King Kong Rules........

[Guest Dion Brother]

I rented KING KONG a few weeks ago and found it nearly unwatchable. Honestly, I would have preferred men-in-suits or real stop motion animation. The CGI is overkill and was often terrible. The bronto stampede was dreadful...I thought these animals just waded in lakes and ate plants, but here they move like mustangs. The original King Kong was an ape creature that walked on two legs, this Kong is..a gorilla. Boring. It was 90 minutes too long. Just watch the original, there's nary a wasted shot in its 100 minutes.

[Guest The Running Man]

Aside from the nostalgia of watching stop motion animation, the original is virtually unwatchable.

Peter Jackson's version's main problem is that it's too long. The first hour could have been cutdown. And there was no need to develop characters of the crew (like the young lad) since it didn't go anywhere after the island.

However, it is still a better film than the original.

[Guest Daisho2004]

Running Man, I agree with you on that point, it shoulda had more fights with Kong and some Giant Animals hey just my own opinion, the 1st. hour took to long to get to the island.

[Guest Dion Brother]

Yeah, the original only offers a compelling story, told in a lean 100 minutes with imagination and gusto. Pity that black and white. It's a helluva alot more adult than the laughable new version which gives Kong all the depth and ambiguity of a baby seal on a PETA poster (and a tip of the tonfa to Dave Kehr for that gag), not to mention a laughable, gratuitous death scene on par with the drawn out torture silliness of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Hmm, dress-tearing and sniffing in the original compared to tapdancing in Peter Jackson's new version. Yeah, we've come such a long way. In twenty years, the original will still be a classic, while the new one will hold up as an oddity of soon-to-be outdated CGI.

[Guest The Running Man]

The original will still be considered a classic because it's an important film for cinema in special effects. Other than that, it's a bad movie. Compelling story? I don't think so. Kong's death meant nothing in that movie and the famously titled "love story" in that film did not exist since the female wanted nothing to do with Kong.

But if wish to argue it did exist, then forgive me, but I was too busy distracted by the horrendous acting, laughable plot points, obvious film errors, and inert direction even for it's time. The only reason it even gets viewings from me is for the stop motion nostalgia....other than that...

Even with it's flaws...Peter Jackson's remake is a superior film in every way. And I'll take the opportunity to also comment that the 70's remake is also better than the original.

[Guest Daisho2004]

Running Man, hold on a minute I have to disagree with you on the 70's remake I thought the 1933' version was the better of the 2 now PJ's was an awesome movie in its owe right.

[Guest The Running Man]

Ok.

[Guest Dion Brother]

Inert direction for its time? What are you talking about? How many other films do you watch from 1933? I never watched the movie with the idea Fay Wray was in love with Kong. He's a monster. Why would a woman fall in love with a giant ape? That's the most retarded story idea ever and not implied by the actual film. The 1976 version is on the level of a Ed Wood movie. It bored me when I was a kid. Peter Jackson's movie is a snoozer, unless you like a movie to look like a computer game. I don't. Yeah, I guess all the critics, film societies, genre fans, etc have been wrong for over half a century for heralding the original KING KONG. Wasn't innovative at all, was it? Just that hokey old stop motion, that's all it was good for. Nope, not that it was a pioneering film for the talkies in terms of sound effects or "big event" filmmaking. Bad acting? By what standard? Compared to what? It's a high adventure movie, not Shakespeare.

Want to talk inert direction? How about a film that takes over a @#%$ hour to get to Skull Island? That's frigging inept and self-indulgent. Apparently once that bearded geek went on the Atkins Diet, he crawled up his own butthole. But everybody buys into the hype and ignores the ponderous, pretentious filmmaking, unnecessary length, and dare you criticize...why check out his 16 hour version to be released in five years on a triple platter dvd boxset that will fill in all story holes and give aid to the obesity epidemic that plagues the country by plastering viewers asses to their couches. Man does the new KONG blow. I prefer KING KONG ESCAPES.

[Guest Tosh]

King Kong fell in love with Fay Wray, at the end she felt pity for him, knowing he should have never been took from his island from the first place.

King Kong was a phenomenal moment in movie history, much like Star Wars in the 70's, plus it set the standard for the monster movies that we know and love today, were do you think they got the idea for Godzilla.

I love the old Ed Wood movies for what they were, but I agree the 70's King Kong sucked monkey balls, it's fun to watch now with friends and mystery science theater it.

[Guest The Running Man]

I never watched the movie with the idea Fay Wray was in love with Kong. He's a monster. Why would a woman fall in love with a giant ape? That's the most retarded story idea ever and not implied by the actual film.

Please go back to my last reply to you and quote the part where I said, "And you Dion Brother, who claims there was a mutual love story in the 1933 original are wrong".

Because what I wrote was that the supposed "love story" from that film. And if you continue to doubt this, read any recent critic review of that film and you will see all these claims of a supposed love story that never existed.

Yeah, I guess all the critics, film societies, genre fans, etc have been wrong for over half a century for heralding the original KING KONG. Wasn't innovative at all, was it?

Now what the hell are you talking about? What part of "it's an important film for cinema in special effects" in my last reply didn't you understand?

Bad acting? By what standard? Compared to what? It's a high adventure movie, not Shakespeare.

By any standard. Btw, I don't remember any rule that suggested that "high adventure movies" feature bad acting as part of the requisite of the genre. The acting is laugh inducing it's so awful. Only Fay Wray really shined through in the original. Everyone else was god awful.

Want to talk inert direction? How about a film that takes over a @#%$ hour to get to Skull Island? That's frigging inept and self-indulgent.

You know I complained about this as well in one of my replies before right?

But everybody buys into the hype and ignores the ponderous, pretentious filmmaking, unnecessary length, and dare you criticize...why check out his 16 hour version to be released in five years on a triple platter dvd boxset that will fill in all story holes and give aid to the obesity epidemic that plagues the country by plastering viewers asses to their couches.

He is coming out with a longer version, but it's only like 10 minutes or something longer which is stupid as I felt the movie could have been shortened at the beginning and the unnecessary development of that boy on the ship crew.

But you have to give credit to one thing. For a movie that runs 3 hours, it manages to not have plot holes and errors that the 1933 King Kong had in abundance.

I prefer KING KONG ESCAPES.

That the one he fights Mecha Kong? I love that movie.

King Kong fell in love with Fay Wray, at the end she felt pity for him, knowing he should have never been took from his island from the first place.

Where are you producing this from? Because it certainly isn't from the 1933 movie. She is trying to get out of his grasp the entire time and at the end when he dies, all she does is run to her lover for protection. There was no mutual love involved.

In fact that's why the line "It was beauty that killed the beast" makes more sense in the 1933 version than it did in either of the remakes.

[Guest Daisho2004]

WOW look what I started, all I was saying is that there is a longer version coming out, and if I'm right it will be at least 45min. of extra scenes that didn't make the cut, like LOTR and the extended version of those movies were Great they filled in some holes that were missing, all I can say is that I hope that he added a few fight scenes with Kong and some new Monsters, and not any boring scenes.

And just to add She loved Kong in this movie, unlike the 1933' version in which she was terrified of him.

[Guest Dion Brother]

"Because what I wrote was that the supposed "love story" from that film. And if you continue to doubt this, read any recent critic review of that film and you will see all these claims of a supposed love story that never existed."

Why would I consider current interpretations by hack critics when watching a film I enjoyed back when it ran on the afternoon movie in 1976? My opinion was never swayed by any critics when I watched it at age 5, and certainly the current critic's reviews had no influence when I rewatched it over the last twenty years, including this year. I found it far more enthralling in 1976 than seeing STAR WARS one year later in a cinema, or the shite '76 version when it ran on NBC in 1979. And I didn't need critics to tell me what was good or bad or what was a love story and what wasn't. Just my 1970s childhood attention span. Now my tastes have changed and matured over the years, but KING KONG still holds up as a great film experience. It influenced every major figure of fantasy cinema in the last century. From Ray Harryhausen to Ray Bradbury and of course, Peter Jackson.

Quote:

"Now what the hell are you talking about? What part of "it's an important film for cinema in special effects" in my last reply didn't you understand?"

It was more important than just special effects. Film theory classes have centered around its themes, endless essays by highbrow film scholars, praised and scorned for its alleged racism or criticism of racism. It was the first BIG fantasy adventure film, box office smash in terms of a high budgeted, troubled production, for better or worse the first rollercoaster thrill ride of a movie, the JAWS of its day. If it were just for the effects, then it would be half-forgotten like THE LOST WORLD or MIGHTY JOE YOUNG (the originals, not the remakes).

"By any standard. Btw, I don't remember any rule that suggested that "high adventure movies" feature bad acting as part of the requisite of the genre. The acting is laugh inducing it's so awful. Only Fay Wray really shined through in the original. Everyone else was god awful."

By the standards of early talkies, the acting is average to good, not god awful. By contrast, the new KONG has awful performances by good actors. Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts have done far better work in other films, but there is NO acting here, just dialogue reading. Jack Black is hideously miscast. At times, it felt like an MTV Movie Awards spoof of the original KONG. It's a very cold, stiff movie...strangely unemotional, except for the animated gorilla.

"You know I complained about this as well in one of my replies before right?"

And brought up because it jabs at your statement that the original is unwatchable (when the orignal gets a helluva lot more done in the first hour) and your criticism of the original's direction, which is deflated by added criticism of the remakes agonizing first hour.

"But you have to give credit to one thing. For a movie that runs 3 hours, it manages to not have plot holes and errors that the 1933 King Kong had in abundance. "

Oh, except for the stupidity of Brody's wussy playwright turning into Jungle Jim without explanation. The original had a blue collar hero who was far more believeable for the task. Oh, and how did they get Kong to New York, or did I doze off during that scene? And Brontosaurus stampeding like horses? And endless characterization in the first hour that goes nowhere.

"Where are you producing this from? Because it certainly isn't from the 1933 movie. She is trying to get out of his grasp the entire time and at the end when he dies, all she does is run to her lover for protection. There was no mutual love involved."

Making it more believeable than the remakes, no?

"In fact that's why the line "It was beauty that killed the beast" makes more sense in the 1933 version than it did in either of the remakes"

And giving the original another point over the new one.

[Guest The Running Man]

Why would I consider current interpretations by hack critics when watching a film I enjoyed back when it ran on the afternoon movie in 1976? My opinion was never swayed by any critics when I watched it at age 5, and certainly the current critic's reviews had no influence when I rewatched it over the last twenty years, including this year.

That's nice. But that's not my point. I didn't mention it to see if it satisfies your need sir. I mentioned it because it's a popular statement given towards the original by all the "experts" that it doesn't have. Since it doesn't have it and it doesn't exist, it means it's far less compelling then it's given credit for.

It influenced every major figure of fantasy cinema in the last century. From Ray Harryhausen to Ray Bradbury and of course, Peter Jackson.

Good for them.

It was more important than just special effects. Film theory classes have centered around its themes, endless essays by highbrow film scholars, praised and scorned for its alleged racism or criticism of racism.

Which is all a load of laughable bs coughed up by desperate pseudo-intellects who need to go over the top with "theories" in order to justify why they like a simple 30's B adventure movie.

By the standards of early talkies, the acting is average to good, not god awful.

Which is why the majority of the performances in the original Kong were bad. Laughably bad.

By contrast, the new KONG has awful performances by good actors. Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts have done far better work in other films, but there is NO acting here, just dialogue reading. Jack Black is hideously miscast.

I agree with you about Jack Black being miscast, but you are wrong about Adrien Brody and especially Namoi Watts. Naomi Watts was great in the film.

And brought up because it jabs at your statement that the original is unwatchable (when the orignal gets a helluva lot more done in the first hour) and your criticism of the original's direction, which is deflated by added criticism of the remakes agonizing first hour.

If the best you got to hit me with is a statement I myself said, then you don't have much to argue with. Seeing as it's a compliant about part of film versus an entire film that I call nearly unwatchable.

Oh, except for the stupidity of Brody's wussy playwright turning into Jungle Jim without explanation. The original had a blue collar hero who was far more believeable for the task.

Psst..please that's nothing. That's far more believable and credible compared to the original's glaring and laughable errors. One of my favs is how the film director informs the captain of the ship that the island they are traveling to no one has been before. Yet somehow when they arrive and run into the natives, the very captain of the ship that was told that no one has been their before suddenly can speak the language of the tribe and becomes a translator on the spot.

F'ing brilliant.

Oh, and how did they get Kong to New York, or did I doze off during that scene?

:lol Good job sir. For trying to find an error with the Jackson's remake, you just slapped the original right in the face.

And Brontosaurus stampeding like horses?

That's it? Ummm, well the brontosaurus were running like brontosaurs. Unlike the original were a stegosaurs, then a brontosaurs, both of which eat human flesh even though both are herbivores. Brilliant.

Making it more believeable than the remakes, no?

Not necessarily no. They are just different films.

And giving the original another point over the new one.

Right. One line and one line only. Big whoop.

[Guest Dion Brother]

"That's nice. But that's not my point. I didn't mention it to see if it satisfies your need sir. I mentioned it because it's a popular statement given towards the original by all the "experts" that it doesn't have. Since it doesn't have it and it doesn't exist, it means it's far less compelling then it's given credit for.

How does an outside statement affect how you enjoy a film? DIRTY HARRY was labeled "fascist" and it clearly wasn't. I didn't look for fascism while watching it. Many labeled John Woo's THE KILLER as homoerotic romance, and that in no way affected how I watched the film, nor did it color my opinion of it. What were your expectations of the 1933 film when you watched it? Your complaints seem to add up that you don't like it because it is a 1933 movie. Do you like any movies from the 1930s? 1940s? 1950s? Do you watch silents? How informed of a movie viewer are you? You must have watched KONG 33 with that Myster Science Theater 3000 condescension that's oh-so trendy these days.

"Which is all a load of laughable bs coughed up by desperate pseudo-intellects who need to go over the top with "theories" in order to justify why they like a simple 30's B adventure movie."

I wouldn't call William K. Everson a pseudo-intellectual.

"Which is why the majority of the performances in the original Kong were bad. Laughably bad."

Only by your modern-biased opinion. Watch any film from that year, and you can't expect the type of acting you see today(or even the 1940s), it was an early talky. It's like complaining that METROPOLIS has no sound or GODZILLA VS. MEGALON has no CGI. Younger people also don't "get" the Velvet Underground, or watch pre-1990s movies, but their opinion in no way negates the effect or legacy of the original work.

"I agree with you about Jack Black being miscast, but you are wrong about Adrien Brody and especially Namoi Watts. Naomi Watts was great in the film."

Yeah, Naomi made me forget all about Gena Rowlands in all those John Cassavetes movies. We should redefine the term "great" to include her bland performance.

"If the best you got to hit me with is a statement I myself said, then you don't have much to argue with. Seeing as it's a compliant about part of film versus an entire film that I call nearly unwatchable."

I have alot to argue with. You complain about the originals' plot holes, yet admit to loving RUNNING SCARED, which has a major plot hole that should capsize your opinion of the movie if plot holes are of a major concern for you. They really aren't for me, as I can overlook such flaws if a film is well paced and fun(like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which moves at such a brisk speed that I don't care how Indy followed the Nazis after swimming toward their sub). My issues with KONG 05 are the pacing, unimpressive effects, nauseating camerawork, and simple lack of suspense or drama. He made an epic out of a story that doesn't WARRANT an epic. A common opinion on KONG 05 is that there's a really enjoyable 100 minute film in there, somewhere. More than one reviewer said you should skip the first hour on the dvd, and the movie plays better. Taken for what it is, it is a bloated, overlong, pretentious mess. Had PJ concentrated on making a tight 100 minute movie (like his far superior DEAD ALIVE, BAD TASTE or MEET THE FEEBLES), I think his KONG would have been far better and a much bigger success. When I heard he was remaking it, I had high hopes for it. But when I heard he turned in a 3 hour cut, I knew he screwed up. Spread himself too thin.

If you are a CGI FX junkie, you'll find a lot to like about KONG 05. Just as you may find alot to like about THE MUMMY RETURNS.

"Psst..please that's nothing. That's far more believable and credible compared to the original's glaring and laughable errors. One of my favs is how the film director informs the captain of the ship that the island they are traveling to no one has been before. Yet somehow when they arrive and run into the natives, the very captain of the ship that was told that no one has been their before suddenly can speak the language of the tribe and becomes a translator on the spot.

F'ing brilliant."

Wow, that's a stunning plot hole that just makes one forget everything else about the film. Holy moley. Do you watch all your movies pinpointing these errors? Because you sure didn't catch the one in RUNNING SCARED.

"That's it? Ummm, well the brontosaurus were running like brontosaurs. Unlike the original were a stegosaurs, then a brontosaurs, both of which eat human flesh even though both are herbivores. Brilliant."

Brontos couldn't run. Also, I don't hold the 1933's outdated Paleontology knowledge against it. Jackson is internet savvy, certainly he could look it up. Edgar Wallace and Merian Cooper only went by what was known in 1931.

"Right. One line and one line only. Big whoop."

Well, if you add in pacing, storytelling, long lasting mark on the film world, sheer entertainment value, length, originality(whoops, that's not fair), yeah, the original kicks both remakes in the ass. Considering you prefer the 1976 version to the original, I think you did watch the original with that condescending youngster attitude.

And I'm not being an old school purist snob. I liked KING KONG ESCAPES. I even like the MIGHTY JOE YOUNG remake as much as the original.

In 10 years, no one will remember KONG 05. and the original will still be considered a groundbreaking classic. If movies are still considered viable entertainment in a decade...

[Guest sevenhooks]

In 10 years, no one will remember KONG 05. and the original will still be considered a groundbreaking classic. If movies are still considered viable entertainment in a decade...

Game Over.

[Guest The Running Man]

Wow...forgot about this thread.

Forgive...I'll continue:

How does an outside statement affect how you enjoy a film?

None at all. And you are continuing to ignore the purpose of me mentioning this and forming it into an argument against me when there is no basis of such. However, I find it beautifully ironic how you say this and then pull the defense that the movie has been interpreted by "film scholars" to be a commentary on racism.

What were your expectations of the 1933 film when you watched it? Your complaints seem to add up that you don't like it because it is a 1933 movie.

I was about 5 when I first saw it and have seen it dozens of times since. Why don't I think it to be the greatest single film ever made? Well, cause one day my balls dropped and I started thinking for myself. And no, my complaints are not that at all. I am just being realistic of the film.

Speaking of being realistic, try to keep a realistic discussion going on here cause you are lacking. My complaints add up that I don't like it cause it's a '33 film? That makes so much sense after I said that I still enjoy the stop motion animation in the film, which mind you, is the main selling point of the film.

Do you like any movies from the 1930s? 1940s? 1950s? Do you watch silents? How informed of a movie viewer are you? You must have watched KONG 33 with that Myster Science Theater 3000 condescension that's oh-so trendy these days.

Yes.

A little.

Quite.

And no.

I wouldn't call William K. Everson a pseudo-intellectual.

Aside from preserving film, the man's a film critic and film historian. That means that aside from talking about films, they love to add things to movies in order to give them far more weight and reasoning in order to cater to the snobs out there that must have films that have abstract messages and subtexts of some kind before they can ever admit to loving a film because such things proves high intelligence. So yeah, anyone that does cater to that belief that the film has double meanings is a pseudo-intellectual (read idiot).

Only by your modern-biased opinion. Watch any film from that year, and you can't expect the type of acting you see today(or even the 1940s), it was an early talky

No. I have no "modern-based" opinion. I don't even know what you are talking about there. You just seem to be running out of things to say to just throw that type of silly comment. King Kong is a B-movie and it has bad acting by the majority of it's cast. Get over it.

Younger people also don't "get" the Velvet Underground, or watch pre-1990s movies, but their opinion in no way negates the effect or legacy of the original work.

What are you on about here?? Go to Chud.com if the "younger people" bother you so and preach that to them.

Yeah, Naomi made me forget all about Gena Rowlands in all those John Cassavetes movies. We should redefine the term "great" to include her bland performance.

Ok...whatever.

I have alot to argue with. You complain about the originals' plot holes, yet admit to loving RUNNING SCARED, which has a major plot hole that should capsize your opinion of the movie if plot holes are of a major concern for you. They really aren't for me, as I can overlook such flaws if a film is well paced and fun(like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which moves at such a brisk speed that I don't care how Indy followed the Nazis after swimming toward their sub).

Back up there buddy. Are you trying to blame me about this and say you don't care about such things? I wasn't the one who started pointing out "plot holes" in this discussion and who made a big fuss over them now was I? Nope. That was you. In fact, you kept pressing it over and over again and I replied by pointing out the original's flaws. Man ain't that some irony. Let's try to have some consistency in where we stand okay?

Wow, that's a stunning plot hole that just makes one forget everything else about the film. Holy moley. Do you watch all your movies pinpointing these errors? Because you sure didn't catch the one in RUNNING SCARED.

Yeah...I like how you don't even directly reply to that point I made there. It's like you were caught with your pants down and just wave your hands in the air to try to take the attention away.

Brontos couldn't run. Also, I don't hold the 1933's outdated Paleontology knowledge against it. Jackson is internet savvy, certainly he could look it up. Edgar Wallace and Merian Cooper only went by what was known in 1931.

That's a crap of a defense. Truth is simple. No one cared to do research on the original. End of story.

Considering you prefer the 1976 version to the original, I think you did watch the original with that condescending youngster attitude.

You know, you can come across as an alright guy but it's when you get backed into a corner that reply after reply all you got to hit back is with, "Bah...young people...they don't know how good it was...all spoiled and can't appreciate this and that" blah blah blah

If someone doesn't like a movie it's cause they must be "young" and not as old as you. You can't seem to conduct a conversation without falling into such things. Ridiculous.

In 10 years, no one will remember KONG 05. and the original will still be considered a groundbreaking classic.

How about this theory? I like a movie caused I liked it. You didn't like it? Well, you didn't like it. That's it.

[Guest Dion Brother]

"None at all. And you are continuing to ignore the purpose of me mentioning this and forming it into an argument against me when there is no basis of such. However, I find it beautifully ironic how you say this and then pull the defense that the movie has been interpreted by "film scholars" to be a commentary on racism. "

It's a detail, not a defense. The movie had an impact beyond the stop motion, from the sublime to the ridiculous. I loved the movie before I knew it had this classic reputation. To me, it was a great monster movie...and still is. It built up a reputation that other monster/adventure flicks of the time couldn't do. And no, I don't think its the best of the decade either. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and DR.JEKYLL & MR. HYDE are superior movies. But it is great.

"I was about 5 when I first saw it and have seen it dozens of times since. Why don't I think it to be the greatest single film ever made? Well, cause one day my balls dropped and I started thinking for myself. And no, my complaints are not that at all. I am just being realistic of the film."

First you say it is unwatchable, now you admit to seeing it dozens of times. Define "unwatchable." This really kills your argument, because this is where it started. I will never watch KONG 05 ever again, because it is unwatchable. Same goes for MAGNOLIA, BLOWN AWAY, ALIEN3, any Roland Emmerich movie, most Jesus Franco movies, and any other movie I've considered "unwatchable."

I don't think it's greatest film ever made, and didn't realize it was a classic until I started reading movie books in 1979. It is however, a classic and deserving of the status.

Have you ever read William Everson's books? Because he is one of the few I would consider the real deal. He did inspire alot of pseudo intellectuals, but that doesn't take away from his legacy. I'd consider only David Kehr and a handful of others to be worthy of carrying his tradition (despite Kehr's lame commentary on the HARDBOILED laserdisc from wayback).

"No. I have no "modern-based" opinion. I don't even know what you are talking about there. You just seem to be running out of things to say to just throw that type of silly comment. King Kong is a B-movie and it has bad acting by the majority of it's cast. Get over it."

It was not a B-movie. B-movies are low-budget, bottom half of the double bill films. KONG was a big, A-movie. You need to look up these terms before you use them. Oh, and it is a groundbreaking classic that you find unwatchable yet have seen a dozen times.

"That's a crap of a defense. Truth is simple. No one cared to do research on the original. End of story"

Paleontology is an evolving science. Find a book on dinos from the 1930s, and the knowledge was far off compared to what scientists know today. You do understand science evolves, right? A book on dinosaurs from the 1920s, 1930s or even 1970s is drastically different than what is known today. So is this a crap defense?

"Back up there buddy. Are you trying to blame me about this and say you don't care about such things? I wasn't the one who started pointing out "plot holes" in this discussion and who made a big fuss over them now was I? Nope. That was you. In fact, you kept pressing it over and over again and I replied by pointing out the original's flaws. Man ain't that some irony. Let's try to have some consistency in where we stand okay?"

Because i don't care about plot holes if the film is fun enough for me to overlook it. KONG 05 drags for three hours, including an entirely unnecessary first hour. It's problems are GLARING because it flaunts them with its length and bloat. RUNNING SCARED's plot hole doesn't bother me because I'm having too much fun to care. And it isn't 3 hours.

Consistency? Unwatchable=dozens of viewings to you. I haven't seen KONG 33 half as many times. Maybe we just have different definitions for unwatchable.

"If someone doesn't like a movie it's cause they must be "young" and not as old as you. You can't seem to conduct a conversation without falling into such things. Ridiculous."

It's called historical perspective, which you seem to lack. This was hinted in the RUNNING SCARED thread, and is obvious here. From misusing the term B-movie to expecting the film to have acting on par with Al Pacino (yet you thought the bland Naomi Watts was "great" which has me questioning your standards for acting). Honestly, how many movies have you watched from the 1930s? Answer the question. I've seen plenty. Enough to know that is isn't fair to judge an older movie by the standards we have today. KONG 33 has standard acting for a 1933 movie. Not exceptional, but good enough for the movie. By todays standards, KONG 05 has terrible acting from good actors. Naomi Watts was great in MULHOLLAND DRIVE, but not in KONG. I judge KONG 05 by what movie standards are today(at least for me), and I think it fails.

I have pointed out what I think is wrong with KONG 05, and it amounts to more than bad performances and plot holes.

Other than the young age of the posters, CHUD.com is too left wing for me to bother with. And politics permeate their discussions far too much for me.

[Guest The Running Man]

It's a detail, not a defense. The movie had an impact beyond the stop motion, from the sublime to the ridiculous. I loved the movie before I knew it had this classic reputation. To me, it was a great monster movie...and still is.

That's great. But for me, aside from the stop motion, I don't care for it.

First you say it is unwatchable, now you admit to seeing it dozens of times. Define "unwatchable." This really kills your argument, because this is where it started.

No it doesn't. I saw it a bunch of times when I was a kid. Saw it again when I was older in a far different light. Kinda like any old cartoons or kid shows that you once saw as a kid but don't end up in a flattering light when you are older and see them again.

If it did for you, then great. Doesn't for me.

Have you ever read William Everson's books? Because he is one of the few I would consider the real deal. He did inspire alot of pseudo intellectuals, but that doesn't take away from his legacy.

I am not on a debate about the man himself, but this idea that the film has a subtext/commentary on racism. That theory is ridiculous.

It was not a B-movie. B-movies are low-budget, bottom half of the double bill films. KONG was a big, A-movie. You need to look up these terms before you use them.

Sure. Kong'33 was a huge event. Big A list studio pic all the way for it's time. But, I am not wrong in how I am using the term because nowadays B-movies aren't solely defined just on budgets. But if we were having a discussion on how the term was used in the 30s, 40s, and 50s then yeah, you'd be right.

Paleontology is an evolving science. Find a book on dinos from the 1930s, and the knowledge was far off compared to what scientists know today. You do understand science evolves, right? A book on dinosaurs from the 1920s, 1930s or even 1970s is drastically different than what is known today. So is this a crap defense?

Okay...then find me a book from that era that doesn't point out that specific fact that was totally f'ed up in that film.

Because i don't care about plot holes if the film is fun enough for me to overlook it. KONG 05 drags for three hours, including an entirely unnecessary first hour. It's problems are GLARING because it flaunts them with its length and bloat. RUNNING SCARED's plot hole doesn't bother me because I'm having too much fun to care. And it isn't 3 hours.

Running Scared has nothing to do with this. And if Kong '05 had glaring errors, then Kong '33 had errors that were screaming at your face. I didn't care to point them out before until you kept doing so for Kong '05.

It's called historical perspective, which you seem to lack. This was hinted in the RUNNING SCARED thread, and is obvious here. From misusing the term B-movie to expecting the film to have acting on par with Al Pacino (yet you thought the bland Naomi Watts was "great" which has me questioning your standards for acting).

Hinted at what in the Running Scared thread? That it reminded you of sleazy action flicks of 20+ years ago? If that was the case for you then fine, but it's inspiration and it's execution did not come from that low brand of film. It certainly wasn't some 2006 remake of "The Exterminator".

And if I recall correctly, you were on about how the film Mad Max was an exploitation flick simply because it was dumped at drive-ins. Yet, it wasn't so and the fact that it got huge heaps of praise and accolades upon it's release says otherwise. Just cause the flick played here in the states at grindhouses doesn't define it as an exploitation film. If that were the case, then almost all of Shaw Bros. martial arts films would be defined as trash cinema simply because they played mostly at crap theaters back in the 70s.

That isn't "historical perspective", that's just "incorrect interpretation".

Honestly, how many movies have you watched from the 1930s? Answer the question. I've seen plenty. Enough to know that is isn't fair to judge an older movie by the standards we have today.

You're not making any sense. If that's the case, then how could I mention that I thought Fay Wray was good in it like I did before?

By todays standards, KONG 05 has terrible acting from good actors. Naomi Watts was great in MULHOLLAND DRIVE, but not in KONG. I judge KONG 05 by what movie standards are today(at least for me), and I think it fails.

This is nothing more than an opinion. You can state what you liked and didn't like her in and for me, Kong '05 was one of her best. Didn't like her in it? Well, that's too bad.

I have pointed out what I think is wrong with KONG 05, and it amounts to more than bad performances and plot holes.

The only other thing missing was that you didn't like that the movie was 3 hours. That hardly tips the scale over to totally make that amount to more than the other two things you don't like.

Which doesn't even matter anyway. I don't know what the point of that comment even is. Even if you thought every frame of Kong '05 was totally crap, what does that only prove? That you didn't like it. Doesn't prove zip for me or take away anything of what I, or anyone else who enjoyed it, thought about it.

Other than the young age of the posters, CHUD.com is too left wing for me to bother with. And politics permeate their discussions far too much for me.

Oh don't be scared. Go in there and teach the little rugrats a thing or two. Most of those guys just read quick notes off of other forums and pretend they've seen tons of films and just repeat the comment from the status quo committee. I'm sure you can give those smartasses a lesson.

[Guest Dion Brother]

"Hinted at what in the Running Scared thread? That it reminded you of sleazy action flicks of 20+ years ago? If that was the case for you then fine, but it's inspiration and it's execution did not come from that low brand of film. It certainly wasn't some 2006 redux of "The Exterminator".

Inspired by the type of stuff Walter Hill made in the 70s, which Wayne Kramer admitted. I never said James Glickenhaus or other no talents from the era.

"And if I recall correctly, you were on about how the film Mad Max was an exploitation flick simply because it was dumped at drive-ins. Yet, it wasn't so and the fact that it got huge heaps of praise and accolades upon it's release says otherwise. Just cause the flick played here in the states at grindhouses doesn't define it as an exploitation film. If that were the case, then almost all of Shaw Bros. martial arts films would be defined as trash cinema simply because they played mostly at crap theaters back in the 70s."

MAD MAX was a B-movie in the states, and was considered a biker/sci-fi action film all over the world, but was never promoted as a work of high art or even mainstream. Not the way it is thought of today. It was a highly successful commercial export for Australia, which at the time was known mainly for artsy Peter Weir movies. It was not intended to be a landmark film, but the talent showed through, like other now highly regarded action films. It's success surprised every one involved, so much that the cast successfully sued George Miller for profits, as they never thought the movie would be that successful. An exploitive film is not necessarily trash or bad. THE EXTERMINATOR is a bad film, but MAD MAX is a really good movie that came out of the same US theatrical market. RUNNING SCARED is inspired by Walter Hill movies like THE DRIVER and THE WARRIORS, an admission by the director himself. It's a fact. Do you think he was inspired by Igmar Bergman? Are you convinced Wayne Kramer could only be inspired by Kurosawa or Godard because you were so impressed by the film? I was impressed because he took the type of material you only saw in those 1970s films and improved on them. 1970S drive-in cinema projected through a 21st century eye. Great.

"I am not on a debate about the man himself, but this idea that the film has a subtext/commentary on racism. That theory is ridiculous."

Read his essay then debunk it. Then I'll find you a nice book on Paleontology from 1931 at an antiquarian bookseller for some ungodly price to illustrate the now-debunked theories on dinosaurs.

"You're not making any sense. If that's the case, then how could I mention that I thought Fay Wray was good in it like I did before?"

I thought you stated the acting was terrible and the film is unwatchable, other than the stop motion. Now Fay Wray is good, and you've watched it multiple times. Who's not making any sense? You're not debating, you are playing a game of mockingbird.

Let me restate: You cannot judge a 1933 film's performances by what is standard acting today. Film acting evolved over time, like every other element of film. Compared to the last 40 years, most films from the 1930s had what would now be considered stiff or laughable acting. Method or naturalistic acting or something on par with Marlon Brando's early work just didn't exist. But in the early 1930s, the acting in KONG was standard. Not great, but some good performances by the standards of 1933. Compared to the style of acting today, yeah, laughable, but you have to be a little forgiving for an early talkie. I don't expect Bruce Lee's movies to have the intricate choreography of Yuen Woo Ping or Liu Chia Liang, because they hadn't designed those types of fights in 1973. You have to enjoy them from the perspective of what was the standard in 1973. Got it?

"Which doesn't even matter anyway. I don't know what the point of that comment even is. Even if you thought every frame of Kong '05 was totally crap, what does that only prove? That you didn't like it. Doesn't prove zip for me or take away anything of what I, or anyone else who enjoyed it, thought about it."

And nothing you say about KONG 33 changes its classic status or its influence on world cinema. We'll talk about it in 5 years when KONG 05 is a staple on the FX afternoon movie or the Sci-Fi Channel. And KONG 33 is still considered a classic.

I had a similar argument years ago when a friend loved Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES and told me it would be highly thought of in a few years. I said "FX afternoon movie staple." Well, we know what happened there.

"Oh don't be scared. Go in there and teach the little rugrats a thing or two. Most of those guys just read quick notes off of other forums and pretend they've seen tons of films and just repeat the comment from the status quo committee. I'm sure you can give those smartasses a lesson. "

Those sissies are too busy worrying about global warming(no matter how much snow falls on them this winter) and if Frank Miller's new comic book is fascist for me to bother. And Despite this Kong argument, I'm not interested in debating with sci-fi fans (of which I am not).

[Guest The Running Man]

RUNNING SCARED is inspired by Walter Hill movies like THE DRIVER and THE WARRIORS, an admission by the director himself. It's a fact. Do you think he was inspired by Igmar Bergman? Are you convinced Wayne Kramer could only be inspired by Kurosawa or Godard because you were so impressed by the film?

Nowhere did I ever say he was not inspired by films from 70s that had balls to them. Look back at the thread and you will see that. What I argued was your description of the film as "sleazy" and your evidence of that was because of nudity and a subplot involving pedophiles. I argued that just because those were in the movie did not degenerate it to the level of cheap exploitation. That's why I used the example of The Exterminator before because it's an example of a typical exploitation film of the time.

Read his essay then debunk it. Then I'll find you a nice book on Paleontology from 1931 at an antiquarian bookseller for some ungodly price to illustrate the now-debunked theories on dinosaurs.

I read plenty thank you. And if you can't defend yourself on the dinosaurs error in the film, then you got nothing.

I thought you stated the acting was terrible and the film is unwatchable, other than the stop motion. Now Fay Wray is good, and you've watched it multiple times. Who's not making any sense? You're not debating, you are playing a game of mockingbird.

No sir. This isn't something I wrote now. Read the early replies I wrote here. I wrote that Fay Wray was an exception.

Let me restate: You cannot judge a 1933 film's performances by what is standard acting today.

And let me restate that I am not.

And nothing you say about KONG 33 changes its classic status or its influence on world cinema. We'll talk about it in 5 years when KONG 05 is a staple on the FX afternoon movie or the Sci-Fi Channel. And KONG 33 is still considered a classic.

Yeah. You are just coming at me with "Nah nah nah nah". I can care less what happens in 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 years. My opinion is never dictated by what a general opinion is. You yourself said that you don't let your opinion swayed by what others think so I find it desperate on your part to try to come out on top by using that against me.

I had a similar argument years ago when a friend loved Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES and told me it would be highly thought of in a few years. I said "FX afternoon movie staple." Well, we know what happened there.

Except that it's not similar because I am not arguing on what it's status will be in years to come. As I stated I don't care. My opinion is my own and that's all I care about.

Those sissies are too busy worrying about global warming(no matter how much snow falls on them this winter) and if Frank Miller's new comic book is fascist for me to bother. And Despite this Kong argument, I'm not interested in debating with sci-fi fans (of which I am not).

On the contrary, I think you would have a ball over there. Most of those people on that board speak as if they know the ins and outs of the "hip cinema". I am not talking about what's coming out now mind you. I've seen arguments over there that you would have a field day with.

Give it a shot. I'd make for good reading on my breaks.

[Guest shaolindogpaw]

thes have got to be the longest posts... in the entire history of KFF. :eek