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

Moriarty Visits Skull Island And Brings KONG Back Alive!!

Great review by cyanide christ	Dec 14th, 2005 06:51:17 AM
Too bad some parts of the film seemed rushed. Still excited though.
Oh I almost forgot.. by cyanide christ	Dec 14th, 2005 06:52:51 AM
Did you cry Moriarty? Come on, you can say it. It's just you and me here.
I'll see it at some point. Also... by The Wrong Guy	Dec 14th, 2005 07:02:22 AM
Someone told me there was a Ratmonkey (Dead Alive/Braindead) reference in the movie. Is that true?
Seeing this at 2:30 today by Bean_	Dec 14th, 2005 07:02:44 AM
I really don't think I can make it through the school day.
I just saw the midnight show...and I'm still reeling by jrbarker	Dec 14th, 2005 07:03:16 AM
It was fantastic!
TheWrongGuy by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 14th, 2005 07:10:15 AM
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.
New King by Wellesian	Dec 14th, 2005 07:11:37 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. 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.
I just need to read Mori's reviews and I know ... by MajorOcelot	Dec 14th, 2005 07:15:59 AM
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!!!!
So would the film had have been better off being pushed to Summe by xavier masterson	Dec 14th, 2005 07:19:52 AM
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.
by jaxnnux	Dec 14th, 2005 07:20:55 AM
"As with MUNICH, this film was still [be] tweaked up to the very last moment before it started screening, and when you
Agree Wellesian ... by MajorOcelot	Dec 14th, 2005 07:21:49 AM
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?
No. No, I Didn't. by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 14th, 2005 07:35:05 AM
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.
Do you think Jackson will finish the incomplete effects for the by Rindain	Dec 14th, 2005 07:46:27 AM
Hopefully he'll tweak those last few non-perfect shots until they're perfect. Does anyone know if he plans on doing this?
Giant-budget Mori? by half vader	Dec 14th, 2005 07:48:31 AM
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?
'fun, pure and simple' by The Wrong Guy	Dec 14th, 2005 07:56:59 AM
Yeah and with frickin Ratmonkey references...I already know this film kicks major ass.
I still want Giant-budget Jackson... by MemBirdman	Dec 14th, 2005 07:59:11 AM
...but in the producer's role, for Halo.
Finally someone said it by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 08:06:22 AM
"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.
Mori - do you realize that what PJ made was Kong in structure, b by genro	Dec 14th, 2005 08:34:35 AM

The "Fun" of Kong by Bones	Dec 14th, 2005 08:37:44 AM
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.
Great review by wackynephews	Dec 14th, 2005 08:59:27 AM
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 :-))
Opening on Friday by judderman	Dec 14th, 2005 09:04:09 AM
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?
Bones - nice summary... by genro	Dec 14th, 2005 09:23:26 AM
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.
Fun, yes, at times, but PJ fails in one important element... by Chishu_Ryu	Dec 14th, 2005 09:27:52 AM
...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.
Peter Jackson's next... by Tar Heel	Dec 14th, 2005 09:39:21 AM
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.
watched both king kong originals last nite... by jig98	Dec 14th, 2005 09:39:31 AM
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.
CRAP REVIEW by 69DUDE	Dec 14th, 2005 09:40:27 AM
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.
well done, Mori. while i didn't care for it, your review di by HypeEndsHere	Dec 14th, 2005 09:56:40 AM

Finally, a review without all the hyperbole. Not the "masterpie by Atticus Finch	Dec 14th, 2005 10:04:57 AM
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.
You have NO idea the trouble I went to... by RobinP	Dec 14th, 2005 10:16:34 AM
...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.
Good point, Chisu_Ryu by zinc_chameleon	Dec 14th, 2005 10:49:37 AM
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.
"No, really, it's not that bad..." This all sounds like an a by Mecandes	Dec 14th, 2005 11:02:01 AM
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.
can't wait to see this... by vinceklortho	Dec 14th, 2005 11:16:35 AM
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.
I have to disagree with the statement that Kong is the greatest by Doc_Strange	Dec 14th, 2005 11:18:26 AM
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.
So why rush a 'masterpiece'? by Doc_McCoy	Dec 14th, 2005 11:25:22 AM
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?
Kong by Knightsong	Dec 14th, 2005 11:45:36 AM
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.
The Adventures of Jimmy Cowperthwaite aboard the tramp steamer V by JAGUART	Dec 14th, 2005 12:01:06 PM
"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"
Fay mention by RenoNevada2000	Dec 14th, 2005 12:14:28 PM
Did you catch what the score was doing during that mention?
Chrysler Building? by RenoNevada2000	Dec 14th, 2005 12:19:55 PM
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?
Hey there ah, Moviemuck by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 12:23:33 PM
Yeah whatever. Two words for you: Batman Begins. Suck it long. Suck it hard.
Adrian Brody looks like the type of guy that should sound like a by Terry_1978	Dec 14th, 2005 12:24:38 PM
He just has that British look to him. Go figure.
Forget PJ's Kong...... by Shaner Jedi	Dec 14th, 2005 12:31:26 PM
..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.
still needing six months of post... by Silver Shamrock	Dec 14th, 2005 12:48:28 PM
good lord. I guess this release is good enough for goverment work.
Nice one, Mori by moviemaniac-7	Dec 14th, 2005 01:10:30 PM
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!
The guy who said great review stole my thunder by hamo455	Dec 14th, 2005 01:32:12 PM
Thanks Mori, Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Does Anyone else by Wellesian	Dec 14th, 2005 01:37:17 PM
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
WHERE IS HARRY'S REVIEW? by CrimsonGhost	Dec 14th, 2005 01:45:32 PM
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....
This is the best review yet. by Thirteen 13	Dec 14th, 2005 01:59:55 PM
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.
Saw it last night... by kintar0	Dec 14th, 2005 02:16:28 PM
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.
"Batman Begins sucked." by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 02:19:21 PM
Oh KintarO...you have issued a clear invitation to the dance. :)
Can we expect a KING KONG 2.5 hour, Anti-Extended Edition on DVD by George Newman	Dec 14th, 2005 02:39:12 PM
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.
Not really, Gaius... by kintar0	Dec 14th, 2005 02:41:39 PM
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.
sounded like an 8/10 by mikey mike	Dec 14th, 2005 02:46:23 PM
can't wait to see the whole thing
Thanks Moriarty by monorail77	Dec 14th, 2005 02:48:23 PM
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.
RE: Not really, Gaius by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 02:56:11 PM
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.
F*ck Peter Jackson... by El Scorcho	Dec 14th, 2005 02:56:17 PM
His refusal to edit anything really killed what was a great film... But Kong (the character) is absolutely wonderful.
Ringbearer, Kong, and the Sound of Inevitability Pt.II by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 02:58:20 PM
Oh goodie. Ring has brought his insanity over here, too.
Ringbearer9 by cyanide christ	Dec 14th, 2005 03:02:42 PM
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.
I just love by Bass Ackwards	Dec 14th, 2005 03:10:51 PM
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.
Or you could just read. . . by YouInRawbIns?	Dec 14th, 2005 03:10:53 PM
Roger Ebert's review. It's better. In every way.
Its a difficult business, this "rushing through post-production by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 03:11:26 PM
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.
OK Ringbearer by cyanide christ	Dec 14th, 2005 03:20:27 PM
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.
Gus Van Rant by cyanide christ	Dec 14th, 2005 03:24:25 PM
You should see the directors cut of that one. My mom has a great scene where she gets trunk fucked at a 7/11.
The look in Naomi Watts' eyes when she's looking at Kong by brokentusk	Dec 14th, 2005 03:24:30 PM
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.
Ringbearer9, dude... by Nordling	Dec 14th, 2005 03:27:49 PM
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.
ugh by MisterCynic	Dec 14th, 2005 03:29:26 PM
you guys are some jaded motherfuckers. sad.
Okay, then, Ringbearer9... by Nordling	Dec 14th, 2005 03:40:05 PM
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.
Did you read Mori's earlier post in this TB? by Gheorghe Zamfir	Dec 14th, 2005 03:41:20 PM
"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."
MORIARTY by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 03:43:21 PM
Sir, I implore you to address this Ringbearer9 issue directly. Please? Do it before my head explodes.
Hey Ringbearer9, what are your 3 favourite movies? by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 03:44:21 PM
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.
Ringbearer... by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 14th, 2005 03:46:29 PM
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?
Ringsucker by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 03:53:54 PM
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.
Moriarty by Knightsong	Dec 14th, 2005 03:57:34 PM
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.
The movie is simply great. by L.H.Puttgrass	Dec 14th, 2005 03:59:14 PM
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.
KOOOOONNNGG! by zikade zarathos	Dec 14th, 2005 03:59:40 PM
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.
My God... it's full of stars... by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 04:01:04 PM
...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.
Doc Pazuzu by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 04:04:26 PM
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...
???? by CrimsonGhost	Dec 14th, 2005 04:06:52 PM
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".
Ringbearer9 by Knightsong	Dec 14th, 2005 04:07:31 PM
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.
Hey Knightsong by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:10:35 PM
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.
Thanks for the heads-up =p by Knightsong	Dec 14th, 2005 04:11:58 PM

secretivily by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:13:45 PM
Is that even a word??? Don't think so! Secretly. So there.
Ringbearer, I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic . by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 04:14:19 PM
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?
Its one thing to point out things in the review by Bass Ackwards	Dec 14th, 2005 04:15:56 PM
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?
"guy who made BAD TASTE, the excessive lunatic behind DEAD ALIVE by www.valiens.com	Dec 14th, 2005 04:17:10 PM
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.
Gus Van Rant by Bass Ackwards	Dec 14th, 2005 04:18:02 PM
Tell them you can't talk cause you have 1992 SNL on hold, and they're already tired of this lame joke.
Anger leads to hate ... by Chaka	Dec 14th, 2005 04:19:31 PM
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.
Van Rant Follower by jagger	Dec 14th, 2005 04:20:36 PM
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.
Good point Chaka by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:21:00 PM
Very good point.
jagger by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:23:32 PM
Yeah, it IS a real shame that PJ did not film New York in the thirties - it looks real fake now.
If you hadn't been a megalomaniac, Ringbearer9... by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 04:23:35 PM
...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.
Gus... by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 04:23:38 PM
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.
absolutely!!! by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:27:38 PM
Thanks, Mr. Nice Gaius, for pointing this out. I know ONE candidate at least. But probably more...
Just got back from seeing it..... by KongMonkey	Dec 14th, 2005 04:29:13 PM
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.
Ringbearer... by DoctorWho?	Dec 14th, 2005 04:30:58 PM
Your parents must have have really done a number on you...jeez.
Holy shit... by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 04:34:55 PM
...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.
It's Not About Agreeing Or Disagreeing by TheRealMoriarty	Dec 14th, 2005 04:37:27 PM
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.
I've been looking forward to this one all year, but watching by Shermdawg	Dec 14th, 2005 04:37:34 PM
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.
Ringbearer by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:39:31 PM
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 = runs the site Hairy = has lots of hair by Gheorghe Zamfir	Dec 14th, 2005 04:42:59 PM
Harry's hairy butt cheeks.
Uhm... by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:44:10 PM
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.
"He's found the wall now, and he's been warned." by IAmLegolas	Dec 14th, 2005 04:44:59 PM
Yeah but he'll just come back as Ringbearer10.
No he won't, IAm Legolas by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:49:04 PM
because his IP will be banned, not his ID. I hope.
moriarty is a little touchy... by mocky_puppet	Dec 14th, 2005 04:52:21 PM
...way to let 'em get under your skin, buddy.
Doc Paz... by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 04:52:52 PM
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.
I don't agree, mocky by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 04:53:45 PM
He is right, this sucker has been spoiling the mood here for too long.
Ringbearer by Bass Ackwards	Dec 14th, 2005 04:54:06 PM
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.
And thanks... by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 04:58:50 PM
Gus and dewijnboer. I propose a toast to TalkBack modesty and civility. Cheers.
Thanks, Mr Nice Gaius by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 05:04:42 PM
I'll toast anytime. What are we drinking?
The finest 12 yr. Single-Malt AICN Scotch you can find. by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 05:06:47 PM

good riddence by Peven	Dec 14th, 2005 05:07:07 PM
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.
I suggest... by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 05:08:49 PM
A wee drop of 18 year old Ardbeg, OK, Gaius?
If it can be poured into a glass, I'm there. by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 05:11:32 PM

It can be by dewijnboer	Dec 14th, 2005 05:14:56 PM
and you're welcome to it, Gaius. Cheers!
It's pretty simple, actually... by sundancekeed	Dec 14th, 2005 05:31:09 PM
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.
Semen, too, Gais? by kintar0	Dec 14th, 2005 05:32:08 PM
I applaud you for your candor and courageous alternative lifestyle.
dewijnboer by mocky_puppet	Dec 14th, 2005 05:32:38 PM
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.
kintarO by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 05:37:16 PM
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.
I think it's time I put Mori in his place!!! by Orionsangels	Dec 14th, 2005 05:53:20 PM
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!
I am a Holocaust denier! by performingmonkey	Dec 14th, 2005 05:53:51 PM
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.
Does anyone else remember the great fettastic? by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 06:08:26 PM
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.
a talkback tip for moriarity by haiku tunnel	Dec 14th, 2005 06:08:59 PM
Taking their bait is like a stroll on Skull Island. You'll step in Kong shit.
As much as I hate censorship... by Tony Mike Hall	Dec 14th, 2005 06:29:34 PM
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.
As annoying as he is... by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 06:41:31 PM
...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.
Man Oh Man! I thought he was NEVER going to shut up . . . by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 06:45:27 PM
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.
Ringy and the "real" by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 06:48:26 PM
Apparently, LOTR was too "real" for Ringy, but Kong was too "fantastic". My brain hurts.
"T'was beauty that killed the beast..." by HypeEndsHere	Dec 14th, 2005 06:49:35 PM
"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...."
Oh my... by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 06:51:06 PM
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.
Well, now that you say it... No, no, he still should be banned by Tony Mike Hall	Dec 14th, 2005 06:51:18 PM
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.
Oh, I'm sorry, let me be more clear... by Tony Mike Hall	Dec 14th, 2005 07:01:01 PM
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.
Hey everyone! This is my impression of Ringy by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 07:04:27 PM
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.
Holy Moley! by sundancekeed	Dec 14th, 2005 07:06:06 PM
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.
"But isn't one of the tricks to conveying the "fantasy" to t by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 07:07:38 PM
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.
Sorry, Ringbearer. You lost this one. Jackson 4, Ringbearer 0. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 07:09:31 PM
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.
Hey Ringbearer... by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 07:11:20 PM
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.
"Except for DocPazuzu, who is would be a tool no matter what." by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 07:13:17 PM
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.
Unless of course I change my mind. by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 07:14:28 PM

That's right, Ringby I was quakin' in mah boots till She by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 07:17:47 PM
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 . . . .
And I'll repeat myself for you as well. by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 07:19:15 PM
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.
Oh... by DocPazuzu	Dec 14th, 2005 07:21:24 PM
...and would you mind telling us what your three favorite movies are?
Wrong Ringbearer by Mr Nice Gaius	Dec 14th, 2005 07:21:53 PM
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 don't "hate" you, Ringbearer by sundancekeed	Dec 14th, 2005 07:24:18 PM
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.
No, Sherm, you didn't like it? by vinceklortho	Dec 14th, 2005 07:24:18 PM
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?
The guy writes two thousand words complaining about minutiae of by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 07:26:11 PM
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.
Which means you better not start looking like Poland to me, Her by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 07:34:04 PM
What are your 3 favourite movies? Commence Apeshit-poo-flinging!
The bloody awful screenwriting team by Boru999	Dec 14th, 2005 07:42:45 PM
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.
don't ban ringbearer9 by slappy jones	Dec 14th, 2005 07:52:48 PM
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.
Your 'weird ecology' argument is just bewildering, Ringy by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 07:56:44 PM
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!"
Just watch the fucking movie by Nesskid	Dec 14th, 2005 08:02:49 PM
Stop fighting! You're scaring me!
What's that over there? Its a man in a Nautilus submarine su by ol' painless	Dec 14th, 2005 08:05:12 PM
"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!"
I guarantee the DVD for this movie will come out this summer, th by Ted Striker	Dec 14th, 2005 08:16:11 PM
...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...
don't waste your time Mori... by Samuel Steamer	Dec 14th, 2005 08:28:23 PM
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.
Ringbearer 9 is concerned with "animal behavior" and " shipping by DoctorWho?	Dec 14th, 2005 08:28:35 PM
...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.
WHY THE FUCK are people mistaking this for a great movie???????? by El Scorcho	Dec 14th, 2005 08:44:20 PM
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.
How did I know Kong's death would be drawn out? by Citizen Arcane	Dec 14th, 2005 08:59:43 PM
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.
A 'Director's Cut' that trims the original by a subt by workshed	Dec 14th, 2005 09:03:31 PM
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.
The first hour is great, except for Jackson's kid's appe by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 09:04:33 PM
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.
Boru999, what have you written? by aikimoe	Dec 14th, 2005 09:12:22 PM
Why not post a link so we can see why you're so much better Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens?
KONG! LONG? by ZombieSolutions	Dec 14th, 2005 09:13:39 PM
BONG!
KONG! WRONG? by ZombieSolutions	Dec 14th, 2005 09:20:09 PM
GONG?
KONG SONG! by ZombieSolutions	Dec 14th, 2005 09:20:54 PM
KONG KONG KONGITY KONG KONG KONG!
Believe the Hype. by Evil Chicken	Dec 14th, 2005 09:23:36 PM
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!
HONG... KONG? by ZombieSolutions	Dec 14th, 2005 09:24:18 PM
PING PONG!
Just to show it's not like I can't criticize any part of by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 09:27:31 PM
...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.
I'm seeing this on Saturday by Juggernaut125	Dec 14th, 2005 09:28:16 PM
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.
Ringbearer9 Has Made Unassailable Points---Probably why no one a by Thunderballs	Dec 14th, 2005 09:28:30 PM
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.
WTF by MaguaSynfield	Dec 14th, 2005 09:33:51 PM
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.
interesting review mo... by obi-bear	Dec 14th, 2005 09:35:29 PM
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...
WTF by MaguaSynfield	Dec 14th, 2005 09:35:36 PM
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.
KING KONG... LONG DONG? by ZombieSolutions	Dec 14th, 2005 09:36:20 PM
BUNG BONG!
It doesn't have to be a classic film... by DoctorWho?	Dec 14th, 2005 09:38:42 PM
...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.
I wanted to love this movie but Jackson asked us to suspend beli by Retrace	Dec 14th, 2005 09:39:12 PM
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.
Blow me, Thunderballs. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 09:40:23 PM
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?
Is there such a thing as a perfect movie? by kintar0	Dec 14th, 2005 09:44:38 PM
Yeah, it's called "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
More things that are stupid about CLOSE ENCOUNTERS by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 09:53:23 PM
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!"
Ringbearer9 Has Made Unassailable Points---Probably why no one a by Thunderballs	Dec 14th, 2005 09:57:17 PM
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.
Perfect movie? by MaguaSynfield	Dec 14th, 2005 10:00:27 PM
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...)
holy shit, Ringbearer9, that was a fucking hate fest by jrbarker	Dec 14th, 2005 10:02:07 PM
you must be dead inside
Why is this movie 3 hours long? by BigTuna	Dec 14th, 2005 10:02:12 PM
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.
If you think JAWS is cool because the shark is supernatural, you by FluffyUnbound	Dec 14th, 2005 10:04:38 PM
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, bu

Talkbacks

Moriarty Visits Skull Island And Brings KONG Back Alive!!