From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
|
| Editing Guidelines |
|
Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:
- If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
- Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
|
|
|
 |
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Response Section
I've recently been deleting some negative comments regarding the film that have been inserted at the bottom of the "Response" section. The only reason I've removed them is because the comments are unsourced and, therefore, simply sound like the opinion of the editor who made the additions. It should be pretty easy to find citations for the claim that most people feel the film is "vastly inferior" to the original, or that it allegedly received "mostly hostile" reviews at the time of its initial release. I think both of these views are already addressed in the article, but from a more reality-based perspective, in the line indicating "While the film received mostly mixed responses from critics, especially from fans of the original King Kong, it did receive extremely positive reviews from several prominent mainstream critics." This clearly shows that the film was judged unfavorably by some critics in comparison to the original. Also, I don't believe the film received any "hostile" reviews outside of the small fantasy film fan magazines (such as Cinefantastique); most of the major reviewers had genuinely mixed reactions to the film. Note Vincent Canby's review in the New York Times[1] that found much to praise and pan in the movie. I think that particular review was very typical of most of the critical responses to the movie.Hal Raglan 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
