>>>I've said it before and I'll say it again: Why, with SO MANY good stories around, do they KEEP remaking old movies, just cos the old'n was successful? ("The Four Feathers" has been a major film 7 times so I once read). That ridiculous yarn "King Kong" has been a major release 3 times!
>>
>>I thought the latest King Kong was pretty good. Tho, I admit that I was more impressed with the special effect.
>
>Maybe so, but an island, on which lives an unfeasibly large gorilla (what evolutionary niche did THAT fill? certainly not need to conserve food rations), with no mate or family, or any sign of its like having inhabited the island, or any sign of means of propogating the species (so how did it get there?), and that gorilla exhibits wanton aggression (which was the 1920s big white hunter reputation of a savage beast) when we know them to be a gentle species ... puh-LEASE!
>
>It may have been good enough for our grandparoids (who were not long out of the "bioscope" era) but I thought we were a bit more sophisticated by now. And besides all that, still why did it have to be made again? The SFX could have been put to equally good use in another film, even featuring a giant benign creature that has to fight off others while protecting a human (Oh God! - I've just remembered "Mighty Joe Young" too!). They could have made this film on an alien planet or something. Hell, they could even have had the same scenario/plot but with human colonists, on an alien planet, capturing a giant creature that the natives worship and fear, bringing it back to Earth to show (and THAT theme has been done to death now with "Jurrasic Park II"). ANYTHING but this stoooopid plot.


You actually think about all this while watching a movie?
You sure know how to ruin a good flick. :)

>
>SET RANT OFF