Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

The Very First KING KONG Review... That Is Written By Vern!!

great review by jrcash	Dec 13th, 2005 06:14:30 AM
Am I first?
Good enough for me by JiggamanSpence	Dec 13th, 2005 06:23:58 AM
that's the review i needed. Harry, where the fuck is yours?
When do we get Neill Cumpston's review? by BeeDub	Dec 13th, 2005 06:30:18 AM
C'mon, you know you'd wanna read it.
Thanks for telling it like it is! by Trazadone	Dec 13th, 2005 06:34:24 AM

Cheers Vern... by Zino	Dec 13th, 2005 06:48:51 AM
...great review as always. Now bring on the haters!
Best line: "I don't think they ever show him taking a shit o by Spacesheik	Dec 13th, 2005 06:57:35 AM
Im so sold.
Nice one Vern! If I give you a CD can you burn me a copy of Mast by brokentusk	Dec 13th, 2005 07:03:03 AM
Nah, only kidding... I'll download it. Hey, gimme a break - I live in South Africa! Already booked my tickets for KING KONG tomorrow night, cannot fucking wait! Keep up the good work Vern.
Good Review. by RowanM	Dec 13th, 2005 07:05:42 AM

Best review I've read by Bean_	Dec 13th, 2005 07:10:18 AM
Thanks Vern
God bless you Vern. by Mr Brownstone	Dec 13th, 2005 07:11:27 AM
Every time you write a review an angel gets it's wings.
No masturbation? by RezE11even	Dec 13th, 2005 07:17:48 AM
Count me out.
What? Does he hock a loogie on the T-Rex? by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 07:19:55 AM
I want to know who and why they built that big floating cage that they put him in at the end and send him floating off over the horizon
I can't believe reviews are still so good for this. by minderbinder	Dec 13th, 2005 07:20:01 AM
It took until yesterday for the second "rotten" on RT, and there still isn't a third. I assume that will change today/tonight/tomorrow when the number shoots up to about a hundred. But as of now, it's still tied with Wallace and Gromit with the best rating of a major release this year. And Geisha, Munich and the Producers are getting some pans, the "sure bets" of the end of the year are looking like they may have dropped the ball.
Nice review Vern by chrth	Dec 13th, 2005 07:22:46 AM
I love the spoilers!
"It would take a no good rat soup eating motherfucker to complai by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 07:24:25 AM
You know who you are, bitches. Great review, Vern. I was going to see it anyway, but now I KNOW it's going to be great.
This TalkBack... by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 07:27:12 AM
...has the potential of being the greatest Kong-related flame war of all time. You just know Ringbearer9 won't be able to resist attacking the review, and knowing Vern, it's going to be something Ringy will live to regret. Bring on the smackdown! sharpening bayonette
I was just gonna ask by dewijnboer	Dec 13th, 2005 07:34:02 AM
where our mutual friend Ringbearer is now, now that the film is still reviewed rather positively (4 stars from Roger Ebert, for instance), but you beat me to it, DocPazuzu. I haven't heard him in a while...
YESSSSSSS!!!! by Blue_Demon	Dec 13th, 2005 07:47:10 AM
I haven't been this excited about a movie since "The Empire Strikes Back." I'm taking my eight-year-old niece to see this 'cause she thinks Kong is "cute." I imagine she'll have her face buried in my arm when the big bugs attack and she'll cry when Kong dies, but ya gotta grow up sometime! She saw the original with me this weekend and laughed when Kong bit the eye of the T-Rex as they fought so she's kinda "off" anyway.
"King Kong" is the most racist film since "Birth of a Nation" by rev_skarekroe	Dec 13th, 2005 07:55:42 AM
/runs away
Fuck Kong. Vern is the bad motherfucker. by Brock DD Landers	Dec 13th, 2005 08:01:16 AM
I want to see a 25 foot Vern protecting Naomi Watts...and jerking off too, of course.
Didnt SWEEP Golden Globes...... by Audets70	Dec 13th, 2005 08:03:30 AM
I guess all those glowing reviews werent good enough huh? It only nabbed one, while Brokeback Mountain(Gay Cowboys) lead the pack. Hmmmmmmmm, I guess its a good thing that Hollywood only aloows remakes, they dont honor the hacks that cant deliver us some original stuff! After Kong makes bank, look for a slew of more remakes. I cant wait until the day when every month is juts remakes of the same movie the month before.....and as long as Peter Jackson directs them, they'll still get praise. Sigh!
I'll pass on seeing Vern jerk off... by Alonzo Mosely	Dec 13th, 2005 08:07:11 AM
Call me Non-Fruity McBoring, but I have no need of seeing Vern's wang in action...
I can forgive the GG Naomi snub because there was a little Rome by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 08:14:34 AM
As well as some GNGAGL love. I'm seeing Squid & Whale this week, so we'll see if it deserved the SHITLOAD of noms it got.
Vern. or Neil. Best Reviewer Ever? (not counting Mor) Discuss. by JasonPratt	Dec 13th, 2005 08:21:29 AM
Always assuming one or both of them aren't in fact Drew being a witty genius. Bonus discussion. {g}
"...to take him off the island (spoiler)" PRESENTED SO NONCHALAN by Solomon Kane	Dec 13th, 2005 08:39:04 AM
VERN IS MY IDOL.
Ebert : Four Stars "One of the year's Very Best Films!" by Josef K	Dec 13th, 2005 08:45:40 AM
This movie can't open fast enough!!
I also saw the movie-here is my take by jayberg	Dec 13th, 2005 09:07:01 AM
Sundance Jay checking in with my 2 cents worth after the Baltimore preview. This isn't your great grand daddy's Kong! Jackson has swung at his lifelong dream project, and he has clearly hit the game winning grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning of the 7th game of the World Series. Jackson keeps reinventing the cinema. That ape had more personality and emotion than half the fluffy Hollywood actors working today! A couple of things concerned me going in: (A) The 3 hour length, (B) Jack Black as the lead character, and (C) Did this classic REALLY need to be remade once again? Well, all I can say is (A) never has 3 hours moved so swiftly, (B) Jack Black can be successfully directed in a non-comedic role, and (C) not only did it need to be remade, but this is the movie that had everything that was missing in the original: namely, an ape with enough heart, emotion, and character to make grown people cry at his demise, and special effects so dazzling that you'd swear that reality was happening before your very eyes! Enough will be written in the weeks to come about its various shortcomings (and ALL film can be critiqued to death if you stop and think about it!) but what can't be ignored is that this is one helluva masterpiece in design, flow, and character study that will go down as one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. Run, do not walk, to see and revel in this magical fantasy by this genius filmmaker!!! Jay
Thanks Vern! by Gilderoy	Dec 13th, 2005 09:07:33 AM
You're always a highlight.
Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes by zinc_chameleon	Dec 13th, 2005 09:08:09 AM
Just happened this morning. Also, did anyone in BNAT showing notice that all the artwork is ArtDeco, even to the creature design? PJ really did his homework on this one.
Thanks Vern! by Gilderoy	Dec 13th, 2005 09:09:26 AM
You're always a highlight.
Thanks Vern! by Gilderoy	Dec 13th, 2005 09:09:43 AM
You're always a highlight.
But... but ... Vern likes DIE HARD ... and Spike Lee movies. by havocSchultz	Dec 13th, 2005 09:10:41 AM
who the fuck doesn't like die hard... that is a staple of action/christmas movies... i can understand you're hatin on kong cause you have a weird anti-jackson vibe to you - but die hard - what did die hard ever do to you... so take care...and remember - i can put my arm back on - you can't - so play safe...and wreak it well... havoc out...
Wow, the movie show gave it 4 / 4 and a half by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 09:11:48 AM
That australian movie show, And King Kong 33 was right after it. But once again, same complaints - long, slow to start, bad special effects.
jayberg, you... by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 09:14:42 AM
...gloriously chlorophyllic bastard, you.
"But... but ... Vern likes DIE HARD" by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 09:16:30 AM
And so it begins, the great battle of our time.
Hello Ringbearer by dewijnboer	Dec 13th, 2005 09:19:11 AM
Welcome back! You have been AWOL far too long, matey! I missed your negative vibes and spin, this site was getting way too positive on Kong, you know, we desperately needed your guidance on this one. Glad to see that, in spite of all the very positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, (given the two resident curmudgeons) you have not lost your faith and still think Kong sucks hairy ape's ass. A fool you remain, but an honest fool.
FIRST!!! by Overgod	Dec 13th, 2005 09:19:31 AM
FIRST.
But..but..didn't Ringbearer like the Star Wars Prequels? by cyanide christ	Dec 13th, 2005 09:27:40 AM
Twat.
Good point, cyanide christ by dewijnboer	Dec 13th, 2005 09:30:33 AM
Very good point.
Jayberg - "Jackson keeps reinventing the cinema"... I don't by Uncooked_Meat	Dec 13th, 2005 09:34:03 AM
But Pazuzu is right, you are one green, leafy motherfucker. Like it's fucking necessary on this goddamn site. Anyway, that aside, another excellent piece Vern. And ringbearer9, that was a nice little bit there. Good stuff.
OMG it just dawned on me by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 09:36:32 AM
King Kong is here, and no longer will we have the flaming antisipation of: "It'll be the best thing since Chock coated tits" Or "It'll be the worst thing since .... Batman begins?" (ducks head) No what we have now is the release of the film (I see it in mere hours) and it's going to rule this talkback, the same way we had, all thos eyears back - "star Wars is dead, The matrix has killed it" or "Peter jackson schooled Lucas into how to make a trilogy" (A personal fav) so now we're going to have King Kong comparing to star wars. King Kong comparing to EVERY FUCKING EVENT FILM THAT COMES ALONG IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS. Side note, the fact that everything still gets compared to star wars should really clue everyone in THAT STAR WARS FUCKING RULES YOUR SHINY METAL ASS. ok, i'm done with this now. see you all tomorrow night
Hey I liked the prequels AND Die Hard by Uncle_Les	Dec 13th, 2005 09:38:26 AM
So back off with that shit. Also: Vern, gorillas have like a one-inch cock. Assuming the average gorilla is five foot and Kong would be like twenty-five, Kong and Ann totally could have gotten busy. Peace Out.
"Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy." An oldie but by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 09:46:00 AM
That one puts butts in the talkback seats almost as effectively as "WETA has now schooled ILM" or "Lucas stole all his ideas from Glen Larson, and then sued over the very ideas he stole" or the ever-popular "White Chicks was one of the best films of the year".
"Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy" by Atticus Finch	Dec 13th, 2005 09:55:13 AM
How's that, by taking a trilogy of the most beloved books of all time, copying the good parts, and fucking up what is not taken directly from the text? 'Cause that is what you have with the LOTR trilogy.
"Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy." by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 09:57:35 AM
Doesn't it just jump off the page?
"Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy." by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 10:01:22 AM
Why, yes it does.
That review kicked ass by Mt. Top	Dec 13th, 2005 10:04:10 AM
See. That's why we come to places like this! We don't just want to hear about stupid movies... we want to have a good time. That was one entertaining review. Aside from taking the Lord's name in vain (which I strongly recommend against) the review was hilarious.
"Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy." by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:06:55 AM
look what I've done.
Ringbearer by cyanide christ	Dec 13th, 2005 10:07:09 AM
I must have mistaken you for another regular. You receive one free apology from the Cyanide Christ.
Crap by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:07:45 AM

"And you'd probaly like Naomi Watts too if somebody gave her by Mike Nesmith	Dec 13th, 2005 10:08:01 AM
LOL!!! ["laugh out loud" funny]. Nice one, bud.
http://www.afunworld.com/politic al-pictures/picture-204.htm by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:10:53 AM
what the hell is that fucking 'hello' ??
"I must have mistaken you for another regular." by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 10:12:04 AM
No, you were right the first time. Ringbearer is a twat.
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/carto ons69_html.htm by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:16:29 AM

DocPazuzu by cyanide christ	Dec 13th, 2005 10:17:01 AM
Not denying the twat part. I just thought I remebered Ringbearer using Lucas to slam Jackson. Guess I might've been mistaken.
Thanks to the always entertaining Vern. by Nizzuts	Dec 13th, 2005 10:17:47 AM

Ebert tells it like it t-i-z by Terry_1978	Dec 13th, 2005 10:18:08 AM
You gripe when the man lambasts a geeky sacred cow on occasion, but dammit, there's a reason he gets paid for this shit.
I'm gonna be real geeky now... by Zino	Dec 13th, 2005 10:21:04 AM
...so I apologise in advance - it's not elfish, it's elvish.
Wow, it was actually a triple post. Sorry everyone! by Gilderoy	Dec 13th, 2005 10:21:47 AM
That's all.
Owwww, gee. An insightful review by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:22:55 AM
http://towleroad.typepad.com/t owleroad/2005/12/king_kong.htm l
OH MY GOD! by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:25:29 AM
I DID NOT IN ANY WAY NOTICE THE KISSING AND FAUNICATING MEN TO THE RIGHT OF THE REVIEW. FOR THAT MY SINCEREST APPOLOGEEZ. unless your a poof, in which case, glad I had something to offer you
FAUNICATING by blackwood	Dec 13th, 2005 10:31:10 AM
Favourite new word. Vern writes a good review. Go monkey go.
Who said it? by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:37:00 AM
If David Lean can get Lawrance of Arabia told in less than 3 hours, why can't Jackson with Kong. I have not read 1 'legit' review that not said (along the lines of) 'this film is too fucking long'
I think your deliberate mistake was the part where you said: by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 10:37:18 AM
"The Frighteners was a sad precursor of Jackson's inability to tie up loose narrative ends or even to fully understand the genre he is in. Spielberg, for one, burns him off when it comes to setting up a scene and telling a story. The opening scenes of Jaws, Raiders, ET, Close Encounters...tight, compelling plot that cracks along and carry the viewer. Spielberg would have cut Kong down to 120-130 and that 120 would shine like a cut diamond, baby. PJ and his pie-loving sci-fi chicks just can't do it. In fact, present him with two options and he seems fatally unable to choose. Wouldn't like to see him in command at D-Day or Waterloo. Instead of taking one right decision, he chooses everything, bloats the film and chafes people's arses because he wants to indulge himself and work in every different angle to cover up for his mediocrity. Hence, 12 different finales to LOTR, and still no room for Christopher Reeve. The tangle of narrative weeds that was Two Towers. Sean Astin's 20-minute speeches. From memory, the Frighteners drifted lamely into CGI hell. PJ, eat some pepperoni, step away from the camera and go read up on Elia Kazan and William Goldman. Peace."
"This film is too Faunicating long" by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:37:48 AM
for you blackwood
I wonder if Brody... by Lou Stools	Dec 13th, 2005 10:39:14 AM
Pleasures women with his nose...wouldn't be too bad as long as they're having a "fresh day".
Now there's a scene for Jacksons planned low budget horror by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:41:21 AM

Ringbearer, for the first time I whole heartedly disagree with y by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 10:43:46 AM
I needed a bath after the opening crawl. I needed a bath after the end credits. I also need a washing machine and cloths dryer.... and a good week and a half to re-charge, y'know what I'm sayin' yo?
Ringbearer by cyanide christ	Dec 13th, 2005 10:45:20 AM
I should probably do my homework before posting.
When will Uwe Boll be making a movie out of the Kong game so Ver by Fred	Dec 13th, 2005 10:46:49 AM

"I liked LORD OF THE RINGS as much as the next guy, assuming the by BibFortuna	Dec 13th, 2005 10:53:08 AM
HA HA!
I said it before, but here it is again. 400 million domestic gro by Doom II	Dec 13th, 2005 10:54:05 AM
The Lord Of The Rings movies made close to that amount each and this one is WAY MORE ACCESIBLE to regular people while still pleasing the geeks. I liked the LOTR films. but they are slow at times and the characters are sometimes a bit annoying (Hobbits anyone?) Kong sounds like it has something for everyone and will clean up. Bring in the boys and men with dinosaur fights + get the girls and women with a love story. This movie will be seen by everyone in the world! Titanic size crowds will pour in for weeks to see Kong! It will gross more than the last Star Wars film to be sure....but will be 100 times more entertaining. Sounds like the replay value is all over this thing and that's is more important than just getting a great opening weekend (listen up Hollywood).
If Peter Jackson wants to do something, just let him fucking do by IAmLegolas	Dec 13th, 2005 10:54:14 AM
Goddamn right. Peter Jackson's playing on a level most will never see.
I'll wait to rent the DVD - the super extended version by ComputerGuy68	Dec 13th, 2005 10:54:54 AM
you know he will do it...
Best Movies of All Time by Kentucky Colonel	Dec 13th, 2005 10:56:30 AM
Some of the best movies of all times have TIE fighters in them. If you didn't notice, there are no TIE fighters in any of the "prequels". Just an observation.
Jumping on the "Great Review Bandwagon" by Squashua	Dec 13th, 2005 10:56:57 AM
Hee-yah, doggies! Off to the 3-hour movie!
Naomi Watts fans.... by Doom II	Dec 13th, 2005 10:58:04 AM
need to pick up the new Vanity Fair where she is on her knees in the cover shot. She shows a decent amount of skin in that issue. I thought she was hot in Tank Girl, so I have been on the Watts bandwagon for 10 years now.
Kong has a beer and cheets on his wife! by Squashua	Dec 13th, 2005 11:01:33 AM
Hee-yah! I meant the "Great Review, Vern!" Bandwagon.
EBERT: "This is one of the great modern epics." by Yojimbo Jones	Dec 13th, 2005 11:07:13 AM
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 051212/REVIEWS/51203002
the world's all time #1 greatest fan of hyperbole... by wato	Dec 13th, 2005 11:09:31 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ringbearer... by Yojimbo Jones	Dec 13th, 2005 11:09:41 AM
Talkbacks won't miss you if you take a time-out to shove your self-important hyper-inflated anus in Roger Ebert's face to educate him about pure cinema. Go on, convince him.
WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY KENTUCKY COLONAL??? by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 11:11:35 AM
Dude, keep an ear out and you'll hear plenty of tie fighters - or rather, the same engine.... only 20 odd years younger. All that shit is old in the OT. Thats what made the OT so damn sweet. And keep an eye out too, you'll see vulture droids are a somewhat semi original design for the future ship. You'll also note that the very earliest models of the Tie fighters make an INSANE appearance at the end of SITH - Quite possible the greatest film yet made. How fucking hard did some of you laugh at Vador's 'noooooo'. It ruined the next scene for me, because I was struggling not to laugh. In fact, the dude on my left side started giggling, thats what started me off. And then I made the fatal mistake of looking at him. Middle row, full house, two goof offs laughing their ARSES off in the climactic moments of the greatest film ever to grace the 20th centure cinema...... and all eyes are on me. How would you feel? Well. I'm hear aren't I. To bad I'm not gunna be with that dude for Kong Tomorrow night.
happyhappyjoyjoy by Lolthien	Dec 13th, 2005 11:12:48 AM
Ummm... was christopher reeve supposed to make a suprise visit to Middle Earth in his wheelchair?
RINGBEARER9, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY??? by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 11:16:04 AM
I would really like a lobotomy now. ok, sweet. you missed the point. but I'm stil lwith you on LOTR. Man that stuff hurts my brain
Watts don't have didly on Lang OR Wray by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 11:20:49 AM
She a very beautiful woman, and I look forward to seeing her. But she's missing something. Maybe two things. Jack Black is a fucking champion. What a dude!
it's 'elvish,' you bastard! by oisin5199	Dec 13th, 2005 11:21:54 AM
just kidding. Vern is king. Dig it. "they shot him down/ they thought he was a monster/ but he was the king." from Daniel Johnston's classic 'King Kong,' covered by Tom Waits on the tribute album. Hi, I'm random today.
Hilarious review Vern ol' boy! by morGoth	Dec 13th, 2005 11:33:03 AM
One of, if not THE, best reviews you've ever written. Thanks for the laugh dude, I needed it. Now to read what the hater-fu and lovers have to say.
Thanks zino... by morGoth	Dec 13th, 2005 11:42:43 AM
...I though I was going to have to make that point. Gets shot with Galadrim arrow...
Just once... by clownbot3000	Dec 13th, 2005 11:46:25 AM
...I'd love to see a talkback that doesn't mention the words "Star Wars". That would be a special, special day. Also, Die Hard is the best Christmas movie ever!!! As always, great review Vern.
TIME Mag. just gave KONG the first outright pan. by LilOgre	Dec 13th, 2005 11:47:39 AM
Schickel and Corliss together gave it a 50 on Metacritic. "And our response to the ape's doom, once touched by authentic tragedy, is now marked by relief that this wretchedly excessive movie is finally over." WOW. I will still be seeing it however in 11 hours.
You know by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 11:47:49 AM
Sometimes people say to me, they say "Bender, what is it that you like about the PT when they are obviously inferior, less funny, cash ins on the OT?" And I say to myself, I say "Self, What is it indeed?. Then I turn to them and I say "Dipshit. It's all the same to me." ******** Owww a question from Ringbearer9 - I was talking about needing bath after the PT. And my reason was because I was ejaculating in my pants. Thats why I needed the washing machine too. I speciafically refered to the opening crawl, but I can see how 'after the end credits' threw you off. Lots of movies have End credits, not just star wars. Shit, even Lord of the rings had end credits. Eventually.
And clownbot3000, you'll be happy to note I didn't say S by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 11:49:57 AM
Oh, fuckit, damn shit!
"TIME Mag. just gave KONG the first outright pan." by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 11:51:04 AM
Watch Ringbearer9 now suddenly stand up for the integrity of these particular critics, based merely on their opinions.
And I see I totally lied about not saying star wars after all by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 11:51:39 AM
Fuck shit, damnit all
Thanks Vern by victor laszlo	Dec 13th, 2005 11:55:14 AM
I'm glad that that Ape mofo didn't make you cry. He tried to get us, but we held strong.
Time magazine also named Bush 'man of the year' by GingerTwit	Dec 13th, 2005 11:55:33 AM
It's owned by warner bros. It has an agenda
not only that, but Ebert devoted a full 4 minutes of his 22 minu by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 11:56:13 AM
I gave Kong a 6 out of 10 and i understand why white/black, thumb up/down, fresh/rotten reviews are in favor of Kong. in an either/or situation, yes, you should see it. and i'm no conspiracy theorist but someone needs to buy Ebert a Bill Hicks CD for X-Mas. preferrably the one where your voice is compromised when you pitch a FUCKING PRODUCT LIKE A WHORE! i believe it's Rant in E-Minor.
Very nice review Vern. by GingerTwit	Dec 13th, 2005 11:56:38 AM
You've got me sold!
"If David Lean can get Lawrance of Arabia told in less than 3 ho by minderbinder	Dec 13th, 2005 11:57:14 AM
Lawrence of Arabia was almost four hours. In one version. The Brit and premiere versions were over four hours. I guess the point is sometimes it's OK for a movie to be long? And do your homework before posting and getting your facts wrong.
GingerTwit by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 11:58:12 AM
If you ever even read Time Magazine you would know that "man" or "person" of the year doesn't mean it's someone Time is saluting. It means the most INFLUENTIAL person of the year -- good or bad. Now go back to reading David Irving.
Gingertwit - I agree they may be biased but... by LilOgre	Dec 13th, 2005 11:58:25 AM
Schikel and Corliss may very well be wrong but I doubt they panned it because it is owned by Warner Bros. I think it has more to do with the fact that NEWSWEEK got that exclusive first peek two weeks ago. That being said, its still a pretty bad review.
marry me vern. by lopan	Dec 13th, 2005 12:00:37 PM
vern is the best reviewer in history. fat clooney for prez.
Third "rotten" up on RT. And he uses the word "masturbatory". by minderbinder	Dec 13th, 2005 12:01:54 PM
That's fucking awesome.
I'm having a hard time finding it by GingerTwit	Dec 13th, 2005 12:05:18 PM
Anyone got a link? Pazuzu? I'm looking in your direction. Regardless of what Person of the year actually means, I'm talking about what it was. A full faced smile of Bush gracing the cover of time magazing, with the bold type "George W. Bush, Person of the year" What is the image they're trying to portray to the public? And yes I read it. Sickening! Not one damn thing about any of the mans failing. Just him and his tremendous family man skills and awesome ability to wear a cow bow hat. But as subscriber to time, I can safely reinterate, they are owned by Warner Bros. they have an agenda.
that's fucking awesome minderbinder! by lopan	Dec 13th, 2005 12:06:01 PM
i wish that three negative reviews of a popular movie could elicit the same overblown, boner-sprouting reaction from me.
Filmatists? You learn a new word everyday by Orionsangels	Dec 13th, 2005 12:07:46 PM
It was a very realistic review, like I could tell Vern wasn't bullshitting us. I think he wanted to be cynical and sort of hate this film, but when he finally saw it he couldn't and he had to layeth the smackdown and tell it like it is ya'll. Vern I salute you buddy.
Have you actually seen a Cow bow hat? they're very rare. by GingerTwit	Dec 13th, 2005 12:08:10 PM
Ringbearer9, are you saying you even do this stuff to the actual reviewers themselves as well as general public talkback?
by victor laszlo	Dec 13th, 2005 12:10:27 PM
I am humbled by a review of this magnitude. We stand in the shadow of Vern.
Oh, but Ringbearer... by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 13th, 2005 12:12:20 PM
Wasn't it you who said that (back in Quint's K.K. Review Talkback) the only critic you trust is Ebert? Perhaps Doc Paz has the direct quote...
Hey Ringbearer, you'll love this by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 12:19:33 PM
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ click/movie-1144008/reviews.ph p?critic=columns&sortby=defaul t&page=4&rid=1464846
GingerTwit by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 12:20:01 PM
http://tinyurl.com/4myzh ...... Maybe you should try reading instead of just looking at the pictures. Also, if you indeed are a subscriber, perhaps you would care to take a look at the full listing of all the people of the year since 1927 on the website and explain what the common denominator is. If you reach a different conclusion than the one which I and everyone else considers to be fact, do tell.
getting sick of the Peter "Hack"son talk by oisin5199	Dec 13th, 2005 12:20:10 PM
if all the guy was about was blood and gore and dwarf jokes, we would not have had the glory that was LOTR onscreen. Period. Say all you want about Fran and Phillippa, at the end of the day, Jackson's name is the main one on the thing. The movies added more depth and weight and emotion to the story than I thought was possible. I used to think it was from the book, but after re-reading them, I realized I had projected all that on to the book. Which is what made the films such great adaptations - Jackson et. al saw the potential for emotional depth in the novels and brought it to the screen. So the guy has a sick sense of humor - at least he has a personality. The argument that LOTR was simply the product of that is just a weak and totally illogical argument.
"a no good rat soup eating motherfucker" by -guyinthebackrow	Dec 13th, 2005 12:22:25 PM
Do you mean, like, the soup is made of rat meat? Or are you saying the motherfucker is a rate who happens to eat soup? A few commas would have made this legible... not that I'm complaining... 'cause Vern is the best reviewer on this sucking fite. You know what I mean!
you know, hats off... by lopan	Dec 13th, 2005 12:39:20 PM
to the haters... man i don't understand you one bit, but i admire your resolve, scouring the lands far and wide every day, all day long, just to retrieve a few bits of info that might indicate King Kong is less than stellar. and you continue to do it even though you must know that most people here a) think you're retarded and b) will enjoy the movie, regardless. now if only you could put those powers to good use instead of wasting precious bandwidth! become medical researchers or something. put those skills to work! make a difference. change lives. come on kids!
Pazuzu, I didn't make myself clear, for that I appologise by GingerTwit	Dec 13th, 2005 12:43:33 PM
But I was hopeing for a link to the King Kong review. The one Time Panned. I'm so over Bush and how awesome he is. And yeah, i'm aware hitler was person of the year. Amoung others. Maybe time is just a whore to anyone who has cash. Ringbearer, have you been paying off Time Magazine?
want to hear Ebert pitch the Kong Production Diaries? by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 12:46:28 PM
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavist a/ebertandroeper/video.html Click on "Weekend of December 10-11"...co-incidentally the same episode that Ebert and Roeper reviewed Kong. I lied before. it's only a 2 minute pitch (the aired version showed some clips). but notice how Ebert tells you about the DVDs for a minute and five seconds, then Roeper tells you that 40-Year Old version is out (for 30 seconds), THEN Ebert goes back to talking about the Kong DVDs again. EBERT, STRAP ONE ON!
Minderbinder? Minderbinder? R9, what is the deal, man? by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 12:47:10 PM
Credit where credit be due, and you got me confused with that dropkick Minderbinder. that guy has no class enough to post for you that link. (Smack) snap out of it!
"I qualified my "trust" of Ebert..." by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 13th, 2005 12:49:18 PM
Strange that one who claims to love and know so much about movies would not find that someone, like Ebert, would be immensely interested in those Production Diary DVDs. In fact, so much so that he wanted to talk about them on his show in the belief that there would be others out there just as interested in this process of film-making. Come on Ringoo, think about it. There is a weird parallel here, too...you keep talking about and reciting excerpts from the LOTR DVD commentaries. If you hate Jackson and those movies so much, why do you continue to mine the commentaries? Because if you really listened to them, you would hear/see the vision that PJ does have for a film. Just ask that ol' fossil, Chris Lee. And sure Ebert may get things wrong from time to time. But so do you, Ring. A lot.
Ooo, this film is "...too fucking long." by morGoth	Dec 13th, 2005 12:51:15 PM
...even though most reviewers who've said that also qualified it with.."...but it zipped by and I didn't even notice it." Gawd, you hate-fu-fuckers are just pathetic. I know, Jackson should pull this immediately and edit it even more to make the AICN fan-orcs happy. Erm, wait, then they'd say "Too fucking short!" Never mind...
All is forgiven by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 12:54:50 PM
Come here ya big lug!
hey, morGoth, remember what you just typed while you watch Jimmy by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 12:57:24 PM
I want you to sit there and think "this matters", "this is going to pay off", "the mention of Heart of Darkness is somehow relevant to Kong", and finally, "this film is better with this scene in it".
Yeah Phantom menace was pretty shit. by BendersShinyAss	Dec 13th, 2005 12:58:29 PM
But damnit, i love it so much. Dispite it's cruddy crapness. And thanks to DVD I NEVER have to watch the love scenes in Attack of the clones EVER AGAIN!! But Sith. Oh man. Stay away from my Sith DVD, Or you will fall victim to the only logistical reason and time for me to reach into your anus. Chances are I'll pull out something important too so BACK OFF!!
"sick sense of humor" by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 13th, 2005 12:58:54 PM
And I, for one, am glad that that particular person with a "sick sense of humor" did make the LOTR films. Otherwise, we would not have had the cinematic, visual, emotional achievement they turned out to be. And I'm sure PJ filmed a lot of goofy stuff that he had NO intention of actually including in the final films. Get off your overly judgemental highhorse. You've been riding it way too long.
"some people - like the United States Army to name one example - by Sir Loin	Dec 13th, 2005 01:00:36 PM
Oh boy, I love generalizations! Lemme try...the natives in the film look (and probably smell) unwashed for weeks on end, sort of like Berkeley kids who protest everything and wear sandals made of hemp. WOW that was fun!
can i get a fat clooney? by lopan	Dec 13th, 2005 01:16:07 PM
uh huh uh huh. FC for prez motherfuckers.
You want KONG shorter?? Easey-peasy by ol' painless	Dec 13th, 2005 01:19:32 PM
For all the TB'ers who want a nice short movie: I just made a 3-minute-long KONG on my video camera. It involves a plastic boat, a plastic gorilla and a carboard cutout of the Empire State Building. Film -making is cheap and easy, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Character development, dialogueSFX and actors are a waste of time and money. Oh, and my movie is solid action: Kong roars, climbs, falls, and because its the best bit, he climbs and falls again. 3 hours long, Mr Jackson!?!?!?! Thats my time, time I could have spent here on the internet moaning about how long the film is. I want an hour of my life back! I need more time to pick my nose and scratch myself!
Vern is the balls by docfalken	Dec 13th, 2005 01:30:38 PM
Man can that fucker write.
Ringbearer9 by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 01:35:56 PM
Hypocritical much? Wow, when reviewers say good things about Kong, you bend over backwards trying to twist their positive reviews into something negative. Failing that, you simply call them either "quote whores" or "bought". However, now that you've finally found the odd negative reviews, you are holding them up as flawless works of unassailable integrity and examples to us all. I wonder if you really are so boorish and thick-skulled that you can't see how incredibly obnoxious it is to use such a double standard and in effect call anyone who agrees with you a stand-up person while at the same time assaulting (sometimes on a very personal level) the integrity and honesty of everyone who has a different opinion than yours. Maybe you do know, but just don't give a shit. I think it's the latter, given your utter contempt for anyone else's point of view.
"Spielberg would have cut Kong down to 120-130 and that 120 woul by performingmonkey	Dec 13th, 2005 01:38:54 PM
I still can't get over what a disappointment WotW was. When the CG is the highlight of the movie you know you're in trouble. ILM did pull off an amazing job, but the movie felt only half-conceived. It seems with Kong Peter has made his second all-time classic movie - the first being Fellowship of the Ring. The other two Rings movies suffered because there was SO much material and Jackson found it difficult finding the cutoff point for TTT and a starting point for ROTK. For FOTR it was always clear cut. I think it'd be great to see a single movie cut for the trilogy. Anyhow...FUCK all the haters in the FACE a million times. You cocksucking moronic fatherfucks.
"When the CG is the highlight of the movie you know you're i by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 01:43:24 PM
as for TTT and ROTK, i don't place the blame at Jackson's feet. in all fairness, the books are the same way. especially ROTK. man, it was a letdown reading that. it was so rushed and then drawn out. weird combo.
performingmonkey on quite performing on himself! War of the Worl by JarJar25	Dec 13th, 2005 01:55:06 PM
I really get tired of you losers who love to trash great films. War of the Worlds was a just like the book, so I was happy. There were some changes, but that was because this movie took place in modern times. Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning did a wonderful job and they were the ones, not the special effects that kept me watching. All three Rings films were great. I happen to like Two Towers the best. If you didn't like these films, then why even talk about them? Just go up performingmonkey and play with yourself. 2005 was a great year for films and I can't wait for Final Fantasy VII, so go blow yourself!
my response to Ringbearer by Vern	Dec 13th, 2005 02:38:45 PM
First of all, it's not "Vern likes Die Hard." It's "America LOVES Die Hard." Get it straight. As for Kong. I'm not all that familiar with your work so I didn't realize you had this anti-Peter Jackson thing. If I had known that when we were tussling over Spike Lee I coulda really got you going. Anyway bud, you are interpreting my review completely different from how it was intended. I got the insignificant negative stuff out of the way up front because I was anticipating that a certain type of people, we will call them "whiny little bitches" for our purposes here, will somehow be able to watch this incredible movie and focus on that there's a stupid part near the beginning where it zooms in on the typewriter as Adrien Brody types "SKULL ISLAND." The sad fact is, there is not and will never be satisfying for a petty motherfucker of this type. This is an individual who could have a spectacular 72 hour sex marathon with (insert ideal beauty) and afterwards complain about the style of panties she took off at the beginning. I actually meant to say that the people who would let a slow setup kill this movie for them are the rat soup eating motherfuckers, but I wasted that line (copped from either Pauline Kael or Rudy Ray Moore, I can't remember) on the people who whine about the length. As for the length, I think I made it clear that I do not look kindly upon the motherfuckers who would say this movie is too long. I do not wish it was shorter. I wouldn't mind if it was longer. I just wish they got to the island faster because that's when the movie turns from anticipation to amazement. And as for the hacky sack thing, quit using that line. That is not a criticism of the movie. That is an honest admission to soul-less, overly literal bitches that the premise of a giant gorilla carrying a girl around is not 100% scientifically plausible. So don't show this one in science class. (Unless you're in Kansas in which case, who cares. It counts.) The truth is I don't want to overstate the case because realistic expectations always help. But I honestly meant it when I called it a classic, miracle, and whatever else I called it. It is an incredible movie and although who cares either way, I think it will be hugely popular and may even be nominated for best picture just on its general awesomeness. That said, there will be people who won't like it, because it is a movie. For christ's sakes there are people in this world who don't like Die Hard, I'm sure you can find people that won't like King Kong. Walking out of the theater I heard an old man at this free screening say, "Oh well, no previews I guess." And I thought jesus buddy, if THAT didn't impress you I don't know what movie you are hoping to see a preview for. What is there to look forward to when a fucking cinematic miracle like that leaves you wanting previews. (Incidentally, there WAS a preview and I think you will be pretty excited. There is an attached trailer for Spike Lee's THE INSIDE MAN. So when you go pay to see King Kong to write notes about why you hate it, you will get a 2 for 1 and be able to complain about Spike Lee. Unfortunately, like most of his movies, it is not about race or anything, it's a bank heist thriller. But I'm sure you'll figure out a way.) btw, don't turn this into a Spike Lee talkback or I will send you the Kong production diaries in the mail
and on Spielberg by Vern	Dec 13th, 2005 02:41:50 PM
I still like the guy, I thought War of the Worlds was great. But this is not like a Spielberg movie at all. It has dinosaurs but never reminds you of Jurassic Park. Yeah maybe Spielberg could've made a tighter version but I don't think it would be as good. It would be shorter but not as moving. And I bet you he would've left most of the boat ride in too. But he'd have some kids on the boat. And a lot more scenes of people staring at Kong in awe.
Hey Ringbearer9... by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 02:42:55 PM
...can you feel the ownage?
hey Vern. by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 02:49:10 PM
chillax. i saw it. the good parts were good. so good that you forgot the bad ones. and for that, i envy you. but the typing of S...K...U...L... etc. was "film school" bad, bro. it's okay. you can admit it. you're amongst friends.
GREAT response to ringbearer9 Vern. by Thirteen 13	Dec 13th, 2005 02:49:58 PM
Standing ovation for that one.
Pretty good by Kaitain	Dec 13th, 2005 02:50:08 PM
Saw it last night. The length is not an issue at all. There are a few duff bits. Jackson should be told to stop using slow motion shots; they look cheap and awful. The section with the dinosaur stampede is overambitious and doesn't work. They clearly needed more time to polish it (and it's not all that interesting anyway). But there is some great stuff in here. The fight between Kong and the two T-Rexs is excellent. The finale is great, extremely vertiginous and spectacular. The best thing is that you totally buy into the affection between Darrow and Kong. Their reunion in Manhattan could have been totally cheesy. It almost is, but it works. It's very affecting. Actually, that section of the film reminded me of The Iron Giant in a lot of ways. Shame Kong can't rebuild himself on a glacier off Iceland. The whole film has a weird visual feel, synthetic, but not in a cartoony Lucas way. It feels more like an animated chalk or pastel drawing a lot of the time, unreal yet not in a way that takes you out of the movie. I liked it.
"That's what I expect most people will find at the movies." by minderbinder	Dec 13th, 2005 02:51:23 PM
So...you honestly think "most people" will agree with one guy who hated it...instead of agreeing wth the 93% of critics who liked (if ot loved) it? But I suppose you still think it will make a ton of money...but it will make that money from people who were duped by the hype, right? Just for the record, I was the first to mention that review on this TB. And no, I didn't link to it, I assumed most TB'rs would be smart enough to figure out how to open RT and figure out which review it was. Maybe I was wrong in your (and BSA's) case?
Vern On All Things Ringbearer by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 13th, 2005 02:54:40 PM
OUCH!!! Well, he did call down the thunder.
Now that's a response. Nice work, Vern. by minderbinder	Dec 13th, 2005 03:00:08 PM
I suspect he's not the only reviewer that would be pissed to find out that whining bitches are taking the nitpicks in otherwise positive reviews out of context to try and "prove" that the movie sucks. I don't get why it's so hard to understand that it's possible for a movie to have flaws and still be great.
Vern, why aren't you relaxed enough to agree with HypeEndsHe by aikimoe	Dec 13th, 2005 03:01:12 PM
bro? I mean, dude, you can't be chilled and not KNOW what's bad and what's good, like Bro Hype. Bro.
You know the porn industry is gonna do its own rendition of this by Doc_Strange	Dec 13th, 2005 03:02:11 PM
King Dong. You heard it here first.
and a couple more things while I'm at it by Vern	Dec 13th, 2005 03:02:26 PM
1. People who would complain about the effects in this movie should not watch movies with effects anymore. I mean come on. Are there parts where you can tell it's a special effect? OF COURSE THERE ARE, it's a fucking movie, not an actual experience. But the look and movements of these creatures is beyond anything we've seen before. And more importantly, this is a movie with armies of dinosaurs, giant insects and bats and massive destruction. And even the locations, Skull Island and 1933 New York, are giant special effects (which you don't really think about while watching it). And yet you come away not thinking of all that stuff, it feels more like an intimate movie between these two characters, Ann and Kong. 2. I work hard to write a good review and stay true to my commitment to excellence, and some motherfucker wants to know when Neil Cumpston will write a review? Fuck that midget. Here's his review. "It was AWESOME. There was PUNCHING. I squeeged all over the place. I had a boner and I sprayed cum all over and then I had another boner and it was AWESOME. Gotta go make sarcastic comments for VH-1 now see ya nerds. p.s. boner." 3. The only reason "the cgi is the highlight of the movie" is because THE MAIN CHARACTER OF THE MOVIE is made out of cgi. Technically you could say "the stop motion is the highlight of the movie" in the original because everybody loves Kong.
finally, a level-headed talkbacker by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 03:03:22 PM
:)
Waah! Thanks for that spoiler HypeEndsHere! It's all ruined. by morGoth	Dec 13th, 2005 03:07:47 PM
I keed...I keed. OK...now that you've highlighted it, I will. Though, I must admit I'll probably do that on the second viewing as I'll just be wallowing in the enjoyment first time around. In fact, here's morGy's Kong First Viewing Check List: Brain: Off, check! Popcorn: Check. Goobers: Check. Dum-dums: Check. Giant Kong cup fulla soda: Check. Mark IV, Mod VI ECBDACS (Extra Capacity Bladder Drainage And Containment System), CHECK!
I BEG TO DIFFER! by nazismasher	Dec 13th, 2005 03:12:32 PM
New York is rampant with giant worms and shit.
hype ends here by Vern	Dec 13th, 2005 03:15:17 PM
I'm pretty sure I did admit the typewriter bit was bad. What I did was, I referred to it as "stupid." That is a way of saying that it was "bad." My point is that focusing on a couple silly bits in the first half hour of a 3 hour epic borders on obsessive compulsive. If you have more significant problems with the movie that's one thing, but if a handful of clumsy parts near the beginning ruins a movie like that for you then I wonder if you will ever get any joy in life. And come on bud, I want you to get a whole bunch of joy in life. I'm looking out for you.
this film is escapism at its best. by slappy jones	Dec 13th, 2005 03:22:00 PM
go along for the ride...don't expect it to cure cancer and you will love it.....my favourite film of the year.....
Vern is god by mr jones	Dec 13th, 2005 03:24:33 PM
all spoilers should be like this. Oh, and this is the only Kong review i'm actually paying attention to. Vern, I salute you!
Thanks Vern, by cyanide christ	Dec 13th, 2005 03:28:50 PM
for looking out for our joy. Even the OCD's gotta appreciate that.
Is a link available to the Time review? by FluffyUnbound	Dec 13th, 2005 03:34:59 PM
I just browsed to it through the CNN portal and couldn't find it.
Spielberg would have probably added some annoying little kid by Bong	Dec 13th, 2005 03:38:39 PM
WHo somehow befriends Kong awwwww
my bad.......bro. by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 03:39:41 PM
i didn't realize you called it "stupid". i casually skimmed your piece as usual, and for that I am sorry. so i went back and read it in full. i found it difficult to understand some of what you were saying as you seem to have a prerequisite for each of your sentences: a) they must deliver information clearly and b) they must showcase your downhome wit, not unlike Mark Twain. sometimes, i find in your enthusiasm to serve the latter, the clear information part suffers. now, as to your reply, the aforementioned SKULL-typing wasn't a breaking point for me (so whew! i'm no OCD). and luckily, i don't count on movies to provide me joy in life. unless i've written them. all the best, HypeEndsHere
vern responds to the douche by ashhole	Dec 13th, 2005 03:39:50 PM
...and vern loses some of my respect. like he cares. or should. i just hate that anyone actually responds to that hideous thing, that festering boil of ignorance and inanity. you're better than that, vern. but it's ok, i forgive you because of- "That shit would've KILLED Kong. If the biplanes didn't. Which they did. Spoiler." LONG LIVE VERN!
FluffyUnbound - The TIME Link by LilOgre	Dec 13th, 2005 03:51:41 PM
http://www.time.com/time/magaz ine/article/0,9171,1139824-1,0 0.html
Time review... by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 03:52:08 PM
... or at least an abbreviated version of it: http://tinyurl.com/8g4vz
Like Ringbearer is even going to respond to Vern by IAmLegolas	Dec 13th, 2005 04:01:37 PM
He'll (A) ignore it and keep posting away about something else involved hating KONG and PJ... (B) wait for the next KONG TB to pop up and act like he never saw the response... (C) whine about how the thread is going off-topic and should be about KONG and not him. BTW Vern you rule the Earth, bravo.
Best Kong review I have read by MrCere	Dec 13th, 2005 04:08:21 PM
Caught the movie twice in New York and Vern here is spot on.
Best Review to date by SoulReaver	Dec 13th, 2005 04:28:04 PM
laughed my ass off reading it, but it didn't convince me to go and see this flick cause i woulda done it anyway. peter jackson is someone we should be thankful to, and thats my opinion since i first saw Bad Taste. he simply rules the planet.
ashhole and hype by Vern	Dec 13th, 2005 05:07:33 PM
HYPE: sorry if my writing is not clear, I am always working on improving thanks for the tips bud. ASHHOLE: If you're talking about Ringbearer, I responded to him because I got a brief history with this guy. I didn't know he was the anti-Peter Jackson guy but I got into it with him over Spike Lee in another talkback recently. He had this amazing theory about how Spike Lee made SUMMER OF SAM as a secret coded message to tell the world that Jews have a genetic flaw that causes them to lose emotion and commit murders. I thought he was joking at first but he swore up and down that he seriously believed that. The weird thing is when he mentioned boobies and AMERICAN BEAUTY I realized who he reminds me of, another lovable obsessive that was on a movie newsgroup years ago. This guy spent months trying to convince everybody that Thora Birch's tit shot was CGI. When people provided interviews of Thora and her parents discussing the filming of the nude shot, he explained in detail how and why it was a coverup and said that he would not believe they were real boobies unless Steven Spielberg (in his capacity as head of Dreamworks) told him personally. It was one of those things where the guy was just so over the top that you could not help but fall into the chinese fingertrap and try to point out the flaws in his argument. And there was no escaping, it just got huger and huger. There must've been 25 people trying to convince him of the authenticity of the boobies and he wouldn't budge. Holy shit, and Ringbearer just mentioned Spielberg AND boobies in connection with AMERICAN BEAUTY. I don't see this being the same guy though because this guy was obsessed with Superman. Kalelfan, is that you? That's not you, is it? Anyway, sorry Ash if I lost some of my dignity but I enjoy consorting with these type of seemly individuals, it is a character flaw I got. But thank you for the constructive criticism bud.
Vern by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 05:16:04 PM
Apparently you missed Ringbearer9's Munich rant a while back. He stated emphatically that the "flaming" letters in the title font were meant for us to associate with the ovens of Auschwitz and that the film is nothing more than Spielberg's Holocaust and Israel propaganda piece. It was quite remarkable. Although, he never did address the point brought up about the "flaming" font in War of the Worlds. I truly believe he's a bona fide nutcase. I wasn't around for the Birch titty thing, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
ahem... by DocPazuzu	Dec 13th, 2005 05:27:57 PM
...Perhaps I should clarify: the "duck" I was referring to in this case would be Ringbearer9, not Thora's awesome rack. I feel dirty for even having to explain this. But not for the image GZ provided. Minus the loud KWAK, of course.
King Long is a restaurant in my home town by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 05:56:27 PM
i suggest the Chinese Pizza. (up here in Manhattan they call it a 'Scalion Pancake')
Now THAT'S a review.... by KurosawaDisciple	Dec 13th, 2005 05:58:45 PM
...I've always liked Vern's contributions to the site, but that may be his best review yet...nice job!!
A Serious Question for Everyone Seeing this Before Me... by tonagan	Dec 13th, 2005 06:26:01 PM
Could you let me know when it would be a good time to take a pee during the movie? I don't want to miss anything important, but I also don't want to wet myself...
Tonagan by Vern	Dec 13th, 2005 06:42:57 PM
I think the only time it would be acceptable to go take a piss would be after they leave in the boat but before they arrive on the island. But that's early on so shit, might as well just piss BEFORE the movie. Otherwise the best time is when you're about to burst. Good luck bud.
Tonagan, I went while they were on the Island and Adrien Brody w by HypeEndsHere	Dec 13th, 2005 06:47:17 PM
I missed a whole 'hang-gliding on a bat' thing that other people told me about. i thought they were kidding. anywho, go about 70 minutes in. as soon as you see Skull Island in the fog, because you have a 10 minute scene of the boat kinda dancing between some jagged rocks that's not really essential.
why isn't anyone taking jack black seriously in this dramati by jig98	Dec 13th, 2005 07:06:25 PM
who cares? every actor in hollywood does comedy and then decides to try drama FOR ONCE. although sometimes it works and sometimes it sucks but THAT'S HOLLYWOOD.
Quality of visual effects by Kaitain	Dec 13th, 2005 07:19:53 PM
"1. People who would complain about the effects in this movie should not watch movies with effects anymore. I mean come on. Are there parts where you can tell it's a special effect? OF COURSE THERE ARE, it's a fucking movie, not an actual experience. But the look and movements of these creatures is beyond anything we've seen before." Sorry Vern, disagree with you there. There are good effects shots and bad effects shots. Often the difference between the two is the amount of time the effects house has had to work on the sequence. (At one obvious extreme is the scene in The Mummy Returns, something that the producers cannot possibly have been happy with when they made the decision to go with what they had.) To me it looked like the dinosaur stampede hadn't had enough time. The lighting wasn't polished in a lot of shots, meaning that the depth looked wrong. It was distracting. And if you think that all effects shots look artificial, you've probably just gotten used to seeing lots of overambitious CG that doesn't quite work. Contrast the work done in the first two Star Wars prequels and that in Spielberg's "AI". I didn't like "AI" as a film, but some of the effects work in it is absolutely fantastic. And if you watch Blade Runner, it still looks bloody amazing. Not in an "it looks artificial but I don't care, get over it" way, but in an "I feel like I'm seeing a futuristic city with lots of flying vehicles" way. (Actually, 25 years on, does any film look better than BR?)
It's KING KONG Night! Watch the original 1933 version on TCM by Orionsangels	Dec 13th, 2005 07:38:00 PM
Kong Rules!
Question by Nesskid	Dec 13th, 2005 10:02:16 PM
What's a King Kong?
Once again haters, GEORGE LUCAS is a better director than PETER by Hideo Kojima	Dec 13th, 2005 10:45:19 PM
slows down the talkback and plays enya
What's King Kong? by Orionsangels	Dec 14th, 2005 12:00:08 AM
A King is a male monarch of a major territorial unit, especially whose position is hereditary and who rules for life. A paramount chief if you will. Kong derives from the word Congo, which refers to the Zaire river more than 2700 miles central Africa. Where the rare silver back Gorilla can be found. So hense the word Kong referring to Large Gorilla and this Gorilla from the King Kong movie rules over his domain, like a King. So hence the title King Kong.
Paul Clinton, CNN: "If the 'Rings' trilogy didn't co by drompter	Dec 14th, 2005 12:05:25 AM
LOL!!
Was just at Wellington Premiere. by RowanM	Dec 14th, 2005 12:24:55 AM
Wasn't fortunate enough to actually have a ticket so I was satisfied to get a few photos. I got everyone except Karl Urban and Richard Taylor. Richard must have slipped past my radar. I didn't realise he was there until I saw him hold up A "WETA is King" (or something to that effect, I had a few beers) poster complete with a drawing of the bug, which they showed on the big screen the organisers had provided near the red carpet. Goddamn fans. They kept putting their hands, cameras or inflatable bananas to ruin the shot of Karl. But I got a few good shots of Naomi all the same so I'm happy.
to Kaitain by Vern	Dec 14th, 2005 01:41:12 AM
You're right bud, but let me clarify. Yes there is such a thing as bad effects shots. But I think alot of people on the internet, a WHOLE lot of people, do not have realistic or even possible expectations for special effects work in movies. I mean I'm sorry, I shouldn't say that your criticisms aren't valid. Or Massawyrm, who didn't believe the actors were in the same shots as the monsters and it just ruined the whole movie for him. I didn't have that problem but I can see how it would suck so I take that part back. But wouldn't you agree that most of the effects in the movie represent the state of the art as far as computer effects go, and in many cases a big ass leap ahead of what's come before it? I feel like alot of people will say any computer effect is bad because they are so clever and observant as to be able to tell that the giant ape was made using a computer and is not an actual giant ape. I thought the dinosaur stampede looked amazing. The only thing that took me out of it was how often they managed to avoid getting stomped. But oh well. To answer your question, yes, when I watch Blade Runner, it is clearly a model city with model space ships flying through it. I do think it looks artificial. (I'm more into Alien.) But it still looks good to me. Anyway thanks Kaitain.
What a year!!! by Lamerz	Dec 14th, 2005 01:47:12 AM
Episode III, Batman Begins, and King Kong. Yeah, a lot of the rest of the movies were a burning bag of SHIT this year, but fuuuuuuuuuucck. Those three movies in one year seriously 0wnz. Can't wait to have em all in my DVD collection.
Reply to Vern by Kaitain	Dec 14th, 2005 02:04:06 AM
Well, I respect your opinion, even if we disagree wrt Blade Runner. I think there's something about Trumbull's work that looks just awesome...maybe it's something about the way real lights on real models look more believable to the human eye. Add the diffusing smoke and it ends up as something very beautiful rather than something synthetic and jarring. Here's my take on CGI: I suspect it's become so easy for filmmakers to specify and order a visual effects shot that they no longer take the time to consider whether the shot is needed at all, or whether the scene should be storyboarded with a smaller percentage of screen time given over to effects work. Some directors seem to know how far to push things given the amount of time available to do quality work. And maybe some just know that it isn't a case of "the more, the better" when it comes to effects shots. Think of the scene in Jurassic Park where the T-Rex attacks the land rovers. How many actual seconds of effects footage is in that scene? Not a great deal. There is an awful lot of screen time occupied with shots of people looking scared, shining flashlights etc. And in the build-up there's the awesome use of indirect cues (the sound and the ripples in the water). Spielberg is right on top of his game in that scene. No-one came out of that movie complaining that there weren't enough effects shots in it. Spielberg knows that if you're planning to do an effects shot, you either do it superbly or you find ways to get round having to do it (or all of it). Focus your time and effort on getting the shots you do undertake looking as flawless as you can. Jackson would have been better off cutting half the effects shots in that scene in my opinion, and possibly replanning the whole thing, because for five minutes you can't suspend your disbelief. It's much harder to level that criticism at most of the other scenes in the movie. Again, my opinion.
Kaitain here's some advice by half vader	Dec 14th, 2005 02:37:10 AM
Go to a library or bookshop and look in the art section for an artist named Gustave Dor
Great Movie by Yessah	Dec 14th, 2005 02:46:49 AM
Just got back. Was floored. And in all honesty, I think the 3 hrs. flew by.
Jurassic Kong was too long by Sam Raimi's Car	Dec 14th, 2005 02:47:05 AM

Hello HV by Kaitain	Dec 14th, 2005 02:51:26 AM
"Did you ever consider that these sort of effect are done and staged that way ON PURPOSE?" Yes. Considered and, in most cases, rejected. There are definitely some films in which this is a very reasonable conclusion, for example Sky Captain. And if you'd read my earlier post, you would have seen that I'd written, "The whole film has a weird visual feel, synthetic, but not in a cartoony Lucas way. It feels more like an animated chalk or pastel drawing a lot of the time, unreal yet not in a way that takes you out of the movie. I liked it." I very much doubt, however, that Peter Jackson asked his effects crew to ensure the humans in the brontosaur stampede looked obviously composited into the shot as though cut out of a magazine and pasted on with glue. Don't mistake poor implementation for artistry, my friend. (Did you ever consider the possibility that Steven Sommers wanted the Scorpion King to evoke the wondrous feel of an Atari 2600 game? If you did, you're a gullible tit.)
Wow you haters are losers by BRUTICUS	Dec 14th, 2005 03:01:48 AM
Just enjoy a good movie and give credit where credit is due.
looks at moviemack by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 03:23:24 AM
Okay, who let the gimp out of the box? You know he's not allowed to join in until after the TalkBack is at least five days old.
Too long by darthbinks1220	Dec 14th, 2005 03:27:15 AM
I give the film two and a half stars out of four. Box office wise, we've got another WOTW here. Titanic's records will be safe. ROTS will remain this year's box office champ.
Yeah I just got back myself. by Thirteen 13	Dec 14th, 2005 03:41:41 AM
WOW. That was incredible. Those 3 hours zipped by. Almost everyone clapped when the credits started to roll. Can't wait to see all the deleted scenes that Peter Jacskon said he had to cut from the film. Gonna see it again Thursday. This one is gonna be an easy 300 million minimum and will probably go beyond that and give ROTS so competition for biggest grossing movie of the year. Peter Jackson hits another home run with this one. Brace yourselves Kong haters because this one is going to be a success. I know thats bad news for you, but nobody ever said life was easy. So whats the next movie your itching to hate for 2006?
'Don't mistake poor implementation for artistry' by half vader	Dec 14th, 2005 03:58:20 AM
Hang on, wasn't that what I was saying to you? And precisely why I was saying to look at Dor
Kaitain is spot on by Gheorghe Zamfir	Dec 14th, 2005 04:19:35 AM
A bad effect is a bad effect, while there may be a reason for "non-photorealistic" effects, there's never an excuse for bad effects, and there is a difference.
PJ's "KING KONG" Not The 400 LB Gorilla It Could Have Been ( by Chishu_Ryu	Dec 14th, 2005 04:33:30 AM
Just got back from the midnite showing of KK. I was disappointed. I'm a bit tired to go into detail, but here's a few reasons why: 1) The relationship and emotions between Ann and Kong were too forced. 2) The film suffers [like the Godzilla remake] from the success of the Jurassic Park movies. 3) For a 3 hour movie, there was hardly a moment for me to rest my eyes on an image, too many edits. Was PJ afraid we'd get bored? I was for most of the film, anyway. 4) The natives annoyingly reminded me of Orcs. 5) As Vern says, Kong was nothing more than a very large silverback Northern Mountain Gorilla. Maybe some weird hybrid ape might've been more effective for me, like a little chimp thrown in or something, I donno. Probably being a bit picky on this point. 6) Poor character development, for a 3 hour movie, and 7) Jack Black. That's just a few reasons. I'm a King Kong fan, and wanted to enjoy the movie. Maybe I'll like it better if I go for a 2nd viewing, which I doubt. Overall, while the special effects on this newest re-make are superior by far, the 1935 and 1976 versions are still better. The love story works better in the '76 version. And nothing tops the original's "Scream for your life, Ann!" scene. PJ's version had a few bright moments for me, just not as many as I would've liked. I predict this film will not do as well box office-wise as everyone thinks, it lacks the "must see again and again" mojo of true blockbusters. Over.
I just seen the 12:00 am showing and it was amazing. by L.H.Puttgrass	Dec 14th, 2005 04:52:57 AM
3 hours? I'm gonna see it again this weekend. So make it 6, no make it 9 or how about 12? If you thought the LotR movies were flukes, that Jackson just got lucky, its time to think again. This movie made me feel like I did back in '77 after I had just seen Star Wars for the first time. "I have to see that movie again!!" ...and I did. ...and I will. Is there any higher praise?
By the way... by L.H.Puttgrass	Dec 14th, 2005 05:00:34 AM
... if you're the slightest bit afraid of heights, the Empire State Building sequence will cause you grip your armrests like your life depended on it.
Special Effects are only as good as... by RowanM	Dec 14th, 2005 05:06:06 AM
the talented artists who create them and the time they have in realising their full potential within a specified deadline. Mummy Returns - They ran out of time to polish off the effects. That reason just isn't good enough in my opinion. They blew it. If you have a seriously fucking talented group of artists, and let's face it...Harry Potter, Narnia and King Kong. That's talent spread thin in my opinion. The high probability is that Peter Jackson got his hands on the cream of the crop. If any film out out of those three were to suffer...and I've already seen two of them. Narnia was always destined to get the wooden spoon. If special effects in movies are to reach their full potential, you need extremely gifted artists on board to get the job done. Just having the software to do it alone is a moot point.
Dangit happyhappy, that was, like, SOOOO three years ago. by morGoth	Dec 14th, 2005 05:14:21 AM
I will be looking forward to chomping down on a Kong Korn Dawg though (head first, natch, just like a chocolate Easter bunny). Oh, and thank'ee kindly for actually making me laugh instead of your usual mindless flaming. Notice I didn't even address you as happyslappyforeskinboy or anything like that. Are we Kong pals now? Utulie'n aure! (The day has come!). Just thought I through in some "elfish" for old times sake. See you in line for Kong ternight {[;^)
...also happyhappy... by morGoth	Dec 14th, 2005 05:28:56 AM
...didn't want this to slip by: Andy Serkis should get a "Best Virtual Thespian" Oscar for what sounds like another fantastic performance. I don't mean as Lumpy the Cook either.
My 2 Bits by Wellesian	Dec 14th, 2005 05:35:46 AM
This movie transcended what it could have been, what it should have been. The old king, Spielberg, has lost the way, and the light. To 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.
"(copped from either Pauline Kael or Rudy Ray Moore, I can't by Mike Nesmith	Dec 14th, 2005 06:51:34 AM
HEE HEE!! Nice one, bud!!!
Gheorghe by half vader	Dec 14th, 2005 06:55:46 AM
Well I guess the 'difference' here is a difference of opinion. I didn't think they were bad, and I absolutely don't defend bad effects - I didn't say the effects in the 2nd Mummy film were good, I just said why they weren't actually finished. There WERE good ILM people on that project. What, you think they couldn't have managed to make that balloon look better than a flying rock? If we used RowanM's own argument, Kong's effects would be shit because Ben Snow who was visual effects supervisor on Van Helsing, was also vis effects supervisor on Kong. Chrishu, you obviously had too much of an agenda going in. Kong isn't that great because another movie WAS? That's insane. "The film suffers from the success of the Jurassic Park movies". Riiiiiggghhht. It's not the film's fault if you're jaded by overexposure, it's yours. I'd go into a whole list of great films that are apparently not very good due to proximity, but people are probably already sick of my pontificating and I'm sure you now realise what a ridiculous statement that was. Yikes.
A dirty fighting move? Does he stand on his hands... by JackPumpkinhead	Dec 14th, 2005 07:57:12 AM
...and shoots diarrheic excrement from his anal orifice into the dinosaur's eyes? If he does, it's a move stolen from a game from early 90s, "Primal Rage". It has King Kong under a different name, it has a bunch of dinosaurs, and a whole bunch of strange fighting moves, mostly with bodily liquids or gases. Now that's dirty fighting.
Who's this Vern dude? by BDT	Dec 14th, 2005 08:23:40 AM
witty style, humor--almost like an alter ego for a Stephen King/Dave Barry pair. Enjoyed this review immensely. Thanks for "sharing".
Have we learned nothing from Kong? by Vern	Dec 14th, 2005 12:41:12 PM
Just because we're different sizes doesn't mean we gotta kill each other. The cycle of violence must end. People who somehow are able to compare King Kong to the fucking Godzilla remake (!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?) should walk hand in hand with people who said it is a "miracle" (me) and shout to the skies WE WILL NOT KILL OR SMASH EACH OTHER OR BITE EACH OTHER'S HEADS OFF. I don't get why these effects didn't work on some of these fellas or why some people say it's too long, but oh well. Their loss I guess. I'm going back to see this fucker again.
and hopefully that crazy bitch won't be sitting behind me th by Vern	Dec 14th, 2005 12:44:00 PM
"Mosquito!" "Worms!" Yes, we know, we are also watching the movie. You don't have to blurt out all the different words you know.
Die Hard is still the shit 17 years (?) later! by Lamerz	Dec 14th, 2005 12:49:10 PM
Talk about a definitive action movie. What a classic. Hans Gruber: "You ask for a miracle. I give you the F B I." Rickman and Willis are the bomb.
Best part of the usual suspect of bitchers here at AICN by Bass Ackwards	Dec 14th, 2005 01:14:04 PM
Is they stay true to the standard mold, bitch, bitch, bitch bitch bitch, see the movie as soon as humanly possible, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch bitch.
Where did Ringbearer go? by IAmLegolas	Dec 14th, 2005 01:26:12 PM
Oh that's right, out watching KONG.
"It's not the film's fault if you're jaded by overex by Kaitain	Dec 14th, 2005 01:33:07 PM
If I was the head of, say, Warner Bros, and someone came to me in 1994 suggesting doing this cool movie featuring a dinosaur theme park that went wrong, I would not greenlight it, even if the proposer claimed it would be "even better than Jurassic Park". The human brain has a lot of features related to detecting novelty and ignoring similarity. We acclimatise to things, often fairly quickly. You can't expect the crack you're dealing to your clients to keep giving them the same kick, and you certainly shouldn't blame them for having a diminished response on the fifth hit.
The winner, and still undisputed reviewing champeen... by hamo455	Dec 14th, 2005 01:40:14 PM
Ladies and Germs, I give you... VERN!
btw by Kaitain	Dec 14th, 2005 01:44:13 PM
You said: Re: 'Don't mistake poor implementation for artistry' Hang on, wasn't that what I was saying to you? No, I think you were saying, "Don't mistake artistry for poor implementation" :) As with many of these things, it can depend on how strongly you follow a principle of charity. You can end up excusing an awful lot of things using said principle, and it's often really hard to know whether or not you're right. For example, in "Signs", is the baffling aspect of the aliens' hydrosensitivity explicable under a framework that says that Shyamalan's authorial intent throughout the film is to demonstrate that it's pointless for lesser beings to try to explain the (apparently irrational) actions and characteristics of higher beings? Or is it just sloppy plot construction from the writer/director?
So let me get this straight...Ringbearer, you took a day off wor by minderbinder	Dec 14th, 2005 02:14:55 PM
What a fucking loser.
Ringbearer, Kong, and the Sound of Inevitability by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 02:34:56 PM
Seriously everyone. How could we have possibly expected anything different than what ol' Ringdouche has posted? He took a seed of Hate with him into the theater and emerged with a silly Hate flower. Way to go, Ring. Hell, I could have written your review for you. We all knew exactly what you would say about it. As predictable as, well, the end of "King Kong". Ha! Who knew?!
Nice Review, Vern by WHALEBLUBBER	Dec 14th, 2005 02:46:15 PM
More like this please!!!
It really does by cocolopez	Dec 14th, 2005 03:08:12 PM
sound like ringbearer was nitpicking since minute one- trying to fill up his head with as much insignificant whimpers as he could to fill up his soggy rant with. Probably brought a notebook with him to the theatre as well. Other than that- reading his tirade- I can't even understand what the hell he's yapping about- he seems really frustrated... What did Vern do? Shit in your fanny pack?
KONG IS NOT TO LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! by K. G. Mahjongg	Dec 14th, 2005 03:30:32 PM
for those of you who think that kong is too long. Boo Hoo!!! even i had to go piss in the middle of the movie, SO WHAT. that just gives me a reason to go and see it again just like L.H.Puttgrass. so if you think it is too long kiss it, and don't get your moneys worth anymore. just go see the movies that rip you off with only a hour and thirty minutes to them. KONG KONG KONG KONG KONG KONG Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!! !!
you get your moneys worth with this film by slappy jones	Dec 14th, 2005 04:05:19 PM
great escapism. fantastic movie. seen it twice....seeing again tomorrow.
Okay K. G., I guess you liked it too. by L.H.Puttgrass	Dec 14th, 2005 04:43:51 PM
Next time don't suck down an entire extra large Dr. Pepper in the first 30 minutes of a three hour movie. Your bladder will thank you.
"I don't think they ever show him taking a shit or masturbat by Judge Doom	Dec 14th, 2005 04:45:50 PM
That
Again a great entertaining review by Vern. THX, man! by CurryIce	Dec 14th, 2005 05:35:15 PM

Hey Kaitain by half vader	Dec 14th, 2005 06:11:24 PM
The artistry/poor implementation works both ways which is why I didn't need to reverse it, but at least you understood - I guess we're on different wavelengths but talking about the same thing. God, you had to bring up Signs, didn't you?! :) Oh I think that for once here we can totally agree that it was sloppy, sloppy stuff from M. Night. Basically he's confused a literary device with a visual/film one (and that's being generous). I saw all the water stuff throughout the film and discounted it as ludicrous before the end. The water/cleansing metaphor works fine in a book (I'm being generous remember so go with me here), but in a movie the idea that they'd come to Earth which is what? 70% water is just beyond belief. This from my foggy memory of the flick which I think I've blocked as a defensive mechanism. Same as The Village. Loved Unbreakable though, but thought 6th sense was novelty city. As for the book/film thing I also hold The Shining up as the golden rule of why they're different and you shouldn't be beholden to the source (Chris Columbus pay attention he says). The moronic mini-series proved that topiary animals work in the abstract and subjective world of books where your very act of reading puts you in a first-person role, making the peripheral vision thing extremely effective, but when you translate it to a visual medium all you get is the ridiculous combination of whip-pans to trees that don't move and hammy reaction shots. Kubrick was right (of course). The maze may have been done to death since (yes yes I know, Sleuth), but it was absolutely the right symbolism for a visual medium. Right. Now I sound all puffy & self-important, which is too close to Ringbearer for comfort, so I'm going to go and throw mental darts at him and shake my head at what a collossal prick he truly is.
Well, maybe so by Kaitain	Dec 14th, 2005 07:14:29 PM
(wrt "I guess we're on different wavelengths but talking about the same thing".) > The artistry/poor implementation works both ways which is why I didn't need to reverse it *** I always thought that if you said e.g. "Don't mistake idiocy for genius" it meant that it actually was idiocy in the case where the mistake was made. Hmmm, as for "Signs", you could certainly construct a coherent explanation that works, e.g. what you're seeing are disposable collector aliens designed to die and decompose swiftly if left behind, so they're designed to be vulnerable and unpro

Talkbacks

The Very First KING KONG Review... That Is Written By Vern!!