Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Jul 17, 2025 7:48 pm



Reply to topic  [ 544 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 22  Next
 King Kong (2005) 

What grade would you give this film?
A 60%  60%  [ 68 ]
B 23%  23%  [ 26 ]
C 9%  9%  [ 10 ]
D 2%  2%  [ 2 ]
F 7%  7%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 114

 King Kong (2005) 
Author Message
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Mav, you're going to die when you read my review. I wrote it this morning but it hasn't been edited yet for the main site.

I struggled with the word cheesy but I eventually found the word I was looking for.


Is the word... Amazing???

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:46 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
ChipMunky wrote:
ok... I'm taking Zing's advice... mostly...

You're too in love with:

1. Action
2. Star Wars
3. Dinosaurs

Oh, and Zingy... Sam Jackson got EATEN in Deep Blue Sea...

Yup, I love those three things. I also like Godzilla (not that 1998 piece of shit film). Godzilla could own King Kong.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:46 pm
Profile YIM WWW
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post 
Zingaling wrote:
Did we all forget LL Cool J?! He survived.

:unsure:


Not ALL black guys die... just one has to die... as long as on does... the movie is right... :)

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:47 pm
Profile
Post 
ChipMunky wrote:
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Mav, you're going to die when you read my review. I wrote it this morning but it hasn't been edited yet for the main site.

I struggled with the word cheesy but I eventually found the word I was looking for.


Is the word... Amazing???


Not exactly.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:48 pm
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
Zingaling wrote:
Did we all forget LL Cool J?! He survived.

:unsure:

Yes but the fact remains a black guy still died. Hell, every movie that has a few black people the black person usually dies. For example in Pulp Fiction Marvin died even though he was a minor character. Same with The Matrix, the black dude who was protecting his brother was pretty much fried. Mufasa was voiced by James Earl Jones (a black guy) and was killed off like nothing. Even if the black dude is a voice actor their character will most likely be killed off! Black people should rebel against Hollywood!


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:49 pm
Profile YIM WWW
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post 
Star Wars wrote:
Zingaling wrote:
Did we all forget LL Cool J?! He survived.

:unsure:

Yes but the fact remains a black guy still died. Hell, every movie that has a few black people the black person usually dies. For example in Pulp Fiction Marvin died even though he was a minor character. Same with The Matrix, the black dude who was protecting his brother was pretty much fried. Mufasa was voiced by James Earl Jones (a black guy) and was killed off like nothing. Even if the black dude is a voice actor their character will most likely be killed off! Black people should rebel against Hollywood!


And the black guy in Kong was pretty much the ONLY black guy... so they had to kill him

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:50 pm
Profile
College Boy Z

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
Post 
Well, there's always...

[spoil]Mindhunters.

LL Cool J was the only black person, and he lived.[/spoil]


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:51 pm
Profile
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post 
Zingaling wrote:
Well, there's always...

[spoil]Mindhunters.

LL Cool J was the only black person, and he lived.[/spoil]


LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:53 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:54 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: New Zealand
Post 
Nebs wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
5. Why bring back Kong when you can bring back those awesome Dinosaurs? Wow, a giant monkey? Pass. A big ass Dinosaur? HELL YEAH.


Heh, this always troubled me. I'd think level of interest would be much higher to see dinosaurs than Kong...though, having not seen '33 or '05 versions, might be explained why they took Kong over them.


Just a general observation and not a response to Star Wars' review as such (he pans most films and makes me wonder why he even bothers going to the theatre when there's such a high probability of experiencing a horrible film), but in response to that question: Wasn't the only reason they took anything back because Denham thought Kong's desire to have Anne would give him the unique opportunity of luring him out of the jungle to where, away from the rest of the island's dangers, they could take him down on their own terms? It seems to me that it would be hard dragging a dinosaur through the jungle to the shore with everything else attacking around them. Kong was the only real chance they had, no?

_________________
Cut My Milk!


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:55 pm
Profile WWW
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
Amos wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
5. Why bring back Kong when you can bring back those awesome Dinosaurs? Wow, a giant monkey? Pass. A big ass Dinosaur? HELL YEAH.


Heh, this always troubled me. I'd think level of interest would be much higher to see dinosaurs than Kong...though, having not seen '33 or '05 versions, might be explained why they took Kong over them.


Just a general observation and not a response to Star Wars' review as such (he pans most films and makes me wonder why he even bothers going to the theatre when there's such a high probability of experiencing a horrible film), but in response to that question: Wasn't the only reason they took anything back because Denham thought Kong's desire to have Anne would give him the unique opportunity of luring him out of the jungle to where, away from the rest of the island's dangers, they could take him down on their own terms? It seems to me that it would be hard dragging a dinosaur through the jungle to the shore with everything else attacking around them. Kong was the only real chance they had, no?

1. I went with my friend. Otherwise I would have been bored the whole day.

2. Well, I'd say that too but they could've just went home, sold everything they owned to get a bigger ship, go back, use tons of clorophil (sp) and take back a big dinosaur or do more exploring (with better infaltry of course) and then take the sucker back home. All it required was a little patience and money. But why bring back and oversized gorilla when you can bring back something that was supposedly dead 65 million years ago but now has evolved? That would rule.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:57 pm
Profile YIM WWW
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post 
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
5. Why bring back Kong when you can bring back those awesome Dinosaurs? Wow, a giant monkey? Pass. A big ass Dinosaur? HELL YEAH.


Heh, this always troubled me. I'd think level of interest would be much higher to see dinosaurs than Kong...though, having not seen '33 or '05 versions, might be explained why they took Kong over them.


Just a general observation and not a response to Star Wars' review as such (he pans most films and makes me wonder why he even bothers going to the theatre when there's such a high probability of experiencing a horrible film), but in response to that question: Wasn't the only reason they took anything back because Denham thought Kong's desire to have Anne would give him the unique opportunity of luring him out of the jungle to where, away from the rest of the island's dangers, they could take him down on their own terms? It seems to me that it would be hard dragging a dinosaur through the jungle to the shore with everything else attacking around them. Kong was the only real chance they had, no?

1. I went with my friend. Otherwise I would have been bored the whole day.

2. Well, I'd say that too but they could've just went home, sold everything they owned to get a bigger ship, go back, use tons of clorophil (sp) and take back a big dinosaur or do more exploring (with better infaltry of course) and then take the sucker back home. All it required was a little patience and money. But why bring back and oversized gorilla when you can bring back something that was supposedly dead 65 million years ago but now has evolved? That would rule.


2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN AFFORD THE BOAT THEY WERE USING!!!

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:59 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
ChipMunky wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
5. Why bring back Kong when you can bring back those awesome Dinosaurs? Wow, a giant monkey? Pass. A big ass Dinosaur? HELL YEAH.


Heh, this always troubled me. I'd think level of interest would be much higher to see dinosaurs than Kong...though, having not seen '33 or '05 versions, might be explained why they took Kong over them.


Just a general observation and not a response to Star Wars' review as such (he pans most films and makes me wonder why he even bothers going to the theatre when there's such a high probability of experiencing a horrible film), but in response to that question: Wasn't the only reason they took anything back because Denham thought Kong's desire to have Anne would give him the unique opportunity of luring him out of the jungle to where, away from the rest of the island's dangers, they could take him down on their own terms? It seems to me that it would be hard dragging a dinosaur through the jungle to the shore with everything else attacking around them. Kong was the only real chance they had, no?

1. I went with my friend. Otherwise I would have been bored the whole day.

2. Well, I'd say that too but they could've just went home, sold everything they owned to get a bigger ship, go back, use tons of clorophil (sp) and take back a big dinosaur or do more exploring (with better infaltry of course) and then take the sucker back home. All it required was a little patience and money. But why bring back and oversized gorilla when you can bring back something that was supposedly dead 65 million years ago but now has evolved? That would rule.


2. THEY COULDN'T EVEN AFFORD THE BOAT THEY WERE USING!!!


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:01 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:54 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: New Zealand
Post 
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
5. Why bring back Kong when you can bring back those awesome Dinosaurs? Wow, a giant monkey? Pass. A big ass Dinosaur? HELL YEAH.


Heh, this always troubled me. I'd think level of interest would be much higher to see dinosaurs than Kong...though, having not seen '33 or '05 versions, might be explained why they took Kong over them.


Just a general observation and not a response to Star Wars' review as such (he pans most films and makes me wonder why he even bothers going to the theatre when there's such a high probability of experiencing a horrible film), but in response to that question: Wasn't the only reason they took anything back because Denham thought Kong's desire to have Anne would give him the unique opportunity of luring him out of the jungle to where, away from the rest of the island's dangers, they could take him down on their own terms? It seems to me that it would be hard dragging a dinosaur through the jungle to the shore with everything else attacking around them. Kong was the only real chance they had, no?

1. I went with my friend. Otherwise I would have been bored the whole day.

2. Well, I'd say that too but they could've just went home, sold everything they owned to get a bigger ship, go back, use tons of clorophil (sp) and take back a big dinosaur or do more exploring (with better infaltry of course) and then take the sucker back home. All it required was a little patience and money. But why bring back and oversized gorilla when you can bring back something that was supposedly dead 65 million years ago but now has evolved? That would rule.


Perhaps, until Kong's escape, if Kong had proved to be a financially viable attraction Denham may have had such a plan to get the funding for a mission like that, its just completely irrelevant to the film's story when the idea that on this particular mission they DID have the ability to take Kong back with them if nothing else is perfectly viable. Wouldn't an opportunist like Denham take advantage of the chance to take Kong even if he was to return later?

_________________
Cut My Milk!


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:04 pm
Profile WWW
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
Amos wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
5. Why bring back Kong when you can bring back those awesome Dinosaurs? Wow, a giant monkey? Pass. A big ass Dinosaur? HELL YEAH.


Heh, this always troubled me. I'd think level of interest would be much higher to see dinosaurs than Kong...though, having not seen '33 or '05 versions, might be explained why they took Kong over them.


Just a general observation and not a response to Star Wars' review as such (he pans most films and makes me wonder why he even bothers going to the theatre when there's such a high probability of experiencing a horrible film), but in response to that question: Wasn't the only reason they took anything back because Denham thought Kong's desire to have Anne would give him the unique opportunity of luring him out of the jungle to where, away from the rest of the island's dangers, they could take him down on their own terms? It seems to me that it would be hard dragging a dinosaur through the jungle to the shore with everything else attacking around them. Kong was the only real chance they had, no?

1. I went with my friend. Otherwise I would have been bored the whole day.

2. Well, I'd say that too but they could've just went home, sold everything they owned to get a bigger ship, go back, use tons of clorophil (sp) and take back a big dinosaur or do more exploring (with better infaltry of course) and then take the sucker back home. All it required was a little patience and money. But why bring back and oversized gorilla when you can bring back something that was supposedly dead 65 million years ago but now has evolved? That would rule.


Perhaps, until Kong's escape, if Kong had proved to be a financially viable attraction Denham may have had such a plan to get the funding for a mission like that, its just completely irrelevant to the film's story when the idea that on this particular mission they DID have the ability to take Kong back with them if nothing else is perfectly viable. Wouldn't an opportunist like Denham take advantage of the chance to take Kong even if he was to return later?

I thought about this and yeah, bringing Kong back would be a great idea. And when he is making money off of Kong THEN he could go back to get the dinosaurs.

So erase my reason number whatever it was about that.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:06 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Post 
Yeah, that sounds fine enough. It's afterall movie about Kong.

Btw, have atleast some characters showed disbelief seeing/hearing about dinos? Guess if they saw Kong first, wouldn't be that great disbelief. ;)


Last edited by Anonymous on Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:10 pm
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post 
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:12 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:17 pm
Profile YIM WWW
KJ's Leading Pundit
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm
Posts: 63026
Location: Tonight... YOU!
Post 
Star Wars wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


Every comment you have EVER made and every comment you will EVER make has now been debunked...

_________________
trixster wrote:
shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element

trixster wrote:
chippy is correct

Rev wrote:
Fuck Trump


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:19 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:54 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: New Zealand
Post 
Star Wars wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


I'd probably watch that if it wasn't much longer than an hour. IMAX maybe? :happy:

_________________
Cut My Milk!


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:22 pm
Profile WWW
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
Amos wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


I'd probably watch that if it wasn't much longer than an hour. IMAX maybe? :happy:

Yup, IMAX of course. And it won't be too long (about 45 minutes) because I will skip all that "romantic BS" and the only humans in the movie will be ones that are either eaten or ripped a half by Kong.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:29 pm
Profile YIM WWW
I'm Batman

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:53 pm
Posts: 5554
Location: Long Island
Post 
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


I'd probably watch that if it wasn't much longer than an hour. IMAX maybe? :happy:

Yup, IMAX of course. And it won't be too long (about 45 minutes) because I will skip all that "romantic BS" and the only humans in the movie will be ones that are either eaten or ripped a half by Kong.


The sad part is, is that you're serious. Any studio would laugh at you, and with good reason.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:32 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:54 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: New Zealand
Post 
BacktotheFuture wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


I'd probably watch that if it wasn't much longer than an hour. IMAX maybe? :happy:

Yup, IMAX of course. And it won't be too long (about 45 minutes) because I will skip all that "romantic BS" and the only humans in the movie will be ones that are either eaten or ripped a half by Kong.


The sad part is, is that you're serious. Any studio would laugh at you, and with good reason.


Don't shatter a man's dreams :nonono: I'm sure George will take him under his wing and give him all the help he needs as soon as the restraining order expires. Just you wait... *shakes fist*

_________________
Cut My Milk!


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:45 pm
Profile WWW
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:48 am
Posts: 409
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Post 
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


I'd probably watch that if it wasn't much longer than an hour. IMAX maybe? :happy:

Yup, IMAX of course. And it won't be too long (about 45 minutes) because I will skip all that "romantic BS" and the only humans in the movie will be ones that are either eaten or ripped a half by Kong.


From the guy that wants character development......


Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:53 pm
Profile
Award Winning Bastard

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am
Posts: 15310
Location: Slumming at KJ
Post 
loyalfromlondon wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Mav, you're going to die when you read my review. I wrote it this morning but it hasn't been edited yet for the main site.

I struggled with the word cheesy but I eventually found the word I was looking for.


Is the word... Amazing???


Not exactly.


I look forward to it.

Squee, I'm still unsure. For now it's a B+ but could slip, if for no other reason than because I wanted an A and it fell short of that. Most things like WOTW and Batman Begins were B's.


Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:45 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm
Posts: 1638
Location: Alderaan
Post 
Cleric wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
Amos wrote:
Star Wars wrote:
ChipMunky wrote:
Oh snap... how could I have been so foolish... the reason they didn't try and get any other monster was because... *gasp* thats not what they did in the original!

I win

I am going to make a remake of King Kong in 2033 (as the 100 year anniversary) and I am going to make King Kong fight Dinosaurs for the whole movie. Godzilla would also make a cameo appearance and kill Kong. I will spit on the original movie as well for being so bad.


I'd probably watch that if it wasn't much longer than an hour. IMAX maybe? :happy:

Yup, IMAX of course. And it won't be too long (about 45 minutes) because I will skip all that "romantic BS" and the only humans in the movie will be ones that are either eaten or ripped a half by Kong.


From the guy that wants character development......

Well, I want character development with actual CHARACTERS. Not some old guy hitting on a hot girl. That's not "fatherly." Well... for some people it is (sadly). My movie would have no characters except for a few humans just there to be killed.


Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:07 am
Profile YIM WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 544 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 22  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.