So once again we have survived.

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

SPOILER ALERT !!

Hi, everyone. “Moriarty” here with some Rumblings From The Lab…

Okay, so it’s not the first one ever. Or even in the first hundred at this point. But it’s before mine, and it’s by Vern, so there’s two things it’s got going for it. Check this out:

What’s up fellas –

I heard some shit about your butts were numb or something like that. Sorry to hear about that I hope you get well soon.

Anyway here’s the deal. I saw KING KONG. Not sure if you know about this one but it is a remake of an older picture from ’33 or so. This version is by Pete Jackson who won an Oscar, etc. You LORD OF THE RINGS fans will know who I’m talking about. If not there is always the internet. I’m not sure if they have IMDB translated into elfish, but I’m sure you can find the information somewhere or other.

King KongBasically the plot involves a 25 foot tall gorilla, a blonde gal and a prominent New York landmark. (not the statue of liberty.) By the end of the movie the fates of these three may or may not turn out to be intertwined. I don’t want to give too much away.

Okay I’ll be more specific. The movie is basically divided into two movements. First movement is the movie crew heading to this place Skull Island (don’t go there) where they meet the gorilla, who we will call Kong. Also there are dinosaurs, giant worms, giant bats, angry natives, skeletons (dead), things you can fall off of, and that sort of shit. Second movement, the action repeats itself in New York. (there are not giant worms and shit in New York though. sorry.)

I must admit that this is not a 100% perfect movie descended from Heaven in the form of pure celluloid energy never touched by man. The main flaw is that it takes its sweet time getting to the island and our boy Kong. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind that this is a 3 hour movie. I’m thankful for the 3 hours. It would take a no good rat soup eating motherfucker to complain about a movie this good being 3 hours long. Oh boo hoo, they spent extra time and money trying to entertain you. They sacrificed box office by limiting the amount of showings per day, what bastards! I’m sorry if you have to piss real bad and it causes bladder hemhoraging or something horrible like that, but otherwise you shouldn’t complain. I mean Harry and his friends over there just watched this and ten or so other movies IN A ROW. Admittedly, those people are clearly insane, but their journey is only one of the many indiciations that it is technically possible to take 3 hours out of your busy schedule of whining to watch a great movie.

THAT SAID, they coulda got to the island faster. Maybe a little less of the Ann Darrow embarasses herself routines. I would be willing to trade some of the human setup for some bonus Kong. But anyway they set up these human characters and they boat around for a while but when they finally get to the point where Ann Darrow is kidnapped by savages of indistinct race and offered to Kong… HOLY SHIT, this movie takes off like a bunch of actors running from a bunch of dinosaurs.

I liked LORD OF THE RINGS as much as the next guy, assuming the next guy does not speak elfish or carry a sword. But I gotta admit, I was not prepared for how amazing the character of Kong is. I didn’t expect it. I seen ape movies before and I didn’t realize you could have this big a leap ahead of, say, remake Mighty Joe Young or whichever was the last ape movie. This movie is a god damn miracle. It’s not just because they made a great computer program but because they gave this guy personality. Like Gollum, you don’t think of him as a special effect at all, you think of him as a character. In fact, you think of him as a dude you know. And although it’s fun to see your buddy tear a t-rex’s head apart or get mad and wipe out the balcony of a theater with one quick arm swipe, he’s not just a raging monster. He does ape things. He lays around and scratches himself. He makes jokes to amuse himself. After he kills the t-rex, he plays with it a little. I don’t think they ever show him taking a shit or masturbating but otherwise it is very realistic.

Kong is played by Andy Serkis (THE ESCAPIST) who also plays the part of “Lumpy.” Who do you think you are dude, Eddie Murphy? Let’s keep it to one role in the future. Anyway, Serkis is basically wearing the greatest ape costume of all time. Don’t worry, I understand that it’s computers and what not. But you figure he is controlling the ape by his movements, he is basically wearing a costume made out of pixels. I’m sure there’s some animation in there too, I don’t know, but whatever they do they end up with very realistic movements, very strong personality, very convincing giant ape the likes of which you’ve never seen.

By the way, this is how you know Kong is a bad motherfucker. He lives on an island populated by all kinds of dinosaurs, giant bugs, bats, and who knows what other crazy shit that we didn’t even see. They found a six foot wide poisonous jellyfish off the coast of Japan recently, who knows what they could have on the undercharted territory of Skull Island. (Some would call it uncharted but since Jack Black had a map to it I think technically it is undercharted.) What I’m getting at is, when a beautiful blond gal washes up on shore, who do the natives try to sacrifice her to? No, not the t-rex. Not the giant bats. They give this chick to Kong. And beautiful blond chicks are not easy to come by in this part of the world. When they snag one they’re not gonna waste it. So they give it to the official baddest motherfucker on Skull Island, which would be Kong, thank you very much.

Also you know he’s a bad motherfucker because of a particular move he does in a fight that could very well top Tyler Durden’s “spitting blood in face” move from FIGHT CLUB for Outstanding Achievement in Fighting Dirty. I won’t give it away but you’ll see it.

So anyway, with a bad motherfucker like that in the starring role, this ends up being a real thrill ride. There’s a certain type of “big event movie thrill ride” that I hate, I don’t really know if there is a name for them so let’s just call them “Stephen Sommers movies.” These are movies that have no rhythm and just toss BIG LOUD ACTION SCENE after BIG LOUD ACTION SCENE in your face and it’s so monotonously loud and big that it’s just boring, it doesn’t involve me. I don’t know why but KING KONG doesn’t feel that way at all, even though there are long ass sections of the movie that are as non-stop and relentless as a Texas chain saw massacre. It doesn’t let up. Basically the section from the first appearance of Kong to when they’re ready to take him off the island (spoiler) is one of the most exciting and amazing extended action scenes I’ve seen in a long god damn time, full of tension and clever dilemmas. I mean if it isn’t one thing (crushed by dinos rolling down a hill) it’s another (head swallowed by giant prehistoric tube worm). And then when you get to New York you’re so emotionally involved in the big guy that it’s even better than the earlier part.

Of course, there is some amount of suspension of the ol’ disbelief involved. First of all, you gotta accept that when people get chased by various giant prehistoric monsters, they are gonna be able to get away most of the time, or at least make a good run for it with the lizardy fuckers snapping at their ass and not quite connecting. The Jason Voorhees principle. You also gotta accept that when people run under the feet of stampeding dinosaurs, only a bunch of them will get crushed. Not all of them. And you have to accept that cute little Naomi Watts can get tossed around like a hacky sack for days on end without losing consciousness or transforming herself into the purplest Naomi Watts-shaped walking bruise you’ve ever seen in your life. Also there may be one or two other very very minor violations of accepted scientific fact. I’m sure the experts on giant prehistoric insects will chime in in the talkbacks.

So you got all kinds of harrowing adventure and what not, but the real kicker on this movie is obviously the tragedy of the whole thing. I mean, clearly Ann Darrow has a bad day. First her theater gets shut down and she can’t afford food. Then she gets kidnapped by savages and manhandled by a giant gorilla and hangs off the teeth of a falling dinosaur (long story) and all this. But you gotta feel even more for Kong. Because what’s he supposed to do? There’s no winning for Kong. Yeah, so he loves a woman obtained under illicit circumstances. So what. I’m sure worse shit happens on Skull Island every day. Considering where he grew up, he’s a nice guy. And you’d probaly like Naomi Watts too if somebody gave her to you. So for the crime of love and/or gigantism he gets drugged up and taken to New York in chains and put on display. Nobody can blame him for escaping. I’m sure even the guy whose head he bit off in that one awesome part (spoiler) would understand.

So now here he is living in New York just trying to spend some time alone with his girl. This time it’s consensual so get over it, people. Get off his balls. Unfortunately, some people – like the United States Army to name one example – just can’t leave shit alone. They gotta shoot a dude just for being a giant ape. I mean come on people, we need to learn to work shit out without resorting to tommy guns and biplanes all the time. I’m sure if you told him he had to swim back to Skull Island he would give it a shot. Even though it would be bullshit.

What I’m saying is, this poor bastard is doomed. No way anybody’s gonna let him get back to Skull Island. No way anybody’s gonna let him just hang out on tall things and chill like he did at home. And trying to put giant clothes on and pass for human is probaly out of the question too although in my opinion that option is not adequately explored in the movie.

And THANK GOD Kong does not know that the dashing and charismatic Oscar winner Adrien Brody is waiting in the wings to come sweep up Ann Darrow as soon as Kong bites it. That shit would’ve KILLED Kong. If the biplanes didn’t. Which they did. Spoiler.

Anyway, this doomed relationship is very sweet and beautiful. A good giant ape romance. Obviously it’s not gonna work out real well physically and I don’t think Ann Darrow really digs him that way. Maybe it’s not a boyfriend girlfriend deal per se. I’m not sure which one is which one’s pet dog but whatever the deal is you can see why they dig each other. And they do a good job of portraying the whole romance with almost no dialogue at all. Alot of filmatists I think would be tempted to make Ann Darrow talk to Kong non-stop to explain her thoughts to the audience. “Oh no, put me down you big hairball!” and that sort of shit. Peter Jackson though obviously did his research because he knows that apes actually don’t speak English. So she doesn’t waste her time saying things to him that he’s not gonna comprende. The fact that it’s mostly non-verbal makes it all the more sweet and tragic.

I didn’t cry though, come on. Who do you take me for? But it’s a sweet movie.

Ah hell, I’m doin it. I’m goin all caps on this one. THIS IS A GREAT FUCKIN MOVIE. I’m not the world’s all time #1 greatest fan of hyperbole, but I think it’s safe to say this one is a classic, masterpiece, etc. It’s one of those movies that reminds you why you love movies, reminds you that it’s still possible to be amazed. This movie proves the old adage that “If Peter Jackson wants to do something, just let him fucking do it you shitheads.” Especially if that something is a $200 million 3-hour NC-17 sequel to BAD TASTE and that’s why he lost the weight, to reprise his role as Derek.

Seriously Harry, check out this movie, I think you would probaly dig it. Maybe you are not into giant ape movies or Peter Jackson movies as a rule but give it a shot, watch it with an open mind. Also Harry could you burn me a copy of Masters of Horror, I don’t want to pay for Showtime. Don’t tell Moriarty. Nah forget I said anything I’ll deal with this later. Anyway KING KONG motherfucker. KING KONG. That’s all I got to say.

thanks,

Vern

As always, Vern, you humble me. Great review. And I’m calling the cops right now, you pirating bastard. Errrrr… but mostly, great review.

“Moriarty” out.

Originally posted at Ain’t-It-Cool-News: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/22016

View the archived Ain’t-It-Cool-News Talkback

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:14 a.m. CST

    great review

    by jrcash

    Am I first?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:23 a.m. CST

    Good enough for me

    by JiggamanSpence

    that’s the review i needed. Harry, where the fuck is yours?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:30 a.m. CST

    When do we get Neill Cumpston’s review?

    by BeeDub

    C’mon, you know you’d wanna read it.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Thanks for telling it like it is!

    by Trazadone

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:48 a.m. CST

    Cheers Vern…

    by Zino

    …great review as always. Now bring on the haters!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Best line: “I don’t think they ever show him taking a shit o

    by Spacesheik

    Im *so* sold.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Nice one Vern! If I give you a CD can you burn me a copy of Mast

    by brokentusk

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Good Review.

    by RowanM

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:10 a.m. CST

    Best review I’ve read

    by Bean_

    Thanks Vern

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:11 a.m. CST

    God bless you Vern.

    by Mr Brownstone

    Every time you write a review an angel gets it’s wings.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:17 a.m. CST

    No masturbation?

    by RezE11even

    Count me out.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:19 a.m. CST

    What? Does he hock a loogie on the T-Rex?

    by BendersShinyAss

    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

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:20 a.m. CST

    I can’t believe reviews are still so good for this.

    by minderbinder

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:22 a.m. CST

    Nice review Vern

    by chrth

    I love the spoilers!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:24 a.m. CST

    “It would take a no good rat soup eating motherfucker to complai

    by DocPazuzu

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:27 a.m. CST

    This TalkBack…

    by DocPazuzu

    …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*

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:34 a.m. CST

    I was just gonna ask

    by dewijnboer

    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…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:47 a.m. CST

    YESSSSSSS!!!!

    by Blue_Demon

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:55 a.m. CST

    “King Kong” is the most racist film since “Birth of a Nation”

    by rev_skarekroe

    /runs away

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Fuck Kong. Vern is the bad motherfucker.

    by Brock DD Landers

    I want to see a 25 foot Vern protecting Naomi Watts…and jerking off too, of course.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Didnt SWEEP Golden Globes……

    by Audets70

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:07 a.m. CST

    I’ll pass on seeing Vern jerk off…

    by Alonzo Mosely

    Call me Non-Fruity McBoring, but I have no need of seeing Vern’s wang in action…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:14 a.m. CST

    I can forgive the GG Naomi snub because there was a little Rome

    by FluffyUnbound

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Vern. or Neil. Best Reviewer Ever? (not counting Mor) Discuss.

    by JasonPratt

    Always assuming one or both of them aren’t in fact Drew being a witty genius. Bonus discussion. {g}

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:39 a.m. CST

    “…to take him off the island (spoiler)” PRESENTED SO NONCHALAN

    by Solomon Kane

    VERN IS MY IDOL.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 8:45 a.m. CST

    Ebert : Four Stars “One of the year’s Very Best Films!”

    by Josef K

    This movie can’t open fast enough!!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:07 a.m. CST

    I also saw the movie-here is my take

    by jayberg

    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

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Thanks Vern!

    by Gilderoy

    You’re always a highlight.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes

    by zinc_chameleon

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Thanks Vern!

    by Gilderoy

    You’re always a highlight.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Thanks Vern!

    by Gilderoy

    You’re always a highlight.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:10 a.m. CST

    But… but … Vern likes DIE HARD … and Spike Lee movies.

    by havocSchultz

    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…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Wow, the movie show gave it 4 / 4 and a half

    by BendersShinyAss

    That australian movie show, And King Kong 33 was right after it. But once again, same complaints – long, slow to start, bad special effects.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:14 a.m. CST

    jayberg, you…

    by DocPazuzu

    …gloriously chlorophyllic bastard, you.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:16 a.m. CST

    “But… but … Vern likes DIE HARD”

    by DocPazuzu

    And so it begins, the great battle of our time.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Hello Ringbearer

    by dewijnboer

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:19 a.m. CST

    FIRST!!!

    by Overgod

    FIRST.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:27 a.m. CST

    But..but..didn’t Ringbearer like the Star Wars Prequels?

    by cyanide christ

    Twat.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Good point, cyanide christ

    by dewijnboer

    Very good point.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Jayberg – “Jackson keeps reinventing the cinema”… I don’t

    by Uncooked_Meat

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:36 a.m. CST

    OMG it just dawned on me

    by BendersShinyAss

    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

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:38 a.m. CST

    Hey I liked the prequels AND Die Hard

    by Uncle_Les

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:46 a.m. CST

    “Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy.” An oldie but

    by FluffyUnbound

    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”.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:55 a.m. CST

    “Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy”

    by Atticus Finch

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 9:57 a.m. CST

    “Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy.”

    by FluffyUnbound

    Doesn’t it just jump off the page?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:01 a.m. CST

    “Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy.”

    by DocPazuzu

    Why, yes it does.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:04 a.m. CST

    That review kicked ass

    by Mt. Top

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:06 a.m. CST

    “Jackson schooled Lucas on how to make a trilogy.”

    by BendersShinyAss

    look what I’ve done.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:07 a.m. CST

    Ringbearer

    by cyanide christ

    I must have mistaken you for another regular. You receive one free apology from the Cyanide Christ.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:07 a.m. CST

    Crap

    by BendersShinyAss

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:08 a.m. CST

    “And you’d probaly like Naomi Watts too if somebody gave her

    by Mike Nesmith

    LOL!!! [“laugh out loud” funny]. Nice one, bud.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:10 a.m. CST

    http://www.afunworld.com/political-pictures/picture-204.htm

    by BendersShinyAss

    what the hell is that fucking ‘hello’ ??

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:12 a.m. CST

    “I must have mistaken you for another regular.”

    by DocPazuzu

    No, you were right the first time. Ringbearer is a twat.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:16 a.m. CST

    http://www.lifeisajoke.com/cartoons69_html.htm

    by BendersShinyAss

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:17 a.m. CST

    DocPazuzu

    by cyanide christ

    Not denying the twat part. I just thought I remebered Ringbearer using Lucas to slam Jackson. Guess I might’ve been mistaken.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Thanks to the always entertaining Vern.

    by Nizzuts

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Ebert tells it like it t-i-z

    by Terry_1978

    You gripe when the man lambasts a geeky sacred cow on occasion, but dammit, there’s a reason he gets paid for this shit.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:21 a.m. CST

    I’m gonna be real geeky now…

    by Zino

    …so I apologise in advance – it’s not elfish, it’s elvish.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Wow, it was actually a triple post. Sorry everyone!

    by Gilderoy

    That’s all.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Owwww, gee. An insightful review

    by BendersShinyAss

    http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2005/12/king_kong.html

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:25 a.m. CST

    OH MY GOD!

    by BendersShinyAss

    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

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:31 a.m. CST

    FAUNICATING

    by blackwood

    Favourite new word. Vern writes a good review. Go monkey go.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:37 a.m. CST

    Who said it?

    by BendersShinyAss

    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’

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:37 a.m. CST

    I think your deliberate mistake was the part where you said:

    by FluffyUnbound

    “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.”

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:37 a.m. CST

    “This film is too Faunicating long”

    by BendersShinyAss

    for you blackwood

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:39 a.m. CST

    I wonder if Brody…

    by Lou Stools

    Pleasures women with his nose…wouldn’t be too bad as long as they’re having a “fresh day”.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Now there’s a scene for Jacksons planned low budget horror

    by BendersShinyAss

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Ringbearer, for the first time I whole heartedly disagree with y

    by BendersShinyAss

    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?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Ringbearer

    by cyanide christ

    I should probably do my homework before posting.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:46 a.m. CST

    When will Uwe Boll be making a movie out of the Kong game so Ver

    by Fred

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:53 a.m. CST

    “I liked LORD OF THE RINGS as much as the next guy, assuming the

    by BibFortuna

    HA HA!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:54 a.m. CST

    I said it before, but here it is again. 400 million domestic gro

    by Doom II

    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).

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:54 a.m. CST

    If Peter Jackson wants to do something, just let him fucking do

    by IAmLegolas

    Goddamn right. Peter Jackson’s playing on a level most will never see.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:54 a.m. CST

    I’ll wait to rent the DVD – the super extended version

    by ComputerGuy68

    you know he will do it…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Best Movies of All Time

    by Kentucky Colonel

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Jumping on the “Great Review Bandwagon”

    by Squashua

    Hee-yah, doggies! Off to the 3-hour movie!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Naomi Watts fans….

    by Doom II

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Kong has a beer and cheets on his wife!

    by Squashua

    Hee-yah! I meant the “Great Review, Vern!” Bandwagon.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:07 a.m. CST

    EBERT: “This is one of the great modern epics.”

    by Yojimbo Jones

    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051212/REVIEWS/51203002

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:09 a.m. CST

    the world’s all time #1 greatest fan of hyperbole…

    by wato

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Ringbearer…

    by Yojimbo Jones

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:11 a.m. CST

    WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY KENTUCKY COLONAL???

    by BendersShinyAss

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:12 a.m. CST

    happyhappyjoyjoy

    by Lolthien

    Ummm… was christopher reeve supposed to make a suprise visit to Middle Earth in his wheelchair?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:16 a.m. CST

    RINGBEARER9, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY???

    by BendersShinyAss

    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

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Watts don’t have didly on Lang OR Wray

    by BendersShinyAss

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:21 a.m. CST

    it’s ‘elvish,’ you bastard!

    by oisin5199

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Hilarious review Vern ol’ boy!

    by morGoth

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Thanks zino…

    by morGoth

    …I though I was going to have to make that point. Gets shot with Galadrim arrow…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Just once…

    by clownbot3000

    …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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:47 a.m. CST

    TIME Mag. just gave KONG the first outright pan.

    by LilOgre

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:47 a.m. CST

    You know

    by BendersShinyAss

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:49 a.m. CST

    And clownbot3000, you’ll be happy to note I didn’t say S

    by BendersShinyAss

    Oh, fuckit, damn shit!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST

    “TIME Mag. just gave KONG the first outright pan.”

    by DocPazuzu

    Watch Ringbearer9 now suddenly stand up for the integrity of these particular critics, based merely on their opinions.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST

    And I see I totally lied about not saying star wars after all

    by BendersShinyAss

    Fuck shit, damnit all

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Thanks Vern

    by victor laszlo

    I’m glad that that Ape mofo didn’t make you cry. He tried to get us, but we held strong.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Time magazine also named Bush ‘man of the year’

    by GingerTwit

    It’s owned by warner bros. It has an agenda

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST

    not only that, but Ebert devoted a full 4 minutes of his 22 minu

    by HypeEndsHere

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Very nice review Vern.

    by GingerTwit

    You’ve got me sold!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:57 a.m. CST

    “If David Lean can get Lawrance of Arabia told in less than 3 ho

    by minderbinder

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:58 a.m. CST

    GingerTwit

    by DocPazuzu

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Gingertwit – I agree they may be biased but…

    by LilOgre

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, noon CST

    marry me vern.

    by lopan

    vern is the best reviewer in history. fat clooney for prez.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Third “rotten” up on RT. And he uses the word “masturbatory”.

    by minderbinder

    That’s fucking awesome.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST

    I’m having a hard time finding it

    by GingerTwit

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:06 p.m. CST

    that’s fucking awesome minderbinder!

    by lopan

    i wish that three negative reviews of a popular movie could elicit the same overblown, boner-sprouting reaction from me.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Filmatists? You learn a new word everyday

    by Orionsangels

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Have you actually seen a Cow bow hat? they’re very rare.

    by GingerTwit

    Ringbearer9, are you saying you even do this stuff to the actual reviewers themselves as well as general public talkback?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:10 p.m. CST

    by victor laszlo

    I am humbled by a review of this magnitude. We stand in the shadow of Vern.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Oh, but Ringbearer…

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    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…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Hey Ringbearer, you’ll love this

    by BendersShinyAss

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1144008/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=4&rid=1464846

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:20 p.m. CST

    GingerTwit

    by DocPazuzu

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:20 p.m. CST

    getting sick of the Peter “Hack”son talk

    by oisin5199

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:22 p.m. CST

    “a no good rat soup eating motherfucker”

    by -guyinthebackrow

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:39 p.m. CST

    you know, hats off…

    by lopan

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Pazuzu, I didn’t make myself clear, for that I appologise

    by GingerTwit

    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?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:46 p.m. CST

    want to hear Ebert pitch the Kong Production Diaries?

    by HypeEndsHere

    http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Minderbinder? Minderbinder? R9, what is the deal, man?

    by BendersShinyAss

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:49 p.m. CST

    “I qualified my “trust” of Ebert…”

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Ooo, this film is “…too fucking long.”

    by morGoth

    …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…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:54 p.m. CST

    All is forgiven

    by BendersShinyAss

    Come here ya big lug!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:57 p.m. CST

    hey, morGoth, remember what you just typed while you watch Jimmy

    by HypeEndsHere

    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”.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Yeah Phantom menace was pretty shit.

    by BendersShinyAss

    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!!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 12:58 p.m. CST

    “sick sense of humor”

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1 p.m. CST

    “some people – like the United States Army to name one example –

    by Sir Loin

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:16 p.m. CST

    can i get a fat clooney?

    by lopan

    uh huh uh huh. FC for prez motherfuckers.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:19 p.m. CST

    You want KONG shorter?? Easey-peasy

    by ol’ painless

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Vern is the balls

    by docfalken

    Man can that fucker write.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Ringbearer9

    by DocPazuzu

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:38 p.m. CST

    “Spielberg would have cut Kong down to 120-130 and that 120 woul

    by performingmonkey

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:43 p.m. CST

    “When the CG is the highlight of the movie you know you’re i

    by HypeEndsHere

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 1:55 p.m. CST

    performingmonkey on quite performing on himself! War of the Worl

    by JarJar25

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:38 p.m. CST

    my response to Ringbearer

    by Vern

    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

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:41 p.m. CST

    and on Spielberg

    by Vern

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Hey Ringbearer9…

    by DocPazuzu

    …can you feel the ownage?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:49 p.m. CST

    hey Vern.

    by HypeEndsHere

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:49 p.m. CST

    GREAT response to ringbearer9 Vern.

    by Thirteen 13

    Standing ovation for that one.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Pretty good

    by Kaitain

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:51 p.m. CST

    “That’s what I expect most people will find at the movies.”

    by minderbinder

    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?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Vern On All Things Ringbearer

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    OUCH!!! Well, he did call down the thunder.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3 p.m. CST

    Now that’s a response. Nice work, Vern.

    by minderbinder

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Vern, why aren’t you relaxed enough to agree with HypeEndsHe

    by aikimoe

    bro? I mean, dude, you can’t be chilled and not KNOW what’s bad and what’s good, like Bro Hype. Bro.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:02 p.m. CST

    You know the porn industry is gonna do its own rendition of this

    by Doc_Strange

    King Dong. You heard it here first.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:02 p.m. CST

    and a couple more things while I’m at it

    by Vern

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:03 p.m. CST

    finally, a level-headed talkbacker

    by HypeEndsHere

    :) <—-emoticon. i just learned that.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Waah! Thanks for that spoiler HypeEndsHere! It’s all ruined.

    by morGoth

    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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:12 p.m. CST

    I BEG TO DIFFER!

    by nazismasher

    New York is rampant with giant worms and shit.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:15 p.m. CST

    hype ends here

    by Vern

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:22 p.m. CST

    this film is escapism at its best.

    by slappy jones

    go along for the ride…don’t expect it to cure cancer and you will love it…..my favourite film of the year…..

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Vern is god

    by mr jones

    all spoilers should be like this.

    Oh, and this is the only Kong review i’m actually paying attention to. Vern, I salute you!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Thanks Vern,

    by cyanide christ

    for looking out for our joy. Even the OCD’s gotta appreciate that.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Is a link available to the Time review?

    by FluffyUnbound

    I just browsed to it through the CNN portal and couldn’t find it.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Spielberg would have probably added some annoying little kid

    by Bong

    WHo somehow befriends Kong

    awwwww

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:39 p.m. CST

    my bad…….bro.

    by HypeEndsHere

    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

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:39 p.m. CST

    vern responds to the douche

    by ashhole

    …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!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:51 p.m. CST

    FluffyUnbound – The TIME Link

    by LilOgre

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1139824-1,00.html

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Time review…

    by DocPazuzu

    … or at least an abbreviated version of it: http://tinyurl.com/8g4vz

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Like Ringbearer is even going to respond to Vern

    by IAmLegolas

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Best Kong review I have read

    by MrCere

    Caught the movie twice in New York and Vern here is spot on.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Best Review to date

    by SoulReaver

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 5:07 p.m. CST

    ashhole and hype

    by Vern

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Vern

    by DocPazuzu

    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…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 5:27 p.m. CST

    *ahem*…

    by DocPazuzu

    …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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 5:56 p.m. CST

    King Long is a restaurant in my home town

    by HypeEndsHere

    i suggest the Chinese Pizza. (up here in Manhattan they call it a ‘Scalion Pancake’)

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Now THAT’S a review….

    by KurosawaDisciple

    …I’ve always liked Vern’s contributions to the site, but that may be his best review yet…nice job!!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:26 p.m. CST

    A Serious Question for Everyone Seeing this Before Me…

    by tonagan

    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…

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Tonagan

    by Vern

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Tonagan, I went while they were on the Island and Adrien Brody w

    by HypeEndsHere

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:06 p.m. CST

    why isn’t anyone taking jack black seriously in this dramati

    by jig98

    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.

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Quality of visual effects

    by Kaitain

    “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?)

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 7:38 p.m. CST

    It’s KING KONG Night! Watch the original 1933 version on TCM

    by Orionsangels

    Kong Rules!

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Question

    by Nesskid

    What’s a King Kong?

  • Dec. 13, 2005, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Once again haters, GEORGE LUCAS is a better director than PETER

    by Hideo Kojima

    *slows down the talkback and plays enya*

  • Dec. 14, 2005, midnight CST

    What’s King Kong?

    by Orionsangels

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:05 a.m. CST

    Paul Clinton, CNN: “If the ‘Rings’ trilogy didn’t co

    by drompter

    LOL!!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:24 a.m. CST

    Was just at Wellington Premiere.

    by RowanM

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:41 a.m. CST

    to Kaitain

    by Vern

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:47 a.m. CST

    What a year!!!

    by Lamerz

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:04 a.m. CST

    Reply to Vern

    by Kaitain

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:37 a.m. CST

    Kaitain here’s some advice

    by half vader

    Go to a library or bookshop and look in the art section for an artist named Gustave Dor

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:46 a.m. CST

    Great Movie

    by Yessah

    Just got back. Was floored. And in all honesty, I think the 3 hrs. flew by.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Jurassic Kong was too long

    by Sam Raimi’s Car

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:51 a.m. CST

    Hello HV

    by Kaitain

    “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.)

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:01 a.m. CST

    Wow you haters are losers

    by BRUTICUS

    Just enjoy a good movie and give credit where credit is due.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:23 a.m. CST

    *looks at moviemack*

    by DocPazuzu

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:27 a.m. CST

    Too long

    by darthbinks1220

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Yeah I just got back myself.

    by Thirteen 13

    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?

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:58 a.m. CST

    ‘Don’t mistake poor implementation for artistry’

    by half vader

    Hang on, wasn’t that what I was saying to you? And precisely why I was saying to look at Dor

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Kaitain is spot on

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:33 a.m. CST

    PJ’s “KING KONG” Not The 400 LB Gorilla It Could Have Been (

    by Chishu_Ryu

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:52 a.m. CST

    I just seen the 12:00 am showing and it was amazing.

    by L.H.Puttgrass

    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?

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5 a.m. CST

    By the way…

    by L.H.Puttgrass

    … 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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:06 a.m. CST

    Special Effects are only as good as…

    by RowanM

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:14 a.m. CST

    Dangit happyhappy, that was, like, SOOOO three years ago.

    by morGoth

    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 {[;^)

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:28 a.m. CST

    …also happyhappy…

    by morGoth

    …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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:35 a.m. CST

    My 2 Bits

    by Wellesian

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 6:51 a.m. CST

    “(copped from either Pauline Kael or Rudy Ray Moore, I can’t

    by Mike Nesmith

    HEE HEE!! Nice one, bud!!!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Gheorghe

    by half vader

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 7:57 a.m. CST

    A dirty fighting move? Does he stand on his hands…

    by JackPumpkinhead

    …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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Who’s this Vern dude?

    by BDT

    witty style, humor–almost like an alter ego for a Stephen King/Dave Barry pair. Enjoyed this review immensely. Thanks for “sharing”.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Have we learned nothing from Kong?

    by Vern

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:44 p.m. CST

    and hopefully that crazy bitch won’t be sitting behind me th

    by Vern

    “Mosquito!” “Worms!” Yes, we know, we are also watching the movie. You don’t have to blurt out all the different words you know.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Die Hard is still the shit 17 years (?) later!

    by Lamerz

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Best part of the usual suspect of bitchers here at AICN

    by Bass Ackwards

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Where did Ringbearer go?

    by IAmLegolas

    Oh that’s right, out watching KONG.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:33 p.m. CST

    “It’s not the film’s fault if you’re jaded by overex

    by Kaitain

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:40 p.m. CST

    The winner, and still undisputed reviewing champeen…

    by Hamish

    Ladies and Germs, I give you… VERN!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 1:44 p.m. CST

    btw

    by Kaitain

    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?

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:14 p.m. CST

    So let me get this straight…Ringbearer, you took a day off wor

    by minderbinder

    What a fucking loser.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Ringbearer, Kong, and the Sound of Inevitability

    by Mr Nice Gaius

    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?!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Nice Review, Vern

    by WHALEBLUBBER

    More like this please!!!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:08 p.m. CST

    It really does

    by cocolopez

    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?

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 3:30 p.m. CST

    KONG IS NOT TO LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by K. G. Mahjongg

    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!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:05 p.m. CST

    you get your moneys worth with this film

    by slappy jones

    great escapism. fantastic movie. seen it twice….seeing again tomorrow.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Okay K. G., I guess you liked it too.

    by L.H.Puttgrass

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 4:45 p.m. CST

    “I don’t think they ever show him taking a shit or masturbat

    by Judge Doom

    That

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Again a great entertaining review by Vern. THX, man!

    by CurryIce

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Hey Kaitain

    by half vader

    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.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Well, maybe so

    by Kaitain

    (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 unprotected. Of course, this feels like a real stretch, but then it also feels like a real stretch to imagine a God who kills your wife to save you and your children in a bizarre circuitous way, yet that seems like one rational interpretation of the plot. Or you can say that the whole thing is deliberately ambiguous, leaving you as a member of the audience to make up your mind whether or not you see coincidences or patterns. Bla bla etc.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 9:30 p.m. CST

    KONG LONG?

    by ZombieSolutions

    KONG BONG!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 9:31 p.m. CST

    DING DONG KING KONG SING SONG!!!

    by ZombieSolutions

    KONG KONG KONGITY KONG KONG KONG!!!

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Too Long?!?

    by BDT

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Not too long.

    by BDT

    that’s all.

    It’s all fun and entertainment, great story telling. Not too long.

  • Dec. 14, 2005, 10:12 p.m. CST

    FUCK THIS SITE…

    by DarthBen

    …I just saw KING KONG, and if V For Vendetta is anything short of a masterpiece of sci-fi cinema, then I suggest those of us more fair-minded people permenantly say FUCK THIS WEBSITE.

    It’s obvious that Harry is a Kong-o-phile as well as a Peter Jackson fan. The fact that Peter Jackson made a Kong film should have had Harry doing back flips. The fact that Peter Jackson’s KING KONG is one of the best adventure films ever made should have given Harry a fatal heart attack.

    King Kong is that good. So I’m wondering, either V For Vendetta really is a MASTERPIECE, or Harry has let his Austin-Liberal leanings infect his mind and this website to a devestatingly unfair degree. It sounds like Harry and his hounds just ate V up because of the anti-Bush parallels they can geek out over. But come on, Harry. KING KONG is a film for the ages. Either V is THAT GOOD or you have dicked P.J. over so you can do just a little more W. hating.

    P.S. I kinda hope V is that good.

  • Dec. 15, 2005, 12:48 a.m. CST

    I hereby take back calling PJ “Hackson,” and I proclaim KONG one

    by The_Lion

    Ok, back to Kong. SPECTACULAR. Plain and simple, this is the best movie made in many years. I doubted Jackson and derided him on this site as “Hackson” for many month, but now I take it all back and swear allegiance to Jackson. *BOWS* Kong will probably beat SITH for the FX Oscar, and that’s saying something. Kong is what movie making is all about. The T-Rex triple-beatdown had me wide-eyed and fucking mumbling out loud. As of right now, Peter Jackson must be considered the top dog… the king of directors. Even Spielberg will have to polish Jackson’s shoes after Kong. The only director who might be able to overthrow Jackson at this point, is James Cameron with Battle Angel, but we’ll see. It will be hard to top Kong anytime soon, even for Cameron. Lucas is finished for the time being, Spielberg is washed up, and there is no one to really compare with what Jackson has achieved in the last 5 years or so, culminating with Kong. PS..fuck jayberg… is “review” was gay as fuck, and no one is interested in reading that whack shit, you fag.

  • Dec. 15, 2005, 2:57 a.m. CST

    My KING KONG review!

    by autobahnmessiah

    AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 15, 2005, 5 a.m. CST

    to my dear friend Ringbearer

    by Vern

    Wow bud you got me dumbfounded, I don’t even know what to think. I REALLY thought you were gonna love this thing. I know you despise Peter Jackson in every possible way and have devoted hundreds of hours of your life to spreading the word about how KING KONG was gonna suck but I don’t know man, I thought you would flip. I thought this was the one. I do need to clear up one thing though bud. I actually did love this fucking movie. It might seem weird but I am the type of guy who writes what I actually think about the movie and does not take part in complicated conspiracies using “humor” and “lies” to trick you into seeing a movie that I actually think is horrible. Also the jews and blacks were not involved in any such conspiracy to answer your next question. What I would do in the situation where the movie was bad is, I would say that in the review. It’s actually alot funner and easier to review a terrible movie so that would’ve actually helped me out. Anyway I feel just terrible about this whole thing because clearly you would not have waited in line for hours with a huge boner to see the midnight showing of this movie if not for my review. I mean obviously you weren’t waiting anxiously for months to see this movie at the first possible second. So I’m sorry. If only there was something I could do. I wish to God I had warned you that there is apparently some sort of flaw in the lowering of a lifeboat or some insane nitpicky bullshit that I didn’t notice but that you did notice and somehow overshadowed the beautiful relationship between Kong and Ann for you. If I could take it all back, if I could do it all over again, I would bud. I just thought you were the anti-Spike Lee lunatic, I didn’t know you had it in for any whites. If I knew about your Peter Jackson thing obviously I would’ve included a disclaimer, something like “If you devote every ounce of your soul to proving that this movie sucks, you will be the one asshole who notices some flaw in the lowering of the lifeboat.” Also if there were any coded messages about the historic crimes of the white race I apologize. Anyway bud I am so sorry. SOOOOOO god damn sorry. The movie didn’t make me cry but you have made me cry. If there’s any way I can make it up to you I will. I will take you to see a midnight show of The Inside Man if you want and you can dictate your notes to me during the movie. We’re gonna work this out buddy I promise. I hope we are still brothers. I love you Ringbearer. If you want we can meet in a black community somewhere to watch the Lord of the Rings extended editions before we give King Kong another shot. And who are we fooling bud you will be seeing it again so you can add more items to your list. thanks Ringbearer you’re the best. your friend Vern. p.s. also we can watch Die Hard together

  • Dec. 15, 2005, 11:12 a.m. CST

    I just don’t know who to believe?

    by BendersShinyAss

    Every one seems to say this film is nuts. Only difference is some people like it, some don’t.

  • Dec. 15, 2005, 11:35 a.m. CST

    *applauds Vern*

    by dewijnboer

    That was almost too funny, man! Great stuff. Who said Richard Pryor is dead? He lives, and his name is Vern.

  • Dec. 16, 2005, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Kong is visually administered anesthetic……..

    by darthbinks1220

    Very potent.

    Comparing Jackson to Lucas, Spielberg, and Cameron is insulting to the latter trio of helmers.

    PJ has yet to learn in any of his films ‘less is more’. At least when Cameron goes bananas, it’s on a historical epic, not a monster movie.

    Spielberg is the greatest director ever. ’nuff said.

    As for that Lucas guy. He’s only responsible for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, even the quality of The Godfather. See, Coppola said Inside the Actors studio that when George ran American Zoetrope, he insisted Francis do the mafia flick. He insisted firmly.

    So let’s see. Lucas: Star Wars, Indy, Godfather, No Oscar, no problem

    Cameron: True Lies, Abyss S.E., Aliens, T1, T2 (I forgive him for craptanic)

    Spielberg: Raiders, Schindler’s,……. you get the idea.

    And now Jackson: FOTR, TTT, ROTK, KK, ……. hmmn. Those four flicks are all over three hours long. Boring. Depressing. Grotesque, dirt-covered, and ridiculously overrated.

    Yep, I’ve got my pecking order now…… 1)Lucas(even w/ Jar Jar), 2)Spielberg, 3)Cameron, 142)Jackson

  • Dec. 16, 2005, 2:45 a.m. CST

    I take it every time someone said Christopher Reeve, They meant

    by Shan

    … and I thought the Jason Vorhees principle was that no matter how fast someone is running away, they will always be caught by a killer merely walking briskly after them.

  • Dec. 16, 2005, 2:50 a.m. CST

    Voorhees

    by Shan

    forgot that extra ‘o’. …

  • Dec. 16, 2005, 2:57 a.m. CST

    darthbinks1220, either you are trolling, or you live in never-ne

    by The_Lion

    I loved SITH, but KONG is just better. Both movie had awesome effects and great stories, but KONG was able to get more of an emotional response. Yes, I was shocked when Anakin got chopped up at the end, but I was much more emotionally invested in King Kong by the time he took his fall. Until Cameron steps up the plate (nice 10 year break…)… until that time, Jackson is now top dog.

  • Dec. 16, 2005, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Shan and others

    by Vern

    You’re right about the Voorhees Principle. I was considering the fact that a runner can continue to run their ass off with Jason staying just behind them with minimal effort. But of course the important factor is not the running, it’s the catching. The dinosaurs aren’t gonna catch Adrien Brody but Jason sure as shit is gonna catch whoever he’s following. So you’re absolutely right and I apologize for that one. Also while I’m at it I would like to request to the others: NO MORE FUCKING DIRECTOR COMPETITIONS. Every motherfucker has to pit Lucas, Spielberg and Jackson against each other like they’re rock em sock em robots. Fuck that. Anybody that actually loves movies is able to watch movies by more than one director. I know it’s weird but I can prove it. 1. Die Hard. 2. Point Blank. Both are by different directors and yet both are beloved masterpieces that only a chump would cut down. So cut it out, fuckers. Besides, if you HAVE to have that type of director battle royale you should at least include the top guys in there like Sergio Leone, Akira Kurosawa, and maybe that other guy. I mean come on. There were movies before Star Wars, in my opinion.

  • Dec. 16, 2005, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Vern

    by Shan

    Let me just say that as always, your reviews are amongst the most entertaining, if not the most entertaining on this site. A question, will you be coming back to straight to video releases? I hear American Pie Band Camp is an absolute disgrace and Bring It On Again has no good reason to even exist, for starters …

  • Dec. 16, 2005, 8:25 a.m. CST

    I see

    by dewijnboer

    that Cockring9 has stiil not answered to you Vern. I guess he feels the ownage…

VERN has been reviewing movies since 1999 and is the author of the books SEAGALOGY: A STUDY OF THE ASS-KICKING FILMS OF STEVEN SEAGAL, YIPPEE KI-YAY MOVIEGOER!: WRITINGS ON BRUCE WILLIS, BADASS CINEMA AND OTHER IMPORTANT TOPICS and NIKETOWN: A NOVEL. His horror-action novel WORM ON A HOOK will arrive later this year.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 13th, 2005 at 7:05 am and is filed under AICN, Monster, Reviews, Romance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “The Very First KING KONG Review… That Is Written By Vern!!”

  1. You didn’t cry? Heartless bastard.

  2. Holy crap. That last kiss-off to Ringbearer was the most devastating takedown I’ve ever seen. It’s almost better that you can’t read Ringbearer’s side. You just have to hear second-hand reports. It’s like some crazy horror movie you only saw stills of in Fangoria. The real thing will never equal what you pictured in your head.

    “We’re gonna work this out buddy I promise. I hope we are still brothers.” I’m actually laughing out loud like you read about.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <img src=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <b> <i> <strike> <em> <strong>