Top 10 Reasons Why


1. At 3 hours, it

7 Comments so far

  1. tankboy (unregistered) on January 3rd, 2006 @ 6:32 pm

    Whoah Nikkos, I totally (surprise!) disagree with you on 9 of those 10 points. You are waaaay off the mark but, meh, an opinion’s a an opinion.

    However you hit the nail on the head with the slo-mo/shakey-cam shit. That was totally bogus.

  2. steven (unregistered) on January 3rd, 2006 @ 8:01 pm

    I havent yet seen the movie, but #11 should be that screenshot…no wonder you thought it sucked.

  3. Doug (unregistered) on January 3rd, 2006 @ 10:55 pm

    #12. It’s been done twice before. Everybody’s already seen at least one of the earlier versions. Nothing new to see here. The only thing this movie is good for is to show a snapshot of what hollywood’s idea of a feature flick is at the time it was made. If we made it again in another ten years made it would incorporate audience participation (“Kong kills everyone!”). Perhaps we should make a sucky Kong movie every decade, like Godzilla (“Kong vs. Godzilla? Box Office Gold!”).

    One point in Kong’s favor:
    #1. Most of the other movies out now suck too, or are in limited release, or are about gay cowboys (“Kong humps Godzilla? Oscar Gold!”).

  4. nikkos (unregistered) on January 4th, 2006 @ 8:43 am

    Tank, just out of curiosity, what did you like about the movie?

  5. Will (unregistered) on January 4th, 2006 @ 11:33 pm

    Nikkos, type that out a hundred times, replace “King Kong” with “Return of the King” and get set on fire by every friend with an LJ account, and you’ll be me two years ago.

    Though I’ve enjoyed parts of most Jackson films, he gets so heavy-handed and patronizing and ridiculous sometimes that I just can’t bear the praise (or Oscars) he gets. Return of the King is so ham-fisted and clumsy that I couldn’t take it seriously by the end. King Kong was certainly better than that.

    Of course, I’ll enjoy any movie with a dinosaur and a Tommy gun in it, so I’m a big hypocrite.

  6. nikkos (unregistered) on January 5th, 2006 @ 9:22 am

    Apparently Tank is too, ahem, modest to direct our readers to his own review of King Kong, so here’s the link:

    Did you really almost cry? And I don’t mean that in a snarky, real-men-don’t-cry-at-CGI kind of way. I mean- did you really find the story that moving? Why?

    I think that whether one likes this movie or not really hinges on whether you buy the relationship between Kong and Anne (Naomi Watts). I didn’t buy the relationship, therefore there was little else in the film to hold my interest other than the action sequences.

    When I say I didn’t buy the relationship, what I mean is that the film did not help me understand or appreciate Kong’s or Anne’s motivation. I also do not think this angle was developed enough to really set the hook. Yes, I get Kong is lonely, and tired of eating ugly orcs. Yes, I get that Anne has a sense that she has some greater destiny than Vaudeville. I just found that the film’s solution- bring Ann and Kong together- didn’t really work.

  7. Neil King (unregistered) on February 19th, 2006 @ 11:29 am

    Please send the July 2006 dates and location of the Godzilla conference.

    Thnks in advance.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.