Cool News
Moriarty Visits Skull Island And Brings KONG Back Alive!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
By the time you read this, KING KONG should be letting out of midnight screenings around the country, and many of you will finally have had the chance to see it. I’ve seen it twice already now, and I was still tempted to go out tonight to see it again. It’s that kind of movie crack, compulsively watchable, rewarding in different ways on each of the viewings so far.
Which is not to say it’s perfect, because it’s really, really not. In some ways, this is wildly undisciplined filmmaking, self-indulgent even, and I’m willing to be that six more months of post-production would have resulted in a radically different cut of the film, a tighter cut, one without quite so many narrative dead ends. Having said that, I’m happier with an uneven KONG than I have been with most other movies this year, and I suspect that most viewers will be, too.
My favorite thing about the movie is how clearly this is the work of pre-LORD OF THE RINGS Peter Jackson. For most of the mainstream, Jackson didn’t exist before the epic trilogy that won him his Academy Award. That was their introduction to him, and as much as I like those films, they’re absolutely atypical of his prior work. The Peter Jackson who won me over was the guy who made BAD TASTE, the excessive lunatic behind DEAD ALIVE, the diseased mind that created MEET THE FEEBLES. There was never any indication that subtlety was even part of his filmmaking vocabulary until HEAVENLY CREATURES, which I think I’d still call his best overall film. Still, that’s the exception, not the rule. The real Peter Jackson came out to play again with THE FRIGHTENERS, arguably the most important film to his overall development as a filmmaker. That’s the movie where WETA first stepped up to produce a large-budget FX show, mixing digital and practical on the same scale as a big Hollywood feature without ever leaving Wellington. It also got Jackson working in the studio system for the first time, which laid the groundwork for everything that’s happened since.
In many ways, KING KONG is a summation of everything that Peter Jackson has done so far as a filmmaker, his master’s thesis. Whatever he does next, he can’t possibly top the spectacle of KONG. He’s finally made the film he’s been revving up to for his whole career, stuffed full of ever fetish he’s ever hoped to indulge. Most importantly, all the technical wizardry he’s been learning over the course of his last four or five movies has been brought to bear in the creation of Kong as a character, and there’s one thing about the film that seems inarguable to me: Kong himself is the single most successful special effect in the history of cinema. He exists. He is real. You look in his eyes, you’ll see a soul, a genuine intelligence staring back out at you. Kong is a triumph, even when KONG is not.
Let’s discuss the already hotly-debated first act of the movie, everything before Skull Island. This is the most difficult stretch of the film, but it’s a mistake to dismiss it outright or to call it a chore. There are plenty of highlights here, starting with the opening scenes that introduce us to New York. Even if Jackson had an actual time machine, he could not have done a better job at transporting us back to a bygone era. His New York is amazing. I’m also a big fan of the way Jackson (along with his co-screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) reimagined Carl Denham, and Jack Black perfectly inhabits the character. He’s a filmmaker whose ambition outstrips his ability, and at the start of the film, it’s finally catching up with him. He’s got a vision for how to make an epic adventure film, and he’s got a great location chosen that no one’s ever used. He just doesn’t have the money or the movie stars to pull it off. He has to leave New York in a hurry, one step ahead of the law, which forces him to abduct his screenwriter Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) and scramble to find a last-minute leading lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). The way the three of them are introduced all works for me, but I was far less interested in the crew of the Venture, the tramp steamer that Denham hires to take them to Skull Island. In particular, there’s a bizarre amount of attention paid to Jimmy (Jamie Bell) and Mr. Hayes (Evan Parke), attention that never pays off. None of their scenes further the plot or the film’s themes, and neither of them emerges as anything like a fully fleshed-out character. When people complain about the film’s first act, chances are, it’s these two characters that are at the heart of those complaints.
That’s not to say I hated everything on the Venture; I didn’t. I like the way Lumpy the Cook (Andy Serkis) and some of the other crew guys are etched with just a few lines here and there, and the same with the guys working for Denham. None of them seem overwritten, but they make enough of an impression to make us give a shit about them on the island. There’s also some decent comedy at the expense of Bruce Baxter (Kyle Chandler), the egotistic star of Denham’s movie, and one great scene that pokes some gentle fun at the original KONG by quoting some dialogue from it. Overall, though, I don’t buy a lot of what happens on the boat, and that’s a problem.
Of course, once they get to the island, not a bit of that matters anymore, because this is where Jackson cuts loose. From the moment the landing party hits the shore, the film rocks and rolls. The natives of the island are genuinely scary, and I love the way they’re revealed. Their first big scene is one of many in the film that are too intense for younger children, and I’m happy to see Jackson push the outer envelope of the PG-13 in a way that recalls the glory days of early ‘80s Spielberg and Lucas. Even better is the abduction of Ann and the introduction of Kong. You know that feeling you get when you saw a film one time as a kid and you loved it but for whatever reason you haven’t seen it since and then suddenly you see it again and it’s nothing like you remembered? Childhood’s eyes are the kindest for any fantasy film, and our memories do a lot of work on a film if we haven’t seen it for twenty years or so. Well, Peter Jackson’s KING KONG feels like he somehow reached into his head and put the film that he saw as a nine-year-old up onscreen intact, and being able to direct with that child’s eye is a gift that very few filmmakers are able to tap. It’s what makes Spielberg’s best movies so potent, and you’ll probably flash on the same sort of pure cinema joy you felt when you first saw RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or (depending how old you are) JURASSIC PARK when you see the way Jackson’s built some of the film’s biggest set pieces. The dino stampede, the bug pit, Kong’s battle with the V-Rexes... these are classically built and executed sequences that leave you worn out by the end of them in the best possible way. They’re exhilaratingly inventive, and the energy is one of the things that makes KONG stand out from most of what we see at the movies.
But what really seals the deal is the way Jackson allows us to care about Kong without ruining him as one of the great movie monsters. He’s intimidating, ferocious, the best fighter on the island. He’s also almost childlike in the way he bonds with Ann, laughing and playing, throwing tantrums, getting moody or sullen over the smallest things. Kong’s the last of his kind, as we learn in a haunting sequence where we see the remains of the rest of his species. He’s alone. He connects with Ann not because of any sort of creepy inter-species love or lust. He connects with her because he finally has a purpose, something that drives him beyond pure instinct or survival. He has to protect Ann. He has to take care of her. And that drive seems to rekindle something vital in the brooding beast. Jackson knows that he’s stacking the deck, too. By making us care deeply about Kong, it hurts when he finally gets taken down by Denham and his crew. It hurts even more when he’s displayed in New York. It’s not about what they’ve done to him physically, it’s about the fact that they’ve broken his spirit. Denham emerges as the villain of the film in a way that he never did in the ’33 original, and it’s an interesting twist. He’s a liar, an opportunist, and ultimately, he seems willing to crawl over anyone’s body to get what he wants. The film’s final act, everything in New York, is marked with a tragic undercurrent that makes it difficult to watch. Many people have mentioned the moment that Ann and Kong share on the ice of Central Park, and the reason it stands out as one of this year’s best moments for me is because of what it does to the ending. We all know he’s going up the Empire State Building, and we all know how he’s coming back down. But that quiet moment of happiness that Kong enjoys just before the climb makes it even worse. Naomi Watts deserves praise for the way she seems to have invested in Kong completely. She makes you believe in him with her work, and Andy Serkis does such great performance capture work that you stop wondering how it was done. You’re too busy reacting to Kong on an emotional level to consider the technical accomplishment behind what you’re watching, a testament to the craft that WETA is capable of at the moment. One of my favorite scenes takes place as Kong is trying to escape from the theater. He recognizes Driscoll standing in the balcony, and a look of pure fury crosses his face. He leaps, and his weight begins to tear the balcony apart as he struggles to get to Driscoll. It’s a brilliant image, and a nice reminder that Kong may have a heart, but he’s still capable of real damage.
Not every single composite in the film works, and not ever single bit of CGI is outstanding. Again, another six months of post-production time might have made all the difference. As with MUNICH, this film was still being tweaked up to the very last moment before it started screening, and when you’re trying to finish this many FX shots, some things are bound to fall through the cracks. It’s precisely because so much of the work is so outstanding that the moments that don’t work stand out. It’s obvious that time is the culprit here, not ability, so it seems ungenerous to nitpick WETA too much. The film is beautifully designed, and Andrew Lesnie’s photography is excellent. I even liked James Newton Howard’s score, which I know was rushed, but which doesn’t feel like it. He uses quiet just as effectively as he uses music, and moments like the bug pit surprised me with some strong and unusual choices.
I referred to NARNIA as a pretty box with no present inside in my review of it, and KONG strikes me as the exact opposite. It’s a box that is splitting at the seams, falling apart because of everything that’s been crammed into it. If you can look past the places where it doesn’t hang together, KONG is a tremendous entertainment, as passionate a movie as any little self-financed indie film you want to name this year. I hope this is the end of giant-budget Jackson for a while, because I want to see what else he’s capable of. For now, though, he emerges as the eighth wonder of the film world, thumping his chest and howling with justified pride.
I’ve got a lot more coming this week, so I’ll see you with reviews of V FOR VENDETTA, SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE, MATCH POINT, THE PRODUCERS, and MUNICH in the next few days, as well as a big catch-up column where I’ll review some recent releases that I missed before they opened. Until then...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Too bad some parts of the film seemed rushed. Still excited though.
-
Did you cry Moriarty? Come on, you can say it. It's just you and me here.
-
Someone told me there was a Ratmonkey (Dead Alive/Braindead) reference in the movie. Is that true?
-
I really don't think I can make it through the school day.
-
It was fantastic!
-
Yep. When Driscoll's first being taken below-deck, check out the crates they've used to transport animals in the past. One in particular will make you smile. The film's filled with great little jokes and asides. Listen to Denham as he runs through actress names and complains that "Fay" isn't available because she's working on some RKO film for "Cooper." Funny stuff.
-
This movie transcended what it could have been, what it should have been. The old king, Spielberg, has lost the way, and the light. Too lax on his throne, unchallenged for too long. He has been unseated. Now, HAIL! Peter Jackson, the true King, is now assuredly seated upon his throne.
-
It is as if you plucked a review out of my head! Every movie I see, I tell people what I think and then it is everything but word for word when we read one of your reviews. I'm going to start looking over my back, THERE YOU ARE! No, no, no, that's not ... WAIT! No. I swear one of these days I will foil your plans and userp my rightful role at AICN!!!! I swear it!!!!
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:19:52 AM CST
So would the film had have been better off being pushed to Summe
by xavier masterson
I've lost count of how many reviews I've read over on RT that point out how bad the effects are in the Brachiosaurus stampede. Is it really that bad? I have this fear that when I finally see the movie later today I'm going to be thinking in the back of my mind how much better the film would have been with a little more time given to compositing the effects elements and tightening the edit of the first hour.
-
"As with MUNICH, this film was still [be] tweaked up to the very last moment before it started screening, and when you
-
Spielberg has lost his former glory. Hopefully he will prove us all wrong in the near future, I hope. KONG wipes the floor with WOTW which had twice the flaws than KONG at 2/3 the running time. Side note, it was 2 hours on the dot. I wonder if the potential money to be made put the quality in the back seat?
-
Don't "read between the lines." Read the lines. Don't interpret me or project your own shit onto me. I said what I meant. KONG is fucking fun, pure and simple.
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:46:27 AM CST
Do you think Jackson will finish the incomplete effects for the
by rindain
Hopefully he'll tweak those last few non-perfect shots until they're perfect. Does anyone know if he plans on doing this?
-
I thought the Rings movies were made for 80 million apiece, 240 all up. I think I know what you're getting at (trying NOT to read between the lines), but I'd say that for such big films, that's mid-budget. I think that was U.S. dollars, not Kiwi bucks. I get a funny feeling that even though you point out Heavenly Creatures (didn't that win an Oscar? Or get nominate for screenplay or something?) is a departure for him, that it's the sort of tone he'll be getting at with The Lovely Bones. Whaddya reckon?
-
Yeah and with frickin Ratmonkey references...I already know this film kicks major ass.
-
...but in the producer's role, for Halo.
-
"Fucking fun, pure and simple". Isn't that what Kong is all about? Having FUN? And all the whining about the effects really gets on my nerves, dear friends. What a pity PJ couldn't film some real dinosaurs to trample his actors underfoot. Get a fucking life, enjoy the movie for what it is: FUN. Thanks for the review, Mori, it got me excited for this film.
-
Dec 14, 2005 8:34:35 AM CST
Mori - do you realize that what PJ made was Kong in structure, b
by genro
-
I really wanted to like this film more. King Kong, the 1933 original, is one of my favorite movies of all time. I have been following this movie's production every week on KonisKing.net... And it is very possible that my expectations ruined this movie for me, much like Revenge of the Sith was ruined. Except of course, that ROTS was a piece of shit, tied with a pretty bow. Andy Sirkis as Kong is magnificent. The very fact of how he worked together with Naomi Watts really elevated her performance, and those scenes work amazingly well. But I pretty much hate everything else in this movie. I think the biggest misstep of the movie was Peter Jackson's insistence that it feel "realistic". The original Kong feels more like a dream, especially when they get to the island. For all the design team's amazing work, Skull Island still looks like it could have been shot around the corner from "LOST". With the exception of the V-Rex/Kong fight,(well, every Kong scene, actually)the effects are horrible and fake-looking. The Skull Island natives are about as compelling as any other horror-movie reject (it's a sad thing when the villagers in the original feel more like a real tribe or people than this movie), the needless exposition of the Venture crew (which still doesn't help you care about them), the over-the top death scenes in the "Spider-Pit" coupled with the most ridiculous use of a Tommy gun --ever--...ugh. The New York scenes are better, mostly for all of the tributes to the original film--but how many women does Kong kill in his search for Anne? How necessary was the car chase? All of these elements that are visceral excesses pushed my enjoyment of the film lower and lower. The tone of the film is wrong, and it is way too long. It's ironic that Peter Jackson was so inspired by this film when he was nine years old and has made a film you cannot take a nine year old to see. In many ways, Jurassic Park was more like the original King Kong than this movie was. PJ's remake is an okay movie, but not the great one everyone lauds it as.
-
I don't just mean that as in"I agree with you!" I mean it in a "Well written, professional style critique". When he's on his game and not wanking Mori's one of the best on-line critics going. Now, if you'll excuse I'm off to see Kong for a second time. (yeah, it's that good, plus I get to write it off as a business expense; the WETA sound guys are brilliant so it's research :-))
-
It'll be a trip to the Bahamas after my finals. Oh, and Mori, I agree; Heavenly Creatures is PJ's absolute best film. And Kate Winslet's best performance, come to that. Did you see the two of them at the BAFTAs when LOTR won? It was cute. It's weird to think he discovered both her and Orlando Bloom. He's got an eye for talent, that's for sure. Anyone you thought might break out of this film?
-
I think this is going to be a film that, the farther you get away from the critic's over-the-top hype, the more it will wain. This will hold up like the first JP or ET, but not as well as LOTR.
-
Dec 14, 2005 9:27:52 AM CST
Fun, yes, at times, but PJ fails in one important element...
by chishu_ryu
...and that's in the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. In the '33 original, Fay is simply terrified the whole time. In the '76 version, Jessica feels pity for the beast. In both films, Kong is obviously obsessed with his blonde bride. Both films, in my opinion succeed, in their own way, in selling that relationship. In this '05 version, Jackson seems to want to go for something deeper, a true friendship. When Naomi witnesses the capture of Kong, and his death, we are to believe that she cares so much for the King that she wails in despair. However, Jackson has not really given us anything in the film to warrant such feelings. A true relationship takes time, experience. In three plus hours, Jackson gives us virtually no "quality time" between the girl and the gorilla. I'm sure Naomi appreciated being saved from three hungry T-rexes, and the sunset from Kong's perch was quaint, but this simply was not enough. Now the two obviously can't have sex, so what does one do? The million dollar question. It could have begun with a simple edit of perhaps when Kong puts Naomi on his back, she pauses, and now seeing the massive monkey in a new light, clutches his fur to hang on. Perhaps Kong could have got Naomi some eats, a big (ahem) banana maybe. It wouldn't have hurt to borrow a page or two from the '76 version. Perhaps Naomi might have witnessed the giant gorilla graveyard, realize how special Kong is, the last of his kind. Perhaps a simple playtime scene, maybe Naomi doing another vaudeville act for the ape, but now under different circumstances. Perhaps us taking a tour of Kong's paradise along with Naomi riding atop Kong's back. You know, to revel in the thrill of this CGI wonderland. A chance for Naomi as Ann Darrow to truly "experience what no woman has ever known." Jackson might also have done well to view Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" a few times. Whatever. Simply put, Naomi as Ann and Kong needed more time together. Perhaps if Adrien Brody had spent an extra day or two searching for Kong's lair. A chance for Ann to truly appreciate the soul that lies within this King of Beasts. As it is, the few hours they spend together in this film is simply not enough. Relationships need time, and lived experience. Peter Jackson does not provide that. Instead, he chooses to bombard us with prolonged dinosaur scenes we've already seen in Jurassic Park, and a lost "spider pit" sequence, which, though thrilling and sensationalistic in their own right, take away from what should be the true focus of the film, the relationship between Ann Darrow and King Kong. As a result, the intimate scenes between the two in New York City seem forced and artificial. But, on the other hand, I'm sure the kids will enjoy it. And that's what's important, right? Give me a break. Over.
-
Didn't I read a while ago that Peter Jackson bought the film rights to "Lovely Bones"? That would make a nice small picture and allow him to stretch the human element of his filmmaking.
-
the 1933 fay wray version and and the 1976 jeff bridges version. one was on amc the other was on tcm. one was with a bob burns puppet the other was some guy in a gorilla suit. one was a classic the other was suckish. may i continue? the one opening today will blow us all outta the freakin' water.
-
Failed to mention if Kong's got a King Cock or not. Or whether it gets as hard as nails around Naomi Watts like mine does.
-
Dec 14, 2005 9:56:40 AM CST
well done, Mori. while i didn't care for it, your review di
by hypeendshere
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:04:57 AM CST
Finally, a review without all the hyperbole. Not the "masterpie
by atticus finch
Just a pretty good movie, nothing more, nothing less. Yet it seems as though words like "masterpiece", "genius", and "classic" are thrown around all too frivously on the site. Well done, Moriarity, for giving us a review without the hype attached.
-
...to see this opening night. A business trip the other side of the country for a meeting that "just couldn't" be conducted any other day...leaving me a looong way from home, in a big city...with PREPAID KONG TICKETS. Roll on tomorrow night.
-
Those were scenes that I expected to see when I first heard about the remake. Yes, Kong is her protector, but a scene where he feeds her, helps her to take a shower in the waterfall, and definitely, one where they both break out of the forest, and several nasty predators slink away from the duo, deciding to take their business elsewhere. In short, a royal tour of the King and Queen. Frank Cho's favourite set of drawings.
-
Dec 14, 2005 11:02:01 AM CST
"No, really, it's not that bad..." This all sounds like an a
by mecandes
This review really smacks of someone who had their hopes for the film dashed, and yet is unable to admit that it didn't meet their expectations. A lot of justifying... reminds me of some folks reactions to Star Wars Episode I. Yeah, I think I'll wait to rent Kong on DVD.
-
been contemplating on just rushing over to the Arclight to see this today. Should I? I don't have tickets yet, which lies a problem. Can I wait to see it on Saturday? I'm torn.
-
Dec 14, 2005 11:18:26 AM CST
I have to disagree with the statement that Kong is the greatest
by doc_strange
When in fact the greatest special effect in cinema history, hands down, has to be the lightsaber. Why? How many hours have we spent imagining we had one, fighting sith lords and stormtroopers? They were very real to us as children which is why we're spending $120 for the film replicas in our adulthood. Others might disagree but to me, that is the singular special effect that stands out in my mind as being the greatest.
-
KONG is full of glaring, fixable errors, both in terms of editing and f/x. How can an artist like Peter Jackson be OK with rushing his materpiece into theaters for a Xmas release, leaving it a flawed, forgettable film, when six more months of post-production work might actually have heralded one for the ages?
-
I got to see Kong last night, and I do have to step up and eat my words. I thought Kong wasn't going to be any good, especially at 3+ hours. But it is; for me it harkens back to when I saw E.T. and Raiders, it's that kinda of spectacle film. And it's that kind of spectacle that I have been missing for a very long time. There's a certain level of simplicity to the movie that was refreshing. It's a film without any in depth explanation or science, just assumptions. And I'm completely ok with that. The Natives are terrifying, and the adventures on skull island are great, the bug pit being just brutal. When he gets to New York the film takes time to pause, which is fine, because you've been running at full pace for almost an hour. The bit on the Ice pond was good, but a bit too indulgent, I think Peter could've gotten the same emotion across with less time spent on it. But over all the film is great. The one thing I havn't read anyone mention is the lack of dialogue in the film. From about the time Kong appears, the dialogue takes a dive...and you don't miss it. Which says alot that the story could be carried by some much action and emotion. They probabyly say more lines in the first forty-five minutes than they do in the final two hours. So, my crow eaten, go see Kong...I betting you'll enjoy it.
-
Dec 14, 2005 12:01:06 PM CST
The Adventures of Jimmy Cowperthwaite aboard the tramp steamer V
by jaguart
"First Mate Hayes, was a very manly, virile, manful person, and a firm believer in strict discipline, corporal punishment, and nude apartment wrestling. He took a warm, personal interest in my welfare, and if a night was stormy, or even mildy choppy, he would come to my cabin to comfort me. Of all that I have suffered since going to sea, nothing could compare to the constant comforting and punishment of First Mate Hayes"
-
Did you catch what the score was doing during that mention?
-
It occured to me that in the finale, you didn't see one shot of the Chrysler building, wich is to the north and east of the ESB. It always seems that Kong or the ESB was blocking the view when the camera was pointed in the direction it should have been. Were Jackson and company not able to get rights to feature it?
-
Yeah whatever. Two words for you: Batman Begins. Suck it long. Suck it hard.
-
Dec 14, 2005 12:24:38 PM CST
Adrian Brody looks like the type of guy that should sound like a
by terry_1978
He just has that British look to him. Go figure.
-
..did anyone see that amazing bts look at how PJ and WETA approached the recreation of the spider pit on the '33 Kong DVD? The respect and creativity they gave that was amazing. Doing it in stop-mo, working with Baker and Darabont,fuckin' A!
And good god, Michael Pangrazio, one of the all-time great matte artists, was back.
Bravo Jackson and WETA. You guys really are something. -
good lord. I guess this release is good enough for goverment work.
-
This movie will set the BO on fire, but I don't think anyone ever doubted that. Will it own the movie loving audiences worldwide like LOTR did? Only time will tell, but I'm there within 24 hours from now!
-
Thanks Mori, Merry Christmas to you and your family.
-
think that Jackson may have just made December not only awards movie season, but a second blockbuster season?
But then again, one could argue that started 15 years ago with Home Alone. But this certainly seems to solidify it. I think we'll be seeing more blockbusters (and not just blatant teenpic exploitation like we do in the summer) bowing in winter than ever before -
gaddam! we know he's seen it...bring it on big guy, I am dying to read your review! Maybe he's taking his time because he knows this will be his defining moment as a reviewer....
-
Great review Mori. I'm going to see it tonight and a 3rd time this weekend. Oh this movie was a blast and so much fun to watch. Peter really hit a homerun with this remake.
-
and sure, it's pretty good. But they oughta knock off all the advertising hyperbole. It's too long, ponderously slow at some points. I laughed out loud when Ann was juggling for Kong on the cliff, not because it was entertaining, but because it was so laughably, jarringly fake. Keanu Reeves spent how many months and months to learn enough kung fu to be believable, what, Watts couldn't be bothered to take a few weeks and actually learn how to juggle? Her retarded flailings at CGI rocks was ridiculous. There was at least an hour's worth of fat to trim off this bad boy. This one is even more of a film for Normals than LOTR was. Which isn't really a bad thing, but whatever. The CGI itself I thought was fine and I'd like to read some specific examples of where the CGI didn't work. And Batman Begins sucked.
-
Oh KintarO...you have issued a clear invitation to the dance. :)
-
Dec 14, 2005 2:39:12 PM CST
Can we expect a KING KONG 2.5 hour, Anti-Extended Edition on DVD
by george newman
Seeing it tonight at 8. I can't wait. Didn't want to stay up late,,,, last night. Gonna do it right. tonight. Outside there is still light, makes me want to vomit. clean it up with Comet.
-
And invitation, huh? You're baiter number one. You can keep on lovin' that film and point at box office and your buddies opinions as erroneous support. I could give a shit what percentage it rates on rottentomatoes. So moviemack (and myself and tons of other people I know) didn't like it. Go wipe the sand out of your vagina.
-
can't wait to see the whole thing
-
Great review. Nicely balanced, especially compared to the rampant hyperbole out there at the moment. Question: you say there are parts that didn't work, or that would have benefitted from more editing time, what parts do you mean (aside from the two ship guys you mentioned)? Just curious.
-
Yeah, well that's all well and good there KintarO buddy, ol' pal. I'll get on that as soon as you get Moviemack's cock out of your ass. Did you not see my smartass EMOTICON at the end of that statement??? Heyzues Christo, man! For the record: it's "An invitation, huh?". Not "And invitation...". I mean if you're gonna be a jackass, at least get your grammar right.
-
His refusal to edit anything really killed what was a great film...
But Kong (the character) is absolutely wonderful. -
Oh goodie. Ring has brought his insanity over here, too.
-
I have to know. What are your three favorite movies of all time? Because I'm curious how a person with your attitude towards film could even find three that he/she could tolerate.
-
the guys who have spent months and months bitching and moaning about how horrible a movie is gonna be, and then run out to see it the first chance they get. There's lots of movies I think look terrible, but I do the simple thing and forget about them, I don't waste time running around trying to convince everyone of why I won't like it when it comes out, and I don't waste time watching it when it comes out. Your lives would be a lot more enjoyable if you weren't wasting so much time and effort into obsessing about not liking something as simple as a movie.
-
Roger Ebert's review. It's better. In every way.
-
Dec 14, 2005 3:11:26 PM CST
Its a difficult business, this "rushing through post-production
by ol' painless
Its a catch-22 all round: wait till after xmas, fine-tune those stampeding bronto SFX shots, and miss out on $50 mill of extra box office? Its a business decision, to be sure, but a legitimate one. There are big financial stakes involved here (and Jackson's own money), so I personally am willing to put up with a few ropey shots to enjoy my KONG Christmas present, rather than viewing it after the holidays (when all the colour is washed out of the world while I contemplate another 12 mths of my job . . . ). I am sure all SFX will be polished for the DVD (extended?) edition anyway.
-
Call me crazy, but my favorite film is Raising Arizona. Can't get enough of it. As far as Kong goes, I won't be seeing it until tonight. And the only reason I asked what films you like is to get a point of reference. Kind of like how you used the fact that Vern liked Die Hard to discredit his review.
-
You should see the directors cut of that one. My mom has a great scene where she gets trunk fucked at a 7/11.
-
She was absolutely excellent! Best interaction with CGI I've ever seen from an actor, simply amazing. Andy Serkis as Kong - this guy deserves an Oscar for this performance, no fucking doubt about it. He must have studied gorillas for weeks because I literally forgot I was watching a computer rendered effect and totally bought him as a giant gorilla. All in all, not the greatest film ever made (Moriarty's small gripes with the film are pretty much the same that I had), not the best directed film of the year, but a film that will most definitely become a classic in the years to come.
-
I was at BNAT with Moriarty when we saw it, and he was whooping it up with the rest of us. Believe me, he liked it. I'd go so far as to say he loved it. In short, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
-
you guys are some jaded motherfuckers. sad.
-
when I asked him what he thought later, he said that he thought it was a good film. Maybe I'm stupid that way, but I kinda took him at his word.
-
"Don't "read between the lines." Read the lines. Don't interpret me or project your own shit onto me. I said what I meant. KONG is fucking fun, pure and simple."
-
Sir, I implore you to address this Ringbearer9 issue directly. Please? Do it before my head explodes.
-
I just want to see you go apeshit. Or fling apeshit. Or call KONG apeshit. JUST GO APESHIT. Apey McApeshit. I have used the word 'apeshit' six times (including this sentence). No more coffee for this man.
-
I'll say this one last time. Stop projecting your own dislike of the film onto me. I said exactly what I meant. There's no hidden subtext or agenda in my review. It's possible to see flaws in something and still enjoy it tremendously. I like Jackson's KONG quite a bit, and heartily recommend it. You try twisting my words again, it's your last talkback on this site. Got it?
-
I didn't see you after Vern owned your ass, moron! Fuck the hell off, will you? Stop interpreting other people's words, you clown. You wouldn't know your own dick if it was presenting itself in your hands.
-
I'll keep this short. If there is one reviewer on this website who's opinion I share about 90% of the time it's Moriarty. I can't say that about anyone else. Everyone else's reviews are so biased because they liked the director or something else unimportant, that you rarely ever get a truthful review about the actual film. Keep up the good work Moriary, you are a diamond in the rough.
-
I saw it at 12:01am this morning. I loved every minute of it, warts and all. Is it perfect? No. But I haven't gotten more bang for my buck in another movie all year. Every time you think the movie has topped out, Pete turns the amp up to 11. The first act sets up the time, place, and characters. You get a taste of depression-era New York. It lasts about 50 minutes. The second act is Skull Island. This is where Pete turns the amp to 11 and never looks back. It's roughly 90 minutes of crazy-mad action with only a few moments here and there to catch your breath. I loved every minute. The third act, back to N.Y. Is it possible to top the second act? Yeah. Kong has a night-on-the-town. The Empire State Building is one hell of a set piece. The sense of height and peril are fantastic. It feels like an I-Max movie where you could just fall into the screen and all the way down to the streets below. The credits started rolling at the 178 minute mark. Time to find a restroom. Will it make Titanic money? I don't know. I think Titanic had a higher Chick-Flick factor. It was the right movie at the right time. It hit paydirt and sent Jim on a very long vacation. I doubt that King Kong appeals to such a wide demographic. It will make serious money. That much I'm sure of.
-
I think your enjoyment of this movie is going to wholly depend on how much you suffer through the first hour... because everyone suffers a little. The time flew by for me, but BOY did I not care about any of the sailors (I laughed out loud at Mr. Hayes launching into a speech about finding Jimmy behind the cages, "...more wild than any of the animals.") Oh, and I expected the typing of "S..K...U.." Skull Island to be bad, but not THAT bad. Anyhoo, once they hit the Island, though, who fucking cares. Seriously. I don't want to know anyone who sat there and thought to themselves, "What awful compositing." Kong looks incredible. I could sit there for five hours and just watch him walk around and look at stuff. KONG's an action-adventure movie, and I feel it's getting unfairly picked apart by people who throw on T2 or JURASSIC PARK 2 regularly without batting an eye at those movies' horrendous characterization or silly plot-points or dumb dialogue. So, yeah, KONG's great.
-
...Sorry, just spaced out for a moment after trying to digest Ringy's latest one-man clusterfuck. My God, son, you really ARE a basket case. Even when people tell you POINT BLANK to your sweaty little face that they liked Kong you STILL go "Aha! He didn't like the movie!" You've definitely crossed into the realm of sheer creepiness now, Ringy. By the way, why didn't you come back to Vern's TB after he so effectively raked you over the coals? No matter though -- by the looks of it, you're about to get reamed harder than ever in this TB. Jesus, you're dense.
-
I'm glad you got the chance to witness this. It's definitely a little creepy. And Ringles did reply back in the Vern Talkback. he provided a "review" which couldn't have been anymore predictable or contrived. I think it might finally be time to put down ol' Yeller...
-
Mori, what up with threatening to ban the man? I know it's a private forum and all, that free speech doesn't apply here and all that. Don't let him get under your skin, my friend. Ok, you called bullshit on all his claims, but damm. And you also passed up the opportunity to use the phrase "You aren't smart enough to put words in my mouth".
-
Just about all movies can be picked apart. It's just how forgiving you are of its flaws. If it's a good movie, like Kong, you tend to over looks its flaws because there is so much else to like. However if the movie had been no-so-entertaining, the flaws we are happy to overlook, would have stood out even more because the film itself was a failure. It's pretty simple psychology, and I surprised as hell that it needs to be explained.
-
You can explain all night long to Ringbeareer, but he will not take your message. He has decided to HATE Kong, and so he will. While secretivily going to every screening he can attend.
-
Is that even a word??? Don't think so! Secretly. So there.
-
Dec 14, 2005 4:14:19 PM CST
Ringbearer, I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic .
by ol' painless
You keep triumphantly pointing out that Moriarty MUSt dislike the film. Moriarty has replied a cuopule of times now saying he loved the film, despite its flaws. You again respond with an argument that seems to go "But you can't have liked, and it can't be good because of THIS and THIS and THIS! HAHAHA! I have you cornered!" Also, this issue you raise about people paying for the film having a different experience . . you are serious, right? We are all grown adults able to make decisions about attending movies, aren't we? Or, if I don't like the movie, should I come back to AICN and blame Moriarty for selling me a lemon?
-
and say you agree with this or that negative aspect, and that's what, or part of what, ruined the movie for YOU. Its another thing to take the review and toss your own interpretations and assumptions into it so you can twist it around to pretend the review is saying something wholly different. Didn't you learn anything when you did this same thing with Vern's review?
-
Dec 14, 2005 4:17:10 PM CST
"guy who made BAD TASTE, the excessive lunatic behind DEAD ALIVE
by www.valiens.com
Uuuuuh so THAT'S the Peter Jackson you wanted to see direct Kong, or is that the Peter Jackson who ended up directing Kong? Cuz I was kinda hoping for the LOTR director myself. I still can't wait to see it. One of my roommates went to the midnight screening. He, like you, says it has its problems and the whole first hour could have been cut. But he said that as psyched as he was for the T-Rex scene it's even better than he had hoped and the action scenes are truly innovative, jaw-dropping, etc. So I'm psyched either way. But damn if LOTR Jackson had directed this I'll bet no one would have a problem with a methodical, focused first hour.
-
Tell them you can't talk cause you have 1992 SNL on hold, and they're already tired of this lame joke.
-
You cannot come down on Mori for getting upset. Think about it ... this site is free. Usually it has reviews up before anyone else, yet people still find a reason to complain, or poke fun at the reviewers. How about this? A review is too long for you? Just skip to the last paragraph. Don't agree with the review? Fine ... but I also find it odd that there are people who disagree with certain reviews without having seen the film themselves.
-
I saw this movie at a press screening at Loews Lincoln Square theatre last Monday at 2:30 and have been waiting for one review to call this movie out. Unfortunately..payola is alive and strong. There were loads and loads of snickering and misplaced laughter throughout the film by the majority of the audience. I had about 40 minutes of fun..combined. Tell me why I should care for Adrien Brody more importantly why should Naomi Watts care for him? And how about that cheap strobe effect when they first arrived on the Island, it looked like a bad Metallica video. Finally...I live in New York although not in 1933 New York, but I can honestly say that it felt artificial. the skyline at the end of the film was beautiful..but everything else felt like a set. Thank you Van Rant for injecting a little perspective.
-
Very good point.
-
Yeah, it IS a real shame that PJ did not film New York in the thirties - it looks real fake now.
-
...then this is what you should have done: you should have acknowledged the flaws Mori brought up and said that those very things were obstacles too big for YOU to enjoy Kong, but that hey, to each his own. Instead, you are more or less calling him either 1) a liar, 2) deluded, or 3) confused as to how he felt. Why can't you just fucking accept that some people liked the movie? You're crazier than a shithouse rat, my friend. Time to get back on the meds.
-
It's not so much about censorship. And keep in mind the site's registration terms. It's about someone finally getting called-out for being an absolute jackass. Emphasis on absolute.
-
Thanks, Mr. Nice Gaius, for pointing this out. I know ONE candidate at least. But probably more...
-
And surprise surprise, I loved it. Reading these other reviews about the flaws does bring out the points, but I'm the kind of guy who doesn't go to see movies like I'm fucking Roger Ebert. I go to have myself a good time, period. No extra coating of bitching or complaints about CG or acting or running time and all that cause I'm not much of a critic when it comes to movies. Plain and simple, I'll either like something, love it, or hate it. Movies to me are, as kong is often considered as the ultimate of, an escape. A visit to a new world where I'm not distracted by the facts that I got bills and shit that the real world throws at me. Movies are where I can have fun. Any underlying themes like love and the jungles of man and the various other principles that are applied to this remake and the original kong are something to look back on after the film. Not to brood on while your sitting in the theater. Cause if you do that, you'll spoil any film you go to see. A small amout of the time it ain't the films fault, its the filmgoer. If somebody goes into a theater looking strictly for all the flaws and things they can complain about, then by god their gonna find it. Every film has them, regardless of opinion. Even Raiders and other so called perfect films have flaws. But that ain't what movies are for, and if you think otherwise, your never gonna have a good time at the theater. I myself had some complaints about it after leaving, but in the end whats the point of brooding on them. Why spoil what fun you can have out of something, the real world does that for you. There were some moments of the film that I would have done differently, like adding more baddies and beast for the big lug to battle, etc. But thats me. I didn't earn any right to make my own version of King Kong, Jackson did. By raking in more dough with LOTR than damn near any other movie made, with the exception of a few. Had some other low budget director done LOTR on the same level, they too would have been given their chance to make their "dream project." For Jackson it was Kong. Who knows what another director would've done. But don't any of you tell me that if you weren't given the opportunity to make your dream come true, you'd pass it up. So anybody who blames Jackson's crew for whatever faults they brood with needs to move on. Was Jackson's vision the same as mine. No. But I will tell you, he came damn close. One thing I remember hearing him saying in the making of thing I saw on HBO is that he made a kong movie that HE would enjoy seeing in theaters. One that I enjoyed thoroughly as well. When it comes down to the stretch to me, this is how it goes. All nitpicking aside, if you enjoy a movie, then its done its work. Besides, enjoyable masterpieces hardly occur on celluloid and digital film. There a rarity, and half the world still varies in their opinions on it anyways. Titanic for example. Biggest film of all time. But to me, its a two and a half hour smooch fest with a half hour or so of a boat sinking. I've seen it maybe three times, thats it. cause I could never really get interested. But I don't go up to Titanic-fanatics or the like and flat out say to their face that it sucked. Thats just being an asshole. And nobody likes an asshole. Same goes for Raiders, Star Wars, LOTR and even Kong. There not the best damn movies ever made, but some people will tell you otherwise, even bark it back into your face. Its all a matter of opinion, and sadly, they're all different. In closing, if you expect every film you see to be a masterpiece, then you need to lower your expectations and stick with what you got. But this also applies to the opposite. If you expect a movie to suck hard despite its hype, etc, then you need to raise them. This ringbearer guy has long said it would be shit, that it would fail. If you "read between the lines" of his various posts that is. Just as some people "want" a movie to be a masterpiece, from what I've read, he wanted it to suck. Whether thats true or not doesn't matter. I've made myself clear on my opinion, time others decided to do the same. I won't pass judgement either like I'm king of the fucking world, cause I ain't the kind of guy to criticize and I don't feel like doing any bitching at the moment. But I will say that I do disagree with him. Kong wasn't a failure. It succeeded in my opinion, cause I had enough fun to want to go back for more. Which is exactly what I'm gonna do when I get the time.
-
Your parents must have have really done a number on you...jeez.
-
...I just read Ringy's reply to Vern, who also gets labeled a liar. Is this even funny anymore? Jesus, I'm actually too weirded out by Ringy's posts to even know how to begin to absorb them.
-
If he doesn't like the film, that's his right. But I wrote what I thought about it, and I'm not going to be told in my own talkback, "See, you hated it! You said so!" Ringbearer is being a troll at this point, and he's pushing to see how far he can take his act. He's found the wall now, and he's been warned.
-
Dec 14, 2005 4:37:34 PM CST
I've been looking forward to this one all year, but watching
by shermdawg
And I fucking hate admitting that, because I so wanted to like this. I don't know if I've become desensitized to all of the cgi effect's over the years (Thanks a lot Lucas!) maybe it's the videogames, or maybe it's all the time I've spent with you nitpicking fucktards in here? I don't know. I just wasn't impressed. You know something's wrong when a four year old tells his dad that "These dinosaurs don't look as cool as the ones in Jurassic Park." There was so many oppurtunites in there where Jackson could have surprised us, make us jump in our seats, but no, it was by the numbers. You could see everything coming from a mile away, and I'm not talking about the plot. There juist wasn't any "WOW" moments for me. Kong looks decent and all, but whats sad (I know I'm gonna lose all credibility for this) is I had those "WOW" moments with Mighty Joe Young, and yes that film sucked.
-
You wanted to hate Kong from the outset, so nothing will get you to go and see it unbiased. Please, go and see it, come back here and rant about how bad it was, and we will all pretend as if we did not hear you, so we can all be friends again, right?
-
Harry's hairy butt cheeks.
-
Ringbearer should have been banned for trolling LONG ago. In fact I take my hat off to you guys that he has been tolerated this long.
-
Yeah but he'll just come back as Ringbearer10.
-
because his IP will be banned, not his ID. I hope.
-
...way to let 'em get under your skin, buddy.
-
Ha! I told you, man. After I read that and saw the swing he took here, I just couldn't believe it. Ummm...I would recommend you not try to absorb his posts. I don't want to know where that rabbit hole goes. It would feel too much like Will Graham trying to get in the mind of Dr. Lector.
-
He is right, this sucker has been spoiling the mood here for too long.
-
What you just wrote is almost reasonable, that you agree with certain aspects of Mori's review, and those aspects are why you don't like the film. That's NOT what you had been writing, you're other post is full of, ok, Mori wrote this, but I'm assuming he really meant this, and when Mori wrote this, well its because I'm guessing he's part of some studio or site conspiracy, and Mori writing this part, well actually, he's a liar, so all in all, even though Mori wrote he liked the movie, if you make up stuff, he's really telling you he DIDN'T like the movie, and then continue to tell all us talkbackers about how Mori actually didn't like the movie. And by the by, you're still doing it, by saying the movie was fucking fun, he's not secretly telling us that the movie is poor. Having fun, and a movie being fun are two different things, The Punisher wasn't a fun movie for you, which is why you wouldn't recommend it, hanging out with your friends at the theater was fun, not the movie.
-
Gus and dewijnboer. I propose a toast to TalkBack modesty and civility. Cheers.
-
I'll toast anytime. What are we drinking?
-
Dec 14, 2005 5:06:47 PM CST
The finest 12 yr. Single-Malt AICN Scotch you can find.
by mr nice gaius
-
ringbearer has been cluttering up tb's for weeks now with his negativity, and now he is being called for trying to misrepresent Mory's review in the very same tb. he asked for it.
-
A wee drop of 18 year old Ardbeg, OK, Gaius?
-
and you're welcome to it, Gaius. Cheers!
-
Viewing a movie, that is. You either like the film or you don't. Whatever factors you focus on for your decision are entirely subjective. A reviewer's job is to point out points that he's noticed that influence him to give either a positive or negative opinion of said flick. I've never heard of having to give a uniformly positive or uniformly negative listing of items from a movie to justify whether you like it or not, like Ringbearer seems to be saying. It's perfectly reasonable to like a movie and still note that there are parts in it that you wish had been different. Just as you can note the positive aspects of a film, such as script, music, etc. but still pan it because maybe the actors suck. But to say that a reviewer is saying the exact opposite of what he says because of how YOU interpret what he writes strikes me as being pretty damned presumptuous. I saw Kong today. I thought the first hour was damned slow sledding, followed by action sequences that were pretty damned good. The Kong special effects kept me interested, Naomi Watts was good and so was Jack Black. Actually, it was Brody's performance that felt a little flat to me, but it didn't impact my enjoyment of what was going on. And later on, I certainly wasn't interested in whether the background lights of NYC were blinking correctly or not, or if the aspect of Naomi Watts walking down the street was exactly realistic. If that's the kind of miniscule shit that ruins a film for you I would imagine that you have a pretty hard time at the movies. I'm not a filmmaker, so I don't get myself in a twist over technical aspects of a film unless they're glaringly obvious. I didn't see anything in this movie that jarred me out of the experience, and I enjoyed the movie. Is it the greatest film I've ever seen? Hell no, but I didn't go into it expecting that. I expected a good remake of a classic and I expected to be entertained. Mission accomplished.
-
I applaud you for your candor and courageous alternative lifestyle.
-
you're talking about something completely different. so you have a troll on your board? you have two options: ignore him or ban him--without comment. the worst thing to do is engage him. that's the entire goal of the troll. and to engage in such a touchy manner, well, that troll is rolling on his back giggling somewhere right now. he wanted attention and got it. poorly handled, that's all.
-
You know, I was gonna say something to dewijnboer along the lines of, "Cool. But let's kills this before someone swoops in with a gay joke". Unfortunately, I left it alone. Kudos to you for taking the obvious route.
-
MORI! Hey you're reading my post, Yeah, got ya to look. Great review! I'm so looking forward to this film. Keep up the good work!
-
Of course, I'm kidding. If I really was a Holocaust denier I wouldn't be able to look Adrien Brody in the face again! Our friendship would just be...BANG, gone. TRUST MORI. That's all I've got to say. He is a real reviewer. If he hated Kong, he would fucking say it! Why are all the talkbackers determined to hate this??? Peter's Kong is the kind of movie that people who only see one movie a year should see. You owe it to yourself as a movie fan to see this movie! It's crazy how people think 'OMG! I have the slightest doubt about this, so I'm just gonna wait for the DVD or not see it at all.'. Relax, get a grip and think about what you love - GREAT MOVIES! People think they're too good for this. Well, newsflash, you ain't, motherfuckers!! Nobody's asking you to suck Peter's cock (or Adrien Brody's nose) but you are 100% dumb if you don't want to see this. Call yourselves movie fans! Call yourselves talkbackers! You fucking make me wretch at times. Stick a gerbil in your ass, through a tube.
-
This guy would start out by, honestly I believe, stating his opinion on a film or a comic or TV show. Usually his opinions rubbed virtually EVERYONE the wrong way. Every talkback he participated in -- and I mean EVERY one -- degenerated into an outrageous flame war of attrition. The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure he never meant for that to happen. Fettastic just couldn't fucking help saying things he must have known would get his ass roasted. As the flame wars would escalate, he would lose his cool and post long personal anecdotes about his sex life, personal triumphs and how Batman Returns touched him in a personal way because of his girlfriend at the time -- or "my Catwoman" as he once referred to her in a TB -- much to his eternal regret, I'm sure. The Great Fettastic Flame Wars of 2003 ended with repeated mass bannings of a number of talkbackers which sort of capped off what was probably the most anarchic period I've ever experienced on AICN. Ringbearer9 is certainly a different kettle of fish in most ways, but he and fettastic share the inability to heed the warning signs and see themselves as others see them. Ringbearer9 WILL drive off that cliff at top speed and take as many as he can with him. At times like this I actually miss fettastic, fucking twat though he was.
-
Taking their bait is like a stroll on Skull Island. You'll step in Kong shit.
-
I say ban this tool Ringbearer, Mori, if for no other reason than for his posting a way too long, way too boring, no-one-gives-a-shit review.
-
...I wouldn't want him banned. The madness is entertaining, and it's the kind of insane shit people like Ringbearer9 bring to the table that makes TB so unique. I think the racists, revisionists, talkback-strechers and other assorted dirtbags should be the first to go. Let us keep the free-for-alls in TB and the Zone as something else entirely.
-
Dec 14, 2005 6:45:27 PM CST
Man Oh Man! I thought he was NEVER going to shut up . . .
by ol' painless
Reading just a small bit of the 'review', ol' Ringy seemed to be babbling on about how a bat's wing-area can't support the weight of a human. Good God, man, is this what you are reduced to in your pursuit to be the 'Smartest Guy In The Talkback?' Its a movie about a 45-ton gorilla. Get some perspective. When you'd disppeared from the TB for a while, I thought maybe you had gone out and found a girlfriend. But, no, you come back and regurgitate THIS.
-
Apparently, LOTR was too "real" for Ringy, but Kong was too "fantastic". My brain hurts.
-
"No, t'was definitely the machine guns. Or at the very least, the fall." "T'was beauty!" "Did she have a gun? I didn't see her go up there with one. Did she push him? What the fuck are you talking about?!" "T'was beauty...." <---------ORIGINAL EXCHANGE OF DIALOGUE BETWEEN DENHAM AND REPORTER CUT FROM THE '33 VERSION. truestory.
-
Did he really just post that??? HA, HA! Unfrigginbelievable. I shouldn't find humor in someone else's madness but...I can't help myself.
-
Dec 14, 2005 6:51:18 PM CST
Well, now that you say it... No, no, he still should be banned
by tony mike hall
This guy isn't one of the wacky, lovable, dumb but endearing talkbackers. He's annoying as hell and he's about THIS CLOSE to losing the rest of his fucking marbles. Seriously, read some of his review - someone needs to yank him away from his computer and fit him with one of those white jackets with the long sleeves.
-
I DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WRITTEN THUS FAR. All you've been doing is baiting Mori and pointing out ridiculous inconsistencies in what is, for all intents and purposes, a fantasy movie. Time to pick up some new hobbies, pal.
-
Jackson is dumb because he made a movie which I made myself hate, and then the guy sitting next to me told me to shut up and stop talking to the screen, so this guy is just a Jackson ass-kisser. i told him to watch out or I would FLAME his ass. The dinousaours were stupid because I've seen real dinosaurs, just totally unbelievable. Everyone was terrible in this movie, except when they were OK. Wasting ammunition on giant mosquito's is stupid. The bats were too small. Brontosauruses don't eat meat. I masturbate myself sensless every night, or at least until the tears come. Jackson has contempt for his audien . . . ah, the hell with this, I'll end up as crazy as Ringy if I keep going.
-
How many times did Ringbearer see this movie? The thing just came out today! I've got a mental picture of this dude sitting in the theater with a notebook and booklight, talking to himself and scribbling furiously away at all the things going on in the film that piss him off so that he can regurgitate it all on here, while other folks in the theatre are wondering what's up with the crazy dude. For what? Hell, his "review" took nearly as long to read as the movie did to watch.
I swear, if going to the movies freaked me out as bad as it does this guy, I think I'd find a new hobby. It's KING KONG, for Chrissake! I've seen less nitpicking and angst over War and Peace. -
Dec 14, 2005 7:07:38 PM CST
"But isn't one of the tricks to conveying the "fantasy" to t
by docpazuzu
Whoa, whoa, whoa! This is EXACTLY what you fucking HATED about LOTR, which you've pointed out countless times. Holy shit, you're completely bugnuts.
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:09:31 PM CST
Sorry, Ringbearer. You lost this one. Jackson 4, Ringbearer 0.
by fluffyunbound
No one cares about how you felt like the LOTR films let you down, and no one cares about your bitchy review of Kong. // I understand why theatres full of people are crying at the end of Kong. I certainly did, and not just for the "Old Yeller" reason. Not only Kong dies at the end - a whole world dies at that moment, the world of the "blank space on the map", which would never exist again, which WILL never exist again. Jackson understands that, and I think that's a big reason why he's been obsessed with making this film. The Kong story [like Indiana Jones in a lot of ways] takes place at the last moment in time when adventure in the classic sense was still possible, when one could still believe that there was something out there "commensurate with our capacity for wonder", when there was still a world outside of Man, and Other than Man. Kong was the last, and Kong is dead. // By the way, everyone who claimed that the ice rink sequence didn't work [ahem - HypeEndsHere - cough, cough] is a tasteless douchebag who no longer gets to have an opinion on any subject, ever.
-
I actually appreciate the time and effort you put into that post. It's certainly much more than I would have devoted to it. And you may note that no one "disagrees" with it yet because it's only been up for about 50 minutes. As for me, I refuse to comment on "King Kong" until I see the film. That my friend, is thinking. Conversely, I don't know that I believe you to be a "troll", Ring. I find your posts (though at times insane) to be too sincere to be troll-bait. And I think that may be what bothers me about some of the things you put on these boards. (Hell, other people mention you negatively in other TalkBacks because you creep them out so much.) So, I'm gonna ease off and hope that TalkBack can guide you back to the light.
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:13:17 PM CST
"Except for DocPazuzu, who is would be a tool no matter what."
by docpazuzu
True enough. However, if you think I'm the only person who's had it in for you during the past few weeks then you haven't been paying attention.
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:17:47 PM CST
That's right, Ringby I was quakin' in mah boots till She
by ol' painless
Us TB'ers are peaceful folk, and don't take kindly to big tough varmints like you comin' in here an' settin' us straight!! HOOOOOOOO-EEEEEEEH!!!!!! GIT 'IM, MO!! APLHA MALE THAT SUMBITCH!! Oh, wait a minute, I'm a Nazi Goose-Stepper, not a cowerin' member of the town folk! Scheissen!! Ich bin ein schweinhundt!! DEUTCHSLAND UBER ALLES . . . .
-
If balrogs, hobbits, elves, tentacled monsters, fell beasts, orcs, trolls, green ghosts and ents aren't "fantastic" enough for you, tooth plaque or not, then it's a sad indication of how far removed from reality you truly must be in your everyday life.
-
...and would you mind telling us what your three favorite movies are?
-
If you would get your ass out of a Kong TalkBack every once in awhile, you might find your handle mentioned elsewhere...and not too kindly either. And for the record, I'm surprised Moriarty or Harry didn't get involved sooner.
-
I think you're a seriously odd individual who just dissected a film like you were trying to disprove the theory of relativity. I can't imagine what it must be like to sit next to you in a theatre.
-
that makes me worried. I have to wait until Saturday to see it. What kind of nerd am I? I usually do the ol' going on the first day thing. I'm excited though. Ringbearer9, can't wait for you to invade Harry's Kong review. That's the last one right? Are we finally done with Kong after Harry gives his stamp of approval?
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:26:11 PM CST
The guy writes two thousand words complaining about minutiae of
by fluffyunbound
If we really want to be zoologists and botanists about this, nothing about Skull Island works, because herbivorous animals the size of Apatasauri would strip an island that size bare, and for the island to support that number of giant predators, it would have to be the size of Iceland. You know what else? The economy in Star Trek makes no sense. You know what else? The fleet tactics shown in Star Wars make no sense. Oh well.
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:34:04 PM CST
Which means you better not start looking like Poland to me, Her
by ol' painless
What are your 3 favourite movies? Commence Apeshit-poo-flinging!
-
of Peter Jackson, Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh must be again mentioned. Does anyone recall the cringe-inducing speech by Sam in "The Two Towers"? This crew is so uneven, so self-indulgent, that I'm simply unable to give these three stooges another fair shake. They make glaring errors in judgment in film after film. Disappointing, as Kong has many strengths as a movie, but it could have been a new classic. Once again, bad writing sinks the ship.
-
he obviously has no life outside of this shit so he might so something drastic if he is banned. as i have said many times...HE MEMORISES THE FUCKING DIRECTOR COMMENTARIES OF FILMS HE HATES. he goes and sees kong on the first day when we all know he will hate it. he spends months telling us how much it will suck and how shit jackson is and then goes and sees his new film first day out? you are fucking obsessed with the guy.....you have far too much spare time on your hands ringy...and i bet time isn't the only thing that is on your hands a lot you poor sorry soul. actually fuck it mori..ban him.
-
Dec 14, 2005 7:56:44 PM CST
Your 'weird ecology' argument is just bewildering, Ringy
by ol' painless
Are you telling me you wanted an explanation for Skull Island? That jack Driscoll was supposed observe T-Rex's and say, "this looks like one of there alternative-imaginary-universe-type-thingies?' That people in the movie theatre would then look at each other with an "Ah, NOW I understand, and henceforth my enjoyment of the movie has been enhanced" look on their faces. You, sir, are clearly barking mad. It appears all you needed to make this movie perfect was a man in a Nautilus submarine to pop up and say "It's OK, everyone! Kong is big because he's on some very powerful steroids!"
-
Stop fighting! You're scaring me!
-
Dec 14, 2005 8:05:12 PM CST
What's that over there? Its a man in a Nautilus submarine su
by ol' painless
"Ringy is right! The look's on everyone's faces in Kong is boredom! Ann Darrow looks asleep most of the time! When Kong is trashing NYC, those gritty new Yorkers jsut take it in their stride! DIVE DIVE DIVE!"
-
Dec 14, 2005 8:16:11 PM CST
I guarantee the DVD for this movie will come out this summer, th
by ted striker
...will come out. This is what happened with the Lord of The Rings, right? 2 DVD releases: one 6 months earlier than the other. I think it's great marketing, and I have a feeling the "special edition" will be the one to watch next Christmas...
-
The guys a tool.
Ringbearer, you have to admit that while Sith wa entertaining and the best out of the prequels, it did not deserve a 90% rating. I believe people really wanted to like it so when it came out, they were relieved that it connected the saga in a satisfying manner (Not perfect at all). Myself included. On repeat viewings though, Sith becomes pretty bad.
If Mori has seen Kong 3 times and still raves about it, I trust that it is a pretty good flick. -
Dec 14, 2005 8:28:35 PM CST
Ringbearer 9 is concerned with "animal behavior" and " shipping
by doctorwho?
...and asks the probing questions like "isn't Ann hungry?"! Did you watch great films like Star Wars and ponder "...gee how does Vader go to the bathroom?" Or maybe Blade Runner, wondering how many miles to the gallon those 'air cars' get? Your cursed to watch film through your crappy little perspective of a nitpicking child. And please Mori DON'T ban him...I find this all quite fascinating.
-
Dec 14, 2005 8:44:20 PM CST
WHY THE FUCK are people mistaking this for a great movie????????
by el scorcho
I sooooo wanted to love it, but it's just way too goddamn long. Not just the first hour, but everything is overdone. The operative term here is "overkill." Kong is a magnificent creation, no doubt, but I really do not give a fuck about the crew of the Venture. And yet, we got at least 25-30 minutes of that. I don't CARE!!!!! Jackson should have realized the movie hinges on Ann and Kong and just brushed over the rest of the stuff. He went overboard with everything and that effectively killed the film for me. I PRAY TO GOD that we get a shorter cut version on DVD, otherwise I may never make it through this film ever again.
-
Oh right, the director. And the jarring cut between Kong's capture and New York was annoying, given the excrusciating detail of everything else. But overall it was good.
-
If PJ has the funds to do it in order to make the definitive cut then he should take the time out to do it like he did with LotR but in reverse. At the moment Howard Shore left the movie I was hoping they'd pull the release date just so PJ could sit on the movie for a couple of months. I believe his fatigue has hampered his judgement in the editing room (anyone who has followed the Kong diaries from Day 1 would surely agree with me). I love PJ to bits so I'm hoping that when I see it on Sunday I'm not too disappointed as I don't think he's ever made a real duffer yet.
-
Dec 14, 2005 9:04:33 PM CST
The first hour is great, except for Jackson's kid's appe
by fluffyunbound
I hate that kid's cameos. But seriously, I don't think any urban space has ever been as breathtakingly realized as Jackson's 1933 New York. Jackson fucking schooled Lucas again. When Lucas uses CGI to create his futuristic urban landscapes, it just looks fucking gay and cluttered as all hell. Jackson's New York proves that nothing is beyond the reach of technology now - when employed by someone who knows what they're doing. [Well, actually, Kong's eyes prove that. Screw the individual strands of fur, look at KONG'S FUCKING EYES. It's amazing the distance the tech has travelled in the relatively brief time since the Final Fantasy debacle, and the even briefer time since the creep-o-matic zombie fest that was The Polar Express.] Oh, and about the screenplay - I've never been the biggest fan of the Jackson Twins [I think it's obvious that Peter's the talent and Boyens and Walsh are along for the ride], but during Kong it struck me that the critical thing about them is that they are painfully sincere. There's not a molecule of irony in either of them anywhere. They're the anti-Whedons. And over time, that WORKS. The long running times even help. After three hours of that sort of screenplay, when they go for the jugular with sentiment it feels genuine and authentic. Just about anybody else has to apologize for their sentiment with self-awareness and with jokes, to make sure we know they aren't that unsophisticated. Since that approach to storytelling is so out of fashion now that it's practically an archaism, I think I can spare them the three hours. And even if you are rubbed the wrong way by the film's unapologetically stagey and "classic Hollywood" dialogue, there's always the dialogue-free portions of Watts' performance to focus on. Watts puts on a fucking emoting clinic. I always knew she was better than that hag Nicole Kidman.
-
Why not post a link so we can see why you're so much better Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens?
-
BONG!
-
GONG?
-
KONG KONG KONGITY KONG KONG KONG!
-
My inner geek is basking in the afterglow. Mr. Jackson delivers big time. Naomi Watts makes acting in front of blue/green screen look easy. Kudos to the whole cast. This is what happens when legendary properties and/or story icons are given the respect and love they are due. Thanks Mr. Jackson. Sumatran Rat Monkeys RULE!
-
PING PONG!
-
Dec 14, 2005 9:27:31 PM CST
Just to show it's not like I can't criticize any part of
by fluffyunbound
...I would say that I saw three opportunities for cuts. I think the sequence where the ship is trying to avoid the rocks in the fog is a minute or two too long. I think the dino stampede could have been shorter as well. And I think the bug pit scene, while useful and effective, could have been shorter. But all told I think that's only about five and a half to six minutes of material I would have cut. The T-Rex fight is perfect. Its long running time just means more chocolatey goodness for me. The first hour, as I noted above, is great. I could have accepted an even longer first act. I expected to merely tolerate Jack Black, but I found the little subplot with the studio bosses immensely entertaining. And I could have accepted a longer third act, as well. The Empire State Building seems long only because it's just so painful - you want Kong to climb the fuck off that building and haul ass to Jersey, kicking New Yorker dick into the dirt every step of the way, and stomping on as many army guys as he can find - but he just won't do it. He doesn't understand, and doesn't know where to go. To him, the high point is a refuge, and the planes are just louder versions of the bats [that's my read on why the bat fight is there; it's not just to allow the bat-escape, it's to show that Kong is used to flying things and thinks he should be able to beat them]. Poor, poor Kong. Forgive us.
-
This and Batman Begins were the two movies that came out this year that I was anxiously waiting to see. But there isn't a theate in my small town, so I have to wait until Saturday. I've just read as much of this TB as I could stand, and so far, the best line is "I masturbate myself sensless every night, or at least until the tears come." by ol'painless. I don't know why, I just find it hysterical. As for Ringbearer9, I take it from all of your posts that what you're really saying is that you didn't like the movie. And you don't think anyone else should like the movie either because that's your opinion and you are oh so smart. Smart enough to disect Mori's review to say that he didn't like the movie no matter how much he protests that he DID. Smarter than anyone else that likes the movie, because you MUST be smarter than sheep. But most people DON'T share your opinion. And you aren't being revered for your fantasic intelligence, but rather pittied for your insane approach to watching movies so analitically. That must infuriate you. But, this is just my interpretation of what you have been saying, so you're not allowed to get angry or disagree with me. Oh, well.
-
Dec 14, 2005 9:28:30 PM CST
Ringbearer9 Has Made Unassailable Points---Probably why no one a
by thunderballs
Seriously, you TB'ers really make me sick some time. Say what you want about Ringbearer9, but the guy is right on the money. This movie was just plain weak! It was rushed, it was slap dash, it was forced, it was overwrought, it was boring. There is not one thing in his review I disagree about. And if you are going to enjoy the movie, you are going to have to ignore all the shit he talks about, cause it is there, on the screen, for all to see. Unintentionally funny moments fill this film. That is the fault of the director and the hack writers. I swear, Boyens and Walsh have got to be the new Akiva Goldsmans of Hollywood for the pap they write. These are two of the worse screenwriters in Hollywood today, and that is saying something. They have no creativity, and constantly resort to "How To Write a Screenplay That Sells" cliches. I will actually rent the film just to hear them defend the whole Mr.Hayes/Jimmy sub-plot. Wait, I can just see it now, "all great movies have supporting characters. If it was just the main characters the whole time you'd get bored. And you don't want them on a ship with a bunch of strangers, so it was important to give these guys personality, so you care about them later." Fuck outta here HACKS! And Ringbearer9, from his comments, does not hate movies, I think he loves them passionately, and anyone who loves movies passionately is going to be disappointed by most films he sees today, cause most movies out there suck ass. Sin City was really the only good mainstream flick this year, and that was only cause of Marv's story, the rest was whatever. Aw fuck it, you losers are just as much shut-ins and geeks as you claim Ringbearer to be. Go fuck yourselves.
-
I just don't know what some of you people are looking for or expecting. This film is so superior to the films that followed it that its not funny. Moriarty hit this review just about perfect - the production values & vision are frakking miles above what's come before. A perfect film? Has there ever been such a thing? A perfectly entertaining trip to the theatre? Hell yes. Bottom line is that Naomi Watts & Kong are the pillars that hold this film aloft, & they do so with distinction & full honors. This what film making is all about - good old fashioned enterfuckingtainment. Jackson has crafted one for the ages. 1,000 blessings on his name. And did I mention that Naomi Watts is uber-hot? Well, she is.
-
Saw it today for myself
Yes, it's a fine piece of popcorn entertainment but it also is most definately an overindulgent,choppy mess that, as you say, could have used a little more work.
When the movie worked, it worked wonderfully. The opening bits with New York, the foreboding and threatening intro to Skull Island and most especially, Kong himself. Naomi Watts does give it her all to great effect, and the script is kind enough with time to foster that crucial development between her and Kong for us as the audience to buy it. For me for chociest parts of the movie were the bits between her and Kong.
Now for what didn't work for me...yes, the running time is a bit much, but I don't think the opening hour is to blame (although I appreciate your point about developing some of the Venture crew only to have no real payoff later...especially Jimmy...I guess there's always the expanded edition eh?). Rather, it's the radical shift in tone once we reach the island. The action set-peices are good, but Jackson should try his hand at a "less is more" approach in the future. For example, the Bronto chase....some shaky compositing draws attention to itself because this scene goes on so long that one's analytical mind starts up and notices things...like there's no way that ANY of those people would survive that stampede...yeah, I know...movie magic n' all but when Jacksom jas tken the time to establish a sense of hyper-realism with the situation, it's distracting to have to "think" about it too much. Another sequence that suffers from this is the bug pit,,,c'mon.. a few guys with submachine guns take out ALL those bugs we saw in that scene? Naw...would've made more sense if when the gunfire started the bugs were shown scattering away...but I digress.
I just think a little more restraint in the editing suite would've made this a tighter movie.
One other item Mor...about your "Narnia" comments. It's apples and oranges here mate...I think "Narnia ' works on a whole different level than 'Kong'. Actually, what it reminded me of is "Return to Oz"...made with the same care and respect for the materail...but hey, you're the pro here eh?
I'll be checking out "Kong" again...and I'll come back with more chatter later... -
I just don't know what some of you people are looking for or expecting. This film is so superior to the films that followed it that its not funny. Moriarty hit this review just about perfect - the production values & vision are frakking miles above what's come before. A perfect film? Has there ever been such a thing? A perfectly entertaining trip to the theatre? Hell yes. Bottom line is that Naomi Watts & Kong are the pillars that hold this film aloft, & they do so with distinction & full honors. This what film making is all about - good old fashioned enterfuckingtainment. Jackson has crafted one for the ages. 1,000 blessings on his name. And did I mention that Naomi Watts is uber-hot? Well, she is.
-
BUNG BONG!
-
...just a great big spectacle to say WOW while eating a large bucket o' popcorn. Saturday at the matinee man, enjoy. Like Jurassic Park, it has elements that advance the technical aspects of filmaking so therefore people carry that praise over to the'whole' film.
-
Dec 14, 2005 9:39:12 PM CST
I wanted to love this movie but Jackson asked us to suspend beli
by retrace
I could see a scene or two being overdone and far fetched but the whole skull island sequence I was thinking "c'mon". The dino stampede was the worst....it took me a long time to get back into the movie after that. Ann not having a scratch on her throughout it all. Kong being held down by a few grapling hooks at first....he picked up a trex for crying outloud. That being said - Kong himself was incredible. I guess I was hoping for more than just popcorn fun.
-
Here, I am going to put on my "Ringbearer" hat for a minute: JAWS is stupid and built around a basically absurd premise. The simple fact of the matter is that Spielberg has to have the shark demonstrate intelligence it simply cannot possess as a matter of biological fact. If 100 boats go into the waters off Long Island to kill a large shark, unless that shark is the size of Godzilla or has the brain of fucking Geronimo, that shark is DEAD. There's no need to hire some crusty old salt to kill the shark, and thus there's no opportunity to watch three different competing, cross-generational and cross-class versions of masculinity interact on some bucket of bolts of a boat. This is an ACTUALLY unassailable point. But you know what? It means shit, because the zoological facts about great white sharks don't mean a fucking thing. It's still a great movie. OK, here's another unassailable point: there is no fucking thing as UFO's. UFO's have never visited us. They probably never will visit us. If they do, in fact, visit us, it is absurd to the point of eccentric imbecility to think that the aliens would send messages giving out latitude and longitude lines so that the government could have a secret meeting with them. So that means that CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is also based on an absolutely moronic premise, when looked at solely from the perspective of what makes sense in the real world. But you know what? That ALSO means fucking shit, because CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is a great fucking movie, and even though the idea of UFO's is stupid, for the space of the movie you can accept it. See? So far with my Ringbearer hat on, I'm oh for two in deciding what is and what is not a good movie, and I'm oh for two in terms of having a fucking clue about what's important about these films. Do I have to continue, or can I take the fucking hat off now?
-
Yeah, it's called "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
-
We're told that the only things that the two cultures have in common are the musical tones. So how the fuck did the aliens even know what latitude and longitude numbers ARE? You can't measure either of those unless you know to start from the Greenwich meridian - and that's pretty culturally specific information. And if they've had all those hundreds of guys kidnapped on their ship all this time - why are the events of the film such a big deal? The aliens are already in contact with humans - the fucking Bermuda triangle guys they kidnapped. Why is it such a big deal that Richard Dreyfuss is going on their ship with them? They ALREADY HAVE HAD HUNDREDS OF DUDES ON THEIR SHIP. FOR YEARS. What did those guys eat? Why didn't they try to learn one of our languages from one or more of the kidnapped guys? If they've had dozens of naval aviators on their ship for years, they HAVE GOT TO KNOW the English words for "I'm fucking hungry!" and "I need to take a shit!" and "Turn your backs, I have to jerk off before I die of DSB!"
-
Dec 14, 2005 9:57:17 PM CST
Ringbearer9 Has Made Unassailable Points---Probably why no one a
by thunderballs
Seriously, you TB'ers really make me sick some time. Say what you want about Ringbearer9, but the guy is right on the money. This movie was just plain weak! It was rushed, it was slap dash, it was forced, it was overwrought, it was boring. There is not one thing in his review I disagree about. And if you are going to enjoy the movie, you are going to have to ignore all the shit he talks about, cause it is there, on the screen, for all to see. Unintentionally funny moments fill this film. That is the fault of the director and the hack writers. I swear, Boyens and Walsh have got to be the new Akiva Goldsmans of Hollywood for the pap they write. These are two of the worse screenwriters in Hollywood today, and that is saying something. They have no creativity, and constantly resort to "How To Write a Screenplay That Sells" cliches. I will actually rent the film just to hear them defend the whole Mr.Hayes/Jimmy sub-plot. Wait, I can just see it now, "all great movies have supporting characters. If it was just the main characters the whole time you'd get bored. And you don't want them on a ship with a bunch of strangers, so it was important to give these guys personality, so you care about them later." Fuck outta here HACKS! And Ringbearer9, from his comments, does not hate movies, I think he loves them passionately, and anyone who loves movies passionately is going to be disappointed by most films he sees today, cause most movies out there suck ass. Sin City was really the only good mainstream flick this year, and that was only cause of Marv's story, the rest was whatever. Aw fuck it, you losers are just as much shut-ins and geeks as you claim Ringbearer to be. Go fuck yourselves.
-
Hasn't been made. Raiders is a lot of fun, and a lot of fun in the same way that Kong is, but it ain't perfect. ( for example, Indy makes an entire trip on a submarine clinging to the conning tower...how did that work when they submerge? Subs make better time under water...)
-
you must be dead inside
-
This has to be the most unneccesarily long movie ever made. Some films have to be long to effectively tell their story. A film about a giant ape is not that story. I thought I was watching the Entended Edition DVD.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:04:38 PM CST
If you think JAWS is cool because the shark is supernatural, you
by fluffyunbound
I guess you did rock, paper, scissors and decided that, THAT DAY, you wanted fantasy. The day you saw CEOT3K, scissors cut paper and you wanted reality. My point, by the way, is that the science of Close Encounters is silly, and there are numerous plot holes, but it's still easily [easily] one of the best films of the 70's, and anyone who doesn't like it [especially if they don't like it for reasons like the ones I was pretending to give, reasons only a dope like you would give] is a soulless deadbeat. Fuck this "It's all subjective, everyone has an opinion" nonsense. I was attempting to use Close Encounters as an object lesson for the rank stupidity of the way you were engaging Kong, but apparently my reductio ad absurdum went astray, because I underestimated just how lame you actually are.
-
I admit it: I'm an unabashed Fluffy Fan. Thank you, kind sir, for all of your scintillating posts throughout the years here at AICN. Thanks also for your KONG review posts -- I'm looking forward to that Saturday matinee.
-
It's Amazing, even with any imperfections. I absolutely loved it & recommend that everyone sees it.
Riveting -
they weren't far enough from the Nazi docks to justify submerging and resurfacing. Besides, that's not a flaw, Magua. That's ridiculous. What about when they found and opened the Ark of the Covenant and it melted all the Nazis' faces off? Would that really happen?
-
And actually in the book he held onto the periscope but that wasn't in the movie. If you're using that to illustrate that Raider's isn't a perfect movie, that ain't it. As for ringbearer, his points aren't "unassailable". They're opinions, subjective opinions. My factual beef with the film was the sharp cut between Kong's capture and New York. That was just bad storytelling. Glossing over the impossibility of getting Kong on the boat and keeping him alive for weeks was just distracting. And Kong's 20 minute death scene but I expected that from Jackson.
-
... it's called "Rear Window." That is all.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:18:38 PM CST
IN MY OPINION: 7/10 for effort, writing was weak, Peter Jackson&
by psalmolive
The T-Rex fight was where Jackson shone. Everything else was all pap, and crap. It was an entertaining movie, but nowhere near the artistry of epics like "Titanic" or "Gone With the Wind" or "Laurence of Arabia". I didn't care about anybody in this film. Sure, Naomi Watts can communicate very well with her eyes, but that doesn't make her a character I care about. Jack Black's last line "beauty killed the beast" what a hackneyed, awful delivery on an awful line. THEN THERE WERE THE PLOT HOLES: How did she not die when Kong gripped her for the first time? Did he know how to grip a human? When he is running through the woods and swinging her and smashing her into the ground, how did Ann not die? When the group comes back looking for Ann, where are all the natives? Kong usually goes to this graveyard, why is it that only this time he is attacked by bats? Is he always attacked by bats? How was Driscoll able to find Ann without a compass, and given all the dangerous animals on the island, without a gun? But guess what- Jackson still got my money. It was interesting to see the effects (though some were poorly done- did anyone else laugh when Kong puts Ann on her back and travels through the woods? Talk about BAD compositing), and it was interesting to see a fairly lifelike rendition of a gorilla on screen. But this is definitely NOT Academy or Golden Globe calibre filmmaking by a longshot, so stop the petitions to get Andy Serkis an Oscar.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:19:54 PM CST
Yeah, I might have been dissapointed with the film, but I will a
by shermdawg
QT, even though he supposedly hates CGI flicks, will love this one, Watt's bare feet get lots of screentime.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:20:04 PM CST
You had me at "Ringbearer9 makes Unassailable Points", Thunderte
by ol' painless
You and I must be reading different talbacks. I would consider Ringy well and truly assailed since his anally-retentive 'review' was posted. What is it you want? For someone to go over his spittle-flecked stream of consciousness with a fine-toothed comb, and reply with scientific evidence that giant bats have sufficient wingspan to carry a man in pursuit of a giant gorilla? Because down that road, my well-endowed chum, lies a journey to madness. Madness, I tell you! Unintentionally funny moments are a feature of Ringy's writing too. The difference between him (and you) and Boyens/Walsh is the simple fact that they actually DO write Screenplays That Sell. So you can bleat HACK as loud as you like, loud enough to drown out the thunder from your own balls if you want, it won't alter the fact that they are playa's and you a hata. Not to mention lazy for posting the same talkback twice. Now write me a nice abusive response. "Go fuck yourself" has already been used, and cannot be used again. 'Ol Painless is waitin'.
-
Sad...sad...sad. I don't see a movie called King Kong for plausibility or nuanced drama. I go to see some amazing shit, and on this Jackson delivered. Is it perfect? No. But I do think it's better than all three Jurassic Park movies. I think the flaw in Jackson's approach was that he tried to make a simple, primal story into something nuanced and more sophisticated than it needed to be. Sometimes he was successful, sometimes not, but none of that effort was really necessary. The proof is that I don't think many people will argue that the original King Kong is at the least as good as this version. What's good about Jackson's Kong is what was good about the original, eveything else is 21st century window dressing.
-
Let go Fluffy! It's a movie, not real life. Don't worry so much. Just enjoy watch the damn movie. Unless you're gonna make your own movies? No? Ok
-
Pay attention to the film. Kong gripped humans all the time. He drug his other brides to his lair and crushed them, hence all the necklaces and skeletons. Why she doesn't die from Kong running through the woods is more a suspension of disbelief than a plot hole. It's assumed that the natives are held at bay with all the guns. Driscoll found anne because kong leaves a big ass trail.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:32:06 PM CST
IN MY OPINION: Actually, I really think for the first time ever,
by psalmolive
Props to you, sir. I just don't have the patience nor the time to destroy the puny lives of the mentally disabled, socially inept and intellectually stunted "people" who post on this board. In all honesty, they should shut down the talkback now because you put these "people" in there place. Good show. Oh, and everyone should see "Syriana" instead of "Kong"- its more entertaining.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:35:56 PM CST
"Driscoll found anne because kong leaves a big ass trail."
by shermdawg
Actually, he just used that humungoid nose of his.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:41:09 PM CST
Well considering the ass raping Vern gave Ringbearer9 earlier to
by i dunno
I'm sure he'll appreciate that. I maintain that all of his opinions are based on how he thinks the characters should react and that is a bit subjective to be real complaints.
-
He did not say "that". I remember, because I found it odd when he uttered the line.
-
Dec 14, 2005 10:52:49 PM CST
Of course I could be mistaken because the kid that was complaini
by shermdawg
Stupid kids.
-
What's up with all the bad editing slow motion effects and smash zooms on skulls? Cheap and corny. Dialogue was cheap and corny. I still give it a 7/10, because my god, a lot of work went into this film, and guess what, I can respect that. Real escapist entertainment will still be Spielberg at his best- Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park and E.T. Kong has an element of B-movie cheapness I don't really like. But still, a 7/10 movie, and that I believe is a fair rating.
-
when I was walking out, some guy said: "If I was Kong, I would have totally hit that." >_<
-
Dec 14, 2005 11:20:36 PM CST
Liked the movie, but "It was Beauty that killed the beast?" Good
by george newman
...talk about awful screenwriting...___Now the movie was extremely thrilling on the island, which is enough for me to like the film as a whole and recommend it to others, but it is not a Great, or oscar-caliber film. It's not Gene Hackman, or that Napoleon Dynamite guy, but it's allright. That sailor subplot was HORRIBLE!!!!! Every bit of it. And every bit of it could cut and the film would not skip a beat. Why did Peter try and establish a Fellowship of the kong? Eh. the entire Island Act was incredible
-
Dec 14, 2005 11:46:19 PM CST
'ol painless---you just apologized and excused every bad mov
by thunderballs
Amazing! You just defended every pitiful fucking hack writer working in Hollywood today and in the past. Because they "sell" their writing, they are somehow beyond reproach, beyond criticism, above any and all responsibility for the sheer phlegm they infest our theaters with. Cause we all know it is talent and merit alone that get you ahead in Hollywood, silly me!!! It is all about the selling of the product! Forget about convictions! Forget about art! Forget about originality! 'ol painless, you are sad and small creature indeed. Go stick your thumb in a cunt!
-
It was the last line of the first film and I get that but it was really awkward and out of place in this version. They should have scrapped nostalgia and gone with something for fitting to the character. Jack Black should have left character and picked up a guitar and ripped out a Tenacious D song about Kong. Actually, his character should have been killed, IMO.
-
No, this is just a tribute. "Be you natives?"
-
Moriarty is dead on about the main things that don't work. Narrative dead end Jimmy. I knew before the break in the film from Skull Island back to NYC that we'd never hear another thing about Jimmy. What a waste of space.
My highlights of the film were everything involving the REX fights and the insect menagerie (especially the centipede) and Kong in New York. I liked the guy playing the egotistical actor better than Brody.
Jack Black was Ok.
Naomi Watts was perfect with what she was given. What she was given was a part where she has to fall in love with her big protector. It's Gorillas in the Mist stuff. She starts teaching Kong a little vocabulary, making Kong her own sign language KoKo. So that's stupid but Watts does it as well as it could possibly be done.
It all went bad when she makes it back to the village and takes up for Kong before he is captured. Very shrill actions that didn't play true all the way around. Naomi puts it out there and it's flawless emoting but it's not the best compliment to the action. Something conflicted and slightly more horrified and passive. We are talking monster stockholm syndrome after all.
Everything bad is Peter Jackson's fault and everything great and wonderful is Peter Jackson's fault. It almost felt like a self indulgent Coppola movie. Great review Moriaty. I'm glad I read it to remind me how much I loved lots of it. One resolution I'm taking away from this, no more trailers for me. At least not for any films I really want to see. Can you imagine how kick ass that Kong slam on the Bi-Plane would play if you were seeing it for the FIRST time. My other resolution is to go ahead and pick a fight with anyone text messaging during the movie. I'll tap the fucker on the shoulder and ask him, "why don't you just stick a flashlight up your ass and do cartwheels for us." -
Kong dies at the end! Seriously, a good movie, just a little too long!
-
I think everybody who Bashes Lucas should be banned. Oh wait, what am I thinking? the Talkbacks would be gone if that happened. You only get a ban threat, if you Bash Peter Jackson.
-
I can't wait for King Kong II where they clone him from DNA of Kong's preserved carcass. They enhance his intelligence and give him a BFG, he then unleashes hell on Al Qaeda!
-
Dec 15, 2005 12:25:40 AM CST
Well, crap, I could have saved my $6.25 and got the JP Triple pa
by shermdawg
-
All you haters can suck on my KONG BALLS!!!!!!
-
That's what you all are. Well...maybe not all of you. Certainly not Mori and the other AICN staffers. And I'll admit that some *SOME* talkbackers have the ability (albeit limited) to talk sense, at times. I LOVE this movie and I'm gonna shout it from the mother fucking roof tops. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!! And I can't wait to see how the rest of Peter's career pans out, because obviously it is now divided between pre-LOTR/LOTR & Kong/post-Kong. Post-Kong is gonna be the most interesting. We have The Lovely Bones to come, which will be great to see, with Peter regressing back to when he didn't need $200 million to put a picture together. Then we might see that WWII movie he has lurking. But I want him to do The Hobbit so much, and before Ian McKellen gets too old to play Gandalf, because no-one else should play him. Anyhow...you're all cunts.
-
when Jack is climbing up the dark, rugged cliff and there is a foggy chasm below him, like when Frodo and Sam are climbing the stairs over Minas Morgul? It was blatantly obvious and I was the only one in the theatre to laugh at it.
-
I remember all the hype about STAR WARS when it came out. I waited until fall to see it and was really underwhelmed. Same thing with Donners 'Superman.' When ALIEN was coming out, I had the Heavy Metal graphic comic and just knew that it was going to be the 2nd coming. I was underwhelmed. However, I was blown away by ALIENS, SUPERMAN II amd STAR WARS II. All three were so much better than the originals...to me, anyway. So now comes KONG. This is three acts. ACT I: great sets, disney dialog and comedy. Really, like Swiss Family Robinson lit-it felt so Disney to me. ACT II: This was supposed to be the act everyone loves the most in the reviews. I liked it. Stampede was great, T rex fight was very good, but I was expecting it to be more violent, as Jackson had stated that KONG was a carnivore in his film. Jackson loves the original, so why did he skimp on the whole natives getting chowed on? Also, the menance you felt when KONG is breaking through the gate in both the original and the 70s version is gone. ITs done in broad daylight and kong just kicks down the door. No natives-they split right away after the crew fire their machine guns when they come to rescue Anne. The rampage through the village was such a awesome setpiece and here its gone.
ACT III: the best act. Here, its night and early morning-both work better in establishing the mood. Kong looks the most like KONG in the theater scene. There, with the spotlight on him, he looks friggin cool. The chase is good, but gone is the sheer 'Rampage' that made the original so cool. Kong here just 'tosses' the chicks he grabs. You never get the sense of a city under seige, which was so crucial to the 1st and to some extent the 2nd. The Empire State battle here is great, but the trailors showed WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY too much of the best action peices. That was a stupid move. Just stupid. I was expecting this to be 'Too Scary' for kids, as it is Jackson after all. Nonsense. This is a kinder, gentler Kong which will appeal to woman more than men. The things that I wished were different were 1. Why any sunlight was used on Skull Island? It was Way more forboding in the original and still is. Here, its cool, but not creepy cool. Kong as a CGI does not translate as well in wide-screen sun-lit shots. I too found him to be a CGI thing about 30% of the time. THe remaining 70% hes perfect. I wish I wish they had trimmed those shots out-it would have been way stronger and more believable. And, why he cut the raft scene? I was really hoping for that. Hell, they have already shown every friggin dino in the trailors, so there is just so little surprise. I was promised the 'Jungle from Hell' and what I got was a more active Jurrasic Park. Still, some all the dinos work as CGI and are well rendered. The T rexs never get that CGI look, but fuck, KOng is sure one friggin CGI computer program when hes doing the 'face-down'. He looks just like he did in the posts we were all complaining about here-a fuckin CGI. That just sucked, as he is so cool in the other stuff. So, what did I like-I like it enough to be interested in the DVD directors cut, so I can see all that cool stuff JAckson was spoutin about-The guys head melting in the slugs mouth, Kongs actually being a carnivore, the raft scene, hopefully more mayhem in NYC. I liked this movie-it did not feel like 3 hrs, and no way in hell did NYC EVERY llok phony in ANY shot-that was so cool. Kong just works so much better there than he does when hes doing the spiderman shit in the jungle. Still, Kong on the ledge is too cool, Kong pushing the log is not, Kong face T rex is not, Kong fighting T rex is cool, Kong in the water before hes captured is wonderful-it was surprising and cool when he smashed the raft, is chasing the men-that was more like it. Kong in the theater is great, but Kong Jumping through the air as a rule just does not work for me. So, I like it, am still digesting it, but that was the shit I really didnt like. Why Jackson didnt mix CGI with Animtronics via 'Jurrasic Park' was always a bad decision. It just would have worked better had there been more different realities to mess w/your mind. By ONLY having CGI as your leading man, you have to cut it more carefully. Kong would have been better with a mix ala Spielberg. I bought WAR of the WORLDS 100%. I kept trying too the visual flaws in Kong, which, as I said, were there 70% of the time. In those 30%, he looks like a great painting-soft, not 3D like much of the movie. I give it a C+. -
Dec 15, 2005 1:05:43 AM CST
"Probably why no one actually substantively responded to his "RE
by doctorwho?
That's funny. No, really it is. That was a bitchfest.
-
Dec 15, 2005 1:11:40 AM CST
I have to reserve my hate for real substantial pieces of shit li
by doctorwho?
That stuff is universally regarded as crap. Spitting venom on an overhyped mega picture is just trolling...cause it never lives up to the hype. These guys are transparent as hell.
-
Dec 15, 2005 1:30:00 AM CST
ringbearer9..everything you posted was telegraphed months ago
by slappy jones
nothing surprised me in your review..i could have drafted that for you last week if you had wanted. go over any film with your boring zero imagination fine tooth comb and i think you will find most movies are fucking silly...to talk about the physics of the bat creatures for godsakes ringy you sound like one boring bastard...... but you contradict yourself because one of your compl;aints about rings is peter tries to make it to real yet you claim this is too unrealistic. any one whpo goes to see fucking KING KONG and complains about realism is a fucking idiot. it is king kong. not the fucking zapruder footage or whatever its called. you are not meant to watch a film to detail every flaw and make notes of everything about it ringbearer9. you went in looking for the faults. you cannot expect any of us to believe you just went in and gave the film a chance. you didn't. you are incredibly biased and to be honest fucking borderline insane with you r obsession with jacksons work. what a fucking boring way to watch a film..get a coke sit back and just watch the film. can't wait for your directors commentary best of though. what a rich life you lead.my sympathy goes out to whoever has to talk to you in person and whoever you wind up breeding with at some stage.
-
No, that is just too realistic. Or too fantastic? Hell, I don't know. I am so glad I am not the one he'll be breeding with, that's all. At school we called types like Ringy 'nerds' or 'dorks'. They had no life to speak of, so they obsessed with very little things, you know, like pulling the wings off a fly, or shit like that.
-
I really liked it. Someone has obviously been studying gorilla behaviour because there were a few scenes that reminded me of some gorilla documentaries. The whole posturing thing, looking away as if to say "You know it, I'm the King. I'm fucking cool but I don't need to overstate it so I'll look away into the distance in a nonchalant kind of way." I did get a liitle misty eyed too but I kept it in check pretty much. And now, Peter Jackson. Great job man but would you please take a break for fucks sake. I saw you in Wellington the other day and you looked tired. Put your feet up and sleep for a couple of months. Seriously.
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:20:37 AM CST
I neither love nor hate the KING KONG franchise, and I just saw
by white owl
..1st of all ringbearer9's review had me laughin real hard. FLUFFYUNBOUND stop trying to find some little unrelenting way to compare PJ's work in KONG as superior GL's THX. Now I got some nitpicks and praises.. like when driscoll and crew are running from the brontos and the raptors, and they fall down a hill or some shit, and all the brontos just roll into eachother and their necks and legs all gets tangled up and its one gigantic ugly ball of cgi mess, and the little humans are just safely rolling around inside this mess of dino-bodies. i totally was thrown off by this sequence. i thought it was retarded how the giant Trex was tied up and hanging on some vines inbetween rock walls, and Ann was tied up near the Trex. and the Trex friggin kicks off the rockwall with his hind leg and goes chomping for Ann. it was like this dino just thought "i'll blindly use my hind legs to push off this wall so i can eat this tiny human". why do all these retarded giant animals get into so much trouble going after this girl when they obviously can have their fill on uber Komodo dragons and whathaveyou. Also I found it totally unbelievable when all the humans were hanging onto this giant log and Kong was shaking the log around. He tosses the log down the chasm and it bounces around like Plinko on Price is Right, and Jack&CO fall to the rocky ground below. and it really looks like it hurts. but they just get up unharmed and then giant insects pop out of the woodwork. I enjoyed seeing the double-jawed penis worms sucking down on one-eyed Lumpy while Jimmy-boy shot a friggin tommy gun at Driscoll and the bugs on him. I was WAITING forever to see Jack get shot by a young triggerfinger with obviously bad aim flailing this gun around. Now..I caught the original KONG on TCM a couple weeks ago (after not having seen it in years) just to freshen up for the remake. One thing that caught my mind was..they never show, at all, how Kong is put aboard the Venture and taken to NY. In the remake here, we've got about 10 guys who've survived the Island tossing chloroform from a canoe at a harpooned Kong. In one shot there was the lifeboat and the Venture in the distance. Now, they REALLY fucked the Venture up, and barely anyone is left.. how is taking this giant subconscious ape to a damged vessel by liferaft even POSSIBLE? Major 72-year-old plot hole there. The scene with Kong and Ann on the Empire State Building is pretty cool. I don't get why Kong went all the way to the top. Why didn't he stay on one of the lower ledges, using the side of the building as cover? Also, when Kong grabbed a biplane by the wing and swung it around and let it go, and it kept flying yet suddenly crashed into another biplane.. yeah that was lame. The old lady questioned me during the Central Park/Ice Skating scene where Kong is on the ice. apparently it was a artificial rink, or else why didn't he fall in?!? I am puzzled by this. and the last line, verbatim, is "t'was beauty killed the beast". I heard laughter the audience. Sad enough, it was right outta the original. I liked that. Didn;t like how the stupid photographers were jumping all over Kong taking pictures. Which reminds me, why didn't Kong use the damn vines like a jungle jim instead of climb back upward on the cliff to rescue Ann again? Act like a monkey, Kong, not a rockclimber! Minor gripes, people.. overall this is a good fantasy movie, and i exaggerate(sp?) the word "fantasy". Peter Jackson is a great real life cartoon maker. 4 beers rating out of a 6pack.
-
A talkbacker suggested that Ringbearer9 is "passionate" about cinema, but I disagree vehemently. I think the only thing Ringy is "passionate" about is being regarded as an expert on film. I have a cousin who acts just like him, an unbearable prick who every now and then decides to become the all-being master of any random subject. He will procede to soullessly devour any and all objects associated with said subject, devoid of any true love or interest, and then use his assimilated "knowledge" as a tool for beating as many people as he possibly can over the head with it. Often he's humiliated by people who actually either do know more about the subject than he does, or have a genuine love for it. Ringy is much the same. He doesn't even collect movies. That may seem like an irrelevant thing to point out, but it strikes me as suspicious that someone who professes such adoration for the medium in this age of cheap DVDs and players doesn't collect movies on any scale. It becomes extra creepy when one considers that Ringy's unhealthy knowledge of the LOTR commentary tracks undoubtedly stems from meticulous notes taken during a one off rental. Several of the films which have come up for discussion Ringy had never seen and proceeded to rent in order to form an opinion. He's a film fan of convenience -- that is, whenever it suits his desire to dominate others. His nitpicking also indicates an enormously poor self-esteem. He's an overbearing besserwisser who only takes pleasure in his perceived superiority over others, even if they have both a greater love and greater knowledge of the subject at hand.
-
Most fun Ive had in a movie theater in a long long time! Damn! Can't wait to see it again!
-
Therefore I second his arguments. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for Harry to come through with his review, as that will be the last time we will hear from Ringbearer. A shame, really.
-
Dec 15, 2005 4:43:28 AM CST
Loved the movie!! I thought the Ratmonkey(brainbead) was to be f
by windowlicker74
Those bat creatures that take driscoll and ann from kong's rock look a lot like the ratmonkey, no? There s a close up on one of them and he looked alike to me.. And I want to say that I totally loved the first act in New York!!
-
LOVE the impassioned diatribe. Thundertesticle stands UP for ART! Nice to know you care about the starving screenwriter, Thunderbollock: its of great comfort to them knowing that selling your work doesn't matter: its the ART that counts. In the process, of course, Thundernuts, you have just excused every bad screenplay ever written. And my god, there are a lot of them. Making movies is a business, peabrain. A big-budget screenplay MUST follow a paradigm, or $100-300 million dollars will be pissed up against a wall. Maybe you could write a screenplay about pissing up against a wall for us, that sounds pretty arty. Or perhaps you would like to remain screeching at the world from the sidelines, which sounds like being more your style. Oh, and what a CHARMING parting shot, the one you think will lay me out like George Foreman in Zaire,to "go stick my thumb in a cunt." OK, I will then. It'll be exactly one thumb more that YOU'LL be getting for the next decade.
-
Dec 15, 2005 6:19:44 AM CST
Ringbearer9, you're trying to do what Kevin Smith did and be
by brokentusk
I agree with Slappy Jones: "Ringbearer9 spends months telling us how much it will suck and how shit Jackson is and then goes and sees his new film first day out?" Why don't you shut the fuck up and let everyone who DID like the movie talk about it without you having to jump down their throats and bitch at them about it? You sir, are a hypocrite.
-
Here
-
The sound of Ringbearer, so full of himself that just has to jerk off to release testicular tension. Ringy, I have just read your mini review, and boy, am I glad that you are not in the movie business. You lack imagination like no other human being has ever lacked imagination before. You should definitely not be watching movies. Ever. And your perfect movie, Badlands, does not stand repeated viewing, as Sheen gets worse and worse with every repeat, and the story is muddy. So, I guess, in every movie, there is something to nitpick. You are no lover of PJ's work, you don't like fantasy, and you have been telling us all how bad this was gonna be for so long, that you could not go into the theater (on opening day!) and be open minded about it. I haven't seen the film, so I am not gonna say it is good or bad or mediocre, but I am pretty sure it not as dumb as your mini review makes it sound. Malice aforethought, that is what your review is. Wanker.
-
I got somethin I wanna say to a lot of you
-
I am still here, in my neck of the woods it is 14.30. Fire away...
-
Of the highest order
-
............................
-
When I first saw FOTR, I didn't know what to think. Was it the mid-night showing? Was I tired? Did I smoke too much pot? But I walked out at 3 AM not entirely sure what I saw. Was it good? Did it click? Was I fooling myself? So I went back the next day at an 11 AM showing and was pretty much blown away. I got it. I don't know what that all means though. Why did I need a second viewing to get it? And I think the only answer is that PJ just does things his way. And sometimes it's not what you would typically expect from a movie, so it throws you off a bit. Throws you for a bit of a loop. But when it all clicks inside your synapses you can then safely sit back and enjoy the story tellers take, with being so critical and bewildered by how the story tellers is telling it.
-
I would just like to say. I haven't seen the film. I feel ike I have. But I haven't. thats pretty amazing. And rare. You guys really are a little to hard on Poor ol' Ringbearer9. Here's my reasoning. The man is a classic talkbacker. He doesn't hang shit on other talkbackers, until they hang shit on him first. He has an opinion and it aint as weak as most people will point out. I'm not exactly a Jackson hater. I'm a Jackson lover hater. Like Ringbearer, myself I am burned by a whole decade of 'event' movies which ALL glaringly suffer from the same issues as the last. Before the release of Kong, a LOT of these problems were evident. Now, and uncannily so, a lot of those 'predictions' have come to fruition. No I haven't seen the film. But I have read the reviews. there are two types. "Wonderful, greatest film ever, will beat titanic,
I couldn't stop crying". and then there's "Not wonderful, because... Not the greatest film, because..... Will never beat titanic, because... I couldn't stop crying (in A) laughter at or B) tears of mercy for this damn thing to stop) There is a section of talkbackers all to eager to slice up the talkbacker known as Ringbearer9. Shit, I sat here wide eyed as all hell when I saw BOTH Vern & Moriarty give him a serving. Vern and Moriarty are my favourite ACINers..... But I must say, Vern is somewhat over rated. Not all the time, he often shines. But i see a little over eagerness to suck his freckle after his every review. (Love your work Vern, really) & Moriarty, For shame. Threatening to ban a talkbacker for discussing the perils we all face when venturing into a theater. Perils which include - influenced reviewers. You loved it, and I believe you. But you DID make note of a LOT of faults. Thats cool. Lotsa films have faults. My king George Lucas and his golden nuggets PT & OT are not with out their flaws. Except 'Empire Strikes back'. That film is 100% and I demand reasons from anyone who begs to differ. So the point is.... Ban fuckers who rag on other talkbackers. The ones who say "Hey BendersShinyAss, You just posted something in talkback and I think you're lame. fuck off, luv Minderbinder" anyways, I don't care as no one is reading. Ringbearer9, I'm gunna kill you if I ever meet you for ragging on star wars. You have no right fucker. NO RIGHT. As for a list of Perfect films. Dances with wolves. (3 hour cut) Star Trek the motion picture (Bite me) Star Trek 2: The wrath of kahn (KAHN) Dragon heart (gotcha, lol) um. The original ET. (Walkie talkies my shiny metal ass) Batman 89. (The last old school film before digital technology) Terminal Velocity (I'm willing to debate) Terminator 2 (Both versions) Titanic (It's almost perfect) Forest Gump (Do not cross me) Contact (Do not cross me) Unbreakable (You know it to be true) Fight club (We do not talk about Fight Club) Fear and loathing in las vegas (Johny Depp. what a babe. Sex on legs. I love you with all my manly heart) Alien (Scary mother fucker) Aliens (Awesome mother fucker) True lies (great fricken flick) Flying High (Really titled Airplane I believe. Fucking americans. It's 'Aero'plane. As in Aero-dynamic. Airplane) While I'm on Americanisms - stop saying "I could care less" Start saying "I couldn't care less". It's actually more sensical. Good night, and boobs. -
Dec 15, 2005 8:05:21 AM CST
A list of bad movies, over hyped and loved by so many
by bendersshinyass
Batman Begins (What a load of trash - this film was just Batman & Robin, only the other end of the spectrum) Hulk (I don't have to say anything, only 2 people liked it) Terminator 3 (We all knew it would suck. But that opening 5 minutes, and closing 5 minutes - it's true what they say about what passes a hollywood script) Meet Joe black (I have a bruise on my head from falling forward onto my coffee table. I watched, and must have passed out or something. I do recall watching an ant wondering accross the carpet just before I blacked out) Batman Begins (Oh look, he's a dickhead. Oh look, he's a ninja now. Oh look, he's a bat. Oh look, he's a hero) WHAT. THE. FUCK. ? . Star Trek Nemesis (Citizen Arcane, you linked me to one of the funniest web sights I've ever seen. Citizen Arcane... are you there?) Gone with the wind (I actually watched this piece of shit right through) 2001 (what a pile) Legend (What a pile) Batman Returns (A film CAN be destoryed by going cheaper on the production design alone, how bout that) I grow weary of all this
-
Dec 15, 2005 8:31:33 AM CST
Nice review, Mori. And I have to admit, I wouldn't mind see
by minderbinder
There's a big difference between disliking something, disagreeing with someone, and calling people who disagree with you liars. That's just pathetic and desperate. Same with spinning positive reviews as "look, you hated it", especially when it involves misquoting to make it sound bad. I can't wait for the comments from guys who hated it saying "I really wanted to make sure it was as bad as I thought...so on my third viewing, I noticed..." And in a few months, we'll be reading quotes from the director commentary...from those who supposedly hated the movie so much. I'm not going to write a book like some have (hell, does anyone read past the first line of those endless pointless things). "Unassailable"? Don't make me laugh. My two complaints are the slo-mo, specifically the stuttery stuff (I don't mind the smooth overcranked stuff). I wasn't crazy about it in LOTR, and in this one it just annoyed me. And the Jimmy scenes - didn't go anywhere, and had some info that was just plain irrelevant. This movie had a lot to take in, I'm looking forward to seeing it again. I suspect quite a few people will adjust their opinions of the film on subsequent viewings (even if only slightly), probably some in each direction.
-
And it's falling behind shedule. so they hold a meeting and they decide the best way to stay on time and on budget is to bring in all the construction teams at the one time. So the foreman is on his way to the building and he walks past all the concreters and landscapers, they're all doing their job well. He then proceeds up every level, meeting and greeting each department from Carpenters to carpet layers to painters to sparkies. He gets to the top floor and it's all quiet and windy. The crane operator looks down on him and gives him a pleasant 'howdy'. The foreman looks around and say "anywhere I can take a piss?" The crane driver tells him "Here, hop in the bucket I'm holding with my crane. I'll swing you out over the city." "I can't piss over the edge of this building onto the street below!" "Nonsence" Says the crane driver "It'll be a fine spray and no one will even notice" So the foreman gets in the bucket and is positioned out over the city where he proceeds to 'hang his piss'. (intermission) The foreman gives the Crane operator a 'cherio' and starts heading back down the building. Only the crane driver calls him back. "Excuse me. Um. I need to take a piss now, too." The foreman picks up on the crane drivers hint and says "No worries, what do you want me to do?" So the crane driver gives him a crash course in how to operate the Crane. "This button on the left swings it out. this button on the right brings it back. DO NOT PRESS THE MIDDLE BUTTON!!! It'll drop the bottom out of the bucket and I'll fall to my bloody doom." So the crane driver jumps in the crane bucket and the foreman presses the left button, and out over the city he is positions to 'hang his piss'. Meanwhile....... far below on the ground level a gorgeous woman is walking past. He legs are long, with nice round calves. Her ShinyAss fills her low cut skirt nice and rounded. Her boobs jiggle nicely as she ever so slightly bounces. A nice cleavage further accentuates there is a God. And the face. Oh the face. You have only one thought and that is to make a terrible mess on that face. And she would love it too. So the lanscapers, they start 'hooting' at her. Pretty soon this gets the attention of everyone else in the building like domino effect, and before long THE ENTIRE buildiing is whistling, sheering and yelling out at this woman. So much so that she stops and looks back at the whole building cheering her on. BACK UP AT THE CRANE the crane driver finishes 'hanging his piss', but hears the commosion. So Does the foreman. He leans over to see whats going on. As he does he leans on the middle button and the bottom of the Crane bucket opens and out drops the crane driver. The Foreman roll dives out of the crane and races downstares. As he races out of the building he comes face to face with the goddess woman. She stands beside the splattered remains of the crane operator. There is a pause. "Are you the foreman?" She asks "Yes" "I want to make a complaint" "A complaint?" He says, eyes narrowing as he looks at the bloody mess on the ground, and then to the building workers. All silent and watching. "Yes, A complaint about the actions of your men" "Pay no attention, they mean no harm, most will never have a woman of your staggering beauty" "That may be, But I don't believe it's appropriate for any man to jump from the top of a building with his dick in his hand yelling "Fuck me. fuck me"
-
Everyone knows that getting all worked up bitching at people on forums is secretly a lot of fun. Why else would people do it so much? Ah, the enemies I've had on this site...I love them all.
-
now THAT would be a fuckin' geektastic explosion of spastic genius retardo awesomeness. note to Jackson, however -- it really is possible to make an exciting epic film under 18 hours long. seriously. 2 hours should be fine. 2 hours and 30 minutes if you really need to push it. 3 hours plus? yes, yes, we all know that you are the King of the Geeks. we all get it. seriously. so, please, just, really, no stop. next time 2 hours, okay? thanks! *kisses*
-
It's quite silly. A lot of you spend 3 hours here are more during any given day entertaining yourself with your witty posts. What's the difference?
-
people don't wait for years, with hype ever growing, and then paying $10 to finally see our witty posts. 3 hours isn't too long, unless it aint filled properly
-
Addressing Ring and banning him are two different things. If you remember your registration terms, the site can ban any of us for whatever reason they see fit. Didn't you get the memo?
-
So long as people don't see the movie as using that metaphor to promote or support it, big deal.
-
... he completely s**t all over the flick, very harsh, very bitchy review. Of course, who ever actually reads Time besides geriatric old Republicans in Fairfax County?
-
Had to laugh at that one too, for it was taken from Jackson's 'Forgotten Silver'. ***Nice review, Mori. I agree with just about all of it except that I really liked all the N.Y.C. parts in the beginning. It wasn't to long for me. On the otherhand, the running with the bulls, I mean the brontosaurs scene as well as the bug pit did go on a mite too long for my taste. Then again, Jackson's always had Bad Taste. ;~)
-
And anyone who posts that on a Talkback is a living metaphor for utter stupidity.
-
Dec 15, 2005 9:57:10 AM CST
Vern may be the funniest, but Moriarity is clearly the BEST revi
by dagan
Thanks, Mori. I get a lot out of your reviews. I pretty much agree with you, though I was a bit more unfulfilled than you by the end. This was probably for two reasons: 1. I saw it in a theater that was NOT full and engaged - crowd response is huge for one's enjoyment of a film, especially a film like this, and the silence just felt awkward. 2. Its flaws "got to me" a bit more than they should have, because they made the film feel like a great, big giant "almost"... I yearned for the film that could've been, which diminished the film that was. However, this was only because the film that was was so very good. I really, really enjoyed Kong, and will see it again at the theater and own it on DVD. It's definitely one of the best big-budget films in quite awhile. It's just that my excitement about the movie feels a bit... empty, as if it showed a glimpse of what this story could be but didn't quite make it there.
-
Dec 15, 2005 9:58:09 AM CST
Kid Z - Time is a liberal rag - Trust me, not many Republicans r
by dagan
-
Having never read the books, I was bored by LOTR. They were overstuffed with plot. This is better: a simple story overstuffed with cinematic goodies. The flawed FX shots were rather endearing, like how they seemed to insist on compositing in Naomi Watts whenever Kong held her, instead of just digitally animating her. The faux juggling only looked really bad in one shot.
----------------------------------
Anyway, its fun. When Kong celebrates his victory over the T-Rex, it's as invigorating a moment as the T-Rex roar at the end of Jurassic Park.
----------------------------------
Jack Black's intro seems jarringly campy, but he settles down after that. Naomi Watts does great work in the dialogueless scenes.
----------------------------------
Kong's face is amazing. It's the one effect that really matters in this film and they nail it.
----------------------------------
TIP: Get up and take a wizz as they approach the Island. Once they get there the movie kicks into high gear for good. -
Dec 15, 2005 10:31:39 AM CST
"Any movie that features white people sailing off to the Third W
by aikimoe
Why should people care about baseless, childish, and rather racist conspiracy theories or the folks who believe in them?
-
Clearly the trip to Mount Doom cost you your sanity. Get a life, son.
-
I agree with 99% of what you said regarding Kong. The emperor has no clothes when it comes to this film. Not a bad movie, but certainly not the modern day classic people are making it out to be.
-
I just thought I'd let you know that Vern has addressed you (nearly extended a hand in friendship really) in his Kong TalkBack. So, for the moment, he now has the last word. It's recommend reading everyone.
-
Dec 15, 2005 10:46:52 AM CST
BIG NEWS!!! Peter Jackson's To Remake Disney's Classic S
by zombiesolutions
Peter Jackson's next pulse pounded epic will be a remake of the classic Disney cartoon "STEAMBOAT WILLIE" featuring Mickey Mouse. although this simple tale was only about 2 minutes long, Jackson has saw fit to reimage the charming little tale of a mouse and his boat into a MASSIVE EPIC DRAMA documenting the impossible love story between Mickey Mouse and his tugboat. in order to fully realize his hubris-filled vision, Jackson will make STEAMBOAT WILLIE into a 600 Thousand Hour Long Masterpiece featuting about 800 Billion dollars worth of CG work. Serkis will be called in to play both Mickey and his lovable Tugboat. better buy your hankerchiefs now because it's a real tear-jerker.
-
Regardless of the evil characters in LOTR that were white or the fact that the Skull Islanders were mostly whites who were muddy and dirty, not Maoris, there will always be those who have the time and energy to "spot" bigotry in the hearts and minds of people who've given no evidence of it. Why not write about the real bigotry that goes on in this country every day, instead of straining to see it in popular art?
-
1) Too long. Jimmy and the first mate should have been cut completely. The same for the male actor who comes along. They didn't add anything and they weren't necessary. ******** 2) Jack Black. Sorry, I love Jack Black as much as the next guy, but I never believed in his performance in this. Some actors can pull off melodramatic dialogue, and Jack Black isn't one of them. I didn't buy him as Denham at all. ******* 3) Unhappy endings suck. Hear me out. The original King Kong didn't make us care about Kong. That movie was pure adventure - the fun of it was watching Kong tear shit apart. In the end, we don't care that he dies because we really don't care about him. PJ's movie does an unbelievable job of making us care about Kong. By the end of the movie you love the big gorilla just like Anne does. I hate depressing movies. No, I didn't expect PJ to change the ending so Kong lives. I KNOW he has to die - that's the whole point. I just can't like a movie that depresses me.
-
...and why it always will is because it touches something fundamental. It's plainly stated in the movies, "Beauty killed the beast", and that theme as encated in this story captivates people because in the heart of every man lies a feral beast that can only be tamed by the gentle love and beauty of a woman (or another man I suppose if that's your persuasion, and there's another movie out right now that illustrates that theme). Kong works as a story because it's a simple exaggeration of the basic dynamic between a man and a woman. Men indentify with Kong because deep down inside we're all brutes, and women identify with Ann because they look at us as beasts that need to be tamed. Neither of the Kong movies is perfect, but the theme is presented powerfully in both of them which is why the flaws don't matter.
-
You know this to be true. I'm very.... VERY glad it's this PJ that directs Kong. Peace Out.
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:07:47 AM CST
The racism claim is only partially valid in the original, and it
by fluffyunbound
First of all, my read on the natives in Jackson's version is that their entire culture has been driven insane by living in terror crouched behind that wall. Crazy, not evil. Giving them that much motivation puts them about 100 miles above your typical movie villain or villainous group, whose motivations often make little to no sense in a "Dr. Evil" kind of way. But I suppose the heart of the "racism" claim is Kong himself. The simple fact that in Jackson's version Kong is indisputably and unambiguously the hero, and Denham is the villain, should effectively refute that claim on its face - but let's go a little farther. Kong doesn't represent "black people" [either in 1933 or in Jackson's version] he represents the imagination and the unknown. If the complaint is that the "Heart of Darkness" metaphor ITSELF is "racist and colonialist" - well, too bad. In the context of western literary culture, if you want to write a story where a place symbolizes the unknown, you are entitled to choose a place that is actually unknown, TO YOU. For a number of historical-accident reasons related to technology and the biology of endemic disease, until the 2nd half of the 19th century, the unknown "places" to westerners were the continental interiors in tropical zones and the islands of Micronesia. It makes absolutely no sense to expect a westerner to write a story about travelling into the unknown where the protagonists go to Chelsea or Pimlico. If you're that unhappy about stories that use the geographical unknown as a plot device to explore the unknown reaches of the id, or to explore the way Man's reason and superficial cleverness chain down and destroy his imagination, get in a time machine, go back to 1800, meet up with the inhabitants of the African interior and the pacific islands, and have them Fed Ex complete detailed maps and ethnographic studies of their regions to the British Museum and the Smithsonian Institution. Until we have the technology to do that, shut up.
-
Way to RIP-OFF Pinkerton on that racism/colonialism post. You should have given credit when credit is due, buddy.
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:22:35 AM CST
another reason KK2k5 "fixes" the racism of the original.
by minderbinder
Instead of Ann getting spared because she's the first white girl to come along, she is on a path to getting killed, but she endears herself to Kong with her juggling etc.
-
Wow, not only is Gus posting word for word Pinkerton's racial opinions, he is posting verbatim a Drudge column now on his website. Very, very interesting indeed...
-
I just have nothing to add here. But I told a joke. Did I wast my time?
-
hold onto your brains kids, cause the Hubris Edition DVD is power packed with Jackson's EGO! clocking in at just over 6 hundred thousand million hours long, this KONG is the one to die for. literally! you'll get olde and die while watching this film. rest assured that there are EVEN MORE giant bugs and T-rex battles. thank god it's pretty good cause otherwise you might feel like Jackson is totally fucking insane and needs to calm down.
-
Dec 15, 2005 11:46:40 AM CST
I don't know, Mack. Wouldn't Denham saying "Greed kille
by fluffyunbound
...imply regret / redemption on Denham's part? Like he realizes what he did wrong? You're asking the villain to blame himself, and that doesn't really seem to make sense for that character. He externalizes the fault. And besides, in some respects beauty did kill the beast - it was the fact that Kong wanted to follow Anne that got him captured. Without that weakness to exploit Denham had nothing on Kong.
-
Denham's character was irredeemable and I just felt that it would be appropriate. It was his fault that everyone died, and he never took responsibility. Tom Hanks Jr seemed to be the conscious for Denham, but he his extremely obnoxious, contemplative/moody stares discounted him for me.
-
Yes, Kong kills all the black women and does not kill Ann Darrow. But doesn't that make perfect sense? She's DIFFERENT from anything he's ever seen, and radically so. There's no question she would take him aback. If Kong was feasting only on white women and then a beautiful black woman came along he'd probably give pause, too. It's not the race, it's the striking originality for Kong that matters.
And I've also heard these tweedy professor types talking about "the white man bringing back a big ape in chains on a ship..."
Well, if one is comparing black people to a giant ape, then I believe that says more about one's own racism than anything else.
-
I liked the first act just fine, although the Jimmy and Mr. Hayes stuff was a bit of a hanging thread. This movie reminded me a lot of "Titanic," in a good way. It's got a bit of comedy, a lot of action, tragedy, adventure, etc. It's one of the top five of the year, for sure.
-
Dec 15, 2005 12:36:42 PM CST
Well, Drudge certainly doesn't credit you as the source, Gus
by mr nice gaius
-
many critcs were not able to review this film. they were basing their whole review on the actuality that as a matter of fact naomi watts was acting in front of a blue screen or the big budget of this film. it's really cool, satisfying and helpful to have some critics who can deal with this type of movie, who really talk about the content, the story, the heart of the film and stop poking fun at superficial nonsense. i should probably tell that some other people but moriarty did a great job with that review.
-
Such weakass nonsense. Let's just accept both scenarios because either way, you're a moron - You completely plagarize Drudge thinking that no one will notice. Or, you choose to caste a racist light on KK by submitting a horribly written paragraph (!) to Drudge who then actually uses it as one of his "Developing..." headlines! Wow. Fantasize much?
-
The beast needs to be killed because it has no place in the modern world. In Kong, the beast is made explicit, but he's meant to symbolize the beast in us all.
-
Keep gigglin' there Chuckles. Finis.
-
and it was uglier than skull island and more dangerous. the modern world sucks in comparison.
-
That's nice and "sensitive" for you to say, but I'll bet I have an idea where you'd pick to live if you had a choice... That's right, the good old modern USA, baby. But be my guest - go and live like a savage in some jungle if you'd rather. Nobody's stopping you. But oh yeah, if you are over 25 or 30 you'd almost certainly be dead by now, if you lived somewhere other than the modern world, from the common cold or some other non-serious(for us) malady. So you might not get your chance to celebrate "nature"...
-
Dec 15, 2005 1:12:07 PM CST
ol' painless----still waiting for a response....oh wait, tha
by thunderballs
I've no one to blame but myself for engaging in a debate with, what seems from his writing to be, a teenager. My apologies. Just for the record, the fact that a script "sells" has nothing to do with its quality, or lack thereof. And the fact that Boyens and Walsh have memorized Robert McKee's(himself a hack, unproduced writer) book shows they have no imagination. What you're telling me is that because the studio spent 200 million dollars, we are REQUIRED to have characters like Jimmy and Mr.Hayes? Why? If you spend 200 million dollars on a movie you are REQUIRED to include every boring cliche and device known to filmmaking? Sorry ol' painless, I did not realize what an expert you were on the writing of films. I take it your expertise flows from....where exactly?
-
ahhh munich. can't wait for this review. aside the fact that it probably is the worst title for a spielberg film ever thought of i am excited wether this will really be good or just disppointing.(in germany this film will in fact be entitled M
-
And for Kong the modern world sucks. Skull Island was home. Calm your bad self down fool.
-
Kong doesn't crack 10 mil. Comes in 21st for all time Wednesday first day opening.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/days/?page=wed&p=.htm -
because we knew he would hate this film. he knew he would hate this film. there is no way he went in to give this film a chance. he has been telling us how much he hates jacksons work for months right and surprise surprise he goes and sees kong and what do you know...he hates it! but he goes and sees it first day and look at his post...his review...that is not the review of someone qwho has given it any thought. that is the review of someone who wrote that in his head before he saw it. as i said earlier i could have written that review for him as it was pretty much the same shit he has been going about for months. plus seriously even you guys who agree with him don;t you find it said that ringbearer obviously has nothing else to do but obsess about jackson? he hates all 3 rings films yet has seen them all multiple times to a point where he can quote you directly from jacksons commentaries on the estended versions. he sources out and pulls out quotes from old jackson interviews as source material for his hate rants. HE GOES AND SEES HIS NEW MOVIE OPENING DAY AND RUNS STRAIGHT HOMW TO POST HIS REVIEW.....i am sorry but to me that sounds like a complete loser who has nothing else to do. personally i have better things to do with my time then devote hours and hours and hours to fuelling my hatred of someones work by watching all of it so i can come here and write hate filled posts day after day. it isn't healthy ringbearer9 and i really think you are insane. i am not saying everyone must like this film..it is way over the top for that..people will either love it or hate it...but even you other haters have to admit that ringbearer9 does seem to be an incredibly sad and boring person.
-
Dec 15, 2005 1:29:41 PM CST
and not only that but my post if stuffed full with errors...sorr
by slappy jones
-
that is all I will say.
-
NOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
but it should pick up come the weekend and the holidays.
....aw well..give haters something jump up and down for joy about for a few days at least.....
-
Remember, it's not real life. No matter how real it is in 'your' life.
-
behaivor instincts of giant bats on skull island? But giant bats in Colorado I am an expert on.
-
Only asking, I havent seen it yet.
-
the cooler
-
Dec 15, 2005 2:50:53 PM CST
Moriarty is ALWAYS suspect because of his hatred for John Wayne.
by borgnine jr
Wayne and Kong in a movie together!!!! Now that would beat Titanic at the BO!!
-
Moriarty-
I couldn't agree with you more with a few exceptions:
Mainly, Jack Black and Adrien Brody. I'll admit, when I first heard the casting I hated all THREE leading choices. Now that I've seen it, I must make a silent apology to Peter Jackson.
First of all, Ann Darrow. Naomi Watts is INCREDIBLE in all aspects of the film. Her acting is superb!!! And despite being kinda HOMELY (in my opinion) in anything I've EVER seen her in; her manner, attitude, style, and perfect delicacy make her appear extremely BEAUTIFUL in every way!!! Her compassion and appreciation for Kong sincerely ooze from the screen.
Your description of Kong as " the single most successful special effect in the history of cinema. He exists. He is real. You look in his eyes, you -
And I hope you don't mind, but I'll be telling it to my friends at the coffee shop later tonight. So, it was not a waste of time.
-
Dec 15, 2005 3:43:58 PM CST
Pokemon: The Movie had a bigger opening day than King Kong 2005.
by atticus finch
Wow.
-
Will check it out for myself when its out. From the SFX that I've seen during review shows they cant even match ILM. So no big hopes for this film from me. Just a huge thank god that it doesnt seem to hurt the original.
-
Too many frickin comments in this talkback to read them all- but if you check out 'Bones' comments near the top about 'The "Fun" of Kong', he pretty much summarizes my feelings exactly. Although to be honest, I probably did end up liking it a little bit more than him.
-
http://tinyurl.com/7t3y5
don't you just want to eat her up...? -
On G4TV
-
the lame romantic comedy style jump cuts during Anne talking to herself in the mirror and her "performace" for Kong. Cutesy in shot jump cuts have no place in a 200million epic action adventure film.
-
Dec 16, 2005 4:54:20 AM CST
Anyone who thinks the beginning has no bearing on the themes...
by funkydipshit
never read heart of darkness. Moriarty, you fool.
-
Dec 16, 2005 5:05:46 AM CST
Anyone Who Thinks The Beginning Has Any Bearing On The Themes...
by therealmoriarty
... didn't understand HEART OF DARKNESS. And your nickname speaks for itself.
-
Rather than engaging in pointless speculation about my age, Sackie, why don
-
Mass entertainment can sometimes be very good, but it's purpose is the exact opposite of art. Mass entertainment is designed to confirm all your beliefs, all your views. It agrees with you, and doesn't challenge you on any level. It satiates you into a lull. Art, on the other hand, says wait a minute, everything you know is wrong, and proceeds to challenge the status quo. Mass entertainment supports the status quo, art blows it up in aid of creating something new, of not being on the edge of the zeitgeist, but actually creating a new one. Art does not follow trends, it makes the trends. King Kong is piece of shit mass entertainment that challenges nothing, and does nothing but sit there. It is not alive. True art lives and breathes, causes you to question yourself, your values, your beliefs.
-
Oh, so because I love a movie I'm a plant now? I hope you realize I was just expressing my opinion but ow yeah, that's right, I'm not allowed to do that. Only you are oh Mighty Ringbearer, the one and only True Voice of this here Talkback. I do sincerely apologize for any inconvenience I gave you sir. Dear lord, I sure hope I did not give you any sleepless nights with my highly personal opinion that has, if I may say so, nothing to do with your own. I hope you find it your heart to forgive me oh righteous sir. It is Christmas after all, you pathetic piece o' shit. Guess what, I happen to love this movie, warts and all and if you can't live with that, if you can't possible find it in your heart to understand the notion that somewhere, out there is somebody who likes, or god forbid, loves this movie, then you truly are a sad individual.
-
But based on this argument, The screenplay for KONG should have had the big gorilla giving up his history of violence, eating a bunch of mind-altering shrubs, and commence a voyage of sexual self-discovery with Ann Darrow. You could also throw in some random dream sequences to really confuse the audience! I am sure Godard and those other wacky Frenchie new-wavers from the 60's could have turned this concept out. But I guess my argument is that this doesn't make it any artier than Boyens'Walsh's effort. And for all we know, Kong might be challenging some peoples beliefs, so it could be art to them. I genuinely see your point about art being a challenge to the status quo. But I've seen a movies that have fancied themselves doing that and come off as a dramtically inferior product to what is regarded as 'commercial'. I'm coming at this argument from a business angle, as all people who want to write screenplays for a career MUST do so at some point. It doesn't mean you are selling out. There is always room for a huge amount of creativity and originality in a screenplay. It wouldn't get made if it wasn't original. But I am saying this art must conform to the basic screenplay paradigm of the 3 acts, conflict, blah blah. In my view , Kong is art. A bunch of random pieces of rubble arranged on the floor of an art gallery and given a title is art. A 4 year old doing fingerpainting on the living room wallpaper is art. But movie making is a business also, and we have to conform if we want to get paid. Unless you know someone with unlimited purse strings and dementia who wants to hand us money to write a screenplay of us pissing up again a wall: in which case, give me a call! We'll run this scam together! And finally, no hard feeling, eh Thunderballs? I've quite enjoyed our little to-and-fro, you have intelligently challenged my beliefs, I see where you are coming from, and you have certainly made me feel like a cynical old bastard at times. Shall we shake hands and head on over to Harry's KONG TB and start throwing verbal punches at other TB's? I've already started in on Ringy again. I love that guy!
-
I'm glad we were able to see eye to eye. But no amount of arguing will ever convince me of the need for a sub-plot about Jimmy and Mr. Hayes. But you are correct, I have quite enjoyed some mass entertainment, and been quite bored by so called art.
-
Dec 16, 2005 7:31:15 PM CST
Hey does anyone here know of a movie that ringbearer9 actually l
by thirteen 13
-
He said Badlands.
-
I think we've all seen really sad things in life. Then there's just pathetic, like ringer...and you. Happy holidays.
-
Excellent review Moriarty. That review captured exactly what I saw. /// I don't feel anything needed nitpicking, but it is odd that the kid on the ship had so much attention paid to him. /// Overall - this film just blew me away. What really drove it home for me was making Kong much, much more than a 1 dimensional monster. The ice scene, the sunset scenes - they really set you up to dread the inevitable ending.
-
Dec 18, 2005 7:37:30 AM CST
Liked the movie...it could have gone from good to great though
by lezbo milk
if only it had been edited down a by an hour, and had a few silly things taken out. One of my biggest problems was the length of the film. It could have easily been taken down by a third and not lost anything in the way of character developement. The other thing that bothered me might sound kinda silly, but it was the way Kong held Ann when he was running and fighting. I mean he was whipping her around so hard and for such long durrations, she would have been dead ten times over. Nobodys body could take that kind of back and forth lashing and pounding. It took me out of the film, I just kept thinking the whole time...shit, shouldn't her neck be broke getting whipped around like that? Anyways, other than that, some of the action sequences were too long. I think the T-Rex fight would have been better if it were more tight, fast and brutal. Ditto with the stampeed. What did work for me was the look of 30's NYC. Kong was an awsomely realized character, the best character in the movie. Skull Island was pretty cool. I loved the fact that it appeared there was and advanced ancient civilization there at one time. The movie did a great job establishing the character of Kong as a lonesome, beaten down, tired soul who just wanted to be loved and have something to cherish in his hard existance. I really felt for him. All in all a very good movie, that if it were 2:15 minutes instead of 3+ hours, would have been a great movie.
-
Kong has made 66 million in the U.S. and almost 80 million international. And this for a 3 hour movie with only half the amount of showings as most movies with a regular runtime. 146 million in its first 5 days. That doesn't sound like a bomb to me. Oh and don't even start about how international box office receipts somehow doesn't count as real revenue or money.
-
Dec 18, 2005 2:26:19 PM CST
Hey Moviemack - "that movies - especially the ones discussed on
by thirteen 13
Well if thats the case then why do you troll the boards here so much. Your the one who claims to be above all this and not a sheep, and yet, here you are on the AICN boards for yet another day, and have been for quite some time now. Nothing else to do with all your free time?
-
I just re-read Mori's review (fist time after watching the movie) and am largely horrified. Did he really compare this to the
-
This film will easily make its money back and more. It'll benefit from very strong word of mouth - despite a few very angry nerds on this board. Some of whom attented the film with note paper to take down notes? - That's weird. /// I'm still blown away by the film - definitely the definitive Kong film. Once again - excellent work from Jackson and his entire team.
-
Can't describe it but this movie just did not feel right. Sure there were a lot of cool moments but the script just kind of sucked. When I find my self critiquing a film while it's playing then I know the film is in trouble. It just lacked a true soul. I wanted to find moments to cheer but found none. I could break it down more but why bother, many in here already have. It just left me empty like so many other big budget over the top flicks. Kinda like the SW Prequels, ok, not that bad. Another bad sign, i counted only 6 other people in the theater on a sunday afternoon. Not good.
-
Deal! A question though- what (more specific issues) prompted you to apply that title to the new generation
-
Dec 21, 2005 9:59:37 PM CST
Call 1-800 dumbass! Because some of you are full a monkey shit
by orionsangels
This movie is magical, from the opening shots of 1933 depression era NY. To Skull Island to the point where Kong climbs the Empire State Building. Now look, i'm not saying it's a perfect film, not by a longshot. But it hits the right notes at the right time and takes you on a magical ride. I haven't felt like this about a movie in a long while. My only real complaints are it was too long and I wish PJ had kept the raft scene on skull island and taken out those bits about that kid that was born and raised on the Venture. I mean really, who cares! pointless character
-
OK moviemack, I agree with like 80% of that
-
Orion lay off the crack- you seem a decent fellow, but this movie was one of the worst examples of asinine action I have ever witnessed. The only thing Magical about it was how unbelievably bad a job PJ did with unparalleled special effects and an almost limitless budget. The Anne/Kong interaction was mostly very good- even the pond thing wasn
-
Dec 23, 2005 9:39:49 PM CST
That's why I went to see the movie for, good special effects
by orionsangels
It's a monster movie. its not supposed to be realistic. I'm sorry if you didn't see the magic in the film, if you haven't heard the soundtrack. That's not my problem, wait i need more crack...ok where was i? oh yeah, the flaws, yeah i know it has flaws. It's way too long. They spend too much time on characters that don't even matter, but i took more good than bad from this film. hold on, need more crack...I just don't think it had as many flaws as you did. I seen it twice already. I love it even more and it holds a special place in my heart...OH FUCK! Ran outta crack, gotta go buy some.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 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!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts