Comments on: Jackson’s King Kong

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:57:53 +0000

I’ll admit the first hour is really, really bad. But I still think the Monster Power Hour on Skull Island and the Kong-in-NYC stuff redeems the film. It’s King Kong…it was never going to be anything more than a quality B-film.

I’m actually surprised you thought Kong looked fake. I thought he looked amazing.

By: Gina

Gina — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:58:11 +0000

Yeah, Yngve, I agree. Anyone.

By: A.R.Yngve

A.R.Yngve — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:18:52 +0000

Gina wrote:
“Anyone to think they can reimagine someone else’s dream is weird and greedy. ”

Weird, greedy AND insecure.

But Jackson is not alone in this remake disease.
I hated Gus Van Sant’s PSYCHO remake – it only proved what a talentless, gutless poseur Van Sant really is. The only changes he made to the original were bad ones.

I expected better of Peter Jackson, though. And 3 HOURS? Did he have his bladder enlarged?

I’m not going to bother seeing a 3-hour KING KONG remake, unless Naomi Watts asks me to.

By: Gina

Gina — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:15:02 +0000

Okay, I was mortified when Naomi Watts (an actress who can act) accepted the role. Blockbuster kitch (can I spell it?). I snuck to see the 1976 Pg-rated Kong with Jessica Lang. The role couldn't bring her out. Serious actress-that's-worth-something play dumb! Scream! Wiggle your legs! Act like you don't know your boobs could pop out! EEEEEeeeeeeee!!!. I've never understood remakes. Anyone to think they can reimagine someone else's dream is weird and greedy. The orginal [when was it, 1939?] remains the best. The one to imagine "what if" got the job done. Thanks for the review.

By: genevieve

genevieve — Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:14:40 +0000

He has lost a lot of weight, though. (Jackson, not Kong.) He’s half the man he was.