Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Sheldrake scratches KING KONG's back and fluffs his front!!!

Hey folks, Harry here in Austin - thinking more and more about New York these days. And not just because about 2000 folks I know will be in Times Square tonight. ARGH. But BNAT is testing me. It's a brutal race to the finish, and I must finish what must be finished. That's right, I'm gluing krepe hair to my nude body and acting KING KONG out live for a captive audience! Anyway, here's Sheldrake - and though he tries to avoid spoilers he did let one detail about a very important scene out in this gushing review. Here ya go...


Director: Peter Jackson

Screenplay: Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh

Dec 4 2005

In Theaters on Dec 14th

I got an early look at KING KONG tonight and I am here to bring the water down from the mountain. Let me tell you now that that water is fresh and clear and good. Let me also get off a quick disclaimer. I am not a hardcore fan of the original King Kong, I just liked it—when I saw it, once, when I was about ten. It’s not a movie that got my juices flowing in such a way that I went back and watched it over and over again. It just didn’t hit me on that level. However, I have very fond personal memories of seeing King Kong in 1976, though I remember the movie was a bit of a letdown. So I went into KING KONG tonight a little reluctantly. Not sure I was I wanted to see it. Not sure I was the right guy to see it. So if you want a review from an apostate, here it is.

But I warn you in advance, it’s one long gush. I loved King Kong tonight. I loved it so much I want to see it again right now. It’s hard to describe the feeling. I feel so emotionally refreshed right now. Renewed. Great movies help you remember why it’s important to love someone. Why it’s important to have courage, even in the face of death. Why it’s important to fight for others, not just for yourself. In the PC age of infinite and unfiltered communication, of self-images and ideas of being a moral human that flicker in and out like the flame on a weak match, KING KONG remembers for you what our most basic relationships to each other are. What we really care about. What we feel when a man protects a woman. Freud says in Civilization and It’s Discontents that sublimation through art is great, but nothing beats taking a rock and smashing in the skull of your enemy. That’s the baseboard position we have as animals. KING KONG portrays for us the primitive strengths that decide victors and losers. How good it feels to crush your enemies and hear the lamentations of their women.

And above all, what beauty is, what it means to us, and how it rescues us from the deadly killing animal inside us.

And, in this version of KING KONG, how, when someone recognizes the beauty in you, it makes you beautiful—and makes you alive.

You know the legend of King Kong. Ten times as big as a man, so I’m not going to recount it for you here. And I don’t want to take a lot of time turning over this thing to admire the facets that make up the many sides of a very beautiful and precious jewel. The movie clocks in at 3 hours and 8 minutes and, frankly, it’s a little long. But somehow the size—feels right. This is a long retelling of a movie, conscious of it’s retelling. It’s as if we were called to the cultural campfire to hear an oft-told story, one we never grow tired of, told by our master story-teller, the son who has exceeded the father’s talents. And hearing it, we see rich new colors we hadn’t seen before; new frightening beasts appear in the cracks and corners of the story that the first teller had “left out;” romantic relationships are fleshed out and given substance.

So let me just mention a few things quickly that stood out and that you can watch out for, and then let me talk about the actors. And then I’m going to go to bed.

The opening montage sets the time and place. It’s a treat. Montages often are not a treat. This one is gorgeous, and you understand that it’s setting up a fence of reality around the story for you as it flows past you. The depictions of New York in the thirties are…heartbreakingly beautiful. The trolleys, the El’s, the time when there were the Empire State Building and the Chrysler and the Woolworth and a FEW other skyscrapers. You have to see it, relish it, treasure it. This is fine art, ladies and gentlemen, one for the vaults.

King Kong vs the Dinosaurs, defending his lady, is maybe the most ball busting kickass fight scene you’ve ever seen. And, on the other hand, Kong and Ann on the ice in Central Park—crap, I’m crying as I’m writing, thinking about it. No kidding. It’s just gentle and beautiful and…and…and you know what comes next for him. You really do have to appreciate the moments of beauty you get in life. You really do. It’s simple and sounds stupid, but if this year has taught me anything, it’s that black disaster may await you. You just don’t know. So get on the ice with that girl, and hold her in your hand, and forget for a moment that you’re a beast far from home in a city that will kill you. Or escape beauty altogether.

And finally, the Fall. The Fall is one of the most beautifully composed scenes I’ve ever seen. Just see it. Look at where the camera is. Look at how the planes come into the picture. And appreciate the grace and humanity and respect shown, for what the director, who has shown us everything, now declines to show us.

When you see it, pay attention to the fact that PJ cues you into the emotional content of the scene, and Kong’s role in it, according to the color of the sky. Blue skies are bad for Kong, red and yellow, or blue and ivory, are good, and in the black night he reigns supreme.

JACK BLACK is the ringleader in the story, the movie director bent on realizing his vision at the cost of everyone around him. I was a JB doubter about this role, and thought it was odd casting. But Jack does a great job, of portraying the impresario who gains the world and loses his soul. And ADRIEN BRODY turns in a good performance as the writer Jack Driscoll, Ann Darrow’s love interest.

KONG is played, of course, by ANDY SERKIS, who gave us GOLLUM. The Kong creation is a great one, and it’s far easier to read Kong’s face and actions than the other two versions. The big question: do you really see him as an actor in the movie? Oh yes and far more—he’s the hero of the movie, the character whose inner change defines the space the story lives in. Serkis also plays Lumpy the Cook, a nice “cameo” turn.

NAOMI WATTS. Ann Darrow’s initial dance in front of Kong, engaging the beast in play, is mesmerizing…no other word for it. Peter Jackson and the camera take turns worshiping this fair-haired beauty, and if you don’t walk out of the movie wanting to shield her from every danger then you’re already surrounded by dirt and one overhead lawn and you don’t know it. She’ll pull your heart out of you. Fantastic performance. And the blue screen work during the Dino stuff is incredible.


For the kids: the biggest ickiest bugs and LOTS OF THEM, more than you’ve ever seen in your life

If you’re ever caught in one of the movies ten-second dead spots, don’t leave on second nine because some damned amazing thing is just about to happen.

Lots of other thoughts about the movie…I’ll post the thoughts in talkback over the next week. I might stick the REALLY LONG ANALSIS in another review, or post it in talkback.

The movie is conscious not only of KING KONG but also, heavily, of APOCALYPSE NOW. They’re going up to the river to a place Kurtz saw only in his worst nightmares.

Kong is big because when life is surrounded by hate and savagery it has to get big to protect itself. But that protection doesn’t kill the living soul within, it only buries it. It’s always there waiting to be dug out and renewed, as it is in Kong.

So there it is. Go prepared for a long movie, a Kong long movie. but so many things happen at such an intense pace in the action, you may not notice.

I got to meet Peter, Jack, Naomi. Adrien, Andy, Phillipa and Fran afterwards. Just so you know. Jack was warm and friendly and wide open for anything. One of things that’s made him an easy in the industry is because, Jesus, you LIKE the guy like he was your best friend on meeting him. Huh. And he’s coming at YOU to talk!

Mr. Sheldrake.

December 4th, 2005


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:41 a.m. CST


    by KewlKR

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Great review.

    by KewlKR

    I'm seeing it in Atlanta in two days. Can't wait.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:50 a.m. CST

    You can't be serious...

    by theoneofblood

    First? Thata ridiculous.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:50 a.m. CST

    Written like a man in love...

    by -=Shin=-

    Sheldrake, it sounds like you had a sobering relationship and this movie reminded you of it. Sounds good to me. ;)

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Apparently not

    by theoneofblood

    Anyhow, I think we're all getting that LOVES "King Kong", no need to lay it on thick fellas.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:05 a.m. CST

    All the advance buzz on this is that its damn good

    by Thirteen 13

    And from all the production diaries and all the video tid-bits on Access Hollywoood and other shows over at KiKN that I have seen I would most definitely agree. Oh I can't wait until the 14th. Oh and for all you trolls out there that go apeshit furious and get all pissed off everytime AICN posts some more Kong news. Well there is a way to relieve your angry stress from that. Just don't click on the link. It will lesson your chances of developing an ulcer everytime you go berserk each time another good review comes in.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Devin at CHUD hated it

    by jrbarker

    I think it looks great though

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:45 a.m. CST

    Well - technically Devin gave it an 8.4 out of 10. Oh, you'



  • I hoped for "Best film of the year!". Or something like that. But too high expectations aren't usually a good thing.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:12 a.m. CST

    "I won't be completely impressed with PJ's recent work u

    by Blood Simple

    A, ZombiePatMorita, how about you see "Braindead" ("Dead Alive" in the States) or "The Frighteners," both are original, and both are fan-fucking-tastic. Surely with a name like 'ZOMBIEpatmorita' you would have seen "Dead Alive"!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:44 a.m. CST

    I'll never get the love for Frightners

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    Just an overall boring film, special effects and all, Heavenly Creatures on the other hand is great. Though I'll never understand why adaptations seem to be second class citizens to original scripts, remakes, ok I can see that. But adaptations? Most directors don't direct from their own scripts, so I don't really see a terrible lot of difference between directing a script from a script writer's original work and directing a script from an author's original work.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:47 a.m. CST

    "Devin at CHUD hated it"

    by Captain Katanga

    what a crazy comment

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:54 a.m. CST


    by Alen Smithee

    And what film have you done lately?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:58 a.m. CST

    When PJ does original material you get lawnmower scenes

    by eg4190

    I love Dead Alive as much as the next guy, but Jackson's choice in material lately seems to be a tacit admission that he knows he's not up to the task of creating an original story as rich as, say, Lord of the Rings. Good for him, few are up to that task and I respect that he realizes it. Do you really want him getting a messiah complex and trying to do everything himself, like a certain director of a certain trilogy of prequels? If he can stay away from remakes and franchise sequels from here on out I'll be happy.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 4:32 a.m. CST

    Can't friggin' wait!

    by Fugazi32

    EGC? Represent!

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 4:45 a.m. CST have the first bad review..

    by Muffin_Muncher oh dear.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 4:50 a.m. CST

    "The monkey actually starts laughing..."

    by blackwood

    But slidings of the bum are so much tickly fun, I'd be worried if he didn't laugh. It's called 'realism,' folks.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 5:50 a.m. CST

    Wow you guys are really hard up huh?

    by Bass Ackwards

    So much time talking about one guys review, I imagine mostly cause its the only review out there. But if we're so eager for other's opinions, I'd suggest instead of wasting all this effort into dissecting one single review you guys just wait another day or two until there's a bigger pool, or at least a puddle, to gather opinion from (don't worry, I won't go so far as to suggest the radical opinion of just waiting to see the film and form your own opinion, it is AICN talkback after all).

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 6:26 a.m. CST

    "Great movies help you remember why it's important to fight

    by Windowlicker74

    ..sigh.. I'll keep my sarcasm to myself this time..after all we're on aintitcool

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 7:46 a.m. CST


    by MinasTirithII

    Can't wait too see it. 8 Reviews now and only ComingSoon gave it the poorest review, simply cause he felt it was too long, and too much. God forbid having too much.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 7:57 a.m. CST

    "I won't be completely impressed with PJ's recent work u

    by minderbinder

    Jaws? Wizard of Oz? Gone with the Wind?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 7:57 a.m. CST

    bigger is better

    by stvnhthr

    I can't wait to see Kong, but the length of the movie is pretty much going to keep me from being able to find time to see it more than once at the theatre. It sounds like Peter is giving us the Director's Cut up front with all the extended scenes already in place. I wonder if the studio will put out a shorter 2 hour 15 min "studio cut" on dvd just to change things up a bit.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Well if we're linking to reviews....

    by Calibos's Ginger JewFro

    Here's a five star rave from The Times,,14936-1904842,00.html#startcontent I mean if something as prestigious as gets a look in, it's only fair....

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Actually, GoatZinger...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...I haven't defended the film per se as I haven't yet seen it. What I HAVE done is attack knee-jerk haters like Ringbearer9, moviemack and Indiana Clones for deriding the film based on virtually nothing. Yes, I am enthusiastic and am looking forward to the film, but I am also aware that it might suck mightily even if I have yet to experience one indication of said suckitude. The Axis of Anus, on the other hand, KNOW without a doubt that it will suck -- or at least want us to believe that they think it will suck. As we all know, they'll be there front and center on opening night.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Thanks Minderbinder.

    by FluffyUnbound

    It seems that the people who bash Jackson for doing adaptations either don't know or don't care how many other landmark cinema events were ALSO adaptations. I guess GOODFELLAS must suck, too. As well as THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. And PLANET OF THE APES. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. 12 O'CLOCK HIGH. THE LONGEST DAY. THE GRAPES OF WRATH. BEN HUR. THE DIRTY DOZEN. THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. A PASSAGE TO INDIA. DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS. BECKET. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY. SCHINDLER'S LIST. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST. THE SOUND OF MUSIC. ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. MY FAIR LADY. M*A*S*H. THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Hell, when you get right down to it, APOCALYPSE NOW is an adaptation. None of those films had directing work that impressed Zombie in the least.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson...

    by DrJerkass foremost a director. He has written and some other directors write, but the true director always does someone else's work. Are you this tough on actors for not ad-libbing everything?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Kong is supposed to be a monster

    by MontyPigeon

    When did Kong suddenly become someone who would write to Agony Aunts with his problems? I thought that Jackson was remaking the original King Kong, but with all these reviews its clear that Jacksons Kong is a New Age Gorilla who does the housework in his apron while watching Oprah. Give me the Monster that I watched as a 6 year old every Christmas on TV and then I will call it Kong. This film is sounding like its Titanic mixed with Kong with a bit of Jurassic Park thrown in for the children. I have no idea what Jackson seen as a child but thats not Kong. My only hope is that people remember the original and hold it to their hearts.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Well, it's nice to see that...

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Ringodingolingo9 is providing plenty of proof of his/her(?) hackitude by the post.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Ringbearer9, you lying, hypocritical little bitch...

    by DocPazuzu

    ..."it makes me wonder if they've actually seen the old Kong." .... You haven't even seen it yourself. As late as yesterday you said that King Kong ate dinosaurs in the original film. You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST

    "Saving my energy?" Posting about a movie you've already de

    by minderbinder

    Funny, most people would call that "obsessively devoting a huge amount of energy".

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:04 a.m. CST

    "Jackson goes over-the-top with everything, and most of it is ju

    by Atticus Finch

    "As critics and moviegoers, we may have deified Peter Jackson to the point where he believes everything he does is gold, and with that kind of egocentricity gone unchecked, things are bound to go wrong. Jackson had the opportunity to make a 2 hour and 15 minute film that was great, and instead, he made a 3 hour movie that's just okay. The Bottom Line: There's no denying that the humanity in the Kong-Ann relationship is the heart of the film, but everything else is just a director who has forgotten the adage "less is more." Then again, those who enjoy Jackson's previous films will probably forgive the movie's pacing and storytelling problems once the action kicks into high gear." From comingsoon's review...and about exactly what I expected.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:12 a.m. CST


    by Kingasaurus

    Atticus finds the one review which chimes in with his preconceived notions, and uses said review to confirm his preconceived notions - ignoring the other reviews.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Kong is the Rotweiler owned by the single mom next door.

    by zinc_chameleon

    Who is fanatically devoted to her, but will kill anything that even looks at her the wrong way. I didn't even know Rotweilers could be that affectionate until I met one. Luckily his owner (a woman who doted on the monster) was with him.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Kong = Cinematic Fundamentalism

    by Psalmolive

    What a gushing review. How can we be told that if we don't feel like the reviewer felt at certain scenes, we are at fault? You can't tell people how or what to feel! This movie will have big budget dialogue that wouldn't even pass for writing in a smaller film. It will have big budget acting that will falter in the face of smaller, more important performances throughout cinema history. I liked the original Kong, mostly because I could tell that it was done with models. Now the entire mystique of film has been ripped out of cinema now that things can be mostly chalked up to "they did it with computers": even a six year old can say that. The original Kong knew what it was, and relished in it. This clinical and ascetic and wholly unecessary and excessive update wants us to believe its a serious film that unbelievably, some people want to give Oscars to. This religion is getting out of hand.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:46 a.m. CST

    "I liked the original Kong, mostly because I could tell that it

    by Gargamoth

    Skull Island is entirely and completely a real world happy and enjoy...heaps of mystique left in cinema

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:47 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Bullshit. You got caught with your Toughskins around your ankles, it's as simple as that. Backpedal as much as you desire -- it doesn't matter. You're a cinematic imbecile and everybody knows it. No amount of empty posturing and what you mistakenly consider to be insight will alter that fact.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:58 a.m. CST

    I saw it.....and it's kinda not very good

    by earl of sandwich

    Saw it on Thursday and let me tell you the naysayers are going to have a lot of fuel for their fire. For every great moment (i.e dinosaur fights!) there are truly crappy moments. And by crappy moments I mean escaping from the top of a cliff by hanging on to the legs of a giant bat crappy. Newsweek brought up the pond scene in their review, also truly crappy. If there is one scene that will top Vader's "NOOOOO" it's a monkey sliding on his bum, holding on to his girl, LAUGHING. The monkey actually starts laughing while sliding on his bum. There's plenty more groners, but I'll leave those to the haters to discover for themselves. Not to lay a hate down on the movie, on the whole it's kinda fun, but not a memorable type of fun. I just can't for the life of me see anyone comparing this to LOTR, there's just no comparison. LOTR had story, scale, pacing and amazing charaters. Kong has a pretty girl & a monkey....and some killer dinosaur fights!!!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:04 a.m. CST

    "a monkey sliding on his bum, holding on to his girl, LAUGHING"

    by MontyPigeon

    Please tell me youre kidding. If not then what the hell is this movie?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:05 a.m. CST


    by Blood Simple

    I'm over here sitting in time out, counting my fingers, and I just realized that 1996 was nine (!) years ago. Wow, that's not recent at all, considering I was born in 1964- wait, why the hell am I in timeout?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:11 a.m. CST

    I just discovered another little bitch...

    by Blood Simple

    Ringbearer9: you are a little bitch.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Do you hear that , Mr. Hater? That is the sound of inevitibility

    by DocPazuzu

    As you haters well know, appearances can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason why I'm here. I'm not here because I'm free, I'm here because I'm not free. There's no escaping reason, no denying purpose - because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us. It is purpose that defines, purpose that binds us. I'm here because of you haters. I'm here to take what you tried to take from us... purpose.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Sorry for the double post, didn't see that someone copied my

    by earl of sandwich

    I'll say it again. This movie isn't bad, it's just not very good. The Coming Soon summary is very accurate, the things that work for the movie will outweigh the things that don't work. But I think every one was expecting an amazing piece of cimena, one that lived up to the budget, the hype and Jackson's reverance for the origional. If this is how Jackson wants to have kids experience Kong, that's cool. It's just, I thought it was supposed to be a movie for kids AND adults. The fact that a character that has no previous experience handling a gun, all of a sudden is capable of shooting bugs off of another persons face from 5 feet away with a machine gun, is just another example of how silly this movie gets at times. There are just too many things that take you out of the movie, whether it's shoddy background effects, skating monkey's, or Naomi Watts juggling rocks to stop the monkey from smooshing her. Anyone that gushes, has a very big movie heart.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Earl of Sandwich

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    By chance, do you know Lord Douchebag?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:43 a.m. CST

    "Jackson, on the ROTK DVD commentary said that the Legolas stunt

    by DocPazuzu

    What does that statement even mean? That Jackson was wrong in adding crowd-pleasing elements? Or that his crowd-pleasing was so poor that one of the writers was surprised that it worked? You've now taken the step of not only contradicting yourself between posts, but within individual posts as well. I wish someone would try to shoot a bug off YOUR face.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:46 a.m. CST

    the truth

    by lopan

    it ain't gonna suck, and it ain't gonna be the best movie ever made. it'll be pretty good though, worth $8 to see on a big screen. no positive or negative hyperbole necessary, thank you, drive through.

  • When he fought that Pterodon (sp?) he munched and nibbled at it like it was a tasty treat.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST

    re:the truth

    by earl of sandwich

    Final word, the man doth speaketh the truth. It's not the worst movie ever made, but it's far from the cinematic "ass owning" that most of the staff & posters here proclaim it will be. It's a kinda fun movie that's worth seeing on the big screen....once. Guaranteed, Harry will love it. Surprised?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:53 a.m. CST

    "Jackson on the ROTK DVD..."

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    Wowzers, Ringy-dingy. For someone who seems to loathe "all things Jackson/LOTR/Kong", you sure do know those LOTR DVD commentaries like the back of your poor, poor hand. I'm sensing a real inner confliction here. Methinks you doth protest too much. Do you secretly love "all things Jackson/LOTR/Kong"? Is it actually self-hate staring you back in the face everyday? I'm sure AICN could direct you towards some counseling and help. All you need to do is ask.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:54 a.m. CST


    by lopan

    "Even I might enjoy a movie stuffed with retardedly over-the-top stunts..." oh yes, EVEN you, the fucking pinnacle of cinematic knowledge. what a sad little man you are. if you think you're any better, smarter and more informed than anyone else here, you are sorely mistaken. you know, I don't particularly care for the gushers who just suck a movie's dick all day long, but I don't pretend to be better than they are. we're all movie geeks here bud, and you ain't better than any one of us. fuck off.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Here we go again...

    by performingmonkey me a 3 hour movie that is 100% perfect with every beat. People are shitting on Kong, not because of the movie as a whole but because of one or two things they found dumb in 180 minutes. LOTR had these moments but they were still great movies. Hitching a ride on a bat creature is no more dumb than the eagles carrying Frodo and Sam. And OTT moments are totally in the spirit of the original '33 movie. Even reviewers that are shitting on Kong can't help but gush about a LOT of things in the movie. But HEY, none of the great things matter do they, the only thing that matters is Kong skating on the ice. That alone ruins the other 179 minutes of the movie... Shallow cunts. And show me some flawless CG, especially in a movie with this many effects shots.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:02 p.m. CST

    "show me a 3 hour movie that is 100% perfect with every beat."

    by Indiana Clones


  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:08 p.m. CST

    "show me a 3 hour movie that is 100% perfect with every beat"

    by MOSDEF

    The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Good the bad and the Ugly...

  • but come, on. Sliding on his butt and SMILING? A monkey SMILING? That's a pretty big flaw

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:12 p.m. CST


    by lopan

    Titanic, 100% perfect? YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:13 p.m. CST

    That's the greatest post ever

    by Bass Ackwards

    First presuming what Jackson was THINKING when he made the movie, drawing some goofy conclusion based on the imaginary thought we've given Jackson, and then ending it all by proclaiming him a hack for it! I don't know why any of you are responding to Ringbearer, they're having a discussion all by themself, watch as ring dissects a review line by line, runs around citing from Jackson interviews they've sought out and hours of DVD commentary they've obviously sat through, mining other Kong talkbacks for things other people said that they can repost, really, you guys oughta just sit back and let the neurotic fun unfold.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Technically, MOSDEF...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...pteradactyls aren't dinosaurs.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Rolo Tamasi

    by DocPazuzu

    If you think that post was funny, read Ringprober's posts in yesterday's first KK talkback. Sheer lunacy.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:21 p.m. CST

    So "silly shit" stunts are bad...but Fantastic Four was good?

    by minderbinder

    Keep it coming, this hater shit is hilarious.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:25 p.m. CST

    I never understood what people saw in Titanic.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Leo isn't credible on the screen. Not for a second. In any scene. Winslet does a good job, and the production design is first-rate, but Titanic just wasn't that good. In retrospect it's a lot like its signature song - a bit of 90's culture that you look back at and think, "What the hell were people thinking?" It's the 90's version of "Exactly how the fuck did I end up owning these Phil Collins albums?"

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Kong was never meant to be a monster

    by Terry_1978

    The evil monsters are all the creatures on Skull Island except for him. Kong basically has a "leave me alone, I leave you alone" mindset, but once Ann and the idiocy of NYC comes into play, it freaks him out.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Do you like Phil Collins?

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Why no, Patrick.

    by FluffyUnbound

    I used to like Phil Collins [I mean, I guess I must have, since I bought his albums] but I have no idea how or why. In retrospect it's inexplicable to me. I think maybe I stopped liking him one night when we were at Tunnel and he kept calling me "Flowffy" and I suddenly noticed that he was wearing a shirt with artificial fibers.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:05 p.m. CST

    while we're assuming things rb9,

    by lopan

    i'm assuming you have a small dick and no friends. of course i have nothing to base that on, since we've never met, but why should i let that stop me, when it doesn't stop you? i'm also going to assume you have never been laid, will never be laid, will be first in line for King Kong on opening day, and cry yourself to sleep every night clutching a framed picture of Peter Jackson. Just assuming, of course...

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Reviews like this a are a dime a dozen

    by acroyear77

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:07 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    You're the smackfuck who doesn't think wraiths, fell beasts, elves, balrogs, oliphaunts, green ghosts, hobbits, giant evil spiders, orcs and invisibility rings are "fantastic" enough because they sometimes have dirt on them in Jackson's LOTR. Now you presume to tell us that a movie with a giant ape, dinosaurs, monsters, huge carnivorous bugs, bat creatures and God knows what else is going to suffer because the "normal human" characters don't live up to your high standards of "realism"? I wish there were a way to make you realize how you sound.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:17 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    ...don't even try to change your dinosaur-munching-Kong story again. Kong bit both natives, a pteranadon and the t-rex but never "ate" any meat in the film. Until yesterday, you had NEVER seen the original Kong. What's more, even if it were true that you saw it long ago, you made it a point in your post criticizing the reviewer that his knowledge of the original was next to nil. By that very same logic, YOU are as unqualified in your opinions of the remake as the reviewer was. You're a sanctimonious, cretinous windbag.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:20 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    ...the point is, Ringbearer9, that you couldn't tell the difference between the "fantastic" and the "real" even if it jumped up and smashed your hairless balls between two red bricks.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:40 p.m. CST

    "How is it you can't understand why an adventure story with

    by minderbinder

    Don't you mean "an adventure story with normal humans...and A TWENTY-FIVE FOOT GORILLA"? I think it's perfectly reasonable for a movie about a giant gorilla that runs amok in NYC and climbs the empire state building (not to mention dinosaurs and other monsters) to have other aspects that are implausible and over the top. Just like the original, it's a monster movie and I plan to hold it to that standard. Just curious - why aren't you bothered by the over the top "silly shit" stunts in Raiders?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:58 p.m. CST

    How is hanging from a bat

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    Legolas-like stunt powers? Is it over the top? Maybe, I haven't seen it, but I can see the potentional. Is it unbelievable in that it demands I believe he has super powers? Hanging from a bat? No.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 1:59 p.m. CST

    so far there have been 2 bad reviews if you can call them bad

    by slappy jones

    the comingsoon one is counted as fresh on rotten tomatoes and devin gave it 8.4 out of 10. where are these bad reviews people talk of? is it the five star the times gave it? or was it when boston herald called it blockbuster of the year? or is it some guy who posts in the message boards on aintitcool? what a surprise..hate on the boards..when did this start?? haters are the saddest people around. ringbearer9 is the absolute saddest person i have ever encountered. he is so sad that he spends all his time on every kong article because he hates it so much...he memorises FUCKING COMMENTARIES OF FILMS HE HATES!! ringy it is a big world out there..i know you are incredibly lonely and fucking pathetic but stop collecting quotes and clippings of a film maker you claim to hate...shut down your computer and go outside. you are a fucking loser. oh and anyone who questions the physics or realism of a film about a fucking 25 foot tall gorilla who lives on a mythical island fighting dinosaurs should stop watching fucking movies. or stick to mike leigh and mike leigh only. some of the shit on here is unfuckingbelievable. plus none you cunts have even seen the fucking thing yet. and you seem to be forgetting that this whole board has started from a fucking positive review.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Slappy Jones.....

    by Shaner Jedi

    ....coming soon's review was 6.5 out of 10. Rotten tomatoes can count it fresh all it wants, but 6.5 is hardly enthusiastic. He praised the fx(whoopee. I expect as much), but says it's overload.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:21 p.m. CST

    description of said bat escape (spoilers within!)

    by earl of sandwich

    Jack has made his way to Kong's hangout that is situated at the top on a mountain at the end of a big cave filled with huge, lantern eyed monster bats. As Jack & Ann try to escape from a sleeping Kong, Kong wakes up and starts understandibly freaking out. His freaking out wakes all the bats up & they start flapping & biting at anything that moves. Luckily the humans are so small that the bats kinda ignore them and they proceed to grap a vine & climb down this huge cliff. Kong manages to finish off enough bats to get a hold of the vine & start to pull it back up. It's at this point that our resourceful hero & damsel decide to jump off the vine & grab onto the feet of a bat flying past. They ride the bat for a little while as the poor hijacked bat flaps a little lower to the jungle below & they leap into the river below. I've said it twice now & I'll repeat, the movie is O.K. I just wasn't expecting goofy stuff like the now officially spoiled bat escape. People will make up their own minds as to whether the film lives up to their expectations or not. Lovers, just be prepared for some serious ammo to come flying back at you Dec 14th.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:26 p.m. CST


    by earl of sandwich

    It's on top "of" a mountain and "grab" not grap a vine. I don't know what's worse, posting at work, or bad spelling. Apologies for any others I missed.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:28 p.m. CST

    shaner jedi...

    by slappy jones

    ...he does not say the film is comepletely bad either. that is my point. people are acting like he tore it to shreads...he didn't. and if you go through these boards people are saying even devins review was bad. which it wasn't.he liked some stuff and didn;t like others.... so they don't call it a masterpiece and have misgivings about parts so far there has not been a completely negative review. no one has come out and said this film sucks. well sure a few aintitcool board trolls have but they were saying that before the film was shot so you know.....

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:31 p.m. CST

    I highly doubt the film will suck.

    by Shaner Jedi

    I'm sure it will be a crowd pleaser.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST

    RE: "descived"

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    I don't know Ring, but your keyboard should be taken away from you.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Is it possible...

    by MOSDEF

    That Ringbearer9 is a little psycho AND "MY BUDDY KONG" will suck?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Hey Waitaminnit!

    by MOSDEF

    I read it once and laughed but now it just sunk in. KING KONG SMILES in this new movie! It can't be good. No way. If what Earl said was true this can't be a good movie. Where is the pure scary nerd outrage that I've come to adore on these boards? KING KONG FUCKING SMILES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:05 p.m. CST

    I just like the term "hate-fu"

    by Uncooked_Meat

    ... it makes me giggle. Oh, and Ringbearer - you are an unbelieveable dork and troll, but your worst crime is you take what all talkbackers exceed at (hating a movie before you've seen it) and completely blow that concept into another universe. But I admit, I DO enjoy reading your posts.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Ringfelcher9's problem...

    by DocPazuzu that if he sees ONE SINGLE "realistic" element in a "fantastic" film, it suddenly becomes a piece of shit and -- oddly -- "unbelievable". However, he will also demand that certain characters in "fantastic" films behave according to "realism". BUT! If a "fantastic" character , such as Batman, behaves "realistically" in a "realistic" film, the film becomes "unbelievable". The only logic governing Ringy's Hate-Fu is the collection of pre-decided opinions of films and directors teeming in his crowded brain. He bends any fact and twists any argument to fit his haterism. He'll even contradict himself -- in the same post, no less -- in order to prove a point nobody else believes in except moviemack and Indiana Clones. He sincerely thinks he has the only true understanding of motion pictures in the western hemisphere.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Having a 25 foot ape just means that the movie has already throw

    by minderbinder

    The movie takes place in a world where the impossible can happen. If I don't suspend my disbelief, a crazy stunt is the last of my worries - I'm not going to get past the giant gorilla fighting with dinosaurs.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Doc, you hit the nail on the head.

    by minderbinder

    He constantly will take something that happens in five percent of a movie and insists THE WHOLE MOVIE is like that. The whole movie is dark. The whole movie is dirty. They whole movie is green. All the characters have bad teeth. The whole movie is FX. I also don't get the whole notion of taking a film apart based on interviews with the director, commentary tracks, etc. It's a film, it can be judged on its own merits, resorting to "proving" a film is bad based on screen grabs and offhand remarks is kind of pathetic.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:46 p.m. CST

    "Hey, maybe the masses will eat it up."

    by Tinfang

    Wow, you really are a pompous ass Ringbearer9. But, please, enlighten the rest of the unwashed masses with your monolithic brand of what's artistry and what's not. Here's a new buzz word for you, "pre-hater." Yes, that's your reflection in the mirror.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Having a 25 foot ape DOES NOT.....

    by Shaner Jedi

    ...mean the movie has abandoned the laws of physics, it just means you have to make that 25 foot ape move and carry his weight as a 25 foot ape would! If PJ has one more of those fighter jet camera flyovers like he endlessly used on the LOTR films, I'm walkin out.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Shaner, you'll be happy to know that there are very few (if

    by HypeEndsHere

    as for Flip: adapting material is one thing. it's already there. the characters, the relationships, the events, the arc. there's not much in Kong to adapt, which is why it could've been a neat little 90 minute flick. it's not. it's action set-pieces with no exposition bookended by sentimental scenes confusingly shot.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Ode to Ringbearer9 - Vol.1 Issue 1

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    There once was an AICN Talkbacker, his name: Ringbearer9 - He liked to post, some say the most, silliest posts of all time - The came the movie: "King Kong" filmed by Jackson, Peter. - Ring posted his hate, all over the place, and so was dubbed a "Hater". - But much like Kong, he wandered alone in Talkbacks without a clue - Because his BS was put to the test by the man, Doc Pazuzu. - Mr. N.G. 12.05.05

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 4:05 p.m. CST

    "Titanic, 100% perfect? YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED."

    by Indiana Clones

    Just like everyone else who loved it? Prick.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I would agree without hesitation with the statement that everyon

    by FluffyUnbound

    Or, at the least, has horrendous taste. Absolutely horrendous.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 5:30 p.m. CST

    i saw it this morning, but i don't remember a Great Bat Esca

    by HypeEndsHere

    but i did take a piss for a few minutes.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 6:23 p.m. CST


    by RKO Classic;sb=post_time;so=DESC;forum_view=forum_view_expandable;;page=unread#unread

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 6:27 p.m. CST

    The original was indeed campy

    by dplatt

    Here's some bona fide dialogue from the original movie... Carl Denham: Some big hard-boiled egg gets a look at a pretty face and bang - he cracks up and goes sappy. Captain Englehorn: He says, "Look at the golden woman." Carl Denham: Yeah, blondes are scarce around here. Carl Denham: Why, the whole world will pay to see this. Captain Englehorn: No chains will ever hold that. Carl Denham: We'll give him more than chains. He's always been king of his world, but we'll teach him fear. We're millionaires, boys. I'll share it with all of you. Why, in a few months, it'll be up in lights on Broadway: Kong, the Eighth Wonder of the World. Theatre Patron: Hey, what's this show about, anyway? Theatre Patron: I don't know - they say it's some big gorilla. Theatre Patron: Oh, geez - ain't we got enough of them in New York? So don't give me no sh*t about the original not being "camp". It was pretty damn campy, that's what makes it fun.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 6:29 p.m. CST


    by dplatt

    There are several directors who almost exclusively made adaptations. Did Hitchcock ever work from an original script? Did Kubrick?

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Boffo rave review from Fangoria

    by Yojimbo Jones

    Boffo rave review from Fangoria: "Let

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Kong a great work of ART? I am sure you people would personally

    by Psalmolive

    You are the worst people, ever.

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:06 p.m. CST

    I have realized...

    by Jaka

    ...that any person who comes on here and mindlessly bashes Peter Jackson is a complete moron in regards to film knowledge and I no longer need to worry about their inane ramblings, which has put me very much at ease. Because really, if you have a reasonable argument, I will listen. But you idiots just keep rehashing the same tired, and untrue I might add, arguments. Over and over and over with the same bullshit. The man was allowed to make LOTR because of what he did BEFORE THAT!! His life-long dream was to re-tell King Kong. He earned that right because of what he did with LOTR. Get it? He worked to get here, just like everybody else, and this is what he is CHOOSING to do. So come on, find a worthy argument. Search out something REAL to complain about. What? You don't like King Kong? You don't like creature filled action movies? Have a thing against long movies? Even those are shitty reasons to bash the man like you guys do. You sound like a bunch of ignorant whiny bitches. At least pull your head out of your asses to go to IMDB and look him up before you pontificate about how much he sucks and has never done anything other than LOTR. And for FUCKS SAKE!!! CAN YOU SERIOUSLY WATCH SW EP I-III AND NOT LAUGH AT HOW MUCH THEY COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY SUCK IN EVERY WAY WHEN COMPARED TO THE LOTR TRILOGY. Heh, had to get that one in. lol. But SERIOUSLY! PJ made those in the time it took for GL to make ONE CGI geek out. Just gah! So done with you fuck wads bitching about PJ. Yarg! lol

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:07 p.m. CST


    by Jaka

    Apologies. lol

  • Dec. 5, 2005, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Psalmolive, you're not actually saying

    by aikimoe

    that Kong isn't "art," are you? I ask because some people are under the impression that the word "art" is an adjective, when in fact, it's a noun.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Has any here taken the time to actually look long and hard at th

    by GingerTwit

    Not to get to philosophical or anything, but we have the always enjoyable 'haters' doing something remarkable wih this film - actually trying to bring the good men and women here who have fallen head ove rheals into the hype of this film. Then we have said people attacking the haters for attempting to bring them down. So who is the true hater? and to JAKA a few posts above mine... man I was actually listening to you, but man - you just ended up churning out the same bullshit you were attempting to end. Now watch me do it...... George Lucas would have made a better Kong. He would have better special effects. And he wouldn't have approved of this script. But yeah, i haven't seen it yet. I'm looking forward to the bat escape, the ice scating, the sign language and the need to piss in my empty Coka-Cola slurpie cup.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Oh and to those who THINK they know their history on Jackson

    by GingerTwit

    People are flogging the story that Jackson always dreamed of making king kong. But thats just not the case, per say. Jackson was given the job of re-writing Kong. He was GIVEN THE JOB. I read that script, as a side note. It was boring boring boring! Anyway, he turne din the script and it was shelved because the monster filmmakers behind the monster hit film ID4 were pushing ahead with a Godzilla remake. These guys cut down two other films makers in their stampede - Jan De Bont who had a GOOD script ready for his Godzilla, and Peter Jackson who had turned in a (less than 2 hours) screenplay for King Kong. So fast forward 10 years and Jackson has been arsey enough to get the 'Lord of the Rings' films - but do not forget that Jackson was going to be making just 2 lord of the rings film. He'd condensed the whole trilogy into 1 large screenplay, which was then split in half! Fan outcry changed this. Fan outcry also scared Jackson into making Lord of the Rings REALLY Good, IMHO.... so what I'm getting at is, from this interested viewer, Jackson has fully turned into a film maker all about the story behind the man and his dreams of making it. Good for him. But I prefer the film makers who hide behind their work. Who surprise us by having their credit pop up at the end of the film. Alls I'm saying is..... Get a bloody grip, It's a fucking movie. If it's hyped up like this then it must be prepared for people to be ready to rip apart bad effects, shoddy editing, and overblown 'everything!'. Call me old fashioned, but I like the movies that get the praise AFTER release. You put enough money into marketing anything you can make any film a 'Must see'.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 7:15 a.m. CST

    That should read 'Fan outcry also scared him OUT of making L

    by GingerTwit

    The man was to terrified to make good scripts first. He had to film everything. But I did notice charaters stealing other characters dialogue and things getting sloppy towards the end. At least the fx and music picked up. I fear a film where the makers believe they're on a winner, y'know.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Rinbearer is a tight fixated anus

    by Yojimbo Jones

    Of course Fangoria is a horror splatter magazine you dumb shit. If you keep coming back to a KIng Kong talkback expecting Ivory-Merchant films then you really are a bigger and dumber turd than I previously thought. You are not only the most fixated, obsessive and compulsive poster on the boards, it's becoming increasingly apparent that you are also one of the lamest and stoopidest. Jackson's remake is going to own your ass, you skank bitch.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 7:43 a.m. CST


    by Indiana Clones

    Anyone who didn't like Titanic is loveless and genitally challenged.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 7:46 a.m. CST

    As usual, GingerTwit...

    by DocPazuzu're a day late and a dollar short. Love that typical dumbass reasoning of yours as well: "so who is the true hater?" How in the name of Cthulhu does it make one a greater hater for hating haters? I

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Ginger, you're wrong.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Fan outcry had nothing to do with LOTR becoming three films. The decision to make LOTR into three films was taken at the studio level before the project even got started, and certainly before it was on the radar of any fan groups. Jackson pitched for 2 films because he didn't dare hope a studio would go for a 3 film deal. At that point in time, that certainly wasn't an unreasonable belief. As soon as he realized the studio would actually let him do 3, he said [homer]"Woohoo!"[/homer] and made three films. Had Jackson actually gotten started on a 2-film LOTR, there "would have been" great fan outcry, true - but it never got to that point. "But I did notice characters stealing other other characters' dialogue at the end." Um, the very first lines spoken by Galadriel in the prologue to the first film are "stolen" - from Treebeard. Jackson rearranged dialogue in all three films, sometimes to give a character something to do in a scene where they were otherwise silent, and sometimes to include dialogue that was worthwhile in the books, but which occurred in scenes that did not make it into the films.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Day late and dollar short

    by GingerTwit

    That may be the case, but I got you Pazuzu... and it..... it was just...... it was just too easy.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 8:03 a.m. CST

    "but I got you Pazuzu"

    by DocPazuzu

    Um.... okay...

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 8:20 a.m. CST

    who do you think I was talking about?

    by GingerTwit

    Dude, You are the biggest anti-hater there is... so much so that I read your posts and think, whoa... now thats a hater.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 8:34 a.m. CST

    "Dude, You are the biggest anti-hater there is.."

    by DocPazuzu

    Do you have a point or are you going to continue relying on people assuming that your non-sequiturs actually are insights so clever that only you are intelligent enough to understand them?

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 9 a.m. CST

    Ginger, you're mistaken.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Pazuzu suffers from what I suffer from - a determination to be "right", and to demonstrate it. That's not exactly the same thing as being a "hater". The two concepts are similar in that they both lead to confrontation [seemingly endless confrontation - it's tough work being right all the time, and trying to coax comprehension into all the pea brains out there in the world] but you shouldn't confuse the two. "Haters" are here to bring you down. "Righters" are here to edify you - to save you from the pit of your own ignorance and folly. See the difference?

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 9:04 a.m. CST

    No point.... just counting the hours til Kong

    by GingerTwit

    And reading all the 'paid' praise, while the likes of ringbearer offer up some sobering balance. And then seeing you lead the surgical strike to reign supreme the 'Aint it cool' talkbacks. Don't worry, I'm leaving now to return to my life. But I'll be back should you ever need me. thank you for your time.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Fluffy, About what was I mistaken?

    by GingerTwit

    So often I come to these talkbacks, I try not to post so much these days because it just does my head in... I mean, what are we, the hardcore talkbackers, really accomplishing with our constant bickering. I think Kevin Smith did an awesome job of weeding out the 'true' haters from just the pranksters. The True haters are not the bring downs. the true haters are just those cock head who have nothing better to say than "Lord of the rings sucks!" Episode 3 is unwatchable" They offer no substance. No life to what they say. And they're all simply boring to skim over. But then you have us. The elite talkbackers who end up spinning out the talkback in divided conversation. it's amazing to watch and not be tempted to join in. But alas, just to watch, as I have been doing, I see that recently the 'non-haters' have made a delicate shift in their position. This is talkback, and so often when people come along to offer some deeper insight into what these films are, be it a more level headed review of a film, or even a prediction based on the patterns we all see within the hollywood machine. Kong is NOT going to be a great film. I say that not as a hater, but as an observer. and I garner great enjoyment that people are out there cutting down those hordes of fans wetting themselves over every image and article Aint it cool offers us. I'm not a hater, i'm looking forward to seeing Kong, but I'm not going to be sleepless the night before it's release. Nor am I going to race to the first screening. But I'll make it within the first week. and I tell you what, if it's the best film I've ever seen, or even just better than I sit here believeing it to be, I'll come right back here and admit my lack of vision to this project. But if it sucks...... be prepared to listen why I think so. Good night all.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 9:22 a.m. CST

    I'm joking, of course

    by GingerTwit

    The elite talkbackers are not the ones who come here everyday. The elite are really the ones with the multiple usernames. Pazuzu, I'm astonished how many people you have. But are you Pazuzu with multiple names, or someone else and pazuzu happens to be one of the uderling names. Wow. Trippy.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 9:36 a.m. CST

    "But are you Pazuzu with multiple names"

    by DocPazuzu

    I hate to do this because it's the online equivalent of telling someone on a floodlit stage that their fly is undone, but I feel I must. Are you truly unaware of how dumb you make yourself sound by accusing every person who can string a coherent sentence together of being the same person?

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 10:44 a.m. CST

    holy fake shemps

    by lopan

    this must be one of them tangent universe just gets stranger and less connected to reality. screen names with multiple personalities? Jackson haters with mysteriously complete knowledge of all his hopes, dreams and exploits from birth onward? i mean, some little kid even called me a prick for hating on Titanic, of all movies? WTF?!! this TB is officially bizarro world material...

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Someone seriously needs to transcribe this talkback into a scree

    by filmicdrummer17

    With Christopher Guest directed Fred Willard as Ringbearer, Eugene Levy as the Doc, Bob Balaban as the GingerTwit, Harry Shearer as the Ghost...and Guest himself in a cameo as Peter "H"ackson. Oh, the wit! Oh, the irony!

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 11:34 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Your argument would only make sense if I were ever in danger of losing a debate. As it is, I haven't even come close to being owned in a single talkback I've ever participated in during my years in TB. I'm quite comfortable in taking on hordes of haters, trolls and other assorted asscocks all by myself if I must. I don't need multiple identities in order to debate. Frankly, I have yet to encounter an opponent who would warrant such a measure on my part. I dare say your own figurative fly, like GingerTwit's, is wide open.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Yeah right GingerTwit.

    by morGoth

    As usual, you make up your own "facts." It was Robert Shaye (New Line exec. producer) who, after seeing PJ's two-script presentation, wanted it done in three movies. Eh? So what if book dialogue was actually spoken by other characters? It worked, didn't it? It fit, didn't it? As for fans changing LoTR, yes, over the Full Blown XenArwen character fighting beside Aragorn at Helm's Deep...thank you very much! You're all very welcome {[:^) You and Ringbearer haven't a shread of objectivity when it comes to Jackson. You are, indeed, true and utterly biased "haters." All that means is that you will blindly bash anything Jackson does, has ever done and ever will, no doubt. You have (and this is typical of Ringbearer's past) already decided what you'll hate about the movie just because it has Jackson's name on it and any iota of negative reviews. Of course, Ringbearer will continue to ignore any good reviews just as you will anything that doesn't support your predisposed (and typically erroneous) notions. Just admit it, you're biased and have no intention of doing anything other than trolling (of course, that would mean you'll have to share space with that SW fan-orc troll who's even MORE biased, Indiana Clones). I suggest the three of you just lighten the fuck up with your overblown "criticism" and wait until the damned movie is actually out. Hey, I'll offer my own criticism AFTER seeing the movie and not any preconceived notion, positive or negative, just from watching a trailer or preview. Man, deja-vu all over again from the LoTR TB's...same prejudiced haters, different TB's is all.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 11:44 a.m. CST

    "IMHO", could follow anything.

    by aikimoe

    "Aliens mad LOTR, IMHO." "Tim Burton invented Batman, IMHO." "George Bush fought in Viet Nam, IMHO."

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST

    IGN gave it 3/5 stars....

    by Shaner Jedi

    ...saying it had great fx and a fully-realized character in Kong, but that the film is overlong and contains too many narrative diversions from the heart of the story: Kong and Ann. Still, it does sound as if Jackson has nailed the character of Kong and his visual depiction. Bravo WETA.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 12:24 p.m. CST

    sounded like a Harry Review

    by mrsheldrake

    I think that's true. I hadn't noticed that when I wrote it. Well, huh.

  • Dec. 6, 2005, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Isn't GingerTwit...

    by CondomWrapper

    the guy who thinks the moon landings were faked? Shit, I think I opened pandora's box.