Recently my husband and I rented Capote and King Kong (the recent Peter Jackson version).
Regarding Capote I must give it a mixed review. Having read his book In Cold Blood, I was a bit confused and annoyed at the differences between the details the author himself provided in the book and which the film changed. Now if the book was wrong, considering Capote claims everything to be either his own observation or taken from testimony and documents, then the movie should have made such a point. If, on the other hand, Capote really did make a great effort for the book to be so accurate, why alter the details for the movie? I thought the acting quite good and the atmosphere of the movie very illuminating but the screenwriting left me frustrated and confused, especially as pertains to Perry's last line in the film (which I won't go into in detail for those who have not seen the movie or read the book).
As for King Kong, and I realize many may disagree with me, but I thought it was too long, parts far too dragged out (the stampede, for example) and at a few parts I wanted to slap Jackson (i.e., when Karl first says the words "skull island" and the camera does some wierd vertigo thing as Driscoll types). I thought overall the special effects were good and the atmosphere effective. I did eventually get frustrated at Ann's pitiful look at a gigantic fleabag that would have made hurl throwing me around that way. It is, I suppose, possible to view Kong as some sort of giant pet, but I've yet to meet the Cocker Spaniel that required regular human sacrifices to keep peace.
I'm 1/3 of the way through Gone with the Wind. I must say so far I love the book and, minus the music and color of the movie, love it far more than the movie. I'll expand more on it when I'm done.