Posted on 12/17/2005 11:10:22 AM PST by dangus
I know you didn't say that. The article says that and I am wondering what makes Kong so violent and horrific. I asked you since you've seen it.
Well, the humans kill him. They kidnap him from the island, and he falls off of a really tall building. Also, a lot of action/violent stuff happens on the island. Pretty much like the first two King Kongs, except with more realistic effects. I saw the 70s/80s one when I was 10 or so, and it didn't scar me for life. I have to admit that I felt pretty sorry for the gorilla, but I think that's the point of the movie.
He sold his soul when he wrote a glowing review of Clinton's book for the NYTimes to counteract the lousy review the book received from the Times' critic.
You picked two good ones! "Harry Potter and the Goblet" and "Narnia" are the only two films my husbie and I saw this year. And we are 2 old, retired, grandparently types!
It wasn't intentional. Maybe this would work: Another punch in the Gut for blue-state America. Does that work?
Because the Golden Globes represent how much critics WANT a movie to succeed, not necessarily how good it is. True, there occasionally is some correlation between those two factors: it's normal to want a movie you've liked to succeed. But they are not the same thing.
I still want to see Kong and Narnia
I will drag my wife next weekend if i can
Larry McMurtry doesn't need the money. And by all accounts doesn't care much for money.
On the other hand, he's fascinated by the cowboy genre, both traditional (Lonesome Dove) and updated (Horseman, Pass by (Hud), The Last Picture Show, etc.).
Why on earth would you pay people to such a movie? Weren't there any decent movies that seemed interesting? Narnia? Kong? Pride and Prejudice?
Of course, since it's about 2 gay cowboys, it's garnered umpteen golden globe nominations already. Nothing else has been mentioned as nominated for anything.
Guess they are trying to push this junk on the American public and they aren't buying.
I don't plan on seeing this movie in the theatre, or ever ever rent it.
Original Kong: Beast fell for the Beauty.
New Kong: Beauty pines for the Beast.
While I'm sure the effects are stunning, I lay dollars to doughnuts the original story was far superior.
And where do they herd their sheep - in Wyoming? Where men are men and sheep are nervous.
The movie was fine. It just left out a lot. Considering it was a LONG movie, that had to happen.
I had some slight interest in seeing Casanova. When I heard that the actor was one of the leads in 'Bareback' Mountain, I lost all interest. It will sting, at least for a while.
There's really no way to do Casanova on the screen. Fellini tried and got fouled up. If you want to know more about the guy, read portions of History of My Life (Willard Trask translation).
I will not see this film either and after reading this review I consider this movie to be a horrifying sex show. Actors Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal have lost my confidence of ever seeing them in a movie after the immoral acting display they did in this movie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.