"King Kong" revisited
Recently a friend made a passing comment about "that shitty King Kong remake", a not-atypical comment given what I hear from time to time. In 2005 when I first saw it I liked Kong, and I didn't understand the audience's negative reaction. Six years later I understand these comments even less.
Subjectively, I thought "Kong" was great. It was a brilliant homage to Willis O'Brien's 1933 "Kong", peppered with scenes that worked in the original, updates to scenes that didn't work in the original, and subtle comments on the time that the film was made. I thought it worked well if you didn't get
But objectively, I'd argue that Kong was great. It got four Oscar nominations and won three. It cost $207m to make, grossed $218 domestic and $550 worldwide. And it's got 84% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I don't get it. I'm not saying that it was the best movie of the year, but it seems on par with the better movies of that year.
Subjectively, I thought "Kong" was great. It was a brilliant homage to Willis O'Brien's 1933 "Kong", peppered with scenes that worked in the original, updates to scenes that didn't work in the original, and subtle comments on the time that the film was made. I thought it worked well if you didn't get
But objectively, I'd argue that Kong was great. It got four Oscar nominations and won three. It cost $207m to make, grossed $218 domestic and $550 worldwide. And it's got 84% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I don't get it. I'm not saying that it was the best movie of the year, but it seems on par with the better movies of that year.