NOT A RE-MAKE
The new movie is NOT a re-make of the original. Quite contrary - it is an entirely new story line attached to the title for easy sales. It is also not a sequal. It does not begin where the old movie left off -however - it could easily have given the availability of the original Jill- Terry Moore. (for example she as an older woman could have given Joe to her daughter to take care of (this imho could have made a great sequal). I think it is unethical to use the title of one Movie for another especially if the new movie departs from the original story. A re-make should have the story line of the original- complete with burning orphanage scene... What damage does stealing a title do? Clearly our children will now come to think of the story of Mr. Joseph Young of Africa (the original name of the original 1949 movie) as that of the new movie. The old story will be confused with the new. There are many great lessons in the old 1949 movie. Joe is quite human and loveable. He has character that was the intent of Harryhausen and his assistants. He also has moral character and his experiences provide examples for our youth. The example of signing contracts the example of leaving things in their natural setting where they belong and the famous drinking scene depicting the evils of drink Why this could not have been simply re-made or its tradition continued by way of sequal I do not know But disney has developed an amazingly idiotic trend lately- that of turning real stories into false fiction. Our children are the loosers as they will have to re learn their mythology and history and classics discarding the inaccuracies placed into them by disney. This should not be allowed to happen. We must call upon film makers to respect earlier classics, myths legends and history. To learn more about the 1949 film please visit our extensive web pages on the movie:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8901/joe.html
You can also help save the classic by asking your local television station to run it. You can call them up and request it. Most stations really do honor viewers requests. The turner network will air the film just before the oscars I believe in March. Tune in and let your children see a real classic. Read our pages and tell the story to them It is worth protecting from Disney's quest for riches! CJB
MY RESPONSE: It's hard to argue with a fan. Kids in school learn that even ancient myths changed through the centuries. And, which Cinderella story is the correct one? The original Joe is great. Both have their place. A retelling for a new generation.

LEFT ME TEARY EYED
Jan 10 1999, This movie was great! It was much better than I had anticipated. It left left me teary eyed. Joe is awesome! The only thing that left me puzzled was that I kept hearing it was a true story (which seemed kind of far fetched to me) Go see it, you'll LOVE Joe!

GOD BLESS THE PRODUCER
Jan 09 1999, Very very nice movie.God bless the producer and the presenters.--Nicholas

ACTING ISN'T SACRIFICED
Jan 08 1999, The depiction of Joe Young, the giant gorilla, is darn near perfect. Kudos to everyone involved. Giving real character to a special effects creation takes a careful eye for detail plus a good feel for how real animals behave. The human acting isn't sacrificed to the technological achievement, either, a common problem with sci-fi and adventure films

HARD TO BEAT ORIGINAL
Loved the movie. But it's hard to beat the burning orphanage sequence of the original. -Roger

GOOD ENDINGS
Dec 31, 1998. I loved the movie. I took my 5 and 7 year old kids with me. Both kids were frozen, spellbound throughout the film and my 5 yr old and I both blubbered in the end. My oldest stayed dry eyed and couldn't stop talking about the film when it was over. Thank heaven for good endings! Angie

INTERESTING ENDING
Dec 27, 1998. The movie had an interesting ending sequence. My only comment would be to give Joe more brains in the first half of the show. -Bob