Movie time

Over the last several weeks, I managed to see a couple movies I would like to comment on:

1.) King Kong

A splendidly exciting movie, fun had by all. Of course, the key to understanding this movie is to recognize that Peter Jackson was not interested in filming the "story of King Kong". Rather, he wanted to make an homage to the 1933 film that inspired him in his younger years. Everything in this film reflects and references the 1933 film. Many of the scenes are taken directly from the original film, and the incredible, over-the-top, special effects are a direct nod to the 1933 film as, back then, they were quite dazzling! Knowing beforehand that I wasn't going to get just Jackson's "version of the story", watching this movie was a lot of fun. We already know that it will be over-the-top. My only complaint is one that others have mentioned - there was quite a bit of extraneous special-effects material in many of the island scenes which may not have been necessary. But to trim the film down to "35 minutes", as some have suggested, would most certainly have betrayed Jackson's intention in making this film.

2.) The Exorcism of Emily Rose

As a film based on the (largely sensationalized) events surrounding a young German girl, Anneliese Michel, in the 1970's, I have to say that I rather enjoyed the film. I've seen better movies, but I thought that the story here was presented well and that it really left itself open to sound interpretation.

Most of the film takes place in the courtroom, and Emily's actual ordeal is conveyed through flashbacks and courtroom interviews with various people. The bottom line, which was conveyed in the film, is that the film is about possibility. The film doesn't intend to answer any questions for you. It presents people's stories; it presents all of the rational and scientific explanations; and we are left with the question: Was Emily Rose really possessed? But the careful observer will note that this question is only superficial. Beneath it lies a more irritating question, at least to some, and that is: What is and isn't possible in the world? Can things happen that don't always have a rational explanation? The point of the film is that Emily's story be told, not that it be proved. And that's basically it. We know that the exorcism failed, and at the film's ending, it isn't superficially apparent that good triumphed. But the battle of the spirit extends beyond courtrooms and rationalistic barriers we create with our minds.

I haven't read a lot of reviews that fully see this film the way I saw it. I think that Steven Greydanus's review on decentfilms.com is good, but I don't feel that he fully appreciates this point. Christian evangelical screenwriter and director, Scott Derrickson, did a pretty good job, in my opinion.