- #1
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,291
The trailer for the new version of "King Kong" look very good, and it seems to be getting very favorable reviews:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-051212kingkongreview,1,4920167.story?coll=chi-entertainmentfront-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
One thing that really struck me is that, rather than update it to today, they have remade it still set in the 1930's like the original. That's pretty unusual for a remake, and suggests it's much more worth seeing than the last, awful, remake.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-051212kingkongreview,1,4920167.story?coll=chi-entertainmentfront-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
The result is a proud, tough loner who moves like lightning. The original Kong, the one who saved RKO from financial ruin back in 1933, can never be topped: Working with an 18-inch miniature, effects wizard Willis O'Brien fashioned a remarkable stop-motion icon. But the new Kong is just different enough to be terrific screen company. His relationship with his leading lady, played with heart and panache by Naomi Watts, doesn't feel like an old story retold. It feels like a brand new story.
Success factor two is the tale of two magical islands, Manhattan and Skull. The movie's technologically complex evocations of 1933 New York are as thrilling as anything in Kong's zip ZIP code. Director Jackson, who co-wrote the screenplay with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, has shrewdly kept "King Kong" part and parcel of 1933, the worst year of the Depression. He has made a swell period picture.
One thing that really struck me is that, rather than update it to today, they have remade it still set in the 1930's like the original. That's pretty unusual for a remake, and suggests it's much more worth seeing than the last, awful, remake.
Last edited by a moderator: