I'm watching King Kong on AMC

And I'm wondering:

a. why the fuck am I watching this, and

b. why the fuck is Hollywood remaking it.

To "B"!

Why in the hell are they remaking a classic like that?

All the movie technology that has changed since 1933** -- makes the new one look much, well, better. It's about 1/2 hour too long, but we'll forgive Peter Jackson, the director.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0360717/combined

On edit: More than 25,000 theater-goers have rated the new "King Kong" as an 8 out of 10. Not to many remakes go on to that kind of success.

In peace,

Radio_Lady

** Six years before I was born. That's pretty ancient!

The reign of the King is over. All hail the King…the new “King Kong” that is. “King Kong” circa 1933, was great – but who still alive remembers its original run and its probable acclaim worldwide? Somehow we cannot forget the scene of Kong at the top of the Empire State Building swatting at attacking bi-wing gnats…a symbol even then of nature not respected. And what a cast! Faye Wray as femme monkey fatale, Robert Armstrong as madman promoter Carl Denham and handsome Bruce Cabot as adventurer Jack Driscoll.

Yet, for me, this was an era past and I was really ripe for the 1949 “Mighty Joe Young.” That movie has been the most successful follow-on to the 1933 “Kong” hit. What a movie! The big monkey is there – and it’s almost unbelievable that Robert Armstrong was back again playing the mad promoter Max O’Hara. He’d been busy though…Armstrong, not the monkey… He made more than eighty movies in the intervening twenty-six years…more than 125 total in his lifetime, spanning the period of 1927 to 1964. That doesn’t count his TV work! Maybe someone should make a movie of HIS life story. One more thing and than back to the big ape story…”Mighty Joe Young” also obtained excellent performances from Terry Moore and Ben Johnson.

Dino De Laurentiis, you may recall took a shot at a remake of “Kong” in 1976 – again starring the big monkey…this time with Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges.
That one wasn’t bad – but not quite up to the achievement of the 1933 original!
So, I went to see the latest “Kong” thinking that they’ll probably screw it up. You know with razzle-dazzle effects seamlessly integrated in with actual film footage but along the way missing the boat on the story. I crossed my fingers and placed myself in the hands of Peter Jackson, movie maker “par-excellence” and hoped for the best. Well, folks – Peter does not disappoint. This is the new king, the “King Kong” that deserves to take on the mantle going forward from the original.

This is a marvelous film that flies by even though it’s more than three hours long. Upon reflection the next day, it could be about a half hour shorter. I’m sure I’ll see it again on DVD. The updated seamless effects are all there in Jackson’s capable movie-making hands. Kong is totally real and believable. He is supported wonderfully by Naomi Watts as Anne Darrow. Jack Black plays mad promoter Carl Denham and Adrian Brody plays Jack Driscoll now a writer in the somewhat revised story. The script provides many new elements and kudos to writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens for a job well done. Kudos also to Peter Jackson who directed and, in his spare time, produced and helped with the writing. What a talent! Are there more like him in New Zealand?

So don’t go ape and don’t monkey around. See the new King…it’s a “King Kong” you won’t soon forget! Rated a quintuple A. (Is that possible?) on my Entertainment Report Card. Oscar, please take note.

One of the best fantasy/adventure films ever and a pioneer of special effects and film scoring. It was an amazing acheivement for 1933. If you're watching the 1976 version, then please have many cocktails to soothe your pain.