Films/DVD Asylum

You mean your post? Although I wouldn't describe your comment as "colossal" by any stretch of the imagination!

67.173.212.229

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Audiophilander

(A)

In Reply to: A Pointless and Colossal Bore! nt. posted by WinthorpeIII on December 14, 2005 at 15:21:06:

You arer certainly entitled to express your informed opinion, but Peter Jackson's KING KONG is brilliant entertainment! My wife and I saw it this afternoon and LOVED it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
One question: Have you seen this film and found it lacking or are you just blowing smoke because you don't like the idea that it was made in the first place? Your short take suggests the latter.
AuPh

Follow Ups:

you are wrong and easily amused - WinthorpeIII 08:25:18 12/15/05 (6)
Thanks for the uncalled for insults. Your assumptions are as off as your taste.
I did see the film yesterday and found it utterly tiresome. The first hour was completely missable. The CGI was not entertaining to me at all. There was little interesting or to care about with the characters, it was painfully slow moving, had very little depth of story, and Kong was not particularly sympathetic. Jack Black's line at the end of the movie was completely laughable.
How anyone with any level of experience can be so amused by this sad effort is beyond me.
- For what it's worth, The New Yorker's reviewer slams it in this issue. nt - tinear 12:53:06 12/15/05 (1)
  as
  - David Denby is also in the minority of 1st string critics over at Rotten Tomatoes, but... - Audiophilander 15:11:48 12/15/05 (0)
    ... I wouldn't go so far as to call his marginally negative review a SLAM. Conversely, it comes across as rather tepid, to use a better analogy. His criticism hedges, evoking a feeling of underlying admiration for Jackson's achievement at the same time as he dissects aspects of the film he finds overly long or problematic.
    AuPh
- "Thanks for the uncalled for insults." - I was being polite, if you want insults I can oblige though. - Audiophilander 11:44:39 12/15/05 (3)
  > > > "Thanks for the uncalled for insults. Your assumptions are as off as your taste." < < <
  I asked you a sincere question because there are folks around here who do "blow smoke" when it comes to reviewing movies they haven't seen; apparently they do this because they don't care for the subject matter and want to stick their two cents worth in. I wasn't judging you, just asking for more than a cursory blow-off of the movie.
  > > > "I did see the film yesterday and found it utterly tiresome. The first hour was completely missable. The CGI was not entertaining to me at all. There was little interesting or to care about with the characters, it was painfully slow moving, had very little depth of story, and Kong was not particularly sympathetic. Jack Black's line at the end of the movie was completely laughable." < < <
  Well you are entitled to your informed opinion even if, in my not-so-humble informed opinion you're dead WRONG! While Jack Black's performance isn't Academy Award material Naomi Watts ability to play against the CGI Kong may very well be; this was absolutely brilliant acting, IMO. Kong was seemlessly rendered, some of the best CGI work I've ever seen or could imagine. Peter Jackson has created a new benchmark for future CGI effects, in my estimation, but that's secondary to the majesty of this film.
  Yes it was slow moving and probably could've used a little judicious editing, but I personally liked the longer shipboard character development because it made deaths of crewmen on Skull Island that much more poignant.
  > > > "How anyone with any level of experience can be so amused by this sad effort is beyond me." < < <
  Well, you know, some of us creative types do have a greater imagination, but since I have no idea what you're background for appreciating the arts is like I'll reserve judgment! ;^)
  AuPh
  - naomi watts was a pleasure to watch. - WinthorpeIII 11:52:26 12/15/05 (2)
    I might have dozed off otherwise.
    Here's a review more in line with my take.
    - SF Chronicle Review (Open in New Window)
    - The review is pretty long too... nt - clarkjohnsen 14:50:35 12/15/05 (0)
      a
    - The review isn't totally in error, but the reviewer IMIO is wrong. - Audiophilander 14:46:46 12/15/05 (0)
      Kong may just have to pay a visit to the SF Chronicle and straighten a few folks out. The "giant penises with teeth" are obviously related to leeches; this sounds a bit like a personal problem the SF Chronicle critic may have had instead of a CGI faux pas in the film. ;^)
      The additional backstory given to secondary characters adds even more humanity to the story and the exploitive nature of the Carl Denham character. Their lives did mean something, at least to me, as I actually found their sacrifices more poignant than if they were treated as merely incidental collateral loss to Denham's dreams of success.
      BTW, I'll see your SF Chronicle review and raise you over a 120 from Rotten Tomatoes (nearly 85% positive):
      KING KONG (Open in New Window)
Thanks for the rec. Dragging Mrs. Warrior - Road Warrior 06:00:36 12/15/05 (0)
to it this weekend. I'll have to pay in spades but wtf. Upcoming films at the Angelica look OK anyway (But I'd never tell her that)
----------------------------------------------------------

"Do I have to spell it out?
C --- H ---- E ---E ---- S --- E
A --- N --- D
O ---- N ---- I ---- O ---- N ---- S"

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

The Cable Cooker

You can not post to an archived thread.