I am about commit heresy. Whenever this movie shows up on television, it is given a 4-star rating, and the commentator just gushes about how great it is.
I beg to differ. The truly great works of literature, stage, and screen have a timeless quality. For example, the 1968 movie version of "Romeo and Juliet" was done with Shakespeare's dialog and period costumes. Yet the teenagers of that time (including me) flocked to the theaters. They could STILL identify with the story and characters.
"King Kong" (1933) may have been considered a great film at its original release, but it has not held its ground over time. The gestures, the dialog, the direction and the acting look ridiculous today's standards. I admit that I was frequently convulsed with laughter, and so were my fellow movie patrons. The animation was superb. Too bad not much else about this movie was.
I beg to differ. The truly great works of literature, stage, and screen have a timeless quality. For example, the 1968 movie version of "Romeo and Juliet" was done with Shakespeare's dialog and period costumes. Yet the teenagers of that time (including me) flocked to the theaters. They could STILL identify with the story and characters.
"King Kong" (1933) may have been considered a great film at its original release, but it has not held its ground over time. The gestures, the dialog, the direction and the acting look ridiculous today's standards. I admit that I was frequently convulsed with laughter, and so were my fellow movie patrons. The animation was superb. Too bad not much else about this movie was.