic tradition that includes all movies. Movie critics, by virtue of having watched so many movies, have an institutional knowledge far deeper than casual observers which informs their opinions of the movies they review. Having seen so many failed attempts (or even non-attempts) at integration of live-action and CGI, SZ thought it noteworthy that it worked so well in King Kong and she responded to this artifice positively. For Cnuzzo, the willing suspension of disbelief was too much to ask--that is, Cnuzzo's family would not engage King Kong as a piece of art on its own terms, so it looked ridiculous. (But doesn't De Chirico look silly to those who can't place him in the correct context?)

Personally, I like a lot of SZ's reviews, even when she disses movies I enjoyed and give favorable reviews to movies that I watched and walked out thinking "Damn you, Stephanie, for on your word I gave up the precious, irretrievable minutes of my life and FOR WHAT?!" I read her because her reviews are (most of the time) like art reviews; she looks at the place of the movie within a certain context and elucidates hidden aspects of movies that I would miss--not because she's smarter than I am, but because she's seen so many more movies and knows what to look for and how to look.

And isn't that, ultimately, the mark of a good critic?