I can't believe how many people on this thread sound like Liberals, wishing misfortune on guys like Peter Jackson when he goes and makes a totally clean movie with no profanity, no sex scenes or nudity, no gratuitous gore, no Liberal political agenda -- in other words, a guy who makes a movie WITHOUT all the things that we conservatives complain about. You'd think that folks would be praising him for breaking the Liberal Hollywood mold. Yet there are a ton of FReepers who STILL knock the guy, which makes me think of Liberals who are just envious of others' success.
I saw the movie, loved it, and plan to go see it again. Peter Jackson deserves success because he is doing the very thing that so many of us wish moviemakers would do: produce a clean flick with no political agenda.
Well said :~D
been there done that...
didn't even like the original that much, i'm just burned out for life on godzilla type movies.
This is the ONE movie that came out this year that I can safely take my family to see and not worry about political agendas or excessive nudity/violence.
Um, this particular conservative likes his nudity, sex and gore as long as its not being marketed to 13 year olds. The complaint I've always had is that movies that subscribe solely to these elements usually end up being horrible.
Truly, I wish Peter well. Forgotten Silver is my favorite of his films. Heathers (haven't seen) were also supposed to be well done. LOTR and KK were two life-long dreams and are thoroughly engrossing films. Of the three Ring films, Fellowship seemed truest to the story and the rest were over-the-top, IMHO. KK was similar. Way too many effects (brilliantly done) but often to no purpose. The second and third acts were primarily action sequences and just the hint of a story. I would love to see how Jackson handles a screenplay by another author.
But in honesty, I had a friend who has turned stridently anti-Christian in the last few years. His family begged him to take them to Narnia and he reported to me how much he disliked it. He went on to gloat that Kong would eat Narnia's lunch in every respect and couldn't wait to see it. I haven't heard a word from him about Kong since the release.
I don't understand the divide between the two films either, but there does seem to be two camps that have coalesced about the the films: sympathetic red-staters for Narnia and sympathetic blue-staters for Kong.
I just saw this movie and was waiting for the Liberal agenda. I do feel there was a subtle one although the strong points of the movie overwhelmed it and made it less obtrusive.
Setting the story at the time of the Great Depression is anti business. Making the writer the hero (he is unattractive, puts his art above commercial success, etc.) is very PC. Making the audience for Kong a bunch of callous rich people is PC. Sending the heroine to a burlesque show could be pro feminism. The only non PC thing was the movie actor action hero actually comes back to save the day on the island. Also, the military looks cruel and heartless when they shoot the ape in the back (leftists hate the military).
But I did like the movie as all the PC crap was buried beneath the main story.