Good Review for King Kong!

[Ash]

Wow!
I'm definitely gonna have to go see this tomorrow after reading Ebert's review.

CHECK IT OUT HERE



I'm going to get an ice cold large soda and the biggest bucket of popcorn they have when I get to the theater.

What do you think?
Are you going to go see it?

[trekgeezer]

I will be going, not sure how soon but I''ve been looking forward to this. The original Kong was what made Jackson want to be a film maker and I knew he would do right by it.

I would imagine like the LOTR movies, this is one I'll go to the theatre  more than once for.

[daveblackeye15]

What's a popcorn flick without popcorn? Sadly after getting my braces removed I discovered I no longer liked pocorn.

My mom and bro want to see it also. Sweet, they're cooler already.

I just pray Jackson did it right, and the log scene had better be in there!

[nobody]

I'm still just not that excited about this movie, but I know I'm in the very small minority there. I'll see it eventually, maybe in theaters but if not then definitely on DVD. However, Ebert's review means nothing to me. Good or bad, that guy's opinions are all over the place. He doesn't ever seem to know what he's talking about. I wouldn't base my theater plans on a single word he said.

[Scottie]

Oh, come on. Lay off Roger Ebert. Ebert has been an invaluable resource to the critical world for so many years now. His musings reflect social and political themes often overlooked by the common viewer, and his reviews only take about five minutes to read. Also, his list of Great Movies is an all inclusive and dense list that crosses boundaries and genres from early silent cinema to yesterday's box office hit. Though he may not be a modest man, as you can plainly see on the cover of his book "Roger Ebert's Book Of Film," he is still a worthy critic, and he's right about most of his reviews.

[nobody]

I think "Scottie" is Ebert's BadMovies.Org screen-name. :)

[ulthar]

nobody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think "Scottie" is Ebert's BadMovies.Org
> screen-name.


LOL.

What I think is interesting, and I'm not addressing this to anyone on the board just as a general comment, is that Ebert (or name your reviewer) is an "idiot" when they disagree with you, but they are "right on the mark" when they don't.

My own habit is to read reviews AFTER I've seen a movie.

[Scottie]

Nobody wrote:

"I think "Scottie" is Ebert's BadMovies.Org screen-name. "

>
>
>

Nah, just a big admirer. I've often dreamt of taking his job, though. The only other person who has rivaled Roger Ebert's critical popularity is Pauline Kael, former movie reviewer for The New Yorker. But she's dead now, and someone took her place. Roger Ebert isn't dead, meaning there's room to plan. Yesss, keep eating, fat man. I shall soon take your revered position and reign supreme over all people's thoughts and whims. Hahahaha. But I'll still visit this board constantly because no matter how much I write, I ALWAYS have to find out what's going on here.

[dean]

It was a pretty interesting review in terms of what information is passed on from it.  I read reviews of films I want to see/are interested in, but I'll always ignore the star ratings they have etc.  Especially in the newspapers, some of the reviewers there quite often give one or two stars [out of five] to excellent and entertaining movies, and three stars for uninteresting crap.  Generally I read reviews out of curiousity: despite the fact that I don't take their advice, I'm still interested in what they thought.

At least Ebert, for all his failings, still delivers a relatively informative review, and conveys the impression that he actually knows something about what he is talking about [unlike a local reviewer who outlined the plot of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as starring 'Willy The Wonka']

[trekgeezer]

I always liked Roger better than anyone he partnered with. Gene Siskel always came across as a film snob (one of those 'if it's popular then it's not art' kinda guys).

I saw the SciFi channel special last night about the new movie and it looked pretty kick ass. I liked the fact that Jackson doesn't have Kong rampaging around New York, he portrays him like he would really be, a wild animal cornered in a strange enviroment. I think that the effects guys at Weta have outdone themselves again.

[odinn7]

I'll wait for DVD on this one. I can't sit in a theater that long for anything.
As far as reviews, it's really funny that I pay more attention to what I read here than to what some dumb-ass critic says. I'll read reviews just to see what to expect from certain movies but I won't let a critics review sway me one way or the other. On the other hand, most of you guys are pretty powerful...

[dean]

odinn7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 I'll read reviews just
> to see what to expect from certain movies but I
> won't let a critics review sway me one way or the
> other. On the other hand, most of you guys are
> pretty powerful...
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> You're not the Devil...You're practice.


Mwahaha, I guess it's time to exert some of that power: odinn7, go to the movies, then go give me all your money.  You shall do my bidding as I see fit!!!!


Also, King Kong comes out here today, and though I'm kinda busy today, I'm going to try and see it.

[odinn7]

Dean, you are part of the Gigli clan. Sorry, but when I said you guys are powerful, I kind of wasn't including you Gigli freaks... ;)