In Reply to: You mean your post? Although I wouldn't describe your comment as "colossal" by any stretch of the imagination! posted by Audiophilander on December 14, 2005 at 22:11:53:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- you are wrong and easily amused - WinthorpeIII 08:25:18 12/15/05 (6)
- For what it's worth, The New Yorker's reviewer slams it in this issue. nt - tinear 12:53:06 12/15/05 (1)
- David Denby is also in the minority of 1st string critics over at Rotten Tomatoes, but... - Audiophilander 15:11:48 12/15/05 (0)
- "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)
- naomi watts was a pleasure to watch. - WinthorpeIII 11:52:26 12/15/05 (2)
- The review is pretty long too... nt - clarkjohnsen 14:50:35 12/15/05 (0)
- The review isn't totally in error, but the reviewer IMIO is wrong. - Audiophilander 14:46:46 12/15/05 (0)