[What the heck is wrong with people these days? Can’t anyone enjoy a good old story without trying to prove that its racist? You know what, Whites did go into back black-run-countries and they did do great things. And yes, the blacks WERE backward. Get a life and accept history as it really happened.

As for me, I hardly ever watch any of these modern movies wherein they rewrite history. I watched that stupid King Arthur movie wherein the Romans are the “oppressors”… and where the battle scenes were completely ridiculous, not to mention all those female Amazon-type warriors. You know what? I’d rather just go and pick a good history book and read about the real history rather than watch this stupid politically correct rubbish.

I hope that in the near future people start making politically incorrect movies. I am willing to bet that movies which inspire and thrill; where men love women, will be much more popular than this lame politically correct rubbish. Rather than Jack getting John into bed, we’ll see Jack marrying (yes MARRYING!) Jill. I would like to see the man as the hero. I would like to see him win the heart of the woman of his dreams, and I would like to see them they get married and living happily ever after.

And I bet that hundreds of millions of people around the world would like to see the same kind of thing. Jan]

Is KING KONG racist? asks Jim Pinkerton in his Thursday NEWSDAY column.

“Lots of people say it is. And, if it is, why does the film keep getting remade? What does it say about us if the new KONG is a huge hit?”

Pinkerton writes: Any movie that features white people sailing off to the Third World to capture a giant ape and carry it back to the West for exploitation is going to be seen as a metaphor for colonialism and racism. That was true for the original in 1933 and for the two remakes: the campy one in 1976, and the latest, directed by Peter Jackson. (In addition, a KONG wannabe, MIGHTY JOE YOUNG, has been made twice.)

Movie reviewer David Edelstein, writing in SLATE, notes the “implicit racism of KING KONG – the implication that Kong stands for the black man brought in chains from a dark island (full of murderous primitive pagans) and with a penchant for skinny white blondes.” Indeed, a GOOGLE search using the words “King Kong racism” yielded 490,000 hits.

Comparing the new film with the original, the WASHINGTON POST’s Stephen Hunter observed, “It remains a parable of exploitation, cultural self-importance, the arrogance of the West, all issues that were obvious in the original but unexamined; they remain unexamined here, if more vivid.”

And by more vivid, Hunter might be referring to the natives of mythical Skull Island, where Kong is discovered. Director Jackson took people of Melanesian stock – the dark-skinned peoples who are indigenous to much of the South Pacific, including Jackson’s own country of New Zealand – and made them up to look and act like monsters, more zombie-ish than human. Indeed, one is moved to compare these human devils to the ogre-ish Orcs from Jackson’s mega-Oscar LORD OF THE RINGS films. The bad guys are dark, hideous and undifferentiatedly evil.

Source: DrudgeReport.Com