In Reply to: It made money, and in spite of it's flaws was vastly superior ... posted by Audiophilander on April 8, 2006 at 12:05:31:
Yes it was better than the DDL on the whole because no one could do worse....
I have problem with it because it was, if I may say so one of the main attraction, I mean the sexuality surrounding the original. It made it the " Kong " we cherish and not this castrate version on this big teddy bear without penis and so politically correct, no it did not have to be " Fritz the Cat "...But from an adult plesure PJ made a big " give me one more tear " a la Hollywood ending.
No, I hate this artificial surrounding particulary at the second hald, the scenes in New York, missing details and reality.
Far better until now was the more naive original, it transpired some real men behing the camera, and no wizzard.
Yes the ice- follies give it the death kiss. After that scene nothing was anymore possible.
It was like this over blowed brontosaurus debacle, from then on, it goes rapidly down the road.
But even earlier the savages coming from a Tourneur film, a weak copy of his work was disatrous and far too long too.Your logic is totally at fault! Because mister J. love the original film that has ( for luck ) nothing to do with creating a big merde.
No, if you would be honest, you could only constate that is a great failure, and in a way I am sorry for the film, but also it was superfluous to make a remake of one of the best in its own right.
I hope that he, as director, will make as a next move, a small scale picture and show us what he really can. But can he? Having all this special effects on his back...
Yes, biggest shit like the Lucas monstruous last films.
I call them " noises for nothing ".
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Making money is that a sign for a good film? - patrickU 12:30:54 04/08/06 (0)