Well, as much as I hate being repetitive, there are some cases where it’s warranted. In this, it’s the third version of the 1933 classic, “King Kong”.  Granted, it’s not exactly ‘holiday fare’, but so far, it’s the best release for the month of December I’ve seen so far. 

A few months back, I told you that this one is a ‘must see’, and that was based only on the press clips I got to see. But having now seen the whole thing, I was completely blown away by this flick! Like the original, the story is set in the 1930s, and unlike the Dino deLaurentis remake of 1976, doesn’t ram social conscience down the audience’s throat. The story moves at a somewhat uneven pace, which in a curious way lends to the charm of the plot. The writing is excellent, and the marriage of CGI with live action is flawless. Unlike the remake, there are no arthritic looking robotics, (in that offering, the multi-million dollar four story animatronic monkey proved so problematic it was only used in one scene, and then for only four seconds,) proving that computer technology can compliment a film without overpowering it. Also, unlike the abysmal rehash of “Godzilla”, the film gives us Kong as we have come to know him. Often overlooked in the previous two versions, this one is in essence, a love story. The CGI Kong is far more expressive than either of his cinematic predecessors and the technology provides more believable movement for the ape than the fur-covered rubber in the original, and the robotics of the second one. This rendition of the story is, by far, the best ever. 

Another film worth seeing is “Yours, Mine, and Ours”, a delightful remake of the 1960s classic which starred Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda. Again, this film chooses merely to update the original story, not revamp it into the vision of the director. Dennis Quaid offers a sterling performance, bringing far more depth and warmth to the character, as opposed to Henry Fonda’s rigid interpretation. This one will be a film anyone who ever merged two families will be able to relate well to. The kids are delightful and believable, without being unduly precocious, and the overall work is a shining example of how good a movie can be without special effects gimmicks, gratuitous sex and violence, and relying on the power of the actors’ performances to get the point across.  

This just in from the “shell-game” department, rumor has it that the hoo-ha over the intended “Indiana Jones” fourth movie has been a smokescreen to hide George Lucas’ plans for a seventh “Star Wars” movie. According to very reliable scorches, Lucas intends to reunite the cast of the original in a really ‘this is the last one!’ finale.

No word on the script yet, but almost the entire cast has agreed to do the reunion epic. The only monkey wrench in the gearbox is a gray area of law that Lucasfilm’s technology has opened. It deals with their ability to recreate the ghostly image of Obi Wan Kenobi as portrayed by the late Alec Guinness. Legally, while Lucas owns the all-inclusive rights to the character and Sir Alec’s portrayal thereof, it opens the door on the unprecedented matter of whether the Guinness estate is entitled to compensation for it. 

Speaking of ‘Star Wars’ characters, I got an interesting observation from a Rabbi friend of mine the other day. He is of the determination that Yoda was Jewish. He offers into evidence the fact that in “Attack of the Clones”, Yoda, in his usual arthritic fashion, hobbles into the chamber where he intends to challenge Christopher Lee. Since it is just the two of them, Yoda drops the cane, pulls out his light saber, and begins doing leaps and backflips that would have had Mikhail Baryshnikov green with envy. Then, after Lee makes his escape, Yoda, upon hearing people approaching, ditches the weapon in his robes, retrieves the cane and resumes hobbling. According to the Rabbi, only a pintele yid could possible take a sympathy trip to such lengths. 

Needless to say, he never met my adopted Irish son, John, whose back injury only bothers him when the house needs vacuuming. 

But, for pure delight, there’s the Mel Brooks remake of his classic 1960 movie hit, “The Producers”, starring the original cast of his Broadway blockbuster. Brooks has outdone himself this time. Not only did a hit movie become a hit Broadway mega-hit, but then to bring the whole megillah full-circle and bring it back to the big screen is unprecedented. And to be sure, this remake not only equals the original, in some cases it surpasses it. Unlike the first rendition, Brooks was unfettered by censorship in this one, which contains the full-bore bawdiness that traffic wouldn’t allow forty years ago. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick not only shine, they threaten to go super-nova as they not only fill the shoes of Gene Wilder and the late, great Zero Mostel, they bust through the soles. In this one, with a reported ten times the budget of the original, everything is bigger, brassier, and all Mel Brooks and a yard wide! As a critic advised people when ‘Hello, Dolly!’ opened in 1964, “Don’t bother holding on to your hats, you’ll only wind up throwing them in the air anyway.” Especially noteworthy is the rendition of “Springtime for Hitler” which no doubt has old Shiklegruber spinning in his grave, or as some might believe, raging in his secret bunker somewhere in Brazil. In any case, ‘The Producers’ will be the high point of the movie-goer’s holiday season. 

That’s all for now; happy Chanukah everyone.