Cool News
A King-Sized Batch Of KONG Reviews!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
Well, no more speculating or wondering or hoping or dreaming. KONG has arrived, and people are starting to weigh in left and right on the film. FANGORIA, for example, called it a masterpiece. I know Quint saw it last night in NYC at the premiere, and I went to a press screening here in LA. I’m sure both of us will have our reviews up soon, but in the meantime, plenty of you guys have written in about it, and I want to give you the room to vent, good or bad. Be warned... there are spoilers in many of these reviews, and I’m not going to be holding your hand in case you stumble over them. If you want to know nothing, then turn back right now.
First up is our long-time occasional contributor, Bungion Boy:
Hey Harry, et al. Bungion Boy here, live from New York with a review of King Kong! I probably could have gotten a lot of work done today, but I decided to ditch my post and go to Lincoln Square and see the film I’ve been waiting for for I don’t know how long. I love Peter Jackson. Love everything he’s ever done, but I was looking forward to this especially because watching the original “King Kong” is one of my earliest memories. As much as I loved the Lord of the Rings films, I was even more thrilled for this because, while I love the books and the films, I’ve never been a huge fantasy fan boy. What I love is classic Hollywood films. Films such as say, let me select one at random, “King Kong.” It’s films like that from the 30’s and 40’s that fuel my geekdom, and Jackson has truly delivered this time with a loving tribute to the original film, that in some respects does the unthinkable. It surpasses it.
I’m sure you’ll be getting lots of reviews today so I’ll try my best to keep this brief. There are some spoilers below but most of which will come as no surprise to those who have seen the original. First of all, the film looks fantastic. I know. Der. But I’m not just talking about Kong himself, or the dinos, or the millions of other effects shots. Just the opening sequences alone gave me chills. I live in New York and I think it’s one of the greatest cities in the world. However, walking home tonight it won’t be as grand because it looks so beautiful in this film. It actually sparkles. Well, not all of it. We also get amazing shots in the opening of the poor, depression affected parts of town. I loved the boxing scenes in “Cinderella Man” but thought it really failed in showing us in detail the poor streets and camps in Central Park. But this film gives a better depiction of all that in its opening montage than “Cinderella Man” did in 2 1/2 hours.
It’s about 30 minutes before the boat takes off for Skull Island, and what we get in that time is a lot of character development and back-story. I can’t complain about that. It was all good and added some depth, but I will say that some of it felt a little weird, only because I’m so used to the original jumping right in and meeting Ann at the apple stand. Here there is more, and while the film is three hours long, it is never dull. In fact, some of the subplots and side stories suffered a bit from minimal screen time (especially the scenes with Jamie Bell). Sometimes they tell us too much to just go ahead and deprive us of more, but I anticipate a much longer directors cut on dvd, which I look forward to. Everyone is well cast here. Naomi Watts looks as stunning as ever and has a scream that Fay Wray would approve of. Adrian Brody appropriately has little do but he does it well. And then there’s Jack Black. My god, what perfect casting. Until you see Kong, the film is all about Carl Denham. It really is his story, as we see his obsession to make his film before making any apologies. As people are killed throughout the film we see him show regret but we never see him stop. He’ll save a tripod before saving a friend from death. He feels bad about this but he has a look that suggests that he’d rather answer for his sins in hell than sacrifice his work on earth. Jack’s performance seemed a lot less like Cecil B. DeMille, and more like Orson Wells. Oh. And I almost forgot, he’s also hilarious. If there’s a laugh line in the film, 90% of the time it came from him. It’s also nice to see him with his “Orange County” co-star, Colin Hanks. They’ve got great chemistry. And there’s a great homage to the original by making the star of Denham’s film playing a crusty sailor who thinks that women just get in the way. I can’t be sure but I think the dialogue from that film that Denham films, is lifted straight from a scene with Ann and Jack in the original.
Then of course there is Kong. Once you see him, you won’t be able to take your eyes off him. Forget what you saw in the trailers. It’s nothing compared to everything else. He moves so beautifully. So gracefully. The special effects I think intentionally don’t make him look completely realistic (that wouldn’t be as much fun) but the movements always seem like a real gorilla. I especially loved the scene and his reactions when Ann dances and juggles for him. Just beautiful. But another thing that makes him work so much is that he doesn’t look totally beautiful. He is old. He has a silver back, gray whiskers on his chin, and dozens of scars and cuts, presumably from his many battles on the island. I don’t know how much credit should go to Andy Serkis for Kong’s performance, but he is so natural and realistic that I became devastated very early on when I realized I would have to watch his inevitable death later in the film. Serkis is also fun in his non-Kong role, as the ship’s cook.
(Some spoilers) So the action. Thrilling. Terrifying. It doesn’t stop, and yes, in a good way. The sequences on the island could have been really repetitive, but they’re done in such a creative way, that trumps our expectations, that I was never bored. After about an hour on the island I realized my face was sore from smiling too much. The T Rex fight is unbelievable, and he fights more than one of them simultaneously. The reveal of each creature made the audience squeal with joy. I’ve always loved dinosaurs, (which is why I still love “Jurassic Park,” like “The Lost World: JP” more than I should, and sat through all of “Jurassic Park 3,” shudder) but the dino effects in this film surpass all of those combined. The brontosaurus stampede may have been my favorite sequence just because it showed those animals with as much grace as they probably actually had, which is to say, none whatsoever. They are massive, clumsy, and end up in a huge, er, dog-pile. Jackson’s modern version of the Spider-Pit sequence is also great and scary, although some of the creatures REALLY look like uncircumcised penises with teeth. But again, in a good way. They are probably the second scariest thing, after the freaky, crazy natives with more piercings in more painful places than I’ve ever seen.
And of course Kong’s escape from the theatre and chase through Manhattan is breathtaking, but I believe I preferred the quieter scenes in New York, with Kong and Ann sliding on ice in Central Park. It only makes it more romantic and heartbreaking that Ann goes to Kong willingly, instead of being grabbed through the window. It’s one of those changes that improves on the original. The Empire State Building of course looks great, especially with the sun rising over New York in the background. I can hear the complaints now that the ending is dragged out just as long as in “Return of the King.” It’s true. Kong and Ann are on top of the Empire State Building for a long, long time. But it’s so beautiful and sad that I didn’t mind it at all. By that point in the film, I didn’t want it to end anyways. Now of course, the last line. For all you fans out there, it is said by Denham (I had heard that it was going to be Fay Wray) and it is kept intact. There is no tidy closing scenes to follow. It ends just like it’s supposed to. And there aint a dry eye in the house.
I’m sorry. I just left the theatre an hour ago so forgive me if I have virtually nothing but praise for this. I’m sure if I were to write something up tomorrow I would be able to think of more things that are wrong with it, although I hope not. It’s just such pure entertainment that I’m so buzzed by the fun of it now. I won’t know until I see it again, but right now I think I like it more than Lord of the Rings, for the aforementioned reasons. This is going to be a huge hit and will probably push a very deserving film out of the Best Picture category. But you know what? I don’t really care. It made me that happy. Now I’m going to leave the office and try to see the statue at Times Square. Perfect end to a perfect day. Enjoy, fellow geeks. This is Bungion Boy, signing off.
This next guy’s got a great point about how younger children are likely to react to this film. Remember, folks... Peter Jackson loves to freak you out. He pushes the PG-13 as hard as he can a few times in the film, and I’d warn that some kids won’t handle it well. Anyway, here we go:
I apologize in advance for the length of this "review." If you use it, call me TokyoSpike.
Thanks to Universal Studios and KongIsKing.net, I was lucky enough to be awarded two tickets to Monday's premiere of King Kong in New York. Only two subway stops from home! I took my 11-year-old daughter. More on her experience later.
I'm about the same age as Peter Jackson, and like him (and Ray Harryhausen) I first saw the original Kong when I was about nine. Unlike them, I didn't much like it. The effects were mesmerizing alright, but I couldn't quite make out what the story was about, and all the characters seemed to be behaving in ways too stupid to be believable, and it was really sad. I got dragged to the 1976 remake against my will, and it was worse than I anticipated. You can't make a King Kong that I'm likely to care about.
But then, in 1999, I said loudly and repeatedly that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmable. The combination of Jackson proving me wrong on that one with his passionate determination to remake Kong was enough to get me interested in his production diaries on KongIsKing, and everything I saw there was enough to convince me I really wanted to see this movie.
Times Square and 42nd Street on premiere night was neon-lit with a dusting of snow. Perfect. Manhattan may be the only place in the world where you can block off huge chunks of sidewalk and cram hundreds of cops, thousands of fans, a host of working press, and a string of celebrities into one block and have it seem like just another day in the life.
We collected our tickets, had a quick bite on 42nd Street, and entered the Loew's E-Walk, where it turned out due to a mixup on the tickets we were going to a 7:00pm screening instead of 6:00pm, and we sat in the auditorium for over an hour - but the good news was it was the auditorium where cast, crew, and celebrity guests would all be watching with us. Sure enough, over the next hour Richard Taylor, Tania Rodger, Grant Major, Dan Hennah, Christian Rivers, Alex Funke, and many less recognizable Kiwis filed in, eventually followed by George Lucas with his son Jett and his younger daughter, followed by Billy Boyd, James Newton Howard, and eventually the cast of King Kong. When things got rolling, a lovely woman, the chief executive of Universal Studios (didn't catch her name) stepped onto a small stage at the front of the theater to tell us how tickled pink Universal was with the whole thing. She introduced two New Zealand women I'd not seen before who share producing credits on Kong with Peter and Fran - they were quite nervous - and they introduced Peter himself.
Bob Burns was in the audience, and he brought the 18" steel armature used to animate Kong in the 1933 original; Peter held the armature under his left arm the whole time he was talking. The thanked Universal, had the crew in the audience stand up and receive applause, thanked Fran and the Queen of the Geeks (who were in the audience, but who we didn't see), and then had the entire cast of the film join him on stage one by one, concluding with Jack Black, Adrian Brody, and Naomi Watts, looking lovely in a cream satin gown and hair permed in 1933 style. The cast took a bow, and then it was on to the main event.
We sat front row, just off-center, which was great for being arms length from Peter and the actors, but not so good for watching the movie; many of the action scenes are rapid jump-cuts between shots of giant creatures moving at high-speed, and couldn't really be followed well that close to the screen, but still . . .
Jackson said in a recent interview that even though he exposed a lot of what he was doing in his production diaries and in the trailer, he saved all the coolest stuff to spring on the audience. I'm not going to spoil the surprises for you, but he was telling the truth. The production diaries and trailer only hint at the kinds of things you'll see effects-wise, and don't begin to represent the dramatic depth in the writing and acting.
Act I is the set-up in New York City and the voyage to Skull Island. I was dying to see how the master creators of Middle Earth were going to reconstruct 1933 Manhattan. We've only ever seen it in grainy black and white photographs and scratchy black and white newsreels. Not any more. Sheer brilliance. All of the characters have three-dimensional personalities and clear motivations. The mood of Act I is growing desperation followed by ominous signs and portents leading to the first tingling of primal fear.
Act II is Skull Island, and this is where you get your money's worth and then some. I have some quibbles with some of the effects shots relatively early on, but that's just me (and maybe had to do with having my nose pressed to the screen), but they just keep getting better and better (you lose sight of the fact that they are effects shots) - and the environments and especially Kong himself are utterly, reflexively, instinctively convincing. There are more set-piece action sequences crammed onto Skull Island than in any two Spielberg movies you could name. I lost count. The mood of Act II is foreboding overtaken by fear building to terror - except when your adrenaline is pumping too hard to allow time for terror - but also the slow discovery that Kong is not just a mindless brute, and doesn't perhaps deserve his fate.
Act III is back to Manhattan. Sitting in a theater at Times Square for a premiere in 2005 and watching the destruction of a Times Square theater premiere in 1933 was a rare treat. (Where's that Exit sign again?). Jackson twists the locations and motivations of several characters around from the original here, and to great effect. He also adds one quiet scene in Central Park that was, for me, the biggest surprise of the film and I strongly suspect in the future will be seen as the single most archtypical Peter Jackson scene ever. I wish I could say more, but take it from me, it could never have been filmed before Jackson/WETA, and no one else would ever think to do it, and if they did they wouldn't do it with this level of emotional resonance. Jackson always walks the line of strong emotion close to the edge of cloying sentimentality, and so far he's never fallen off. The Central Park scene is also the quintessential example of what I mean by that. And of course, we all know where the story goes. It's brilliantly staged, both from an action point of view, and also to give Kong his big acting moment, letting Ann and the audience know that he's quite aware of what's going on, and ready to accept the inevitable. The mood of Act III - mounting dislike for one greedy and deranged character coupled with desperation and sadness. Fade to black.
Howard's score, by the way does a lot to create the moods I described above. It wasn't flashy, but it seemed to fit perfectly. One last thing: there are about a dozen really funny moments, especially for people who know the 1933 original and get to see how Peter integrates some scenes, musical cues, and references into his movie.
ABOUT TAKING CHILDREN - The movie is a hard PG-13. My daughter's 11, but then she and I have sat and watched at least a movie a week for the last 5 years. She likes scary stuff, the Jurassic Park, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings movies are mother's milk to her. STILL I made sure that she saw the original 1933 movie last Friday night, and I told her exactly what to expect in Jackson's version of the "spider" pit sequence. Unless you've got a similar close understanding of what your child can take, please don't take anyone under 13 to this movie. Jackson's "spider" pit sequence was too intense for me, and my daughter wisely kept her face buried in my shoulder for all of it.
My daughter, by the way, loved the movie, but I believe there were tears toward the end - this Kong's a heartbreaker, and no mistake.
Thanks to all at AICN for the many years of great stuff!
-TokyoSpike
This next guy may seem like he’s being needlessly venomous to the film, but I can actually understand where he’s coming from. KONG will not work for everyone, and I think he’s perfectly justified in his gripes. I think some people just aren’t going to dig Peter’s vision, and for some very fundamental reasons. Check it out:
I saw a screening tonight at the Arclight in Hollywood. Normally I would respect the request of the screening company not to write an online review of a private screening but I am writing this out of spite for the way my girlfriend and I were treated by the head jerk managing the screening.
I so wanted this to be a great movie. All the way through the screening I kept asking myself, “Do I like this movie?” A few minutes after leaving the theater I cleared my mind of all the cinematic flash and excess and realized it was mediocre at best. It takes a couple good ideas from the 70’s remake but also makes similar mistakes. There was no great character in this movie. Not even Kong. You may not agree if you are impressed by watching real apes. Kong had great realism. But that’s not why I always liked Kong. I found his realism was as interesting as watching a documentary on apes. Even if it’s a good documentary it’s still nothing more.
There were a few good moments in the first third of the film like the way Carl first notices Ann and…well I can’t think of another at the moment. But I was disappointed by the pussied down version of Jack Driscoll. They even spoof the original character in a test shoot onboard the Venture. At first I laughed but then I realized they just made fun of a great, strong, classic character of which not one can be found in this movie.
Once they arrive on the island it’s pretty cool but a lot of it is shot in “Jackson-cam”, that weird way of zooming in on something and playing it back in a stuttery way. Looks like a music video effect. I was impressed by the way the natives were able to skip across stormy water to the Venture to grab the golden cooze and skip back to land, though it looks much like a Cirque De Soliel bit.
Once they’re on the island it gets cool. But Jackson overstuffs us with “coolness” to the point that I just wanted it to stop. Far too many creatures doing far too many things for far too long. The idea of Kong fighting three T-Rex’s is nothing more than excessive. But what’s worse is the way it’s presented. It’s as if they strapped the camera to Kong’s foot to film the scenes. The best part of that scene was when he was down to fighting just one. But by that point I was tired of the situation. One scene I always found oddly fascinating in the original was when Kong shakes the men from the log. This version was really weak. I didn’t think we would see bodies smashing on the rocks below but I thought we’d see something cool. Maybe showing men puncturing a deep muddy floor or tripping over vines on the way down. Actually most of them survive to enter a scene that was cut from the 1933 film, and for good reason. It was excessive. But excess is the theme in Jackson’s remake.
The movie went on to disappoint me when they replaced the Pterodactyl scene for medium sized bats that Jack and Ann could hang from to flee Kong. They eventually capture Kong and get him to New York. This is where the movie could desperately use an intermission. What made it worse was that it felt like the movie’s engine shut down and went through a slow gradual restart with some boring thought and reflection on the part of Snatch Driscoll. Suddenly the movie is exciting again when the stage show taking place at Kong’s chained feet features replica costumes from the tribe in the original and even uses the original score. From there Kong busts loose, tramples the audience and heads down Broadway. He wanders the streets flinging around cars and blondes trying to find Ann. Kong then proceeds NOT to wreck a train but instead chases Driscoll’s car underneath the raised train tracks, teasing us about a scene we won’t get. Kong then proceeds NOT to clutch a woman from her bed in a high rise and drop her to the street but instead finds Ann and goes ice skating with her.
From there the military start firing on him and he runs right up the Empire State Building where I found myself more impressed with the realistic cityscape than the drama. By now we’ve all scene Kong slap the plane out of the sky a hundred times over in the trailers. After that there’s another “boomerang” plane wreckage that went exactly as you might predict. By the time Kong finally dies I’m thinking, “It’s about frigging time”. We get to look at him for a bit as his eyes go dry and Ann’s gush glycerine. Then he slides off the roof and slowly falls as we listen to some leftover “Titanic” music. Hey, I was sad at the end of Titanic. But either it didn’t work here or I just didn’t want to feel that way about King Kong. But it gets a little worse still. There’s no “thud” whatsoever when Kong eventually hits the street. Maybe the sap softened his fall.
Then finally Carl Denham approaches the dead Kong to deliver the famous line. I knew he was going to say it and I thought I wanted to hear it. But just as he said it I realized it was totally wrong for him to say it. Black’s slimy portrayal of Carl made me realize that it wasn’t beauty killed the beast but greed and self-importance. After all, Kong didn’t follow her back to NY, Denham dragged him back. Jack Driscoll the writer should’ve said the classic line with Carl Denham standing beside him pondering his own fault in the matter. I really did want to love this movie. Overall I thought the original is still better and there will probably be another remake in years to come. Hopefully next time they won’t have 200 million to over do it.
If you publish this, call me The Creature.
This next one’s short and raises some questions, but overall seems to be fairly positive:
Hey Harry,
Mindseye here. Been awhile since I sent in but I saw Kong tonight so I figured here goes with a few thoughts (NOT SPOILER FREE):
In short, it was great. The ape had soul. You believe in that lonely, tired ape. The smallest furrowing and release of his brow gave Kong fantastic facial expression and character. The set pieces were fantastic and the Kong vs T Rex fight is multi-faceted and long and the "vine" portion of it is draw-dropping. The natives were genuinely menacing. New York looked amazing - really surprising that it was all green-screened.
Jack Black was good, and I expected him to be annoying and too Jacky Blacky, but he wasn't. He played straight nicely. Naomi Watts was luminous. Boy, does she have the overcome ingenue expression down pat. She goes to it a lot, but you don't get tired of it. Brody is a bit of a pussy, sorry, even when he is supposed to be heroic.
In general, very well-casted. Somehow, the actors all had a thirties-quality facial structure to them - they made the period piece work, particularly Thomas Kretschmann as the captain and Evan Parke as Hayes who had rip-roaring charisma. Both of these guys should break out. Evan Parke was cool as hell.
My main complaint is that KK may be too action-packed. Kong's roar gets monotonous and we have seen the dinosaurs done before and probably better. The stampede did not work for me at all - it really looked fake.
During the "spider-pit" scene there was melodic "downtime" music which worked in the scene but under-scored how non-stop it all was. It was as if James Newton Howard made a decision to take a break from the ACTION!!!! music for a change. This, however, was no downtime scene. All of the action made for somewhat undeveloped character and relations, which you would not think you would find in movie of this length... I did not really buy into the Darrow/ Driscoll relationship very much and, as such, it made some of his choices seem a bit unbelievable.
There are questions I have:
How did Driscoll know where Kong and Darrow were on that giant island after he decided to go after them on his own?
The "Beautiful" thing - what was up with the sign language? Was Ann Darrow indicating herself when she said "beautiful"? Weird scene, a bit.
Here's hoping the deleted scenes on an inevitable extended addition shows how they got Kong back to NY on that boat.
Anyway, the Kong in Times Square is fan-fucking-fastic and actually worth going to Times Square in Christmas season.
Best,
Mindseye
Here’s a pretty much unmitigated gush.
Here's mine!
Okay, I guess you don't need to count me surprised at this point. This movie, given astronomical expectations, what can I say? It totally met them! Two years ago, however, I would have been very surprised. I mean, faced with the unsettlingly daunting prospect of having to follow up the utterly-obnoxiously-down-in-history Lord of the Rings movies, especially with probably one of the most unneccessary remakes ever, well it looked like it may have... well.. done that! I think Peter, Fran and Phillipa have utterly cemented themselves as surprisingly competant filmmakers, of blockbuster films no less! I think the most surprising thing is the fact that PJ is one of the most completely self indulgent filmmakers alive. Ok, so... I can't say there's a major choice with the movie that I didn't utterly agree with. The only thing that started to grate on my nerves a little was PJ's proclivity for stodgy slow-mo towards the beginning of the film. This dissapeared once Kong came into the picture, oddly enough.
Jack Black is an odd choice for any dramatic movie, I'd say even more so than Jim Carrey. At least Jim changes his tone from character to character. Jack Black's mere existance is funny. Whenever he's talking to Ann, directing her in a scene or the like, you kind of half expect him to start singing "Take off yo' blouse, and yo' undapaaaaants!" Especially the fact that it was him that was given the infamous line, "It was beauty that killed the beast" (yes, they ended the movie with it, and I shouldn't have been surprised at all that they did, though there was a part of me that was hoping that they wouldn't). It's... Jack Black! I don't care how right he was for the part, and would have been if you didn't know who he was, his Jack Blackitude is distracting.
All the same, the more I think about it, the more perfect he seems for the role. Jack Blacked up though he may be.
Then of course there was Jamie Bell as Jimmy and his Magical Negroe, the one real black spot on the movie, as it were. Aren't we past the whole inexplicably Wisened Negroid Mentor Figure Who Dies So Our Young White Coming of Age Character Will Learn and Live thing, Peej? I'm over it.
Then there was this... lovely young German fillie that strode onto the scene. We knew not his actual name, Captain Tighpants? Captain Sexy? Captain Plot Device? At any rate, he is the bastion of slash instigation, newly introduced fangirlitued and saving the day on multiple occassions alike. Who is this Thomas Kretchmann? Why does he bring Germany so high up in the world? What is it about his allure that makes every pair of panties and more than a few boxer-briefs start sweatin'?
And What can I say about Adrien Brody in a wifebeater? How does he look somehow sensitive? And the conversation he instigates with Ann in the hallway while he's walking past her shirtless all "'scuse my pecs". I mean, maybe it's my slight inconventionalness in regard to man-taste, but Adrien Brody... very likeable love interest. Love interests in Hollywood movies like this tend to be strained at best. I mean hell, they walk into the movie and your brain goes "Love interest" and you kind of grin and bear it. But Mr. Mistyeyes just makes it be all like... wow, this is seamless! When hell, it isn't! This is the very prototypical Hollywood movie! And up until everyone gets to Skull Island, it just flows fairly well. The trip on the USS Venture is a little lengthy, yes, but given the non-stop 90 minute action sequence that's about to happen on Skull Island, well, it becomes something o a necessity. And take in all that lovely Brody action.
And then Kong happens, and we really don't care about Brody anymore. Sorry, no, we don't. Truly, the star here is Kong and his quirky little interactions with Ann. Adrien who? I find it reminiscent of the Prince and the Beast in Beauty and the Beast. To quote the great Kirk Wise, "I want my bison!" Or in this case bigass monkey.
Poor Adrien becomes something of a too little too late sort of deal, and every time he shows up it's probably only interesting because Kong is chasing him, infuriated or somesuch. I don't care if you did inexplicably kick a raptor in the head, I mean sure, twenty foot silverbacks probably don't look as good in wifebeaters as you do, Mr. Brody, but will you shamelessly slide on your ass across ice in Central Park? Didn't think so. Moreover, who the hell is going to effortlessly carry her down the Empire State Building after the infamous Last Stand? Yeah, didn't think so.
While I'm on that let me just comment on how AMAZED I was at how well and tactfully that was pulled off. A little drawn out, but no where near the emotional effects milk that it could have been (a la Return of the King - and the way he actually fell off? So much with so little).
But while I'm on the Love Triangle aspect, let me address the lack of Kong Lust that we had in the last two. And thank god, you know? Thank GOD. Peej, I salute your nine-year-olditude. As mind numbingly racist as your movie was, it avoids the iffyness the other two had with the lack of Kong-lust, so go you!
I heard one response saying that PJ missed it- in that removing Ann's horror and disgust, the real tragedy of Kong is pretty much tossed away. While I agree, and that in the original that aspect just made me HELLA angry/sad (seeing Kong pet her and love her while she screams like a... 30's person even though he's being gunned down to his death is pretty tragic) but I think we're working on different levels of tragic here. Namely that this Brave New World is simply not one in which Kong can survive.
And it is hard to think of something in such an action/adventure/fantasy/sci-fi genre to even begin to come to the emotional complexity and depth that it did. The movie's a two hour roller coaster that Lord of the Rings didn't even begin to approach and yet at the end the whole theater finds itself tearing up even more. Kong is wisened and a survivor, but an innocent just like Ann, and here we have the real tragedy of this movie- in order to survive in the world he's brought into, innocence is not allowed (as evidenced by Colin Hanks' "rape" scar at the end as he beholds the whole spectacle with resigned sadness). Kong knows he can't make it in this world, and maybe doesn't even want to, despite his valiant last stand. So as important as it was for PJ to end the movie with "It was beauty that killed the beast"- nep, sorry. It wasn't beauty; it was the rest of the world.
If you use this call me Singe
Here’s our first KONG review to mention fellatio. Only on AICN, huh?
Hi Harry, Bad Lieutenant here, took some time out from smoking crack and harrassing young girls into simulating fellatio to check out the afternoon screening of King Kong at the Loews Theater on 68th and Broadway in NYC. It was jammed, lots of people. Getting into the joint was tough, as people were getting yanked from the line left and right for one reason or another. But once inside it was fine, they even gave out free bags of popcorn, free bottles of Coke and water, and a cool collectible Kong cup. Unfortunately, that was the highlight of the afternoon, because then we had to sit through the movie.
I won't bore you with what the movie is about, for everyone knows the basic story. Let's just cut right to the point. Peter Jackson is an overwrought filmmaker. The guy truly has no sense of the difference between good drama, and very bad drama. That, combined with the fact that he refuses to edit any scene, makes for one heck of a disappointing film.
The problem actually arises from the commentaries on the LOTR DVDs, wherein Jackson, Walsh and Boyens reveal themselves to be screenwriting hacks, throwing around buzz words from books like "How to be a Successful Screenwriter" and "Screenwriting from A-Z." The script for this film is so painfully embarrassing in parts, I actually winced. All of it is on display here, first with the moronic exposition at the beginning. I refer you to the scene where Naomi Watts' theater has been shut down, and some old man talks to her, telling her all the exposition about herself that he would never say in real life. It's almost like, okay Old Man, explain to us why this woman would get on this boat. Everything is so formulaic, so forced in the first hour. And scenes just go on and on, with all these pregnant pauses for what I suppose was dramatic effect. Just bad.
The Skull Island stuff is pretty good. The natives are pretty scary, but Jackson resorts to the same stupid motion/shutter effect he did in the scene with Pippin and the Palantir in ROTK, totally out of place in both films. One awesome sequence is when the natives kidnap Ann. They do this cool pole vaulting thing to get through to the water. Unfortunately the natives disappear soon after they sacrifice Ann. We never see Kong stepping on them, or eating them, none of that cool stuff from the original. Kong eats some of the shipmates and steps on them, but no natives. It was pretty weak from that standpoint. I only remember Kong eating one person, and you don't even really see anything after Kong puts the guy in his mouth. There's no Kong leering into women's bedrooms, or undressing Naomi Watts. I remember that shit from when I was a kid being some of the scariest stuff cause it was real. None of that. Kong is too much of a good guy in this movie, which is a mistake.
Ann with Kong was good, but too quick and forced. Their connection happens too soon. If Kong is supposed to have been alone all this time and stuff, would he really take to her so quickly? Maybe, maybe not, either way it happens too quickly in the film. Which points to a greater problem here, a general feeling of a rushed, slap dash job. There are no good details in the film, everything is so glossed over, weird for a 3 hour film.
Like when they capture Kong, he's laying on the rocks by the water, then they cut straight to the opening night of Kong's appearance on Broadway!!! It just seemed abrupt and weird. We want to see how Ann feels on the long trip home, knowing what Kong is going through. We want to see just something, anything. But nothing. We spend all this time setting up these characters, like stupid Jimmy and Mr. Hayes, and then we gloss over a huge event, like the transport of Kong back to the states. The movie felt incomplete.
Jack Black is fine in the beginning for the most part, but gets worse as the movie demands more of him. You want to laugh everytime you see him, which doesn't really work in the second half of the film. Naomi Watts is good for the most part. She has nothing to do really except run around barefoot in the forest, never wincing or getting hurt once. Adrian Brody doesn't make much of an impact. The script hampers all of them, especially by devoting time to Jimmy's fear of looking like a coward and Mr.Hayes saying "Jimmy" everytime he talks to Jimmy. I'm telling you, the script is putrid, pure by the numbers.
The effects in the film are quite good for the most part, with some stunning shots of Kong on the Empire State Building, great shots from the planes as they circle. But we never really connect with Kong, because really, in the end, he's just a giant CGI monkey, and it's kind of laughable sometimes. I know that might seem sacrilege, but it is true. The audience today attested to that, as there was inappropriate laughter several times in the film. As well as some hissing, which was surprising.
The music was overwrought, the script was overwrought, the editing was overwrought, the direction was overwrought. PJ is really just an effects guru, a good visualist who is a hack writer with hack writing partners. His weaknesses are exposed when the material is not there. Frighteners was awful because there was nothing there. LOTR was good, except for ROTK, cause the material was strong, and the truly bad parts were ones invented by Jackson, Walsh, et al. Let's face it, King Kong is not quite a compelling drama, it is a good adventure movie, but Jackson tries to inject all this false pathos which comes across as...you guessed it, false!
The movie had its moments, but for the most part it was kind of boring, and kind of just....there, which is sometimes the worst thing you can say about a film. At least if it's bad you can have passion about how bad it was, but if a movie is merely OK, what is there to say?
I would wait for the crowds to dissipate before venturing to this one. There's really nothing spectacular or ground breaking about the film. It has no idea what it wants to be, and has really drained all the horror elements from the story. And PJ really has some balls making this thing 3 hours long. If he had something to say, as in LOTR, okay, I'll buy that, but there is nothing to this movie and it is 3 hours long for no reason. 45 minutes could be cut out without skipping a beat. Ah, who cares, most of you will disagree with me now, but you'll agree with me five years from now.
I need to go take some bets. Remember, leave it on the Mets.
And, after that disappointed review, we’ve got another disappointed review:
Greetings.
I know you love all things Kong, but I'd like to submit a review that may flat your tire a bit. I have posted some of my angrier comments in a Talkback, but I'd like to elaborate if I may:
Like I've stated before, i went into this film as a skeptic. However, because of my love for Dead Alive and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, it would not be right to at the very least give Mr. Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt.
SPOILERS AHOY! (actually, this is not so much a review as a run-down of what I remember mixed with a bit of commentary)
And at the start of the film I'm glad I did. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far to say that the representation of New York (as cartoony as it was) was great, as was the performances of Naomi Watts and Jack Black. It should be noted that Black is seemingly playing drama. (though the audience I saw it with laughed at EVERY movement and statement he made until they realized he wasn't in comedic territory) After a movie producer boardroom scene (which liberally lifts a Bill Hicks joke), they're off to make a movie on....(to be typed one finger at a time in shakey slo-mo)... S-K-U-L-L...I-S-L-A-N-D!
On the boat we're treated to the rest of the cast, including a weird relationship between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy. Note: You will want them dead. Immediately. Quicker, if possible. There is a scene missing on the boat, but we will have to wait for the EE DVD. On board, it's revealed that the captain is a master at capturing exotic animals and has a shitload of chloroform. For those with eagle-eyes, you'll notice that the captain has bagged a Sumatran Rat Monkey! But alas, we don't see any stop-motion in THIS Jackson film.
So....they get to the deserted island. Well, that's not entirely accurate. Their ship dances on the jagged rocks for about 10 minutes while the captain navigates them out of a sticky situation. This is where it starts to go wrong. There are orcs on Skull Island. Or Mordor. Or wherever the hell we are. New Zealand Aborigines? Man, I don't know. All I know is that I've seen it before. How about some African influences?
Okay, girl offered to Kong... check!
Girl kidnapped... check!
Guys go in pursuit... check!
Then all these dinosaurs come out of nowhere and the men in pursuit are kind of amazed, but not really. They're more amazed by a 25 foot gorilla. Fine. It's his movie.
THIS IS WHERE YOU SHOULD ENTER THE THEATRE.
So Kong defends his damsel from about 5 T-Rexes. It is good and fun. The fight that is. There's nothing more to it than that. You should see it. Eventually.
The guys in pursuit are dealing with giant insects and slugs in order for there to be more excitement in the King Kong video game (now on sale!). If this uninvolving action set-pieces didn't exist, sure the movie would move along quickly, but then the King Kong video game (now on sale!) would play like Rampage. Remember Rampage? Ahh...
Kong keeps the girl to himself and she's not really that scared. So she dances and juggles to make him laugh and smile (as much as a gorilla can). But after the battle, Kong wants to reflect on the beauty of a sunset. Naomi taps her chest and says 'beautiful'. (I hope this pays off later!)
Anyway, they get the girl back and catch Kong (with a shitload of chloroform). And Carl Denham says we're going to Broadway--
THIS IS WHERE YOU SHOULD LEAVE THE THEATRE.
Cut to Broadway. (Somehow, 5 men dragged a temporarily sedated Kong to their awaiting ship and take him to NY. No word on how long that boat ride was. But it WAS a shitload of chloroform.
Ape gets loose... check!
Naomi offers herself to the beast... check!
And away they go to spend about nine hours ice-skating in the park like the Coca-Cola polar bear. I know it's nine hours because when army guys open fire, they head to the (SPOILER) Empire State Building (END SPOILER) just in time for dawn. King Koko-- I mean, King KONG-- signs 'beautiful' to show that he appreciates beauty. Got it? No? Not yet? You will...
Girl in a slip outdoors all night and on top of a skyscraper when there's snow on the ground without getting hypothermia... check!
Ape shot down... check!
Finally, at the end of the movie Carl Denham tells you what it's all about when he states, "It was beauty that killed the beast." Crap! I thought it was about robots or something. I'm glad they didn't let me miss the point.
THE END.
There are a few inside jokes about Fay Wray and Cooper's RKO film thrown in, but there's not much to get other than that.
Like I said before, I wanted to like this, but it felt like someone rushed the writing process so that he could see some Kong. He's been waiting since he was nine, as we're told over and over again.
The audience reaction was mixed-to-negative. For one of the first US showings, there was little or no applause as we exited the theatre.
Don't shoot the messenger...
HypeEndsHere
And we’ll wrap things up with “NotTomServo,” who takes us out on a high note:
Big doings for a Monday morning: Through a fortuitous series of events and two hours of toe-freezing waiting outside, I just got back from a critic's showing of Peter Jackson's King Kong over at the Loews on 68th St. (As an aside, the screening was run terribly - From the color-coded seating to the random security lines, everything was organized just enough to unnecessarily complicate everything and to reward bad behavior.) But let's get down to brass tacks here: How much for the ape? Well, in essence PJ's King Kong is the Mother of All B-Films - the Skull Island action sequences are spectacular, Kong's adventures in New York seem appropriately mythic, the special effects throughout (particularly the Great Ape himself) are mind-blowing...Without a doubt, Kong is one of the best movies I've seen this year. That being said, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that the film has some serious pacing problems, particularly in the first hour, and at times I thought it seemed almost too reverent of its source material. At the very least, Kong, while definitely a Wonder of the World and no mistake, could have benefited from some minor grooming.
Fortunately, many of the most glaring missteps in Kong occur relatively early on. The film begins very auspiciously with a choice montage of Depression-Era New York, during which we're introduced to beautiful young vaudevillian Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and, soon thereafter, director-on-the-make Carl Denham (Jack Black) and his long-suffering assistant (Colin Hanks). From here throughout, both Watts and Black are excellent - One would never think Watts was interacting with anything less than a grotesquely large primate in the scenes to come, and Black is surprisingly good and unobtrusive as Denham, even if there are a few too many shots of him...slowly...turning...to look at...something huge, amazing, and/or ghastly.
That being said, after the opening, the film slows to a crawl for a good 30-40 minutes, as Denham, Darrow, & co. wend their way to Skull Island about the S.S. Venture. Frankly, I was reminded a lot of the first hour of The Matrix Reloaded during this sequence - There's nothing as flat-out embarrassing as the Bacardi Silver rave here, but there is a lot of hamfisted expository dialogue masking as character development. Particularly egregious in this regard is everything involving the ship's First Mate (Evan Parke) and a young stowaway (Jamie Bell) he's taken under his wing. Frankly, this whole subplot is a mistake - It's laden with stilted groaners (the digression on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, for example) and comes off as cliche-ridden as the tough general and his fresh-faced recruit in that other Matrix film.
Fortunately, right around the time the Venture loses steam, the film starts picking some up. The run-in with the natives is rather creepy. (Although, once again, it could use some tightening - We only need one slo-mo Bad Taste-ish zoom to a human skull and one frightening Zombified Skull Islander in the throes of an epileptic seizure...but PJ gives us four or five of each.) But, right around the time Kong first appears to acquire his new sacrificial plaything, the film starts to gather the hurtling momentum that'll characterize most of the rest of its run.
And, indeed, the rollicking next hour of the film is, for the most part, Jurassic Park on 'roids. Throughout the Skull Island tour (which includes many death-defying stops and Shelob-esque reveals), Peter Jackson and the WETA gang really let their freak flag fly, and the fun here is infectious. This is a monster movie maven at the top of his game, and some of the sequences here - most notably Kong vs three T-Rexes - are jaw-droppingly (or jaw-rippingly, as the case may be) spectacular. I don't want to give away some of the twists and turns in this middle chapter...but, if you're not really enjoying the heck out of this hour of the film, I'm not sure why you went to see Kong in the first place.
Of course, the story returns to New York in the final hour, when Denham brings his newly-acquired Eighth Wonder of the World to the Great White Way. (Look for the now somewhat-unfortunate cameo by Howard Shore, doing what he might well have done best...To be honest, the James Newton Howard score sounded mostly like incidental music. If there was a "Kong theme," I didn't catch it on first viewing.) And, at this point, the film forsakes the mayhem of its middle hour to bask in the Gothic-in-Gotham resonance of the Kong mythos. There are some really beautiful moments here in the final act, although I do have some quibbles: The timing of night and day makes very little sense, and streets seem to clear of fear-stricken bystanders at the most opportune times for Kong and his ladyfriend. (Then again, we are talking about a 25-foot ape here, so perhaps I should just shut up and suspend the disbelief.) Also, there's a scene in Central Park here that I expect will divide audiences - particularly fanboy audiences - down the middle. I found it somewhat touching, but I also couldn't help imagining Kong & Ann visiting Coney Island and/or partaking of a Gray's Papaya while they're at it. "Something tells me I'm into something good..."
And, then, of course, we end atop the Empire State. At this point, you're either with the movie or you're not, and I was definitely moved by Kong's last act. That being said, I can also see the argument that some folks made of Return of the King being made here...the last few scenes are exquisite and heartfelt, but they're also just ever-so-slightly redundant. You can forgive PJ being a trifle indulgent here, I think - this is the big payoff, not only the culmination of a three-hour viewing experience but the most memorable moment in his favorite movie of all time. That being said, I have to admit that at a certain point, as the biplanes went around for yet another pass and Kong looked increasingly miserable, that the horrible cynic in me noted this was somewhat akin to watching a remake of Citizen Kane with a fifteen-minute sled scene.
I was also somewhat reminded of Old Yeller in the closing moments, which - it must be said - speaks for how amazing PJ, WETA, and Andy Serkis' King Kong turned out to be. In fact, this even far outshines their amazing work on Gollum - At no point did I find myself questioning the reality of this Kong, even in the midst of some severe Tyrannosaurus Rex bashing. The Dian Fossey gloss on the relationship between Darrow & Kong helped too - In perhaps the cleverest update of the old Kong, Darrow utilizes a very unique set of skills to bond with the Great Ape. And it's those scenes - and their other quiet moments together - that are the most memorable aspects of this Kong, which is no small feat given the action flourishes of the second act.
In sum, King Kong is an amazing film, and easily one of the best movies of this year. But, to be fair, it's also undeniably too indulgent at times, and I think it ultimately fails to achieve the transcendent heights of the Rings trilogy. (But I'll freely admit to having more of an emotional investment in Tolkien than I do in the original Kong.) At the very least, it's definitely worth seeing, not only as a world-class monster movie but also as a worthy retelling of one of the cinema's greatest stories.
So there you have it. An exhaustive trip through a variety of opinions. In just a little over a week, everyone else is going to have their chance to join the debate, and I’m really curious to see what fandom does. Should be an interesting time.
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
is tne new first.
-
NotTomServo? That's the review I sent ya (from http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/003328.html#003328) But, hey, one name is as good as another.
-
... didn't know you wanted your name used. Most don't. And since your real name draws the Servo comparison...
-
No worries, and, sorry, didn't know the editorial policy. :)
-
3 hours plus for Kong is not good. The last 30 minutes of Return of the King is so loooooooooong. Worried a bit
-
Ya you heard me. I saw it too and I know people are going to complain its too long and the f irst hour is boring but I wasnt bored one second. In fact I thought the movie flew by and I really came to love the characters. Amazing work on Kong good to grea t acting by Watts and all in all great time. If you dont feel a lump in your throat when Kong falls then you have no heart.
-
Yesterday's Penny Arcade has a wonderful comic on Kong and spoilers
-
Motherfucker is worth it's weight in gold. Go ahead....GO APE!!
-
Did you even read the reviews? Half of them were negative, and a few were scathing. No doubt... we're very interested in KONG, but calm down with the whole "sold your soul" bullshit, sonny.
-
... for that dose of realism. I've been reading so many sites rave about how wonderful the original was, that I went back and watched it and realized it's... well, I guess it's a really great b-movie. And frankly, that's pretty much all I want in the remake. If it exceeds that, swell. LOTR was fantastic, and I'm happy to see more from Jackson, but I'm not expecting to see Citizen Kane with apes. That said, thank you, AICN, for using a mix of positive and negative reviews, and not giving those lame caveats you gave to the one negative Hostel review, back when you guys were nauseatingly on the Hostel bandwagon. Anyway, Kong. I'll see it, and I suspect I'll either like it or love it.
-
Just sitting here watching the 1976 version...when Kong is fondling Dwan, right after the waterfall shower/Kong blow-dry sequence you can see, for 1/2 second, Jessica's juicy jug. Fit for Mr. Skin.com. If you haven't seen it (them?) let's just say that she has "pale" nipples. BOINGGGG! I gotta go get a tissue now....
-
Glad to see you monitoring your post from moment to moment. I hooked Fat Harry & Father Geek up with official Kentucky Colonel-dom (cool ass certificate to hang on the wall next to High School diplomas everywhere). Drop me a line and maybe I'll hook you up!
-
...and damnitall, so says the Lord of the Sequel (and toy manufactures, Burger King, RKO, Universal, Dino de Laurentis [wait, he DID do a sequel] and the rest).
-
We really don't have to know how the weather was, how you got your ticket, how you got to the theatre, how you bought your popcorn, how you found your seat, what the lady in front of you was wearing, how big the screen was, what it was like when the theatre went dark, what coke commercial played, or anything...I mean ANYTHING about your fucked-up childhood. We want to know about THE MOVIE....THE FUCKING MOVIE. ALL RIGHT, HAVE YOU GOT THAT? Good. Thankyew.
-
The reviews can't all be wrong..
-
Come on, anyone remember the build up to FELLOWSHIP. There was an AICN story for every single review, every tv spot, the soundtrack, each premiere, everytime JACKSON farted. Now its like they dont even bother anymore. And HARRY hardly ever even posts anything. This site has gone downhill. Hell has anyone noticed this place even have spy reports anymore. Now its just like a regualar movie news site albeit with dodgy graphics. Bah. its gone downhill I tell you!
-
... on your fellow reviewers/comtributors that is. Lets keep that as a recurring theme. Professionalism be damned.
-
How about THIS King Kong vs. the new & improved Godzilla (from Final Wars)? I'll buy that for a dollar!
-
Boy, I really tickled your balls, didn't I? Go back and read that Massawyrm post that has you still crying days later. Did I call him names? Did I use any bad words? Was I a big meanie? The funniest part of all of this is that you seem far more upset that Massawyrm was. Go figure.
-
I want to appologize in advance for stinking up the 10th row in the theatre. I farted and really make a mess of things.
Sorry, these things happen.
BTW, I had steak, potatoes, and cheese for lunch that afternoon. -
I have given up on it being as spectacular as I dreamed...but I'll settle for damn fine entertainment. I'll still be there opening night...and have a good time...but I don't really care anymore if it lacks gravitas or, God forbid, has too much. I've even stopped paying attention to the PJ Haters/Apologists flame war. I'm just gonna go see it...then wait for "Munich."
-
I like when Moriarty is a big meanie to other reviewers, it's fun. He teared Massawyrm a new one, that for sure. MORI, maybe you SHOULD use names and bad words, know what I'm saying? take it to the next level -use your anger, feel the power of the dark side! you know you want to ;o) (btw, KONG WILL RULE)
-
The biggest complaint of the film has been it's ridiculous length, most of the PJ bumlovers said he had balls for making a three hour film. Most of the middle camp said making a 3 hour film just because you can, is fucking stupid. Now it's out there for all to snore through, an hour til we get to fucking Kong. So did Ang Lee advise on the set? "Mr. Jackson, make them wait through boring shit that no one cares about before you get to the payoff, by then they should all be asleep! GOLD JERRY, GOLD!" SO we get more of Jackson's inability to edit himself, and hey, I hope we do get that 4 hour extended cut so we can see Kong rub one out and cover Lady Liberty, make a speech to Ann about monkey Island "right now Mr. Frodo...er...Anne, the flowers are blooming, little native Rosie is cooking a batch of head stew, and my ol' Gaffer is making human skin capes and jogging pants. I reckon we won't be seeing the Shire...er..Monkey Island again Mr. Anne" and more backstory on characters no one gives a shit about...
Looking forward to opening night!
-
Now the movie is ruined! (just kidding)
-
I AM looking forward to Kong, really. But ol' PJ fucks up as much content as he nails in his films and Kong in no way needed to be three hours. For as much tinkering in the LOTR films that he did with the original material, and for all the slo-mo OVERUSE everytime Frodo or Sam even moved, he could have had the scouring of the Shire in there and Shelob where she belonged, in TTT.
-
its consumed me night and day ("days later" as you put it, ya know seeing how it was 24 hours ago and all) I've had no other thoughts since. I am out for blood and have declared internet jihad on someone I've never met. Sure, like luv said, you didn't use bad words or call him names but that sure would've classed your posts up a bit and really stuck it to him! "The funniest part of all of this is that you seem far more upset that Massawyrm was" So is that an admission that Massawyrm was irked? I, along with other talkbackers in the original "feud" thread, just find it weird that you don't see anything wrong/unprofessional in what you did. But hey what do I know, I'm just an uncultured regular Joe with a regular job, I's don't gets to knobhob with the stars and what not. Maybe theres a different way of doing things in "Hollywood". Stab people in the front only when you can't find their back - you know the backside is usually the side that you're giving it to them good and hard beforehand. Massawyrm should really know his place in the pecking order - that is the Holy Trinity of AICN - at the right hand of the Almighty Knowles sits Moriarty the Great - Patron Saint of Good Reviews. (Like the other talkbackers in that particular thread you'll call out Massa on a "review" but not Harry? Understandable) In light of eternity none of this all really matters. I come here to get "news" and be entertained, which this "feud" is (although its not quite Biggie vs Tupac) I'm just trying to keep it going, point out your flaws, get you to at least entertain the thought that what you did was lame - ya know whichever comes first. That and I love the acknowledgement and attention a lowly nobody like me gets from a genuine celeb like you Mori. BTW - I like having my balls tickled maybe thats why I keep coming back for more. The real question is should I expect a spiteful ban now? Stifling Free Speech is practice not only enjoyed by the eeeeevil BusHitler regime but should be embraced by all, up to an including Second In Commands at entertainment news web sites.
-
"DEATH! DEEEAAAAAAATH!!!!"
-
Dec 06, 2005 4:48:09 PM CST
Weird...just about everyone is going into this already determine
by performingmonkey
Methinks everyone is gonna have to see this a couple of times to really get it. And yet again there are geeks complaining that Peter has injected emotion into a $200 million blockbuster. Excuse me but this isn't a total geek-out movie fit for your masturbatory existence alone. It's a movie for the masses, so there's gonna be a combination of action and sentimentality. Who knows, maybe Universal should have told Peter to cut it down from 3 hours to 150 minutes or something. It seems that people aren't really liking the boat journey that takes 30 minutes. Anyway, no matter what, there is no denying that this is the biggest movie of the year, and it's better than Titanic and Pearl Harbour, so in my view it's a success. He he.
-
Dec 06, 2005 4:58:29 PM CST
Thank god the site has finally published some negative reviews..
by minderbinder
-
http://tinyurl.com/9razl
Wish I had been there. -
Fair enough. Good call. "I really tickled your balls". Priceless. I wish to use that in conversation, if I may.
-
$200,000,000 spent on Kong is better than $200,000,000 spent on whatever cunty cause you would prefer the money go to. If 20 million people receive $10 worth of entertainment from the movie [the equivalent of two packs of smokes, or one half-and-half from your Mom - a mere pittance] then the studios deserve the money, and the people who worked on the film deserve the money. It's that simple. It's more just for my $10 to go to the people who provided me with $10 worth of entertainment than it is for my $10 to go to someone who is nothing to me and who has provided me with nothing. Justice and equivalent exchange are one and the same. I don't particularly think there should be a Fantastic Four sequel, but I'm certainly not going to lament the money spent on it - it's the studio's money to spend and it's SirBiatch's money to spend on a ticket, if he so desires. Not mine, and not yours.
-
"a pack of overgrown AICN wannabees who got their fucking hands onto an Obscene amount of Moola to make their Spoogey flick all-time." first of all, that barely even makes sense. but seriously, if you had access to that kind of money and power, wouldn't you make your dream flick? isn't that kinda what we all here would LOVE to do someday? if not, why even bother coming here, man? PS i think your SN should be pronounced as one word, like a last name. Goatzinger, Irving Goatzinger.
-
when people get owned in the TBs by AICN staff, their follow-up posts are total crash-and-burn nonsense babble?
-
Isn't anyone disturbed by the racist symbolism in King Kong? White men go to some tropical land, kidnap a large strong dark skin native creature, bring it to America in the hold of a ship, put it in chains, and when the poor creature breaks its chains to find the blonde white woman it has fallen in love with he is then killed by the white man.
That is sickening shit and I can't believe anybody would want to see it. It manages to demean everyone of all races all at the same time.
-
Dec 06, 2005 5:23:29 PM CST
" WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU FUCKING TALK ABOUT IT MORONS???"
by minderbinder
I think talking about the budget is perfectly on topic here. I just think that going off on the tangent that they shouldn't spend that money on a movie, and instead should have bought teddy bears for sad children is not. In fact it's pretty retarded. I think the only time a budget really is interesting is when the movie fails to make it back. Which, at this point, is virtually an impossibility with this film.
-
...then I took my dick out of the USB port (yes, it fits, thank you).
-
that was the weirdest sentence i've ever typed.
-
Dec 06, 2005 5:26:43 PM CST
Racism? I'm pretty disturbed by anyone who looks at kong an
by minderbinder
I'm sure black folk love being compared to gorillas.
-
are you speaking from experience?
-
Dec 06, 2005 5:27:58 PM CST
I pointed that out once, johnnyangel, and everyone acted like I
by hypeendshere
-
The Quicktime stuff did. Anyway, Quicktime sucks, and so does the computer game version.
-
Of course a black man would be deeply insulted by the comparison, anyone would be, but there it is. I'm not making it up. That is the subtext of the movie, white man's fear of the black man.
-
How is it "virtually impossible with this film" to lose money? It's not even out yet. We should just wait a month to see how it's doing.
-
Although the movie business is obviously less important than space exploration, I find similarities between what you're saying and those people I've argued with who say we shouldn't be spending a dime on NASA or JPL until we've solved all our problems here on Earth. Although it's tempting to arrange everything in the world along a single scale of values and then pretend that all the (American) money in the world, private and public funds, sits in one big pot and can then be distributed justly according to that very same scale, the fact is that space exploration, the movie business, world hunger and the development of renewable energy sources have very little, if anything, to do with each other. It's not a question of either or. There's enough money and know-how floating around to do all of those things. Furthermore, it actually is possible to spend ten bucks on a completely escapist film and also donate money to worthy and charitable causes as well as do humanitarian volunteer work. I do and have done both and can't say I feel either disgusted, used - or even exploitative for that matter - for spending a few bucks on a ticket or a DVD which is the culmination of the work of hundreds of people and untold hours of love and labor. If a movie sucks, on the other hand, I might feel pissed on a personal level about rewarding the poor effort, but I have no problem on principle with throwing my dough at a film of King Kong's nature.
-
Spout your opinions nay-sayers, then kindly step aside ( I don't know! Go and see AEON SUX or something...) 'cause I plan to hand Universal my ten bucks and enjoy the hell out of this. Oh, Goatzinger, guess I won't be seeing you in the theater as this "spoogey flick" unspools.
-
Something tells me that this "subtext" you speak of isn't exactly part of Jackson's vision. Now you're harping on the ORIGINAL film. But to what purpose? To persuade people that have already made up their minds to see the film that it's an insult to humanity because of racist undertones? That one of the biggest personal reasons PJ had for making it was so he could finally slip in all that subtle metaphor the '33 version was so well-known for? As if he hadn't had enough of that from his protrayal of the Haradhrim? Give me a break...
-
I'm late to the dance on this, but I have to add one thought: You AICN guys have a lot to learn about wielding your new status in the film industry. If you sense a bit more surprise and hurt in response to your criticism of Talkbackers lately it's because getting crapped on by a wealthy film industry type is, for an average person, a lot worse than getting crapped on by a fellow geek. Enjoy your success, guys, but understand things have changed, like it or not. I'm just an observer who knows what he's talking about.
-
Dec 06, 2005 5:44:29 PM CST
Part of the original Kong's appeal was that the special effe
by thunderballs
-
For you, I have a snappy dvd copy of "Son of Kong." In this one, a WHITE gorilla is put through the ringer and dies horribly at the end saving that nasty, greedy Carl Denham. Even-Steven baby.
-
Dec 06, 2005 5:45:05 PM CST
Isn't Kong the creature supposed to be scary? Why is he now
by thunderballs
-
Dec 06, 2005 5:50:14 PM CST
Kong never ate anyone in the original. He would put a person in
by orionsangels
In the 76 version he didn't eat anyone either. The only time I saw Kong really eat any people whole, was in the horrible, King Kong Lives. That movies a joke. So it surprises me to hear PJ has Kong eating people in this movie? Gorilla's aren't meat eaters.
-
...I knew the haters would push the big red racism button at some point, but I couldn't imagine they'd abandon conventional hater tactics so soon. 1) The original film is most definitely a product of its time and overtly prejudiced. Why would they need a subtext when they paint such an unflattering picture of non-whites upfront? 2) Attempting to apply the racist theory to Jackson's modern version is nothing less than saying any modern film featuring apes prominently could be said to have an anti-black subtext. It's asinine, simple and an easy way to score cheap, irrelevant and dishonest political points. As far as I'm concerned that makes you the racists. I'd love to hear your subtext bullshit concerning lonely white woman Diane Fossey getting butchered for hanging around a bunch of gorillas in the mist. Assholes.
-
pj could have subtly changed King Kong to eliminate the racist subtext. For example, he could have used black actors in some of the lead roles. Halle Berry would have been great in the Fay Wray/Naomi Watts role, and Samuel L Jackson would have been awesome as the reporter.
-
not the reviews of a lucky bunch that saw the movie. hope you feel better by the time you see the movie
-
Kong doesn't eat anyone in this version either. He bites and throws a few unlucky souls, tho'.
As far as the racism goes, PJ comments on it by historicizing it -- the original native costumes show up in the Denham floor show. -
Wimp.
-
Dec 06, 2005 6:24:47 PM CST
everything i wanted to say, DocPazuzu, you said better...
by filmicdrummer17
-
I am almost starting to understand some of these people on here. Will make my own decision on the big ape, but won't buy the action figure. So there! That got them.
-
as more good reviews roll in..outweighing the bad the desperation from the haters increases.i love it.
-
Dec 06, 2005 6:40:22 PM CST
wow. you certainly need to be told what to think there, buddy.
by hypeendshere
heaven forbid you form an opinion that differs from the critics when you actually see it. or whoever you claim is rolling in these 'good reviews'.
-
I saw it as a kid and later on and I was never excited about it. I love the fantastical and scifi, but Kong just doesn't do it for me. Why are a lot of you (in your 20s-40s) interested in seeing this? (and please notice I'm not knocking the Kong lovers out there, to each his own, but I just want to know what the big deal is).
-
Halle Berry in Naomi Watts' role? You couldn't come up with a better black actress than that? She is so fucking overrated it is not even funny. Beyond that ... you and the "racism first" crowd are pathetic.
-
There aren't as many haters as you think. There are a lot of reviews that say "It was good, but..." and there are a lot of reviewers who liked the movie, but were disappointed in the hype. You keep telling yourself that all the haters are wrong and that every good review is the truth and maybe, just maybe it will work out for you that way. It's more likely though, that you'll go see the film and realize like several people did yesterday, that this is not quite the film they wanted to see. Maybe we expected too much, maybe I expected too much, but this movie didn't give me the emotional response I wanted. I really wanted it to be a movie where "grown men cry", but the fact was that the only person I saw crying at the screening was the young lady sitting next to me, who may have had a cold. Just lower your expectations a little and go enjoy the show for what it is.
-
No, you're not going to get banned or deleted. I'm not upset at you. Look, Harry and I bust each other's balls in reviews frequently, and in talkbacks as well. Knowles torments me and enjoys doing so. Posting a comment under Massawyrm's article isn't "unprofessional," because that's one of the ways we interact at the site. There's a forum here now, too, and when I post something there, it's not "unprofessional." We created an interactive site on purpose. It's been that way for a long time. If I disagreed with something about Quint said, I'd put it under his article, and have in the past. There's no backstabbing going on. Just conversation.
-
...the positive reviews are nice to see...
-
Well...in my case I'm just a nut about apes. Gorillas in particular. I have been since I saw Planet of the Apes on TV when I was a little kid. Then I saw King Kong on some afternoon movie show and was captivated by Kong. I then became a bit of an expert on primates devouring all I could in the school and city library. Kind of like Rick Baker, except our careers went along different paths. He went to Hollywood to make some cool Apes, I went into...Insurance??!!! Oh well. Hell, the strongest reason I wanted to see "Star Wars" ( pre-Episode IV: A New Hope bullshit title ) was because I saw a picture of Chewbacca on a magazine cover. Later on, watching King Kong again on video I was again reminded of its beauty. Yeah, stop-motion is jerky but damn, what a beautiful island and awesome jungles ( I can see where Frazetta gets some of his imagery ). It is, a jewel of a movie. And now, seeing how good Jackson can film things ( LOTR ) I'm pretty hyped about this one.
-
how about a body massage?
-
If one remakes a racist movie, ie the 1930's King Kong, and doesn't change any of the major plot elements or the races of the various stars, then how can the remake not be a racist movie? Frankly, when I saw the previews, I was embarrassed.
Imagine someone remaking Birth of a Nation and not changing the part about the heroic KKK saving the white woman from the evil black man. The remake would still be a racist movie, even if it were directed by Peter Godalmighty Jackson. If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it's a racist movie.
Sorry, but do the math for yourself. -
ok, this isn't a flame or whatever, I'm just saying that the racism in the 33 Kong is really more of a subtext, something read in to it by the masses. If you showed the 33 crowd Demolition Man I'm sure they'd say Snipes is the Evil Black Man personified. As a culture we can bring a new consensus to a film. Griffith intended there to be a racist subtext in Birth Of A Nation, so did Cooper with the 33 Kong Jackson doesn't intend to make a film with a racist subtext so he hasn't made one. And please nobody bring up critical theory bullshit either. I gave up with that SHIT when they started reading Marxist subtext in to the Duchess of Malfi.
-
So BECAUSE Jackson has no major black parts, he is racist and his film is too. "Racist! They're all racist!"
-
Colonel, King Kong is at most 30 feet tall and can be killed by conventional weapons. Godzilla is somewhere between 200 and 400 feet tall and nearly indestructible. In the battle you propose, one blast of Godzilla's devastating atomic breath would cause the tiny monkey to go up like a hamster left too long in the microwave.
-
How do you know Jackson has no major black parts? Have you ever seen him nude?
-
I agree. I've seen real dinosaurs stampede too, and it looked nothing like this. Next time, Peter HACKson, use REAL DINOSAURS. By the way, johnnyagnel - I was just intrigued by your use of the "if it quacks like a duck" simile: it reminds me of Terrell Owens when he played for the 49'ers, when describing whether he thought a teammate was gay ("if it smells like a rat . . .)". Based on the logic you employed with the new KONG, doesn't that make your post homophobic?
-
nice one. i am hurting real bad right now.....straight to the heart....
-
Dec 06, 2005 7:57:37 PM CST
painless - it could be ... because his posts show a racist attit
by lamerz
yup yup.
-
Cameron1, interesting comment.
Lamerz, excuse me, but I'm from Texas. What's a fucking putz? I'm guessing it's not a compliment.
Bowman, ROTFL!
painless, I'm not going to see Brokeback Mountain, if that's what you mean.
-
I've got reviews of Initial D the movie, Jackie Chan's The Myth, and Tsui Hark's Seven Swords on my site if anyone cares to take a break from the Kong worship.
http://www.dreamlogic.net -
Your logic is seriously flawed. Thereby making your "argument" completely worthless. End of story. On an unrelated note, Kong is poised to do Titanic/Passion of the Christ size business. End of second story. KONG IS KING!!! Suck on that, haters.
-
any way ya put it, those that promote the "race first" attitudes are lame. here's a fucking thought for ya ... i thought hollywood was supposed to be so fucking enlightened and progressive. i thought that (according to the leading lefties) the only racists were white conservative/republican men. quite the conflict, then, that such a racist pic was sanctioned by, and made it past the enlightened elite! either you are full of shit, of hollywood is full of hypocrites!
-
I won't visit your site just because you whored it so shamelessly.
-
... suffering from dementia. Obviously.
-
Some people seem upset that KK is a remake of the original because, well, that makes it unoriginal. Let's compare and contrast to another Ape film: Planet of the Apes. I'll admit, I thought the makeup, etc., in POTA was great--the story just sucked. Would POTA-remake had been better if they stayed with the original story and just did the makeup (like KK seems to be doing) ... and to flip it, would you want a KK that changes the story while keeping the same theme? Just some ideas I'm tossing around in my own head, interested in what y'all are thinking. Peace.
-
your post was too short for me to determine your stance.
-
If King Kong can change his size, as he apparently is small on Skull Island and quite a bit larger in Manhattan, who is to say that the trip to Tokyo would super-inflate the big guy. I still think that Godzilla would sizzle him like a sausage...but it'd be fun to see. Anyone out there hip to the band "King Kong"? They are from my hometown and can be found on AllMusic.com . They have a real funky beat and are best described as Funk-Trippy. They have used CD's on Amazon for like $4 and I, for one, am going to get the two that I don't have (Funny Farm and Big Bang) with my Xmas loot. I HIGHLY tout their fourth album..."Kingdom of Kong". Sample lyric... "The Imperial ruler of the highest dynasty. The most regal reigning mega-monarch. He's big, He's strong, He's King Kong...I sing my song to King Kong...I am mere shit before thee!" Godzilla only had one song by Blue Oyster Cult...KK's got 5 jammin' albums! Oh no, there goes Tokyo!!!! I had my first and only alcohol related blackout at the King Kong show (at Headliners in Louisville) mentioned in the AllMusic entry. If you've never had one, a total blackout is fucking scary when you wake up in your own bed and have no idea how you got there. It'd have been more fun to wake up next to a babe, but I'd have embarrased the shit out of myself when I asked the next morning "Who are you and did we fuck?"...especially if it had been an ugly pig or (shudder) a tranny. (((shudder))) Still, Kong Rules! Ethan Buckler, Amy, Ray and the rest tear it up. Check 'em out and party on. "I am mere shit before thee"...let's see Bono sing THAT one...
-
I'd watch that computer if I were you, and perhaps use American Sign Language or speak Navaho if you want to have a discussion with your boy Frank Poole. FYI.
-
Dec 06, 2005 8:43:05 PM CST
anyway, it seems like the 'lovers' are more vicious than
by hypeendshere
and like i said before, there's really not much here to hate. the theatrical version that we're getting is in essence, the Extended Edition. that is to say that it's a lean little 90 minute romp heavily edited together with 100 minutes of deleted scenes. it's no worse than Mighty Joe Young '98, but CGI aside, it's not much better. and yes, the brontosaurus stampede looked fake. actually, it looked rushed. there's no excuse for the sloppiness of the FX after we've seen 3 Jurassic Park films and Jackson's 3 previous efforts. the script felt lazy and the FX rushed.
-
good reviews....
-
http://www.geocities.com/kingkongtheband/contents.htm
"I don't know what to do...I'm much too funky for a zoo!" - King Kong
-
Dec 06, 2005 8:52:38 PM CST
The blues had a baby and the bastard couldn't sing...
by seppukudkurosawa
I was just watching a "Koong Foo" flick the other day, I think it was called The Leopard Fist Ninja. It was very shit if you ask me. And I've seen a lot of terrible Kung Fu films in my time, but this was pretty poor by those standards (though it has to be said, they're all entertaining in their own unique way). Now this isn't a total non sequitur, the big baddy in this film was called King Kong. Now ain't that a kick in the head? King Kong!? Anyway, erm, I'll be catching the film no doubt, but at the moment that's all I have to say about that grizzly monkey fella for the time being. Good luck with your racist/religious rantings guys.
-
whats the latest?
-
positive to negative, here on AICN with people who followed this movie from conception to birth. What does that say about the average movie-going population? Absolutely nothing. www.unseenfilms.com
-
I dont necessarily think that "editing" is the answer for a long film. My suggestion is to rewrite and stop relying so heavily on reshoots. The LOTR films (which I loved, btw, in both forms) threw everything at us but the kitchen sink, inserting cool action scenes that weren't terribly needed and making points (very overtly and in a melodramatic way--which I still loved) over and over and over again in big, build-up dialogue scene between two characters after one another. But I love the passion, and I love that Jackson is determined to give his audience something special, and, in the end, this overshadows the story's structural flaws (at least in LOTR, havent seen Kong yet). www.unseenfilms.com
-
Dec 06, 2005 9:43:42 PM CST
the latest on John Carter? Its not going to happen because Zathu
by jrbarker
At least with Favreau. Probably back into Development Hell for a while.
-
like you did by the lake on Naboo. Sorry, I really have nothing to say. Um...can't wait to see this movie next Wednesday.
-
You rip on KONG for being 'racist', yet at the same time snigger about not wanting to see a movie about homosexual cowboys. Here's your cone-shaped hat with 'DUNCE' written on it: please go face the wall. After an hour, please come back and explain yourself. And bring a nice shiny apple for teacher.
-
Enough of Kong already.
-
The movie ain't even out yet ... sheesh! This is gonna be a monster (pun intended), and you got months of Kong hype to look forward to!
-
and that's meaning much more to me than the geek reviews here that I won't even read, because as I've quickly come to realize, most people on this site hate movies in general, as little sense as that might seem to make
-
Dec 06, 2005 10:44:37 PM CST
You're all pawns in New Line's slow-burning publicity ca
by seppukudkurosawa
-
... it's coarse, and it gets everywhere dammit!
-
... the man has everyone in his clutches, except you!
-
I'm a deeply flawed human being. But are we critiquing King Kong or my moral development?
My point is that the story line of King Kong mirrors the struggle of the black man in America, as seen through racist white eyes. Some people dispute that. Some people would rather look at the pretty pictures and not think about the symbolism that gives the story its relevance. Surely you all know that giant apes do not exist? So why is this story meaningful? Why does the story resonate? Why would anyone care about a giant cgi ape? What does the giant ape represent? The story line makes it obvious that the giant ape represents the black man. I see no other possible interpretation. -
... that's your racist interpretation. you are projecting your feelings on to Peter Jackson's remake of a 1930's movie. it's ok, you'll get past it someday. others seem to care about the giant ape in this version because of his feelings of loneliness and his need for companionship. gee, people don't sympathize with that. wow, how racist.
-
Dec 06, 2005 10:56:44 PM CST
You people would burn all the literature and great art works of
by psalmolive
You people are like the Taliban. You destroy anything that does not agree with your notion of what is acceptable, and claim it as enlightenment. People like you burned down the Alexandrian Library, you absolute failures of human beings.
-
Dec 06, 2005 11:02:08 PM CST
Johnyangel, I think you've got this from the wrong the angle
by seppukudkurosawa
Roots had white money in it, and a Jewish producer who pulled the whole thing together, and that showed the story of a black man (Kunta Kinte) being stolen from Africa, taken to a strange country, chained down on a ship, and encouraged to forget his culture (or roots). Now Roots was a massive part of the late 70's Civil Rights campaign, and is still being shown in schools to this day. If King Kong shows pretty much the same story, but swapping a big black man for a big black monkey, then it ain't necessarily being racist so much as showing this story again. I don't think the '30s audiences were quite set to swallow something so righteous as Roots yet (they were still pulling black men from their beds and lynching them up until the 40's and even 50's remember), so King Kong would have to do. And eventually films like The Defiant Ones addressed racism head-on. So I don't see how showing the story of the black slave's plight can be a bad thing.
-
I almost fell off my chair reading the struggle of the black man analogy. It's a cool movie with monsters and big apes and shit. That about covers it.
May you strike it rich in the heavily manured gardens of Academia! Priceless! -
Dec 06, 2005 11:10:07 PM CST
Bottom line - An orgy of FX that is hugely entertaining but some
by orionsangels
-
nice generalizations ... care to try again addressing specific individuals with whom you disagree? Or do you really believe that you are above everyone on here? No arrogance there. Nah.
-
... and what I've been expecting. Not a life changing event, not the meaning of life, but a fucking fun time. If you gimme that, PJ, you are the man!
-
comedy gold!! :)
-
Your mom is a man, and he doesn't like first posts.
-
Assuming you're not, you do realize that this story is set in the 1930s right? Were there a lot of movies back then being written by black screenwriters and starring black actresses in the lead roles? If so, please refresh my memory. I somehow managed to miss all of them in my 30+ years of avid movie watching. Or are you suggesting that Jackson should have updated it like the 1976 version (Yikes! I could barely bring myself to type that last sentence).
-
Present Day ....... Modern day Kong captures Ann Darrow on the island, makes her his ho, is captured, goes to NYC, escapes, picks up some bling bling gold chains and some weed from a dealer near Times Square, and backhands Ann Darrow for skipping out with a weeks cash and talking back. Bitch better have my money! Now that might have some racial overtones johnnyangel... some of us can laugh at that without being racist because it is totally ridiculous and would never get made. I seriously doubt PJs version has any racial overtones, and from the (legit) reviews so far, it doesn't seem so.
-
Dec 06, 2005 11:51:37 PM CST
King Kong is kind of like the Osama Bin Laden of his day when yo
by seppukudkurosawa
it's just that, instead of hurtling planes towards The Two Towers, he used himself as a projectile mammal. And Jesus is kind of like the Ch
-
... but I'm just not feelin' it. Fuck it.
-
What about Revenge of the Sith? Let's see...aristocratic white man wants a new servant. Anakin looks like a good bet, but he's not quite right...hey! Let's literally turn him into a HUGE BLACK MAN! Sheesh, I'm surprised we never saw Darth Vader slurping on watermelon.
-
Dec 07, 2005 12:03:02 AM CST
Can anybody say anthing vaguely funny on the topic of King Kong
by seppukudkurosawa
It's all been completely walked into the ground the last few months. I guess their "tantalizingly minimilast" campaign has really paid off, because you hear the same old shit in these talkbacks, and sigh through the same old shitty arguments (usually involving Spazuzu and Ringbearer- who, I think it has to be said, is sharper than the average talkbacker, and for a troll is strangely naive and quite a nice guy).
-
... if only because of the sheer absurdity! I thought it was kind of racist in it's treatment of green frog men and blue hot chicks. The way that white man fucked up Yoda and had his army shoot blue broad in the back was just mean spirited. Might as well have lynched Mace Windy. Racist MF, Lucas!
-
Dec 07, 2005 12:05:06 AM CST
What were you banned for Token and...don't tell me it was fr
by seppukudkurosawa
because I wouldn't believe you. Herc's never acted like a fascistic, "You made me look silly so I'm gonna kick you" Nazi in her life.
-
eat a bowl of dick up!
-
well I'm not sure you can really get banned from chat, they just kick you more often than banning. Just try and log back on and it should be alright, and if worst comes to worst, just log-in with a different name. I once got kicked for chatting with the name, "Sharon Tate's Foetus"...I'm not sure everyone shares the same sense of humour as me.
-
eat...a..bowl...of dick up. What, are we twelve? Maybe you'd have been better off saying something like, "you're a Gay". Some people never went through that whole rite of passage known as puberty.
-
Not great. Not terrible. Some good F/X for sure. I'd watch the "spider pit" stuff again, but the film is just a Kong hair better than "Jurassic Park" if that helps.
-
At least it was a little more creative than "Fuck you". I was fucking stunned after reading that one. The sharp wit hurt me like a thousand cuts with a razor blade. U da man.
-
good of you to so freely admit it and save the FBI the time and effort of investigation. way to save the taxpayers some money! thanks!
-
har har har
-
because you're quite simply the biggest asshole this Talkback has right now. Keep up the good work.
-
No he isn't. He thinks I'm funny. He can't be all bad.
-
Fuck you isn't even a good insult in the, "I'm not really going to get involved, but I can't be made to look like a pussy" kind of way. My excuse is that I was on the phone councelling my cousin, who's just been recovering from a suicide scare...she'd just come back from a preview of King Kong. Put two and two together if you will. Me? I don't think it'll be so bad I'll want to jump off a very large building, but any excitement I had months back watching the production diaries has been drained out of me. If you think this sounds like the talk of someone who's already made up their mind about the flick before they've seen it (Fan-boy rule No.1), well you're probably right. Then again everyone told me Battlefield Earth was gonna be shit before I caught that; they'd been hassling me for weeks not to see it; they'd been haranguing me with phone calls, "Please, whatever you do, don't go see that shitfest. It's risible!", and when I saw it...it was pretty fucking bad. My point is, fuck you Lamerz.
-
It's not like I had the FBI on speed dial, geez. Remember, it's just a movie site on the Internet! Oh, and thanks Dave Bowman!
-
That was a long post, seppukudkurosawa, to make the awe inspiring, world changing point of ... wait now ... here it comes ... "Fuck You"!!! Again! Where's that mescaline?
-
1. better shot composition 2. no need to rely on gimmicks like slow-motion 3. understands the need for editing 4. creates coherency from scene to scene while keeping everything faster and more intense...
-
... like a phoenix from the ashes!
-
Dec 07, 2005 1:39:32 AM CST
Yeah and we owe it all to Hideo Kojima, creator of the Metal Gea
by orionsangels
-
Dec 07, 2005 1:57:22 AM CST
Sheesh! Will reviewers PLEASE LEARN to the chase? (quote) "We co
by triumph poops!
You know, no offense or personal slight particularly aimed at this reviewer since they all seem to have contracted the deadly "AICN review virus", which entails telling us your WHOLE DAY -- play by play -- from the minute you took a morning pee to the minute the theater actually darkened. Really, I'm glad these guys got to see the movies...glad they enjoyed it...glad they even wrote in to give us a sort of teaser peak at how it turned out. But really, folks, we need to stop this disease from spreading. It's one thing when Harry does it -- fine, I can accept that as HIS particular style of writing online, it's sort of his trademark at this point to meander all over -- but that doesn't mean EVERYONE should adopt this review or writing style. Just a helpful tip for FUTURE reviewers. As to these guys, again, glad you got to go and enjoy it. Again, sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you, sorry to come off as the cranky guy here, it's just I'm really getting tired of long, meandering pieces that take far too long to get to the point and, worse, as a result short-shift actual review points of discussion.
-
Dec 07, 2005 2:05:58 AM CST
My bitchy rant aside, I'm glad to see this is getting good r
by triumph poops!
Come on, it's KING KONG. It's the classic big monster other than GODZILLA, and we all KNOW how we got short-shifted on that one. And I have to say, while I had my problems with a few of Jackson's choices in regards to LOTR, so far everything I've seen on this movie makes the kid in me excited. In fact, I bet I end up loving this far more than I could ever get into the LOTR films. But maybe that's because the kid in me has just always loved KONG far more than I could ever get into the Tolkein stuff. I mean, that shot of Kong leaping up and swatting the one plane apart is TOTALLY kick ass. Hell, I'd be standing in line and buying a ticket just based on that bit alone!
-
KING KONG is Fellowship of the Ring with Gandalf replaced by a Monkey.
-
Dec 07, 2005 2:26:20 AM CST
Yeah I'm very encouraged by all the good reviews pouring in
by thirteen 13
I never trust the negative reviews done by the talkbackers, because its always from the same people and they hate anything and everything. They hated Sin City. They hated Batman Begins. They hated LOTR, They hated Harry Potter, They hated King Kong, blah blah blah. And they never ever list anything that they actually like. Rotten tomatoes has always been a good source of whether its good or not, and so far, King Kong has gotten 12 reviews and is still at 100%, which is damn good and doesn't happen all that often. Usually out of the first 12 reviews there is always at least one negative. Oh yeah....hypeendshere...You can re-write your review on the 14th after you have actually seen it.
-
The giant ape represents the giant freaking ape!!!! I mean jeez this is fantasy movie about a wild giant ape being brought to civilization and the resulting consequences. Just enjoy it for what it is.Which is a work of fiction brought to life on the big screen and quit trying to make it into something it's not.
Would you feel better if it was a giant Lion maybe? Or how about a giant kangaroo? We could have called it "King Roo" instead. Would that be ok with you?Or would you try to claim that those animals represent the plight of the Irish and the Asians in this country? -
... says far more about the person making it than it does about the film. Yes, even the '33 version. Cooper was an adventurer. He'd spent time capturing wild animals on film in Africa. KING KONG was born out of his personal experiences, and was simply him trying to capture on film the dream of what an explorer might be lucky enough to find if they happened upon the exact right spot. That's it. That's the subtext. It's not a film about the black man's experience in America, no matter how many times you say it is. If you took the time to look at the development of the film and how and why it came together, you'd realize that every time you project this stupid, stupid, stupid theory onto any version of KONG, it looks like you're a slimy racist who equates black people with gorillas. Get over it.
-
Dec 07, 2005 2:52:21 AM CST
They could have avoided the whole Racism debate if they had just
by alonzo mosely
*cough*... OK, I was leaving anyway...
-
In response to: "Here's hoping the deleted scenes on an inevitable extended addition shows how they got Kong back to NY on that boat."...................THAT WILL NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER happen. It is a jump cut, one of historical signifigance in the '33 Kong and Jackson wouldn't do it. They never filmed it. If he did I will eat raw goat testicles.
-
What
-
...where someone wrote this long dissertation about how King Kong was about the demonization of lesbians in America, or something? I forget exactly how it went but I remember that the Empire State Building was a penis.
-
Moriarty... when Return of the King was about to be released you answered a ton of questions about the film. I'll never forget reading that quote of yours "better than you expect" that send me into an atmosphere shattering frenzy. Sure, I bitched about the Massawyrm remark on the X-Men 3 Talkbacks too and I don't always agree with your reviews but this is Kong goddamnit! Don't know why, but this article gave me the impression that you're not very fond of this version of Kong either. Could be just me reading too much into things but that whole "it's not gonna be for everybody" vibe you got goin' on somehow scares the crap outta me.
-
Dec 07, 2005 4:05:20 AM CST
"The music was overwrought, the script was overwrought, the edit
by mike nesmith
So, like, I guess this guy likes the word "overwrought." Do ya think he knows what it means?
-
If that black guy reminded you of an ape what did his dick remind you of? How you can't satisfy a woman?
-
have read the reviews and went straight from the beginning of the talkback to the end without reading the middle.......went from people giving their views on what the film will be like to Kong being the equivalent to blacks and racism in the modern world....have to go back and read the thread to see how this talkback morphed into that
-
Especially when there have already been remakes.
-
Its kind of funny the way everyones kissing Andy Serkis arse for his motion capture "acting"!!who cares ! they(the filmmakers) only promote the fact that they used Andy so LOTR fanboys will go "wow there using that gollum guy to do kong"even though he looks nothing like KK and it may as well be anyone who can get into a blue suit with balls stuck to it!(and cheaper)besides the real tallent is those poor computer animators that actually create the star of the film , sometimes using the motion capture as a rough guide and make so many changes that you cant really give the actor full credit!( look at the LOTR Dvd extras, if you dont believe me!)Not saying Serkis cant act, i thought he was great as gollum (real and computer animated)But was it really wasnt nessesary to get him for kong?,at least he spoke in LOTR!
-
Huh?
-
That post of yours was pretty damn retarded if you ask me, and I've got a sister with Down's Syndrome so I know my retards. Not saying the author of the post reflects the retardation of his little odd, out-of-proportion baby there (the post)...So yeah, you could be a pretty normal (if a wee bit slow) kind of guy. Yet the fact remains, that was one hell of a retarded post.
-
...go on!?!
-
Dec 07, 2005 6:44:11 AM CST
I really didn't help my case accidentally clicking the Enter
by seppukudkurosawa
but I just wanted to thank you for clearing that up for all of us. I didn't pick up your shtick at first, you know how hard it is to separate one person's typed words from another's...but you really are quite original. Your prose is like F Scott Fitsgerald, crossed with Aldous Huxley crossed with a toaster. Kudos on your unique form of communication there, I can't say I know their address by heart, but contact me if you want to get in touch with Random House publishing company- I know someone who works there. I'm sure you two can work something out, but make sure he doesn't suck-out that unique talent of yours. Remember, there is only one ne1ne2 and don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
-
Wow, it's amazing how split everyone is on that ice scene. Either you love it or you think it's lame. Personally it sounds kind of nice, though I haven't seen it yet. I think I might like it. That just means I have a soul. I'm not saying that if you don't like it you don't have a soul or anything, but I don't think any of those people who didn't like it have souls. S'all I'm saying.
-
5 stars each. Personally I happen to find Empire to be the most reliable source for film reviews in terms of ratings. They usually take a step back and see each movie in terms of quality as a movie, rather than nitpicking, or fan-boy delusions. They have been wrong a few times, but never by more than a star.
-
http://www.empireonline.co.uk/
-
prose?F. Scott Fitzgerald?(with a z not s by the way)get some sleep mate, youve been on this talkback for the last 10 hours!God, you seemed to take my post really badly.can i make it up to you?
-
Kong is a Good Movie. That's really all there is to it. It's adventure/fantasy, shaddup and enjoy something for once in your blithering scathing lifes people. There are wars and Troops Dying cause Bush Jr lied. Pray to your sky god you are in a cozy theatre safe from the outside world and safe from the ravage inclinations of Kong as he understands more than you ever will how fucked up things are. EP I and II and III still pretty much suck.
-
What's your point? The movie is not perfect, what movie is? Jackson is mixing both inside jokes with his passion for the source material. And why the fuck not? I'm not going to see Kong for it's Oscar Winning ability. I'm going to see Kong too escape, not to sit like some anal poster boy thinking I know something about film and others don't. Ohhhh Noessss, Kong isn't perfect for meeeeee, oh snap.
-
Dec 07, 2005 7:38:33 AM CST
moviehole - sure, it's possible this will still bomb. But t
by minderbinder
With the reviews it's got so far? This thing could be in the black after two or three weekends, and that's just looking at domestic. If any of you STILL think this will tank, here's your chance to put your stupidity on record. So who still says "bomb"? Show of hands?
-
Dec 07, 2005 7:40:24 AM CST
I think the "Beauty killed the Beast" line is like blaming women
by drath
As in it was all Eve's fault that Adam bit the apple and got kicked out of paradise. That kind of thing. It's old fashioned, and honestly I think even in the original the line was bullshit. Denham was a greedy asshole, but back then he was played like a cool guy and we bought it(and still do). He's sorry for what he did to Kong in the sequel, nevermind the poor desperate girl he exploited and put through hell! The 76 remake was shameless too, as it decided to make her REALLY responsible because she too was greedy and wanted fame.
-
People are dying for a good movie this year. It's been an abysmal wasteland of crap. And with XMas, this will be in the black by Jan. 1, 2006. Not that $$$$ = a good movie. But will once again give jackson the ability to do whatever the fuck he wants.
-
Dec 07, 2005 7:47:19 AM CST
"You people would burn all the literature and great art works of
by minderbinder
There's a 25 foot gorilla of a straw man...
-
I always interpreted the "It was beauty killed the beast" line as indicating that strength is undone by sentiment. Sentiment makes the strong still their hand, and in that moment of hesitation they are undone. The masculine and feminine aspects are incidental.
-
Dec 07, 2005 7:50:37 AM CST
Screendaily review - Jackson to Spielberg: "Anything you can do
by fluffyunbound
Well, that's kind of mean.
-
Must be a puff piece. I bet they took that from the release comments they got from the studio.
-
Yes, I read the LOTR books semi-annually. I'd much rather have Jackson as a film maker providing me entertainment than not having jackson entertain me. aka, the 2005 Lineup of movies being tripe at best.
-
Dec 07, 2005 8:00:01 AM CST
"Why is it important that Jackson get money to do whatever he wa
by minderbinder
Which can be greatly amusing.
-
Dec 07, 2005 8:01:34 AM CST
"Okay, so Empire gave it 5 stars, BUT it did have reservations,
by docpazuzu
You know, Ringbearer9, you'd be better off concentrating on the bad reviews. Taking the good reviews and trying to spin them negatively is just making you look like a gargantuan horse's ass.
-
Dec 07, 2005 8:12:02 AM CST
No need to spin good reviews...they're automatically disqual
by minderbinder
And critics have no credibility compared to random anonymous strangers on the 'net.
-
And not because of Kong. How soon do we forget the Chinese cook who runs around with a Butcher's Knife and speaks "Rike Ris"... I'm black and the tribal stuff only bothered me a little bit ("five black women for one white woman" and the coconut bras sorta made me cringe) but there is no explaining the Chinese cook
-
The level of racism in some of you nerds is scary sometimes.
-
Dec 07, 2005 8:36:49 AM CST
I can't wait for the review from that chick who wrote about
by minderbinder
Guaranteed pan, and she'll probably spam every discussion board she can find with a link to it, it's probably her only source of web traffic.
-
www.rottentomatoes.com, 12 for 12 so far. Why can't you just accept the fact that it's seemingly an entertaining movie? Regardless of the technicalities you are desperately clinging too?
-
Do you know how many hits you can generate by spamming fan sites that way? If you pan a Spielberg movie or anything connected to the Weinsteins you could even hit the mother load and get Drudged.
-
And thank god you're here - the bastion of integrity - to set us all straight about this. Why read a ton of positive (and therefore suspect) critic's reviews when I can get the straight dope from, uh..."Ringbearer9". I'd call what you are doing a pubic service, but that's when I remember that politicians also describe themselves as public servants. Ironically these reviewers are suspect puff-piece authors only when they deign to praise a film that Ringy has decided beforeheand that he's going to bash. Coincidence, I know.
-
Sorry about that.
-
I've been reading this talkback all afternoon. I get to the end and then refresh, and guess what - another bible sized dose of talkback... so i read to the end again, and I want to say something to someone, whether it be to someone who said the jumpcut from skull island to new york is not going to change in the EE... ergh, derh! Jumpcut? Jumpcut?? Do you even know what a jump cut is??? But I'm not that mean because my identity is known to some people around here. But alas, I'm at the end of talkback and I want to post a reply, so i refresh just to make sure... and another 30 fucking talkbackers have posted since then.... so you knoiw what... to hell with you all. I'm skipping ahead and posting now. Ok, now I'm going back to finish reading where I was at. Take note of the distance between this post and my next.
-
Dec 07, 2005 8:50:06 AM CST
"I was satirising the ridiculous discussion you and the other cr
by mosdef
I know you were. I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking about the guys upthread and the overall casual racism on display on these boards from time to time. (check out a SPike Lee thread) I just don't like seeing the "N" word tossed around so casually. And come on, the Chinese cook is equivalent to Steppin' Fetchit. He even shuffles around with his head down like Steppin' Fetchit. He's not quite as offensive as Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast as Tiffany's, but still pretty bad.
-
...is wasting a lot of time and keystrokes and isn't fooling anybody. Far be it from me to jump on the obsessive Pazuzu's bandwagon, but anyone that tries to spin raves negatively looks like a coloosal tool - and the more posts they spend doing it, the worse they look. I'd rather see you find a negative review and simply agree with it rather than attempting this crap.
-
Why are you quoting entire reviews? Most have already read it. Nothing to say? Word of advice, go see the movie and get back to us on it.
-
You're my favourite talkbacker ever. You and Pazuzu. For two Very different reasons.
-
RottenTomatoes just takes the collect of reviews and gives you links. I see quite a few movie that aren't doing so well, which disproves your theory. Read the reviews themselves, and ignore the freshness meter.
-
Coming from you that's oxymoronic.
-
While awkwardly worded (I rushed through my review to make an appointment) my point was that even though the effects look really fake, the original is still a classic and a lot of fun to watch, probably for that reason. Peter Jackson could have made Kong look so life-like that you would forget you were watching a special effect, but instead he makes him just barely cartoony, so maybe in 75 years we can watch this with the same kind of nostalgia that we observe the original with now. Maybe. And just in regards to some of the talkbacks, I loved the film and had a really fun time watching it. But I admit that it's not for everyone. One of the reasons I enjoyed it so much was that I decided early on that I was just going to have fun with it and in that department the film was perfect. Very very fun. I have some complaints about the film, some things that others won't be able to overlook and might ruin the film for them. This didn't happen for me, just because I was enjoying myself so much. It's not a perfect film, but it's probably as close as modern blockbusters get these days, (along with Batman Begins). At the end of the day, I think about all of the recent big films and this is just one of the best in my oppinion. Although I'll be first to admit that my standards and expectations have been lowered by films like Fantastic Four, Catwoman, Stealth, etc. Love Kong, or hate Kong. The choice is yours.
-
"Myth of killer ape is true!"
-
I've been writing Kong far too much the last few days. I forget that letters other than "K" can precede "ong."
-
...also often tacks the unfresh rating on reviews that are tepid, but overall positive. 2.5 out of four is always a toss-up - 60% is the new disappointed. ****Apropos of nothing, I played the KONG videogame recently and am totally impressed with how well it came out - and more excited about the film than any batch of reviews could have made me. A GOOD game based on a film is the best advertising - people shelling out $60 a pop for what amounts to a walking tour of Skull Island.
-
Dec 07, 2005 9:41:20 AM CST
"Because the "strangers on the net" are mostly just guys who saw
by kingasaurus
Or still haven't seen the film in many cases, most likely. You're right though. None of these Talkbackers EVER have an axe to grind - including you. They're so unbelievably trustworthy and objective. What was I thinking? The bottom line is you can't possibly be this slanted and naive without it being a put-on.
-
If they fool me out of $8 oh well.
I have not been to the theatre in about 8 months or so. I will take this risk, tard. -
Dec 07, 2005 9:44:00 AM CST
I dunno, am I supposed to feel sympathy for a giant CG ape? I do
by scrumdiddly
-
people suck,(see:any talkback or message board on the internet, or try talking too one) you should naturally leans towards animals, CG or otherwise.
-
I've always liked to think of King Kong as a wonderful example of a pro-bestiality movie but that's probably because I don't like King Kong very much. Though I do hope it does well so that Peter Jackson can continue to make some fun movies.
-
Dec 07, 2005 9:52:05 AM CST
whoa, wait just a damn minute. No bagging on catwoman!
by bendersshinyass
If anyone had actually watched it before bagging it they would see that it was, without doubt, just spiderman - only different costume, different actors. Serious.
-
But catwoma was really bad.
-
Dec 07, 2005 9:57:53 AM CST
MinasPenisII was the same guy screaming about reviews not matter
by atticus finch
He sounds like a PJ ball-washer to me.
-
Dec 07, 2005 9:58:08 AM CST
cockringer9, you need to get out more. Go rent A Simple Plan.
by minderbinder
So why is someone who points out the reviews on RT a "moron"? Pointing to a compilation of full reviews is stupid, yet taking small nitpicks out of context is somehow not? RT is just a list of reviews, it carries no inherent bias. And for the record, reviewers themselves define if their reviews are fresh or rotten, they decide where the cutoff point is, not RT. As for anonymous reviewers, I tend to take them with a grain of salt, especially for films and filmmakers that are widely argued online. We've seen plenty of evidence on this site of bias and pissing contests between different franchises, I know there are plenty of people who let their fanboy preconceptions take over and cloud their opinion.
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:00:55 AM CST
Question for those who have seen it: Are you recommending seeing
by minderbinder
Simple question? Worth seeing? Worth renting? For me that's the test of whether a review is positive or negative.
-
I keep reading about haters here, and about gushers or lovers or what have you. Can I ask a serious question, how old are the people who do this? Who the fuck has an agenda in regards to blockbuster films you have no control over? Why are people who have not seen the film happy that it has a fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes? Does that really make you feel good? Why? You haven't even seen the film. Or have you already made up your mind that it will be good? That's fucking pathetic if true. And are there really people who just want to see this film fail no matter what? Why? It does not make sense. Why does anyone care if the movie bombs or if it is a hit? HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOUR LIFE!?!?!? Why are there people who have not seen the film defending it against the bad reviews? I for one loved LOTR, except for ROTK, and thought Kong sucked. Does that make me a hater? Do I have an agenda? Of course not. I go to the movies to escape, to enjoy myself, and to not be hammered over the head with shit. In Kong, PJ hammers us over the head with stupid bullshit and laughable pathos. I defy anyone not to laugh during the scene where Brody types out Skull Island. I'm not a hater, just a film fan who actually has standards and won't accept any old pap just cause it is shiny and new. The movie was just not very good, why is it wrong to say this? Why must I have an agenda if I didn't like the film? King Kong is a good guy in the movie!! A good guy! HUGE MISTAKE! Kong should AT BEST be an anti-hero, nothing more. I can't wait to hear PJ et al defend their awful artistic decisions on the Kong commentaries, like they did with ROTK and TTT. Fuck outta here!!!
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:03:09 AM CST
No I'm serious, Catwoman is just a clone of spiderman
by bendersshinyass
My daughter watches it all the time. The film is burned into my brain. On the other end of the scale, my nephew watches spiderman all the time. The two movies are the same thing. Really. And spiderman 2 was trash. Accept Ringbearer9 as the champion he is.
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:03:13 AM CST
Spiderman2? Aren't there other deranged talkbacks for that?
by filmicdrummer17
Having actually watched it within the last week, I'm quite certain it still holds up, buzz or no buzz. It was not only a great sequal, but a great film. Get off it.
-
Was actually OK. I finally saw it about a month ago. EP I and II were terrible and a discredit to film in general. I'm all for negative Kong reviews, still gonna take that chance and spend $8 on it. BTW I borrowed ROTS DVD so I didn't have to fork over any more $$ to Lucas. I suggest many of you do the same with kong.
-
Because I hate the publiscity it's recieved. i had the royal treatment Peter Jackson ahs recieved. And I hate how much everyone gushes over this as yet unseen by the viewing public, ie: the payday. And I think it has to stop. I love films as much as anyone here ever has at any moment in their lives........ but this cult like worship has got to be kept in check. And hollywood needs to be put on a leash with it's hype department and get back to just making good films. FACT. the 3 hour duration was ADDED for publicity reasons. Even the paid press has let slip that it'd stand better with 45 minutes cut. I mean, what the hell was Jackson thinking? I didn't start giving this film shit until the announcement of the 3 hour duration. 2 hours, 10 minutes. Max. Please. Ta. Anyway, my point, There's two kinds of hyped films - pre-release and post-release. Pulp fiction was a post-release hype film. Donny Darko was a post-release hype film. Fuck, even star wars was a post-release hype film. It just had an antisipation based on it's trailers. Antisipation is good. Kong should have stuck to the antisipation. I counted 6 commercials featuring Kong on TV tonight. 6! 2 for the trailer, and 4 for toys and cerial and fast food. What. The. Fuck. ?
-
...and I stand by my bash. Spider-Man may not have been perfect, and the two may be similar in structure, but in terms of quality, Catwoman is just painful to watch, while Spider-Man is at worst, a corny, entertaining flick. And for the record, I think it's much much more than that.
-
Alas, all this hype you speak of is what guarantees its $200 million+ box office haul. If you find me somebody that refuses to see this film based on run time alone, I'll concede to your charge. I'm not defending the hype, I agree six commercials in one evening for various Kong-related products is a bit much, but it's not any more than LotR or, hell, ROTS recieved.
-
OMFG, who thought of that? Where can I get my Burger King cups for Munich? Ringbearer9, I take it who hate kong? I was really expecting a follow up from your whinny ass about reading LOTR, you ran off, coward.
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:19:15 AM CST
Catwoman's effects were so incredible, she didn't look l
by orionsangels
bahahaha! easily the worst CGI in the history of movies so far.
-
My previous statement came from someone who absolutely LOATHED the first film, still do, and was dragged to the theatre to see the sequel only to find that it was, amazingly, pretty good. Just had to clear that up for you. And I DON'T usually care for overhyped crap. Still can't stand "Titanic." There's only about half an hour in there for me worth seeing for the F/X alone.
-
My reaction was much like yours and I get called a hater. Also, lovers just claim that I haven't seen it yet. Then, I'm thrown links to other reviews that recommend the film like Variety and Hollywood reporter. Which, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ, point out the same crippling flaws that we do. I'm not anti-blockbuster. i liked Spidey 1+2, Harry Potter 3+4, Batman Begins, all LOTR. Kong is not terrible. it's a great little 90 minute movie (with some shaky CGI at times), surrounded by 100 minutes of deleted scenes. Jackson has wanted to make this since he was 9? it shows. some of those scenes feel like a nine year old made them.
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:24:08 AM CST
"The movie was just not very good, why is it wrong to say this?"
by kingasaurus
By itself, there's nothing wrong. Your opinion is your opinion. The problem is people who take their own view (often having not seen the film first - not in your case) and project it on to others who clearly disagree. Like taking a reviewer who likes the film, but deconstructing the review to show how the reviewer either isn't telling us his true feelings or is part of the hype machine for the film. That stuff is juvenile and stupid and trollish. There are plenty of films that I either like or hate, when I happen to be in the small minority. I just shrug my shoulders and move on. I don't pretend that those who have seen the film and like it are secretly agreeing with me but are candy-coating their opinions to make it look like the opposite. That's why people like ringbearer9 look like 24-karat morons. When the critcal and public reactions to the film are in, we will have a large sample size of consensus opinion to look at. For the sake of argument, let's say it's very positive, based on the critical reviews we've seen so far. I'm free to disagree and say I hated it, but I'll never pretend that those who praise the film are secretly agreeing with the films detractors but are afraid to say so. That's cherry-picking a positive review for something negative that helps your argument. That's whistling-past-the-graveyard horseshit.
-
Thank you for fighting the good fight - for providing balanced judgement and open minds that the rest of us slobbering vidiots sadly lack in our uninformed enthusiasm. You're saving the world one whine at a time. Hype is, after all, only ever applied to sub-par products in the hope that flash and dazzle will confuse people into liking their film - and people who buy into hype, or at least approach it hopefully, are clearly sub-par themselves and should be taken to task by internet-jockeys-cum-self-professed-messiahs who have made it their business to be professional killjoys.
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:28:39 AM CST
Bender - you're pissed about the "hype". But what if you go
by minderbinder
I define hype as the studio making claims about the greatness of a movie. But if it turns out to be as good as some people are saying, if YOU end up gushing about it, wouldn't you feel silly hoping it would bomb? It seems foolish to begrudge a film for getting publicity. Sure, go ahead and begrudge a *bad* film for getting tons of hype and publicity, but since you haven't seen the movie, isn't it premature to take that stand? I think the biggest problem with hype is it causes some people to raise their expectations too high - a praised movie will ALWAYS get some backlash, there will be people who go in expecting the best movie of the year, and they're pissed when they "only" get a great movie.
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:28:59 AM CST
If I had, Ringbearer, I wouldn't have even been paying atten
by filmicdrummer17
And there's a definitive line between LOVE and "Hey, that was pretty good, and way better than I expected," on the basis on that there was actually EMOTION this time around. On the subject of Kong, which, lest we all forget, this is a talkback for, I mentioned on my first post way up towards the top that I'm mentally prepared for a bit of a letdown, yes. But it's just entertainment. That's all it's really trying to be. If I'm entertained, the film is a success. Who really cares how many awards it wins? I can assure that Jackson doesn't, at least as much as you think.
-
Jackson should include additional scenes of Kong leering in windows, throwing women to their death, and chewing and stepping on people of color.
-
"Jackson was now heavily bearded; he had been clean-shaven as the killer pilot in the pic. This was the first time, he said, that he'd seen his film with an audience. Yes, he was pleased. And why not as he was being congratulated by the crowd of 3,000 on hand at the party --among them no less a creative genius than Geoge Lucas. As the two embraced, Lucas said to Jackson, "You set the bar!" http://www.armyarcherd.com/2005/12/armykong.html
-
I read that somewhere and it's the perfect referance point. Lets pretend we're all in an alternate reality where 'Plan 9' HAD IN FACT been Jacksons wet dream project and was now releasing his $200m+ version. We would have the same shit we see now. People who love the original and can't wait to see it remade the way 'edwood' intended. And then you'd have those who would be saying '3 hours? but you could watch the original almost 3 times in 3 hours'. (did you hear my stupid voice? no? it was cool. And funny) I think there is a difference in the hating this time round with this film. I haven't actually seen ANY ONE here give a really bad kick in the balls to this film. But a LOT of good points have been brought up - both in prediction and now evidently in screening reviews. It's king kong for christ sake. The black and white original is NOT a fantastic film. It was pretty bloody cool when I was a youngin. So was the 76' kong. But watching them today, Kong 76 is BAAAAAAAAAD. Kong 33 is a history lesson in filmmaking of yestercentury. And on the surface, Jackson remaking the 33 kong with all that dinosaur shit, fuck year - thats cool. But man I tell you what, It's going to fade away. Rapidly. Like Batman Begins has. King Kong is NOT LotR. he got away with theatrical release, and EE release and looong movies because he was working from source material that called for it. (I still think he and his team went a little over board) and now they're laying it on us again. A 3 hour Kong film with an EE edition to be released next year on DVD. Fuck, he even released the preproduction DVD in a two disk set. SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE. and I feel perfectly just in giving this whole thing shit. Because it's so bloody transparent. (I think it was 2 disks. I don't know, i still shudder at the thought people actually bought it)
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:44:57 AM CST
I bring up Simple Plan in reference to the comment that Raimi is
by minderbinder
If you're going to make generalizations about someone, shouldn't you be familiar with their work?
-
Ringbearer is a cynical and boring little girl. Maybe if she could find a date she wouldn't be so scared of Kong. But she's never going to get a date if all she does is spend her lonely hours pounding pathetic nonsense on a keyboard.
-
Lucas said to Jackson, "You set the bar!" http://www.armyarcherd.com/2005/12/armykong.html
-
Dec 07, 2005 10:46:32 AM CST
Hypeendshere and Thunnderballs - do you recommend seeing the mov
by minderbinder
See it in the theatre? Rent it? Or not worth seeing at all?
-
I'm still gonna see it. It's big gamble of $8 and 3 hours of life, but I will be taking that chance. Ringbearer has yet to convince me, but few stupid people can.
-
Dec 07, 2005 11:06:36 AM CST
minderbender, in my 'review' up there in the article, i
by hypeendshere
personally, i'm not one of those guys that has to see something in a theatre at all. it's on a big screen. whoopdee-doo! doesn't do much for me. BUT! i know that the middle third of the film is exactly what people are talking about when they say, 'you have to see it in the theatre!' as for the 'walk in''walk out' comment, yes, it's as simple as that. there is nothing in the first 70 minutes you'd miss, and the only thing you'd miss in the end is the falling of the ape which.....(SPOILER)isn'tevenshown(END SPOILER).
-
I saw it on Monday too when they did. I have pretty much the same feelings they do about it. It didn't live up to the hype, but yeah, it's worth going to see in a theatre. There is about 90 minutes of the movie that would really suck to miss seeing on a big screen! I look at it this way--I would have gladly paid to see the movie, but I'm glad I didn't have to. As of right now, I have no plans to see it in theatres again, but that might change if it shows up in the $2 theatre- and even then I'll try and show up 45 minutes late. I'll probably rent in once on dvd too, so I can watch the cool parts again. I really enjoyed most of the Skull Island sequence and would like to Kong fight the T-rex again.
-
I disagree with Hypeendshere on the 70 minutes thing. If I were going to walk in late, it would at about the 45 minute mark where the foghorn blows. That's where the movie begins and then you still get nearly a half hour of build up before Kong shows up.
-
We have all paid for movies far worse no?
-
the critics are giving it great reviews. I'm excited. And, yes, I do have a geek boner for this. Thank you.
-
She Says -----
"What pissed me off most about the LOTR theatrical versions was that there was obvious missing material" ------ But you would have bitched about how long it was. But then, you'd bitch about anyting. -
Dec 07, 2005 11:22:22 AM CST
Hey happyflappyforeskinjoy...Andy Serkis doesn't get the cre
by morgoth
He should've gotten a "Virtual Thespian" Oscar for his Gollum "performance." Here's hoping for Oscar Kong recognition. Proceed with the flaming my dear friend [[:^)
-
also, for those quoting rotten tomatoes. let us look at the cross-section of people here: People invited to a handful of screenings for free, with free food and drink. now, 12 people is not exactly a hugely scientific poll. furthermore, if you read the articles by any of these critics (well, REAL critics won't release reviews for another week) you'll see that at least a portion of almost every review brings up the fatal flaws that we're all talking about. go see it. go have fun. but do curb your enthusiasm a bit.
-
...you all should just use this incredible portal that real life offers called "door". and no, you don't have to click on it to open it.
-
Dec 07, 2005 11:32:15 AM CST
Hypeendshere.... are you aware of what you just said, my friend?
by bendersshinyass
The middle third. come in from the middle third. How many bloody films have more than simple a start middle end? A middle third. It might be just me, but I seriosuly have hot flushes and sharp bouts of fear before seeing a 3 hour hollywood blockbuster. I remember before Fellowship, alls i was thinking was this better be 3 hours well spent. Can you believe it, it fucking wasn't! TTT I was ok. but still.... tighten it up Mr. Jackson. Tighten it up. They're better tight. Tight is good. Not loose. You don't want loose. You just can't really seem to.... feel anything. But when they're tight. It's always over before you expect. Thats a good thing. It brings you back for more. ROTK. I'm not even going to talk about it! King Kong is the subject. Lets all talk Kong and make it enjoyable and no bickering you lot. Just chop it! Keep it tight damnit! I reckon the film maker, should have actually been like a wildlife documentary maker. seeking out strange exotic locales. There's you're fucking reason for being on Skull Island. Then, instead of being the heartless fucker for his film stock...... he should have turned the whole thing into a Documentary - 2 films playing intercut. The film maker and rescue, the Kong Anne love fest. Only don't make it a love fest. Make it a horror fest. He's always about to hurt her. Only at the end with his death do we see that he actually loved her. And she never really did feel scared when with him. She was just a stupid bitch who screamed because she liked the attention. Oh man, tell that couldn't be done in 1hour 45.
-
Am I correct in assuming you won't see the movie again in the theatre or buy the DVD?
-
I can't argue with you, but if you had really enjoyed the film, would you be complaining that the positive reviews we've seen so far are the result of getting free food at the screening? That's the kind of stuff that frosts me. Someone who didn't like the film that much complaining that published accounts of people who do like it are being manipulated and aren't "real" critics. Well hells bells! How come people only tell us that certain critics can't be trusted to give their real opinions when those critics are in disagreement with the person making the charge? "When the 'real' critics start showing up, they won't be getting free food and they'll agree with my negative opinion."
Sorry, but that's really condescending and irritating. Everyone is entitled to form their own opinions, but we need to stop the pretense that if a lot of people disagree with what we thought of the film, they aren't giving us their true feelings about it. Bollocks. -
You are so ignorant it is painful. The producer and director of the original King Kong put themselves in the biplane that killed Kong, and if Jackson did the same thing it was a nod to the '33 film, nothing else.
-
Dec 07, 2005 11:47:14 AM CST
let me put it this way: if it involves any amount of money leavi
by hypeendshere
hold on, let me curse Siskel and Ebert a moment...."You bastards! Why did you have to create the 'thumbs up/thumbs down'?!?! Why did you make film criticism into an either/or situation?!??!".... anyway, i'm not saying free food buys a good review. what i'm saying is that the only people so far that have seen the film are friends and family of the studios, cast, crew, and die hard fans that found a way in, or people who attended the premiere. very few of those people are going to dislike the movie- and yet instead of taking the simplistic approach a la Ebert & Roeper or RottenTomatoes (thumb up/down, fresh/rotten)- actually read the reviews. they are repeating over and over again the same weaknesses. i enjoyed a portion of the film. that's the real consensus here. not "it's good" or "it's bad". if rotten tomatoes says Fresh, it could just be that most people were won over by the portion that i also liked and decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and recommend that people see it. unfortunately, it's something of a downer because you can actually see a good movie in there bang smack in the middle of it.
-
People were complaing during the making of LOTR that Jackson obviously didn't love the source material enough because he made dumb changes that weren't in the book. Now were supposed to complain that he loves the original Kong TOO much and it is influencing this film in a negative way. You can't win.
-
...don't expect a reply from Ringbearer. As soon as you lay some actual fact on him, he runs away. Look at how MinasTirithII responded to R's question about reading LoTR (as if he was going to nail him on something) then R9 refused to respond. It's an old trick from our dear misguided friend. Also, he only agrees with negative reviews...that's why he hated RoTK, some fan-boy gave an early review and there was something petty and inconsequential that set him off on his "This will suck, mark my words!" tirade. I can take criticism of anything unless it's disguised as mindless bashing. At any rate, I'll be there on opening night to see Kong and gladly fork over my $8.50 to PJ. THEN I'll review it...not before. Let's face it folks ,even real "critics" are biased. I'm thinking of Gene Siskel panning a movie because the popcorn was stale and the theatre wasn't air-conditioned (he was in Hawaii). It's a freakin' monster movie people...just what in the hell are you expecting? Gone With the Lawrence of Citizen Kanearabia?
-
Well, I've heard that some people like the character development in the first hour, while others complain it takes too long to get to the action. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. You're totally entitled to it. I'm just saying that if the early word had been negative, the haters would have latched on to that as validation of their opinion. The early word for this film is positive, but the detractors are cherry-picking what the positive reviews complained about to STILL try and validate their own views. Drives me batty. I'm waiting for a larger sample size of opinion too, but I'm not going to invalidate what critics have said up until now because I hypothetically didn't like the film as much as the early word seems to indicate.
-
...Any sort of hitler salute to his fandom geekyness for making the original Kong model his date for the premiere. I mean, C'mon.
-
If Jackson's cameo was his original idea the movie sucks, and if he got the idea from the '33 film the movie sucks.
-
We're all agreed then, we haven't fallen for the hype? We're all just kinda talkin the same shit, but you and Dino are in the mood to give R9 crap? The dude has made some stella points.
-
What is Jackson going to do next?
-
You are not a geek if you don't know the answer to this. His next movie is based on the book THE LOVELY BONES. He's also executive producing and lending WETA's talents to the movie based on the video game of the same name, HALO.
-
Jackson's next project is yet ANOTHER adaptation (Oh, NO! Dear God, save us from this man's stupendous lack of creativity!)...this time of "The Lovely Bones", which, while still supernatural in nature, is small...and quiet. Much more similar in style to "Heavenly Creatures." I, for one, am curious to see if he can still do the small stuff after his four previous efforts' alleged "orgy of special effects."
-
Most of the negative points and reviews I see here are valid but nothing and I mean nothing will keep this film from sinking Titanic. The good stuff in the film is simply that good!!!
-
Dec 07, 2005 12:18:06 PM CST
first, this aint beating Titanic. Second, Jackson isn't not
by hypeendshere
-
I was actually more distracted by Quint in his few seconds than I was by PJ in the cockpit. Alright, now comparisons to Titanic are inevitable. They both spent a tremendous amount of money, they both came out in December, in both cases--almost everyone knows how it ends, and Drudge featured stories about both films on his site. Those similarities are not sufficient to say Kong will sink Titanic. I agree with Hypeendshere, there is NO WAY this thing will beat Titanic. In my opinion, it will be lucky to beat the Harry Potter that came out a few weeks ago. I'm not a hater of this film. I really wanted to love it, but it just didn't do for me and now I'm being a realist. A lot of people are turned off by the excessive amounts of CGI. Sure, Titanic had some too, but people didn't realize it. There are a lot of people who just aren't interested in movies with dinosaurs and CGI apes--namely that part of the population that consists of mostly females with high amounts of disposable income. They were part of what drove Titanic to its heights--they will NOT be here in force for this film. Another thing is that you can have reviewers give all the glowing reviews in the world, but that isn't going to convince the public that it is good. People who are iffy about seeing it will go based on what their friends who see it say and I think that you'll find a lot more mixed reviews among the general public than you do among the "critics".
-
Dec 07, 2005 12:33:46 PM CST
I think PJ should make King Kong vs. Godzilla 2: Electric Boogal
by doc_strange
It should include a breakin' routine by none other than Godzilla's bastard son, Godzookie, who would proceed to be eaten by Kong, therefore setting up the final confrontation between monkey and monster. *major spoilers* Kong literally beats the crap out of Godzilla. It seems Godzilla is down for the count until a thunderstorm occurs, thus reinvigorating Godzilla who then proceeds to fuse Kong into a big statue, kind of like the same process that those wax statues you get at the zoo goes through. With his foe vanquished, Godzilla returns to the sea from whence he came, the end.
-
Dec 07, 2005 12:39:15 PM CST
Jackson's Kong Sequel April Fools Joke Actually Sounds Way C
by zombiesolutions
i read this thing today that sounds great. apparently, Jackson wrote a detailed April Fools joke outlining his plans for a series of Kong sequels in which Kong's progeny are mounted with machineguns and are used to fight Hitlers mutant army of monsters! Now THAT would be exciting to me. stupid / geey / dorky, but AWESOMELY so! i mean, i'm sure KONG will be a good movie, but, you know, why? why ANOTHER remake? i'd far rather see a completely insane KONG ARMY versus HITLER MONSTERS any day...
-
Neither does Jurassic Kong. Maybe we could finally have some originality around here. King Park. no? sorry. ok, keep going with the Electric Boogaloo Jurassic Kong. It's got nothing on me. Does Kong have a beer and cheat on Anne?
-
Dec 07, 2005 12:42:50 PM CST
"I think that you'll find a lot more mixed reviews among the
by kingasaurus
That would be highly unusual for a big-budget, effects-heavy film. I doubt it.
-
Great book and very quiet compared to these monsters he's been making. I still think Heavenly Creatures is his best movie. Anyway, I'll review and be more critical of Kong after I see it. There are some stuff I'm sure will irk me based off of the trailers. I'm buying into the hype and I'm going into this with huge expectations. Will I be disappointed that I bought into the hype if I don't like it? No, I'm not a pussy, I'm along for the ride. Building it up is half the fun. Phantom Menace? It was disappointed, but half of the fun is looking back and waiting in line with Nerds. It's my god-given Geek right to hype myself up over this shit. My friends give me shit for getting psyched over trailers, so I know how geeky this is...but, I wouldn't have it any other way. I can't wait to see this on the big screen and splooge geekyness all over the back of the person sitting in front of me.
-
Is the most ignorant TB phrase ever, and I'm not going to waste my time connecting-the-dots to why. How many of you have even seen 1933 King Kong? "IDIOTS!" - N.D.
-
Surely that's the key question here. Or possibly "are there any poop jokes in this movie?"
-
Dec 07, 2005 12:56:47 PM CST
Will the Director's Cut remove 25 minutes of theatrical foot
by jaguart
Everybody's bitching about the film being too long. What the hell? Most good films I see I could watch for another hour or two.
-
It will be interesting to see his version of The Lovely Bones: I think there was surprise here in New Zealand when he announced it. We had all gotten a bit addicted to the thrill of giant global blockbuster releases firstly with LOTR, now KONG. This and the fact that he is a one-man film company able to single handedly bring hundreds of millions of lovely US dollars into the country. Conversely, a failure or bad decision by Jackson will mean hundreds of local job losses, so our Peter means a lot to us. Fortunately, by producing HALO, he takes care of his peeps back in Weta Workshop and Digital while being able to make something more personal with 'The Lovely Bones.'He himself is probably wanting a holiday from SFX-o-rama's: he worked so hard on KONG, he's halved in size!
-
I think ladies are interested in Jack Black, Adrian Brody as well as the er ahhh Faye Wray/Giant male archetype/myth. I wanted to like this film more but I'll tell ya...its been three days since I've seen it and I kind of want to see it again already. The new commercials for Kongs opening week are very girly...almost looks like a musical. I bet that is the future Director's Cut by the way...Kong the Musical.
-
Sure as shit would beat that monkey in office now... okay, way off-topic! Don't wanna turn this talkback into something political.
It's no secret that I'm looking forward to Kong as much as a sex-starvin' dude wants to put his cock in that blonde bombshell's juicy mouth/snatch. Now that I've got your attention it's time for me to get serious. I have stupendously high expectations for Kong. I've been on PJ's side since I first saw Braindead and I've yet to see a film of his that I don't like. Lord of the Rings re-established my love for film and sparked my interest in literature and mythology. So it's no surprise that guys or gals like Ringbearer9 (who is very entertaining in his/her own way, I might add) piss me the fuck off. Spinning positive reviews to make them fit your own point of view is retarded. However, that doesn't mean I don't think this movie is gonna be loved by all. I asked Moriarty about it on this very talkback and as I await his reply, I kinda figured something out myself. I went to see the 1933 original the other day. They showed it one night only as a retrospective. The (arthouse) theater was filled with students, obviously being there "to see something different" so they can brag about it during their classes and mock those whove seen something "more commercial". Believe me, I know the type. Having seen Kong '33 on television once I was hyped for the original and it doesn't disappoint. This is one for the ages. When we're all dead and long gone, this will still be shown and deservedly so. However, the audience I saw it with was rolling out of their seats with laughter. The stop-motion fights seemed hilarious to them (one guy shouted "that's just too much" or something like that, laughing his fucking ass off) and as I got angry, literally ready to rip heads clean off, I realized the difficulty that awaits Jackson's film when it opens. The public has turned even more cynical than many critics, as proven on this site and if the '33 T-Rex vs. Kong fight is already way over the top to them then I don't know what'll happen when they see Jackson's fightfest. I, however, am leaving my prejudices at home. I'm goin' in clean and the movie will have to be a real big bag o' shit for me not to like it. Too bad though, there'll be people mocking the film. I don't think it'll break Titanic's record and I just told you why. -
I heard they are already screening Munich and it's amazing. And Speilby knocked that out in just four months.
-
Dec 07, 2005 1:19:49 PM CST
Either way, a Godzilla vs. King Kong remake would be dope.
by doc_strange
Even if the title has Electric Boogaloo or not. It would have to have a breakin' cameo by Godzookie, however, otherwise the movie would suck.
-
"that doesn't mean I don't think this movie is gonna be loved by all"...
needs to be: "that doesn't mean I think this movie is gonna be loved by all"...
my bad! -
just for the record. probably has been posted already...
oh and lucas loved it......i hope that makes a few SW fanboys squirm.
anyway...the good reviews keep rolling in.
ringbearer9 you are a cock.
good day. -
Seems like the middle is well worth the $8. Or better yet, got to $5.25 showing. I know, many of you are poor and broke, so it may hurt you badly, so don't go.
-
did you even bother to read past the first 3 sentences of either of those Variety or Hollywood Reporter that you earlier referenced? you demonsrate that being a 'lover' can be just as obnoxious as being a 'hater'. perhaps you'll have time to think about that during the first 45min of Kong. let me know how that works out for you. second thought: nah.
-
isn't the fact that jackson remade kong in fact him hyping the fact that he is in love with the original... not just him placing himself in a cameo... like he also did in the LOTR movies... in my opinion - the fact that he is a huge fan is more comforting then some director-for-hire making the movie... and sam raimi's inner geekdom i believe was solidified with a couple of small movies called evil dead 1 and 2... and darkman... and most of the other geeky films as well... and yes - spiderman 2 does hold up after the initial viewing - more so than the first - cause it is better than the first...and oh no - the love story took away from the film... that is if you don't like any type of drama or anything with a love story and just want shit blowing up all the time... the fact of the matter is - you made up your mind long ago not too like anything about this film - or jackson - or raimi apparentely - even if every single person in the world besides you said kong was great - you'd try and find a way to spin in negatively or say they were lying... and of course you kow exactely what george lucas meant to jackson when he said "you raised the bar" cause you were there and and he took you aside and said it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie - get your incredibly thick skull out of your incredibly narrow-minded self important ass and reallize that no matter what you say - the people who wanna see kong - and like it - will do just that - your obsessive ranting/ragging on the film won't change that - so fuckyourself and have a great day... take care... wreak it well... havoc out...
-
Dec 07, 2005 2:02:29 PM CST
and sorry about the typo of your name... sometimes i type too fa
by havocschultz
take care...
wreak it well...
havoc out...
-
take care...
wreak it well...
havoc out...
-
Dec 07, 2005 2:23:26 PM CST
I don't think anyone realizes that now is the time that stud
by doc_strange
Be it with this movie and all the superhero drek that's being made. A few years ago no studio would have touched these movies. I think Jackson has done an awesome job helping to bring movies like this and LOTR out. Even if this movie sucks, which I don't think it will, the fact that these movies are even being made should be met with gratefulness, instead, it seems more like cynicsm. Here's hoping GZ v. KK 2: Electric Boogaloo gets made.
-
That's why this site is so full of talkback rage. With this, comic book movies, LOTR, the last Star Wars, everyone has been on Geek overdrive. In fact, we've just been spoiled.
-
Dec 07, 2005 2:33:52 PM CST
Studios did not want anything to do with a Kong remake...
by vinceklortho
Before he made LOTR. Money has helped Petey and fellow Geeks speak.
-
With PJ raking it in for all involved, we will get more PJ movies. Though I do agree, geek movies have been around for a very long long time.
-
How this movie can generate so much hate is beyond me. You, my friend George the VIIth or whatever the fuck, have a piss-poor taste in films my friend. Kong doesn't need to look photo-real, he has to be real. The animation and motion capture work is fantastic. That I already gathered seeing the trailers and clips. Lotta contradictions in your "review" (sort of) too: you say this movie is better visually and has the advantage of PJ's directing yet you slam the effects. And stop bitching about the first 45 minutes already! It's "the end scenes of Return of the King" debate all over again. If the worst thing you can bitch about it is the fact that you have to wait a little bit before you see Kong Dingalong then you shouldn't be on this fucking site. Sure, some scenes may be unnecessary but try paying a little attention to them instead of writing them off immediately just because you know it doesn't have anything to do with the main plot. And frankly, the bits 'n pieces I've already seen that take place during the expositional Venture and NY scenes look great. Ann Darrow acting in front of Denham's camera on board the ship and her eye to eye with Jack standing next to the camera is just beautiful, proves me once again what a great actress Naomi Watts is and made me realize how absolutely fucking in love I am with her. She looks stunning in this movie and I'm not afraid to admit it. With all our bitchin' I'd say we don't even deserve something this good. Empire and Total Film gave it five stars and the critics seem mostly untouched by the hype as they claim this to be very good. Even the guys that don't like it say it's a good movie. I ask you: what the fuck do you people want?!
-
Dec 07, 2005 2:39:56 PM CST
This movie should make more than Titanic. There's a scene wh
by orionsangels
-
You're the idiot here. I didn't mean a few years literally, you fuckin moron. Star Wars was the first to do it. In between we got crap or nothing at all, most likely the latter. Now these movies are being made and people are too jaded to realize the greatness being made today.
-
Just imagine if there were no LOTR, Matrix, or Xmen, Batman, etc. What would you no-life geeks like George the seventh fuckface have to bitch about?
-
Dec 07, 2005 3:05:33 PM CST
Holy shit, I found KK pictures that PJ doesn't wants you to
by moviepirate
http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=8034&start=1&end=10&display=photoshop
-
...Ringbearer and I go back a few years. These "stella points" you refere to are just his (and yours) opinions...they're not gospel. Furthermore, I haven't made up my mind one way or another about Kong and won't until I actually see it. Ringbearer hasn't seen it either and he's been affected by reviews in the past that biased his view before he set foot in any theatre. Reviews, no matter the source, don't sway me either way. All I'm sayin' is Ringbearer is grinding an old axe mate and it has more to do with being prejudiced than it does about objectivity. Hope this makes sense as I'm typing with one hand while I close up shop with the other!
-
..why so defensive about Kong? Just because George 7th didn't like it doesn't mean you won't. Or will it?
If the only thing you can do is call people names instead of making a coherent counterpoint, then YOU should be the ones to leave. -
For shame, imposter. For shame.
-
and thus my - "and thus... where's the chicken post"... apparentely similar names - no chicken means no humor though...
take care... wreak it well... havoc out...
-
Dec 07, 2005 4:00:56 PM CST
Santa Monica Mirror: "Has there ever a film as good as Peter Jac
by fluffyunbound
I'd love to see this reviewer sit down and have a roundtable discussion with Ringbearer and Hypey.
-
You stupid STUPID man! babe
-
actually... i think you want the aeon flux talkback... this one is about king kong... and ringbearer making less and less sense everytime he speaks... and yes - stop motion animation does look a whole lot more real than this kong... just look at the choppy movements and the fingerprints in the fur in the original... don't get me wrong - original is amazing... but don't tell me that stop motion is mre real... otherwise i need to go find the corpse bride and have a little somethin somethin with her... and weren't the animals in babe:pig in the city completely real - except for cgi mouths to make them talk... oh well... take care... wreak it well... havoc out...
-
well - u beat me to it... but ya... that's what i thought... but the CGI on the original Mr. Ed was brilliantly done... looked like a real horse... except they used a rabbit for motion capture... oh well... take care... wreak it well... havoc out...
-
one thing this "King Kong" movie is good for is making the tb'ers lose their silly little minds. I love it! Pray, continue, my feeble minded young talkbackers...while I aim my Cyclotron straight at the heart of the sun!!! Doomsday is upon us!!!
-
I've posted my thoughts on a couple of talkbacks already, so my opinions already known.I just have to kick in here a little. The film is o.k., with some VERY questionable moments of, in my opinion, extreme silliness (bat escape anyone?) I didn't bother to get into all the other problems, just the glaring ones, FOR ME. And it's those other problems that almost every review is touching on, whether directly or indirectly. Calling the film "indulgent", is like calling a fat person "healthy" (irony intended). Calling the film "over the top" is like calling Liberace "enthusiastic". There are problems with this movie that anyone with basic knowledge of film structure, effects production, script writing, etc. will recognise. Whether it actually overides that persons ability to enjoy the movie remains to be seen. The public will pay to see this movie, they just won't be talking about it after the fact. Oh yeah, the monkey slides on his bum on a frozen pond surrounded my christmas lights, while LAUGHING. Kills me every time I write it.
-
Dec 07, 2005 4:33:32 PM CST
"stop-motion models ARE real, and LOOK real, visually. CGI creat
by minderbinder
Based on the number of people who have called miniature shots "bad cgi" I call bullshit on that. There has been plenty of great CGI work that audiences can't tell from the real thing. I remember when early stills of Gollum came out and someone who does CGI for a living insisted that the photo had to be a gollum model or puppet, he insisted that it was literally impossible for CGI to look that real. That was pretty funny.
-
It's surrounded "by" christmas lights, not "my". My kid would crap his pants if a giant monkey slid past the x-mas lights on my house.
-
Look...I dont like wallowing in the moronic quagmire that this talkback has become, but I gotta point out the obvious...Ringbearer 9 is a complete moron.
-
Narnia seems to be getting better reviews than Kong, so I guess Narnia won in the "its a good film" stakes. Roll on Munich so we can watch an adult film instead of a CGI fest with the story written on the back of a envelope.
-
Dec 07, 2005 4:44:50 PM CST
Both babe movies were a combination of poppets and real animals,
by minderbinder
MJY was a combo of animatronics/puppet/man-in-suit and CGI as well. It even included Mini Me in a costume as the baby gorilla.
-
As Mori noted earlier, it's a clash of civilizations through the eyes of a big game hunter. What's funny, is PJ seems more influenced by the '76 Kong/Darrow "relationship", which was what originally killed it with the critics.
-
Dec 07, 2005 4:51:12 PM CST
Knowles Kong review will outshine Armageddon, Blade 2, and GINO
by genro
-
Dec 07, 2005 4:56:09 PM CST
So earl, I assume you aren't recommending it, won't be s
by minderbinder
-
Dec 07, 2005 5:01:29 PM CST
"There are problems with this movie that anyone with basic knowl
by aikimoe
So if a person enjoys the whole movie, really likes it, does that mean they don't have a "basic knowledge of film structure, effects production, script writing, etc.?" Or maybe, just maybe, that person might merely have different tastes than you?
-
Dec 07, 2005 5:07:17 PM CST
I'd love to have a film debate with someone from the Santa M
by hypeendshere
I'm assuming that person is like the guy from the "Tyler Morning Telegraph" who says of Aeon Flux: "Aeon Flux isn't about how cool or weird or geeky it can be, but about the potential endgame of a contemporary social debate, and that is its best asset." you know, the kind of person who is aware of who's buttering his bread. These are the type of people who have their hyperbolic quotes like: "This is the type of film where the conversation afterwards was questions about whether Mel Gibson would be nominated for an Academy Award." followed by their tiny illegible names (Harry Knowles, Aint-It-Cool-News on The Patriot). and also, please don't lump me in with Ringbearer. you've read what Party, Earl, Thunder, and I have had to say. and it's remarkable similar to those reviews in Variety and the HR have to say.
-
Dec 07, 2005 5:12:41 PM CST
Who the fuck is George the VIIth? And where is his Thus?
by seppukudkurosawa
It reminds me of The Ginger Twiit, someone who posted with the name Pazuzu (no Doc), and that one person who pawned himself off as TsuifukudMiike. Fucking imposters are taking us over. And thus, where is The Fake Moriarty?
-
I'm lucky in the sense that I'm employed by the industry and I'll get free copies of both versions when they finally make their way onto dvd. Both theatrical & extended. The sad thing is, they'd probably never get watched from start to finish. Also, my wife has had no interest in seeing it in the theatres, so that'll never happen either. I just might consider picking it up previously viewed at the vid store for under $10 (if I wasn't privvy to freebies). Mind you that's just for the T-Rex fight and when the toothy slug monsters slurp buddy boy up in the spider pit scene.
-
"There are problems with this movie that anyone with basic knowledge of film structure, effects production, script writing, etc. will recognise. WHETHER IT ACTUALLY OVERIDES THAT PERSONS ABILITY TO ENJOY THE MOVIE REAMINS TO BE SEEN". If you dig the movie, kool for you. But I'd be really surprised if that person wasn't aware of the fact that there were some things in the movie that a fairly large group of people MIGHT consider to be a "problem". I thought there were a bunch of "problems", and they took me out of the film and left me feeling suprised that the film would have such corny moments or what I would assume would be "fixable" problems for a director of Jackson's ability. A lot of other reviews seem to aknowledge the same thing, whether they liked the movie or not.
-
I'm not defensive of this movie at all. I'm just going into it with an open mind as I do all event movies. My point was that we are getting all these quality movies, at once it seems, and all people can do is bash them needlessly. Think back to a time when movies like these couldn't even be made, let alone thought about by company execs for fear of losing money. As for the special FX, from what I've seen of Kong, it looks really good, though, dodgy in some areas more than others. The point is, you can tell what parts have special FX. I think that many FX houses are getting too lazy and use off-the-shelf software plugins for many of their FX work which is why a lot of FX work looks half-ass compared to 10-12 years ago, ie. Jurassic Park and T2. Also, I notice that all FX houses exaggerrate their use of FX in such a way that it conforms to animation standards, which to me, is why a lot of shots look fake because in your mind you're not looking at a real person but a cartoon. I think that theory nails why we can tell FX shots from real people, also, textures such as skin have a little way to go before they perfect it. So I guess I am somewhat of a wannabe FX guy.
-
Kong is now 13 for 13 on Rotten Tomatoes, plus an "A" from Entertainment Weekly's Schwarzbaum. Do with that what you will.
-
Dec 07, 2005 5:35:59 PM CST
Actually, with a Jackson film I'm generally more afraid of t
by fluffyunbound
With Walsh and Boyle on the job you run the risk of the script being TOO textbook and TOO "I went to the 'Story' seminar". If I wanted to come up with a knock to apply to the LOTR films, that would be it - that the girls were a little too slavishly devoted to convention. That is why I think ROTK rises above the other two - the fact that Jackson abandoned convention in the denouement makes the film that much more admirable in my eyes. And that is why I don't buy into the "It's three hours so it must be bad" argument for Kong. If it was two hours, I'd assume that it was by-the-numbers; since it's three hours, I assume Jackson said, "Fuck it, I'm doing this movie FOR ME, you fuckwads," and that's the kind of movie I want to see.
-
Obviously the movie that's on the screen is what Jackson wants to see (for the theatrical version, that is). I'm just surprised and a little dissapointed that THAT is what floats his boat. But, as this films staunch defenders quite rightly point out, it's his boat. Regardless, this movie is going to provoke some wacky ass talkbacks once it goes wide.
-
"Fuck it, I'm doing this movie FOR ME, you fuckwads," and that's the kind of movie I want to see.....No. that's the movie that you think you want to see. until you actually see it. there is no 'it's three hours so it must be bad' argument. no one is saying that. but there is a 'it's a three hour film so what did he add to make it better?' argument. the answer: he added more and made it less. as for the editing... on the voyage to Skull Island (and wait until you see Adrian Brody spell it out and stab the keyboard one letter at a time with a single finger in slo-mo. it's bad film school stuff.) anyway, Mr. Hayes is in the hold talking to Adrian and it cuts to the upper deck where young Jimmy is talking to...Mr. Hayes? what? it's jarring. there was clearly a scene in there that was cut, but not even to cover up the passage of time with an establishing shot of some time? yanks you right out of it.
-
Dec 07, 2005 5:51:44 PM CST
I often prefer those jump-cuts from the action, they leave your
by seppukudkurosawa
and in turn get you more involved in the movie, in a similiar way to reading a book; you have to visualise the scene in your head. And there are some brilliant examples of this done well, the obvious one being the shower scene in Psycho, but my particular favourite would be from The Hitcher. Jeniffer Jason Leigh is tied between the two trucks, and Rutger Hauer and that other Three-Named Thesbian, C Thomas Howell, are in one of them with Howell's foot locked onto the brake, for the truck has been rigged to reverse away and tear her apart. Now it wouldn't be the film it is without this happening, but do we actually see Jennifer in pieces? No. Apparently one viewer of the film wrote in to complain about the horrifically graphic nature of her death scene, describing in detail just how sickening it was seeing her discombobulated body parts everywhere, and witnessing her being ripped into two. Well like I said, we see Nothing. It can be a good effect if used right.
-
A jump cut is when you cut to a similar shot (or even the same shot) and the things in the frame have suddenly changed. For example, a guy sitting cutting directly to that same guy standing in the same location.
-
...but you speak about these "problems" as if they're objective things. I haven't seen the movie yet, but unless I see something like a character dying and then showing up with no explanation or something similarly sloppy (I don't count the "bat escape" because the movie is a fantasy and you get to do stuff like that in a fantasy), it's all about taste, i.e. "He did this or that, which I wouldn't have done." Jackson said in a recent interview, "...it doesn
-
Dec 07, 2005 6:32:22 PM CST
Yeah, I am kinda impressed with these reviews coming in...
by vinceklortho
NOT trying to get everybody riled up here; just that most reviews are saying that it's a pretty great ride, save for some tongue in check nerdyness on the part of Peter just being a huge fan; and the length. I'm not going to see based off of that, but because it's fucking KONG, the biggest movie of the year.
-
Dec 07, 2005 6:35:59 PM CST
aikimoe, characters disappear. and what's worse, they disap
by hypeendshere
-
OK, let's take Yoda for example. His mannerisms such as when he talks and such, when you look at a human, does not move his head or gesture in such a way, otherwise people would ask them what's wrong? Also, the Hulk tried and failed miserably, in my opinion. It's very subtle but I think when doing CG characters, you have to have a point of reference which is why I think performance capture or rotoscope is the way to go when portraying realistic characters, such as Gollum, however, when watching the extras on Two Towers, you can see Serkis really exaggerrated his motions which actually fit a character like Gollum, but would not look as good on a normal character. Like I said, it's very subtle but I notice it with every movie that has CGI actors such as Star Wars, which by the way, had some great CGI work but I think the rules of animation in terms of exaggerration apply in movies where you're trying to make real characters interact seamlessly with CG characters.
-
Is it a little under 3 hours like the FOTR an TTT theatrical editions?
-
Again, I'll have to wait and see whether or not their disappearance is bad for the movie.
-
Dec 07, 2005 7:22:37 PM CST
Doc_Strange "many FX houses are getting too lazy and use off-the
by mr. waturi
Actually, having worked in the industry, I think the problem has more to do with the studios tightening budgets and schedules, picking lower end houses to save a few bucks, and generally not giving a shit.
-
Dec 07, 2005 7:26:00 PM CST
So I take it that you all agree with me that GL is a better dire
by hideo kojima
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Mesa sorry for breaking your hopes-en and dreamsies, k?
-
the film itself is probably close to the 3 hour mark.
-
stop pretending to be black, Nintendo.
-
Hell, we're not even a life-time away from the days when you'd all go down to the local oak tree, have a barbecue, drink some brewskis, chat with your elderly neighbours about how their grand-child, Sophie-Ann, is about to get married to an insurance broker; and then the main attraction, a strung-up black man twisting in the breeze, over-looking the preceedings. It's not hard to see that a lot of people on this talkback would be the kind of folks to attend that barbecue. Hell reverse racism's fine when every time a black man walks down the street they notice a hundred people trying to avoid eye-contact with them. Fuck this liberal guilt though; Malcolm X said he'd sooner have a southern cracker for a room-mate, because at least he knows where things stand with him. Many liberal people will defend the rights of the black man, the nipple-pierced lesbian and the transexual with hair grafts, but actually being around them is another matter. All I can say is, next time you see a black dude G-loping down the street past you, ask yourself what makes you flinch... It's the White Devil within. Once you face the inner Klansman then you're on the right track to salvation.
-
but as Goatzinger pointed out, if you read comics set around that period, and even if you read Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, racism was rife in fiction, and just something that went as gratis. The comics featured incredibly ape-like African characters, the Lost World featured a black South American who was likened to a dutiful dog. To 100% write off this theory as being complete idiocy is a little ignorant. Sure, people who can't just relax and WATCH THE FUCKING MOVIE without constantly reading subtext are annoying- but this ain't to say that King Kong didn't reflect the time it came from.
-
Dec 07, 2005 8:18:51 PM CST
"There's a new king in town. He roams the jungle with unmatc
by fluffyunbound
"As a follow-up to his triumphant Lord of the Rings trilogy, the movie seals Jackson's reputation: He's the most gifted big-picture artist working today, a master of epics from a human-eye view who excels at employing 21st-century technological wizardry to suit the needs of ageless, personal storytelling."
-
so - nintendo - would you rather there be a white ass and a black ass bitch... i don't see how the natural color of a silverback gorilla right away has racist overtones... that's like saying narnia is racist cause they used a brown lion... fuck.your.post.
take care... wreak it well... havoc out... -
Dec 07, 2005 8:23:13 PM CST
should say white ass ape and black ass bitch... not sure how i o
by havocschultz
-
I would never tell someone to NOT see something in the theater. I'll tell them they can wait, or it's worth no more than a rental, but I'll never say NOT to go, unless I thought the movie was atrocious, and Kong was not atrocious, it just was not very good either. If you are going to see it I'd say wait for the crowds to dissipate. On another note, I have been disappointed by most event movies as of late. I thought all the Harry Potter movies were tepid at best, Batman Begins was amateurish and simple, Spider-Man 1 & 2 were noble failures. Face it, big blockbusters suck. I am sorry if that is elitist, but I am just going by what I see. And you know what, most small budget movies suck as well. We're dealing with art here, and not everyone who creates art is an artist, and not every artist always produces great work. Most movies suck, deal with it. I love cinema, but I won't forgive cinema its blunders and capriciousness. I'll tell you what, I like my free plastic Kong collectible cup I got.
-
The original King Kong is unquestionably racist by today's standards. It's the story of a "noble savage" who's captured from his "primitive" island and brought in bondage back to "civilization" to be viewed as a curiosity. Oh, and of course this noble savage only understands violence...and is mesmerized by a white woman (after all who wouldn't prefer a white woman?). One of the main themes of the story is that "primitive" people (aka Africans, Asians, American Indians) just can't handle white "civilized" society. This is reflected in Kong's ramapage and ultimate death at the hands of civilization. Kong was fine in his "savage" world but he just couldn't cut it in the civilized world. With all of this being said...it is important to understand that this film was a product of its time. Westerners BELIEVED these notions to be true. During this same time period one could go to the World's Fair and see "exhibits" (like in a zoo) of "Indigenous life" featuring American Indians, Africans, Filipinos, etc. So this portrayal of "uncivilized" life was considered to BIOLOGICAL, PERMENANT, and TRUE. Racialized thought was the norm in Western society at that point in history.
An interesting sidenote: Godzilla was a direct response to King Kong. The name Gojira is a mix of the Japanese word for dragon and "Gorilla" a reference to Kong. What's the message of Godzilla? The Japanese were saying "Do you really think you're so civilized America? Like you portray yourselives in 'King Kong'? Are nuclear weapons and total warfare truly civilized? You are the true savages!" Realizing this makes viewing these movies all the more enjoyable and enlightening. Either one makes for a good history class discussion. -
Dec 07, 2005 8:30:15 PM CST
Maybe white guys think black folk are too stupid to realize when
by johnnyangel
But I wouldn't count on it.
http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/2005/12/king-kong.html
-
Of course it has nothing to do with King Kong. But it's funny, because it's true. McG! KAOS! Pitof! mink!
-
Dec 07, 2005 9:38:02 PM CST
...So King Kong is the single watershed piece of literary histor
by citizen arcane
...and not a remake of 1925's Lost World? I feel so enlightened.
-
Generally jump cutting is frowned upon, but there are situations where it works, such as montages, showing passage of time, etc.
-
I just wanted to hear the pathetic sound of a thousand geeks trying to find a place to download the same movie at the same time, and to piss off a few other a-holes in the process. I don't dowload...I can wait to see films the way they were meant to be seen. And in the case of KONG, that will probably be in about a year's time on cable.
-
Just because the original film had racist overtones (and that is really indisputable), that doesn't mean that the original creators were "evil" or "wrong". Nor does it mean that those who enjoy it are racist. It also doesn't mean that it wasn't a good film. The filmakers were simply products of their era. Racial hierarchical thought can be seen in nearly all forms of media and entertainment of the period. From "Amos 'N Andy", to "primitive" people exhibits at the World's Fair, to minstrel shows, to Wild West shows, etc. For you to flat out deny the reality of racialist depictions in entertainment during this era is absurd, and demonstrates a severe lack of historical knowledge and comprehension on your part. King Kong clearly depicts numerous stereotypes of "savage" and "primitive" peoples (desiring white women, only understanding violence, fear of technology/civilization, meaning well but being constrained by "savage" biology). Perhaps you are too caught up in your parent culture to understand this? The Japanese people at Toho had little problem seeing the metaphors and themes in Kong when they created Godzilla as a nuclear age response to the film. Kong is about how Western Civilization dominates the world; while Godzilla is about how Western Civilization is nothing more than hypocritical high tech savagery. Watch both of the originals back to back. You'll see the underlining messages. (Not to mention you'll have 3 and half hours of giant monster fun!)
-
The first "negative" review is up on Rotten Tomatoes- from Slant Magazine: "To attempt to fix something that isn't broken in the first place is a fool's errand. Jackson, who proved long before his astonishing Lord of the Rings that he is one of the master fantasists of contemporary cinema, is no fool; but his very love and nostalgia for this beast is what kills the movie."
-
A good example of Jump cutting is the film 'Go' (A sweet little film) Where the drug dealer is sorting through his pills and starts to notice they are different, so goes to do a comparison. This all looks as if it were originally shot in one take that may have lasted several minutes, however it's chopped up to the most important sections of the take, making it over and out in a matter of seconds. Editing is an art form which must be taken into consideration on any film. I really would have more respect for Jackson if he could keep his films moving swiftly. This is why I'm always complaining about the length of the LotR films. I am an editor. I'm also a screenwriter. not saying I'm better than these good people who made these films, but I am very knowledgeable on the arts and I have issues. BIG issues with the conventions. I'm also a cinematographer too. That's one problem I don't have with Peter Jacksons films. However, Not a fan of super 35 cropped to anamorphic. Even though I've done it myself and it's a sweet way to make a film. But true anamorphic really is a much better look. As for the Photorealistic CGI. This $200m+ film has a major failing in it's 'cartoony' effects. Jurrasic Park still holds up to this day as photo realistic. Even ID4 is 98% perfect - bar a couple poxy models. But I seem to have this strange forgivness for poxy models. The mistake with models lies in the camera lens and F-stop used. But Bad CGI, there is no excuse - especially when we have crap movies like 'Reign of fire' which had some of the most spectacular and realistic special effects I've ever witnessed. Same with Blade 2. That film was just real. I guess it all depends on the people working on it. Because the techniques are all employed pretty much the same way on all these sorts of films. But seriously, if King Kong had the 'Reign of fire' CGI.... I would be so fucking stoked. King Kong looks like 'The Mummy'. A big favourite of mine - but that film DID NOT take itself seriously for 1 second. I love that in films.
-
what ever happened to AICN Talkbacker Dino De Laurentiis? He should be all over this shit. "Everybody they love-a my monkey, Kong." Oh man, I miss that guy.
-
Jim Crow was a product of the times. So was lynching, laws against interracial marriage, minstrel shows, etc. But there were forward thinking people at the time who fought against it, so I don't give anyone a free pass. We need to call it what it is, Racism. The whole notion of the WHITE HUNTER in a savage land is an extension of the supremacist attitudes that led to Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Dark skinned people were a little less human than their white counterparts. Now, I'm not saying I can't enjoy the original King Kong for what it is, but I'm not going to sugar coat anything. I can acknowledge the merits while recognizing the socio-political shortcomings.
-
Dino De Laurentis can be found over at the Phantom Zone if you need to up your dose of faux-Italian craziness.
-
...genuinely looking forward to this but all the AICN hype has left me feeling overloaded and bored.Fuck it,I'm sure I'll watch it but I'm not that assed now.I hate to admit this but apart from Wolverines weird looking new hair do i quite enjoyed the new Xmen trailer.When I read that Kong ice skates on his ass giggling and Howard Shore making a cameo in a film he was essentially booted out of makesd me think of a film with producers letting their director do whatever he wants at any cost.Im not TOO bitter,I'll go and see it but thanks to AICN's constant blowjobbing of this movie I'm not that arsed anymore.Hell,I'll have to see it on Chinese pirate dvd anyway.It only costs 75 cents or 50p.Oh,hang on I just realised Quint is in the film...hey,gotta go see this...fucking HELL!!!que Mutley from Wacky races snigger....Christ
-
Okay Shaner, I case you didn't read my posts I am not calling names, not in the way some of you have done. It's me and several others who are called idiots by a variety of know-it-all talkbackers who have hijacked this site's threads for years now. Everytime a new movie comes out these people find it necessary to start to bitch and moan about it. Is it really so difficult for you people to wrap your minds around the fact that some filmfans, including myself, just want to enjoy as many movies as possible? Sure, there's crap to be seen but I keep an open mind on every movie I see. If you really want to call this movie, with all the things I've seen, nothing but crap then I suggest you go see some truly atrocious movies. And Ringbearer9, my "he has to be real" meant this: I don't give a fuck about the amount of hairs on the back of Kong or the overall technical believability of what we all know is CGI. The creature has to feel real in the sense that you believe it is there, at the spot, emoting. Nobody but you and a few others seem to complain about Kong's CGI and I think it looks great. However, if you honestly believe Phantom Menace has better effects than any of the Rings films, I'm leaving this Talkback right now!
-
...I've been perusing this talkback with my morning coffee. For a while it was quite entertaining, what with Ringbearer9 slowly imploding in a very public and hilarious fashion and all, but the "oomph" has sort of petered out as the TB has progressed. After reading Ringy's lengthy tracts on film editing, I can see why. They are interesting, though, because they say a great deal about Ringy himself. I know his type. I remember several "Ringbearers" from when I studied film theory in college years ago. They were, to a man/woman, absolutely unbearable human beings to start with - know-it-alls who felt perfectly comfortable in throwing their negligible intellectual weight around without the slightest substance to back it up. Combined with this was their incredibly poor self-esteem which manifested itself in the unquestioning absorption and adoption of whatever the professors were lecturing on. After any given lecture, these individuals would suddenly become experts on the subject at hand and
-
...then all I can say is that you have a perfect twin out there if you never posted under the handle Orson. Same hypercritical irationality over something you pre-judge based on other peoples opinions. I feel sorry for people who are incapable of enjoying anything because of a fixation over some intangible perfection that resides only in their imagination. Once more...it's a monster movie folks and getting excited over that prospect doesn't mean someone is a moron by default.
-
The term "lover" as used by the haters isn't really relevant unless it is the opposite of the term "hater". If the so-called "lovers" had declared that KK would "rule" no matter what evidence to the contrary or how many scathing reviews it received, then we could talk about a relevant label describing the opposite of haters. As it is, most people who are locked in battle with the haters AREN'T "lovers" as such. They're merely stating that most evidence so far points to the idea that the film at hand most probably will be teriffic entertainment, but that true judgment can only be passed after actually SEEING the film. It always cracks me up when the haters try to call their opponents "lovers" or equate opposition to their rabid ranting as having censorious truncheons smashed into their heads by some kind of geek dictatorship. Get fucking real.
-
Is it just my browser or has the '33 Kong background vanished? Does this mean we'll be seeing a new Jackson Kong background? That ought to get the haters into a real frenzy.
-
Wax off, bitch.
-
I'm not sure i understood a word you said. Except for the background dropping out. Maybe its code for a terrorist talkback strike.
-
It's now been decided, Kong is about escapism and fantasy. I am not going to sit in the theatre and open my screenwritting 101 book and systematically pick the pic apart. You geeks might, but why? Why bother? Don't go, stay home and get on the talkbacks and review reviews.
-
So how do you know how good the FX are without seeing the movie?
-
Kong dies in the end and they don't have a back up island to make more genetically huge creatures? Am I in the right movie? Where's Sam Neill?
-
Dec 08, 2005 7:35:08 AM CST
I started having doubts when I saw the commerical for the film a
by citizen arcane
They really could have used another six months.
-
I always read you as mindbender. Who else do I read wrong here? I've seen the same FX you've seen. The island. (very lords of the ringsy) Cool, but fatal flaw Devlin and Emmerick had in their films - revealing the failings of what we all previously thought was *.great.* Dinosaurs, Kong, forest, bugs, Ringbearer9's HD stills. No I haven't seen the film. But I can take an educated guess that the film will pretty much be a bigger version, from lots more angles, from lots more times of the days, from lots more dark, wet, grubby, clean variations. I hope I'm wrong when I see this thing next week. But I don't think I will. and there's only ONE 1 reason why I'm going to be bringing my checklist of things wrong with this film - because I'm being sold the perfect film, from the perfect director, from a perfect resume, from a perfect cinematic changing style - the likes of which I assume we haven't seen since Star Wars '77. Ow yeah, this film is on my list. When I see Narnia I'm not taking my list. That film looks nice and swift and sitting on it's own self esteme. Serious, these hypes need to be kept in check. And who doesn't agree with me the effects in 'Reign of fire' and 'Blade 2' aren't mind blowingly awesome! Those are the guys who should have been given the effects work of Kong. Weta is absolutely super dooper. but it's still behind ILM. Which inturn sits one row behind Digital Domain. If that aint a movie geek talking in talkback i don't know what the hell is! And I'm such a big fan of Warcraft. Why did Lord of the Rings leave me so dry? oh thats right, because my expectations were too high. Thanks AICN. I really do love it here. Except when the visious haters start. their not the ones who say "I hate everything" Their the talkbackers who call other talkbackers 'cunts'. That shit is ugly.
-
Well, it's Direct TV tivo, not a tivo subscription. But, the FX look just fine. Kong and a TRex falling through vines, friggin amazing.
-
Read the Negative Reviews, that should keep you in check. Rottentomatoes.com has a bad review up. Which incidentally says Kong and Watts don't work well together. Which is odd, when many reviews say the oppisite and cite the human to human interaction is not very tight. Still, that should lower your expectations. 90 minutes of incredible movie is there, it would seem, everyone aggress Skull Island rox your boxorz.
-
Dec 08, 2005 8:11:38 AM CST
"I'm going to be bringing my checklist of things wrong with
by minderbinder
I think that about says it all. For anyone who can't figure out the difference between someone who sees the movie and doesn't like it and A Hater, that sentence up there sums it up perfectly. Still can't figure out...for any of you who have already decided it will suck before seeing it...why are you going? Why don't you spend your three hours and nine bucks on something that will actually make you happy?
-
....am I the only one having trouble accessing the secret void which none would believe? It's hard enough getting onto this site - but the other place appears to be completely off-limits to me today - any ideas?
-
The 866 page is where we is at.
-
Dec 08, 2005 9:24:18 AM CST
On Dec 14th Ringbearer is gonna get in line to see Kong
by minastirithii
PJ thanks you in advance for your $8.
-
hey - i have a girlfriend in canada... but alas - i am canadian - so i guess that is not the same thing..."And who doesn't agree with me the effects in 'Reign of fire' and 'Blade 2' aren't mind blowingly awesome!" umm... okay BendersShinyAss... i'll give you reign of fire - majority of the f/x were pretty good - and don't get me wrong - i loved Blade 2 - but some f/x were not up to snuff - for example - when Balde has his first run-in with a couple of members fo the BloodPack @ his hideout - and they're doing crazy martial arts - there are parts when they're jumping through the air and doing crazy flips/jumps/shit that does look extremely fake and video gamish... like i said - i love the movie - and most of the f/x were pretty spot on - but there were still some imperfections... in my opinion... and that is what this site is about... opinions... but i had to answer your question... so take care...and remember - i can put my arm back on - you can't - so play safe...and wreak it well... havoc out...
-
I'll but a ticket to Kong and sneak into Narnia.
-
Dec 08, 2005 10:28:00 AM CST
i'll buy a ticket to both and sneak into bareback mountain..
by havocschultz
oh wait... that wasn't for anybody to know... just kidding... really... no... really... dammit... what can u do... take care...and remember - i can put my arm back on - you can't - so play safe...and wreak it well... havoc out...
-
Dec 08, 2005 10:50:38 AM CST
Minderbinder, HOW BOUT YOU FUCKING EXPLAIN YOURSELF YOU RUDE FUC
by bendersshinyass
Whats you Game. Giving me shit in the Narnia talkback. Gimme your email you fucking pussy.
-
Nicely done.
-
Wanna tell me why what exactly is the difference between the 'haters' we all speak of, and you who has nothing better to do that give another talkback potty mouth insults. Did I run over your cat? fuck your sister? whats your problem bumhead?
-
i know that would get me into a whirl... take care...and remember - i can put my arm back on - you can't - so play safe...and wreak it well... havoc out...
-
Reading these talkbacks is always an adventure story.
-
Hilarious, yet pathetic at the same time. You guys cannot be for real.
-
You have Minderbinder to be an abusive tool to you for no reason. I have Pazuzu. Just wait and see. My appearance here will infuriate the man and watch what he says to me. Just for appearing here right now. Seriously, just watch. This is crazy.
-
You still around trying to put the kibosh on the rave reviews? Why don't you just agree with the guy at Slant and save us all the trouble? I'll repeat. Trying to minimize and downplay the good reviews makes you look like an agenda-driven, moronic get-a-lifer. Just find a bad review and agree with it, and it may look like a smidge of integrity - as opposed to what you're doing now.
-
Again, you contradict yourself. In a recent talkback you heaped praise on Attack of the Clones. Now you're trying to pretend that Empire's favorable review of a movie you liked is an indication that they're completely untrustworthy when it comes to their judgment of Kong. Sad.
-
No, your mere appearance is never enough to warrant any type of acknowledgment on my part. I usually wait for you to say something outrageously stupid, like this howler: "Recent studies indicate that the gravity on the Moon is six times more powerful than on Earth".
-
Wow. That was truely an a amazing thing to witness. I've watched the two of you go hard at it in the past.......... but, man, that was just.... like ....... wow.
-
Dec 08, 2005 12:52:49 PM CST
"Recent studies indicate that the gravity on the Moon is six tim
by aikimoe
I am absolutely powerless to resist this. GingerTwit must have been joking or using absurdism to make a point of some kind. He must have. Just had to. Had to be. You were, weren't you, Ginger?
-
Dec 08, 2005 12:59:18 PM CST
Moons gravity six times more powerful than the earth?
by bendersshinyass
Now thats interesting. But what does it have to do with anything? Have you ever been to the moon? We all know the moon's gravity is less than earths..... but there are all those stories going round about the moon landing being faked. And modern science is somewhat more astonishing than what it was a couple decades back. Fugshme. There are some sections on Earth where the gravity is less and more than other places. Not sure what that has to do with anything. But, is that true, The Moons gravity is stronger than the Earths? Thats interesting. How can we possible confirm this? Where is the equation that proves this Ginger? I'm not saying your wrong, I mean we all just regurgitate shit we've read on the internet or heard on the news.... or what our friends down the pub have told us........ Seriosuly...... what the hell does this have to do with anything?
-
But man, its gotta be pretty taxing to keep helping little old retards cross the street. Some of us bystanders here appreciate it. Thanks.
-
Nice turnaround there, Ringy. The fact is, one of your major gripes with Kong is virtually every aspect of its visual presentation. If hating on visuals is your main method of bashing movies, then heaping praise on AOTC's ditto is - by your measuring stick - lauding the film. Don't front. The same, sad arguments crop up in your posts time and again. Besides, if you mean to say that it was easier to disconnect your brain and enjoy AOTC, then you are more or less saying that the reason you hate LOTR so much is because it (and most likely Kong) caused too much unwanted activity in your noggin. We can't have that, now can we?
-
Dec 08, 2005 1:07:06 PM CST
Minderbinder, at lunch BendersShinyAss was totally ripping on yo
by fluffyunbound
We all said, "Don't talk about moms, BSA, you know that will lead to a fight," but he was all like, "Minderbinder is a big wuss! He's lucky I haven't kicked his ass yet! Fuckin' wuss!" So, like, are you going to take that or what?
-
Man, I sure have. It's pointless, useless and takes too much of my energy. Let it go Doc. Let them win this. They're full o' shit and they know it. They're trying to piss us off and make us doubt Kong and just about every other movie that we might like. Just let it go. The real winner's Jackson anyway. When his movie opens to the tune of good reviews and a gazillion dollars, I'll be having a shitfaced grin, having seen the flick. They're not worth it. We fought bravely but they'll never hear us, never understand us. Let them have their self-absorbed opinions and let us be the better men. Ringbearer9 and your cronies, I bid you adieu, I sincerely wish you all the best and I hope you're happy in real life 'cause you sure as shit turned this talkback into somethin' ugly and bitter. Adios!
-
Dec 08, 2005 1:15:41 PM CST
Well, I don't know how to do those little link things everyo
by bendersshinyass
but it's in the latest Narnia talkback. It totally ruined my night for some reason. We're talking here, and then all of a sudden the fucker is giving me shit. I don't know if I walked into his own private talkback, no one told me I had to register with him first. I asked Moriarty a simple question, and he steps in like a fucking security guard taking a bullet. And he just talked bullshit to me. I mean, I've seen people ragging on others and I've seen some real cock heads, but I've never had some fucker just start giving me shit for no reason. I try and keep the peace between myself and other talkbackers here. But whats the point if some dick head is going to talk shit at you. Why do I care so much?
-
Quite possibly your best and funniest post yet, Ringy. In it, you have provided material which pretty much enables you to swear yourself free from any accusation of having double standards, being ignorant, having no taste whatsoever or possessing the reasoning skills of a baked potato. None of your arguments stand up to even the most casual of scrutiny. You entertain me mightily, Ringy.
-
Dec 08, 2005 1:44:57 PM CST
What I've noticed in these talkbacks is a complete lack of i
by psalmolive
Jump cuts (ie.discontinious cuts)? Who cares. It's about the spines of the characters. It doesn't matter what the film does formatively as long as it emotionally and intellectually stimulates us. Haven't you ever seen a Godard film? Truffaut? I really would love to see what Von Trier would do with Kong. THAT would be interesting, because frankly, there are no surprises in big Hollywood movies. We all know how this film is going to look, and what we are going to get out of it. You may as well not even see it. You're going to go in, watch it and look at all the SFX and walk out and think "what a great film!" only to not realize that your life is a franchise and you can't think outside the box of mainstream cinema. You will all be satisfied with that. The reason why cinema is dying is because Hollywood is focusing on the wrong thing- SFX. They need to focus more on reinventing cinema, and having new ways of telling stories that are truthful to the medium of film. If I want to be told a good story, there is no better medium than a book. Cinema needs to find its own niche, and those new wave directors had the right idea until their concepts were lost, never to be applied or explored ever again. "King Kong" is the death knell for cinema- a cinema of "all sound and fury, signifying nothing".
-
who is going to be first to try and discredit the review...what bad film did travers also like.....
haters are great....make me laugh....
oh i saw narnia yesterday and it is o.k. -
is the Alpha. Props, yo.
-
Yet you are the one pining for big, shiny, happy, colorful epics of fantasy and bemoaning the fact that the editing and visuals of LOTR don't rigorously follow your narrow view of how cinema should "speak". If cinema is in any danger of dying, it's because of pointy-headed, anti-pluralistic troglodytes like you. Cinemas as geographic locations are indeed dying, but film is alive and well - all over the world.
-
Oh who am I kiddin', kick him in the nuts for me!
-
Dec 08, 2005 2:55:41 PM CST
People have been saying "cinema" is dead for longer than any of
by aikimoe
They define "cinema" as "movies I like." There have been and always will be snobs who are convinced that they "know" what is "good" and "bad," based on what they like and dislike. It's impossible to refute what a person likes and dislikes, but everyone who's ever said that "cinema is dead/dying" had been and always will be very obviously wrong.
-
"STAR WARS, as much as I love it, killed cinema, and KING KONG is it's gigantic rottiing, maggot-infested corpse." Boo-fucking-hoo. You haven't even seen the thing, and already you are saying it's gonna suck. Do yourself a favor and get a life, then try working on the intelligence-bit. If cinema is dead, and Kong is gonna suck, then what sort of retard would actually line up at a cinema to pay money for something that is infested with maggots? Oh yeah, YOU -- a small insignificant boring cynical person who spends hours on a talkback with nothing to contribute except bile and stupidity. The fact that you are so completely fixated hating this film that you haven't even seen, again, tells me one thing and one thing only: THIS MOVIE IS GOINGF TO BE MASSIVE. And every time you post one of your compulsive obsessive ranst about this movie, it makes me think, yup, it's gonna be even bigger than I ever dreamed. 'Cos let's face it, when a hater spends this much of his time and energy handwringing about the success of a movie she pretends not to like or care about, it's like a flashing marquee exhibiting your fears.
-
Dec 08, 2005 3:28:17 PM CST
"He talks about the technology which brought it to life, which n
by docpazuzu
Wow, a new, previously unexplored level of stupidity. If a viewer - reviewer or not - is agog at something presented onscreen which is the result of technological innovation, why shouldn't it be mentioned? It's been done as long as film has existed. For someone who does NOTHING BUT bitch about technology, it sure sounds like a strange and desperate ploy. Again you contradict yourself, Ringy.
-
Dec 08, 2005 3:33:28 PM CST
so - ringbearer - kong sucks cause some reviewers have some smal
by havocschultz
so they say it's not perfect - but really good nonetheless... that is possible you know - because - well - like people - i don't have every single person cause maybe their nose might be a little big - or that girl's ass is round enough - or they hate movies before they've even seen them and so on and so forth - imperfections - in everything - are a way of life - i would like you to enlighten us and tell us what is the perfect movie - what movie that you've seen (not just read about) was absolutely perfect from start to finish) - and of course i'm sure if any of us disagree with you about that choice then we are heathens and can't appreciate what goes into the making of a film and whatever the fuck reasons you bring to the table to try and prove you're better than us and know oh so much more than we do... why don't you pick all the raves and good parts of the reviews and post them here - not the couple of parts that you can either twist around to try and sound bad - or the couple of parts listed that state some problems/concerns with the movie - i trust critics that can point out the good with the bad - unfortunately for you - there seems to be more good than bad with kong - but we'll all see very soon i guess... so yes - tell me what the perfect movie is... so i can finally be a film lover and apparentely not just some peter jackson fellatio fanboy or whatever you like to call us cause we've enjoyed his work in the past and hope to enjoy kong and his future work... and if it sucks - i'll admit it - just like every other filmmaker i like/enjoy/respect - if/when they make crap - in my opinion at least - i will admit it - but i am a film lover and can usually find something good in everything... unfortunately - with some movies - that something good is the closing credits... but still... credit where credit is due... so take care...and remember - i can put my arm back on - you can't - so play safe... and wreak it well... havoc out...
-
I'm here, everybody calm down. So, which one of you dillrods needs a damn good thrashing? Ringbearer9 you say? Again???
-
what kind of organism spends all of its time on something it professes to dislike intensely? with all of the choices of things to do and see and experience in this world, just why would a creature show so much dedication, time and energy to show they don't like something? is it out of hope they will save poor hapless moviegoers from ruin and destruction? a selfless cause to be sure. but, how to help save the world next? after the villainous Kong has been exposed by these few brave souls, what galant venture lay in their future? feed the hungry? cure the sick? carry out random acts of kindness? no, no, useless drivel that would be, they will be standing vigil to keep the world safe from the evil machinations of the wicked world wrecker that is peter jackson. and we can all sleep just a little better thanks to it.
-
After reading your posts regarding Travers' review and then reading the actual review itself, I can say (with 99.99% certainty) that you are an absolute shithead. Now, it's up to you Ringodocious to prove me and everyone here that we're wrong. I'd say you got about .01% wiggle room on that, too.
-
Dec 08, 2005 3:56:52 PM CST
"he utilizes every technical advance of the last seventy-two yea
by docpazuzu
That, Ringy, is the extent to which he mentions technology. Man, I thought you were desperate before, but this really takes the cake. Do you have any idea at all how incredibly insecure, hysterical and frantic you sound by trying to spin good reviews rather than post links to bad ones? The best part is that the favorable ones you can't spin you dismiss as "puff pieces". You rock, Ringy.
-
does every fucking reveiw here have to begin with a six paragraph essay detailing how the reveiwer found a seat big enough for his fat ass. I dont mind Harry doing this cause thats his thing and he makes it intresting but these other guys are just boring. SUM UP. Oh and just so you guys know, all the untold mysteries of the universe reside inside PJ's left nut. So start sucking.
-
I'm sorry, I'm not a "lover" but HA, HA, HA, HA, HA. Thanks Ring. Thanks for giving us THAT review. Poor save, sir.
-
QUESTION ASKED: "what kind of organism spends all of its time on something it professes to dislike intensely?" QUESTION ANSWERED: The biggest loser on the internet, and someone that's NEVER BEEN LAID.
-
Not according to the timestamp.
-
in fact, i'm waiting patiently for the burger king promotion and i just watched 15 friggin' clips at yahoo! movies.com.....and, holy FUCK.
-
Dec 08, 2005 4:12:13 PM CST
Which Travers quote will be in the ads? "Here is the jaw-droppi
by fluffyunbound
Universal's marketing guys must really be having a hard time deciding which quote whores to satisfy - there's so much competition for the limited poster / ad space.
-
Dec 08, 2005 4:16:43 PM CST
Or maybe they'll use "You'll feel like a kid again stari
by fluffyunbound
Decisions, decisions...
-
...I'm very excited about seeing King Kong. So far, it's two for and none against (you haven't shown your hand yet matey). Let the tallying continue!
-
Everyone I know is very excited. We don't KNOW if the movie will be good, but we're excited to find out.
-
...whatever you say. Though I do acknowledge you curse where Orson didn't. Still, it's rather creepy that you're so much alike...and not in a GOOD kinda creepy, if you take my meaning. Just out of curiosity, is there any single reviewer out there whose opinion you do trust?
-
...Law of gravitation: Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directly proportional to each of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. ** Elementary physics m'lad. If what you propose were true, the earth would revolve around the moon. Nimrod...even fucking Kong knows that.
-
Dec 08, 2005 4:34:39 PM CST
wow. you guys are giving critics huge boners right now. genera
by hypeendshere
Monster-In-Law and The Longest Yard (2005). But really,guys. Assuming anyone is actually reading reviews past the first few sentences, isn't anyone seeing the pattern here? they're generally lukewarm for the film as a whole. some spots are too cold and thus = negative review. others are willing to let the obvious missteps pass because of the orgy of effects.
-
Dec 08, 2005 4:34:44 PM CST
What's wrong with a reviewer discussing the techniques used
by minderbinder
And what reviewer doesn't at one time or another (I'm serious. Name a great reviewer who never has mentioned the filmmaking techniques)? I don't see what the problem is unless it takes up the whole review. And lets not have a double standard here - if the Travers review gets thrown out for mentioning the technology, shouldn't the review from slant also get thrown out, since he does the same thing?
-
I already have seen it. I'm excited to see it open. It's not a perfect film...what is?... but it really really is the greatest Monster movie of all time...no doubt.
-
Why don't you answer morGoth's question instead of pretending you didn't read it?
-
but you're losing precious wiggle room on your shithead status with every post.
-
Ringmoron9 fully embraced shithead status long ago...
-
So, if there isn't a critic on the planet that you trust, then any negative review of Kong must automatically be suspect, yes? Or are they, in typical Ring-a-ding-ding fashion, given a temporary free pass because their opinions correspond to your own preconceived notions? That noose is looking tighter and tighter.
-
I don't get it. So a review is worthless if it happens to agree with other reviews? If it gives a synopsis of the plot? If it mentions filmmaking techniques? There's plenty of personal opinion in that review, the only way to describe it as "lack of content" is to ignore the content. Keep up the ever-more-desperate grasping at straws. It's still pretty entertaining.
-
Dec 08, 2005 5:23:21 PM CST
"we probably have absorbed a certain amount of Tolkien's sty
by docpazuzu
Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
-
Dec 08, 2005 5:26:18 PM CST
"a big fan of the books, who read the things over and over for y
by docpazuzu
This will most likely come to an end once you see a real live nude woman for the first time.
-
Dec 08, 2005 5:29:05 PM CST
"wow Pazuzu [our great lord and saviour] you are the alpha"
by seppukudkurosawa
...There's something about that comment that reeks of registering the name blackwood just for the sake of lapping furiously at your own testicles. The rumours are true. And some advice Pazuzu, seeing as how you are quite a self-conscious type of person when it comes to how you project yourself on this talkback, I have one recommendation: if you want to come across as an erudite and discerning kind of guy then I recommend you hold back with the verbiage a little. Or at least balance it out a little better; a person who feels the need to constantly turn every single sentence into a tongue-twisting ego-fest would come across better if they'd just mix the phony analysis with the odd joke every now and then. If you really are as intelligent as you say, then you'd be content enough to not have to prove this fact with every post.
-
Dec 08, 2005 5:34:00 PM CST
Well, the Tolkien fanboy thing explains the grudge...anyone else
by minderbinder
-
You're still the guy who said the world basically wasn't made a better place when the Nazis were defeated. As such, there is nothing you can say about verbiage or continued zany accusations of multiple identities (easily verified with IP numbers) which carries any weight for me. You've demonstrated on numerous occasions that you're nothing but a snide, shallow gadfly with no real values, hiding behind a phony, world-weary, morally relativistic veneer which is, frankly, embarrassing. I'll be sure to cry myself to sleep tonight after having you set me straight.
-
If these trusted (ahem) small-site internet guys give positive reviews too, Ringer will just deconstruct those also and pretend anything negative in them proves the point. It's nice to have an opinion that is pathologically unfalsifiable by any evidence of the opinions of others. Convenient.
-
Dec 08, 2005 5:46:44 PM CST
".if the magazine gets it's money from film advertising, the
by minderbinder
Nice conspiracy theory...but if it were true, why do so many movies still get panned? They're advertising in the magazine, isn't there editorial pressure to give those movies good reviews as well? Or is this one of those magic selective theories that only applies to this one movie?
-
What I actually said was that I sided with the Swiss during World War II because I would never, under any circumstances, value my own conceits and opinions enough to kill a fellow man. That is morally relativistic? And I think you'll find that, were it not for the mutual likes of the Swiss bordering Germany, the death toll would have been even greater, because the Nazis would never have released Jews or Gypsies to an Allied country, after other countries having practically bought their relatives, but they were willing to release the refugees to countries like Switzerland, BECAUSE of their objectivity. I didn't say the world would be a better place either, I said the world would still be running if the Nazis had one; which it would have been, as long as there are people circling this globe of ours. I didn't release any judgment on this fact. You can apply the word "basically" to as many facts as you like, but it doesn't give you the right to completely re-write history.
-
Dec 08, 2005 5:53:02 PM CST
"Isn't anyone bothered by..." Why no. In fact, most normal
by minderbinder
I know why he doesn't trust the critics...because they review the movie, obviously what they SHOULD do is review other people's descriptions of the movie...
-
I've reviewed films for two different newspapers and not once was any type of pressure put on me to review anything favorably, despite ads being run for the movies in question. You're really reaching now.
-
If Travers or Schwarzbaum had ripped this film, you'd be using it as evidence of the rightness of your view. You definitely would NOT be saying "I don't trust the big guys." You're only saying that because the reviews in question have been positive. Just be honest about it.
-
that, having exhausted any real criticisms he may have had for the movie that he hasn't even seen, Ringbearer is now grasping at straws made out of eels- he's got nothing to go on.
-
because what it comes down to is trusting another person's opinion. i believe most reviewers give their honest opinions. i also believe most are idiots. you're not even talking Kong anymore. so when are you guys going to stop and realize that you're in love with each other? you're running around looking for something that's been right here all along.
-
...this is what you wrote: "If the Germans HAD won, I doubt the world would have been denigrated into Robo-supremacy. Humans all adapt, and they would also have adapted to the holocaust of all but the Fatherland, and Motherland nations. I know it's a sickening thought now, in our own present world, but give it sixty years of sinking-in and you'd have to get used to it. The world is made up of shades of grey, no matter how much you try to break it down. I'm glad we live in our own present culture, but I'm not willing to write-off any others in the process." ..... And you also said this: "The neutral are free to judge as they see fit because they are the only ones actually seeing events free from filters. Those knee-deep in the dirt have mud in their eyes." ...... Not to mention this: "If the Nazis had won the war, and in fact killed everyone but the Germans, you'd still have humans on the world. And as such they were not robotic. Purty simple. You don't agree, which I accept. You harangue me to try and get me to become you. Not gonna happen. If you have kids, you'll know that the harder you try to convert someone the further away from you they get. I'm saying that I wouldn't be the same person if I'd lived in a Nazi-run world for 60 years, and as such I wouldn't have any film-obsession, nor would I be imprisoned because my opinions would have been cultivated differently. A different world, a different person." ..... Another classic: "Hell, I don't want anyone else to join me in his Zarathustra vision. Because you're right, if everyone stood back they'd all be kicked into line by one lucky assertive son of a bitch. Like I keep trying to say, I don't relate what I do to what everyone does." ........ But this is my favorite: "This means that everything everyone does is entirely justified in its own way."
-
Dec 08, 2005 6:10:19 PM CST
Not a big fan of The Man in the High Castle I take it then?
by seppukudkurosawa
-
No, but you will for this movie. I goddamn-guarantee it. Right?
-
Dec 08, 2005 6:16:54 PM CST
So you don't agree in trying to work out what makes a person
by seppukudkurosawa
I just think it's a better way of living, rather than having a black screen blocking out all the people who don't make the cut, to try and understand people. Lunatics, sociopaths and dictators included. I've worked in asylums before, and I'm not willing to say that all these people are schweine with nothing to give me. I've also written articles on those nomadic street-urchins (err bums), and I've learnt a massive amount from them. Almost every homeless man I've spoken to has had one story to tell, that they've refined and perfected over the years, and it's quite an experience listening to it. Now at least they've got that one story, most people don't even have that.
-
Yes, I enjoyed Dick's book quite a bit. Not really seeing the relevance here unless it's the fact that the world still goes on after an Axis victory. The world in that particular book was balancing on the precipice of the next world war between Japan and Germany, while all of Africa had been transformed into a gigantic extermination camp. Sure, for the "aryans" of the world, the globe just keeps on spinning. What's your point?
-
Dec 08, 2005 6:22:16 PM CST
Spazuzu really loves to repeat the same old shit over and over a
by seppukudkurosawa
He's just like the kid who got called names when he was a kid and would always come back with the same untouchable phrase, "I know you are but what am I?".
-
Dec 08, 2005 6:26:23 PM CST
"So you don't agree in trying to work out what makes a perso
by docpazuzu
It's actually possible to do that and still stand up for what you think is right in the face of oppression. You admitted yourself that you wouldn't want too many people to share your world view since all it would take is one assertive bastard to come along and kick everyone into line. You're trying to have it both ways. You want to be able to "float" and not have to make difficult moral decisions while at the same time being protected by those who feel obligated to make those choices. The Swiss and the Swedes were neutral for nothing but utterly selfish reasons. And you call that not viewing things through a "filter".
-
Real life calls. Please feel free to carry on your conversation with any of my "alternative identities" if any of them should show up while I'm sleeping.
-
who is that weak-minded? i mean, what kind of dumbass pussy allows strangers to decide what they should like or not? as for integrity being directly tied to lack of monetary gain, well, according to that retarded line of thinking, there's a guy who lives in the dumpster behind my local grocery store that ought to be the most reliable movie reviewer in the country.
-
I'm sure there are some people who think that we're living in Hell right now, that the bad guys have won and the world's officially done shot its load. Hell is a girl being born with a skin disease being given constant sympathy and told "you're handling it really well", when as far as she's concerned life's always been like this for her, so she's handling it just as she ever did, it's the sympathy that makes her feel worse- letting her know that other people have it better. And if you were born in the world, after the Nazis having won the war, then you'd handle it just as you always would because you'd have nothing else to compare it to. They still have values, it's just that they're different to fit into the world; if their world's miserable then feeling slightly sad will be their equivalent of feeling happy, and feeling happy will be their equivalent of feeling fucking ecstatic.
-
Dec 08, 2005 6:44:11 PM CST
Fuck me gently with a chain-saw it gives me a headache drudging-
by seppukudkurosawa
but this is what you have to expect from Spazuzu, The Butler, he in control of the AICN archives and with a picture-perfect memory of every single thing every single talkbacker has ever written.
-
Dec 08, 2005 7:20:02 PM CST
*REPOST*:SUGGESTION FOR THE WEBMASTER (Harry): Defuse disrespecf
by psalmolive
You would see a 100 percent decrease in arguments and overall disrespectful behaviour. Every talkbacker essentially states their opinion as "fact" without prefacing their message/post title with "in my opinion". Once you take that away from them, what they are saying essentially has no meaning since they can no longer be "right". Cause after all, how can you be right about your feelings on a movie? It's completely subjective. I think this would piss everybody off immensely and intensely. Picture some of the post titles: "IN MY OPINION: FIRST!" "IN MY OPINION: LITTLE BLACK BOOK WAS THE BEST MOVIE MADE!" "IN MY OPINION: YOU CAN EAT MY ASS!" That would be hilarious. It would be like de-clawing and neutering an animal who was harmless to begin with!
-
Dec 08, 2005 7:35:12 PM CST
Seeing as how the great Flummage isn't here to continue this
by seppukudkurosawa
I'll just have to take his place... *Takes burning pamphlet and sheds salty tears of sadness at what you talkbackers have done. This could have been a thing of beauty, instead you all had to twist it into your sick depraved loathing self-image. OK OK, we've all had our little stress-relief session, but now it's time to work out our problems together like the gorgeous young adults that we all are. OK, here I have a Navajo Stump, what we do is we pass it around and whoever holds the Navajo Stump gets to give their two cents. OK, first of all Moviemack, take the Navajo Stump and speak to your heart's delight. *Moviemack takes stump. -This stump's a piece of shit, why are there so many holes in it from where all the wood-worms have eaten away at it? It's a complete turd, and I notice you've carved away the bark and made it all shiny. Well that just makes it a polished turd. Fuck the stump up its stupid ass- AHEM, OK, very nice Mr. Moviemack, very nice indeed. Now it's Goatzinger's turn with the Navajo Stump... -Mickey Mantle used a stump like this to bat when he played for the Yankees in his first game back in '49. Anyway, to quote noted sage Harry Knowles in his Blade II splooge-fest...fap-fap fap-fap fap...fap...faaaap- Goatzinger, honestly, you didn't have to do a total recreation, just the sounds would have done. Go clean yourself off immediately. Right, last but not least, DocPazuzu, here you go, the Navajo Stump is yours... -You are all self-loathing unichs completely free from any redeeming features whatsoever, this is why I will bludgeon you all to death with the Navajo Stump. DIE DIE DIE!------ END OF MESSAGE
-
Dec 08, 2005 7:47:07 PM CST
So from the mix of positive and negative reviews one can use som
by orbots commander
...King Kong is an OK, middle of the road movie; a movie that will make a lot of money, but which you'll forget about as soon as you exit the theatre, and five years from now as you catch KONG again on HBO, you'll watch the TRex fight one more time, you'll think, "Eh, an okay movie",then flip over to ABC watch Season 7 of LOST.
-
none of us knows how much we will like it UNTIL WE HAVE SEEN IT FOR OURSELVES. why does that concept seem to be rocket science to so many people on here.
-
but yeah. see it.
-
I hope I never meet that lobotomized wanker. Who speaks like that?! Put the crack pipe down and seek help. NOW.
-
'Cholera, best post of the TB, no question.
-
Dec 09, 2005 6:52:45 AM CST
"Big newspapers like the NY Daily News, in a huge city, are goin
by minderbinder
Is that so? So why do papers pan so many movies? Don't they have pressure to help recoup advertising to those films as well? You still haven't addressed this gaping hole in your conspiracy theory.
-
I've read some pretty incoherent posts on AICN but yours are off the charts. Obscure movie references with DIE DIE DIE as the ending isn't the best way to make your point. Make fun of the Kong haters as they walk up to the box office and say "one for Kong please".
-
Dec 09, 2005 6:59:43 AM CST
"Does anyone here actually use reviewers to decide if they'l
by minderbinder
There's a big difference between using critics to decide if you're spending nine bucks, and using critics to decide what you think of the movie. You have to use SOMETHING to decide to see a movie or not. As noble as the idea of going to every movie is, time and money are limited. And none of us have psychic powers, we don't know for sure if we will like a movie before seeing it (OK, so some of us think they have psychic powers). I decide to see a movie based on reviews (including word of mouth from people I know), trailers, what the movie is about, and the track record of the people who made the movie. And I form an opinion of the movie when I've seen it. There are times when all signs point to a good movie but I still hate it. And sometimes I'll ignore all those and see a movie anyway, and like it.
-
Press screening. Good characters, good actors, nice adventures, very bad CGI. Overlong. Worst Peter Jackson
-
"incoherent posts", "off the charts", "Obscure movie references", "DIE DIE DIE as the ending"; Ye fucking Gods, I'm turning into Goatzinger himself. If you don't dig the posts TheThirteen, then I guess you're lacking in the ability to mock yourself, and the world, and if that's the case then I guess you wouldn't like me much as a person. I'd have to constantly explain every single joke to you, and there's nothing that kills humour more than having to back every single remark with a thesis on what it was supposed to mean.
-
Dec 09, 2005 4:43:13 PM CST
what fate belies both the 400 pound trailer park bitch and the 8
by ectocriminal
they both end up getting laid by mexicans! now THAT'S racism. kong isn't racism. it's about a giant gorilla that finds one thing of beauty in the whole world that he doesn't break and it ends up breaking him. enjoy your 3 hours at the cinema! know i will.
-
Sundance Jay checking in with my 2 cents worth after the Baltimore preview. This isn't your great grand daddy's Kong! Jackson has swung at his lifelong dream project, and he has clearly hit the game winning grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning of the 7th game of the World Series. Jackson keeps reinventing the cinema. That ape had more personality and emotion than half the fluffy Hollywood actors working today!
A couple of things concerned me going in: (A) The 3 hour length, (B) Jack Black as the lead character, and (C) Did this classic REALLY need to be remade once again? Well, all I can say is (A) never has 3 hours moved so swiftly, (B) Jack Black can be successfully directed in a non-comedic role, and (C) not only did it need to be remade, but this is the movie that had everything that was missing in the original: namely, an ape with enough heart, emotion, and character to make grown people cry at his demise, and special effects so dazzling that you'd swear that reality was happening before your very eyes! Enough will be written in the weeks to come about its various shortcomings (and ALL film can be critiqued to death if you stop and think about it!) but what can't be ignored is that this is one helluva masterpiece in design, flow, and character study that will go down as one of the greatest achievements in cinema history.
Run, do not walk, to see and revel in this magical fantasy by this genius filmmaker!!!
-
"This is one of the great modern epics." http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051212/REVIEWS/51203002
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts