WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
I feel like I've been on a great rollercoaster ride tonight! Yeah, I just came from seeing KING KONG... and as I predicted, it was indeed geek porn. My nipples got erect as soon as the fog hit the ship and didn't go back to normal until ...well... nope, still not yet.
I've read some shitnick reviews where the critic was too full of bile to like the ride, saying things like, "Our response to the ape's doom, once touched by authentic tragedy, is now marked by relief that this wretchedly excessive movie is finally over." Fuck you, Richard Corliss of Time. You people have been on my shit list ever since that piece you did for the 2000 election, using me as your lead in and making me look like a poverty stricken moron. Now, you're dead to me. Dead, I say!
First of all, did you ever actually see the original? There was no sympathy for the beast in that one. He was pure spectacle and sympathy was waaaaay down the list of what you would have felt for him at the time. And if you didn't feel sympathy this go-round, then I'm gonna guess someone wasn't breastfed as a babe. Aside from that, this pic is full of nuggets of goodness and if you were over-powered by all the "excessiveness," then maybe you're just not man enough for this film. Scratch that... you're not WOman enough for this film.
Jackson is a reader, plain and simple, and he will put homages to his favorite influences everywhere he can possibly put them. He also knows that his fans are readers and he hides these nuggets in the frame every chance he gets. Were you just paying attention to the obvious Joseph Conrad book that you missed all the Melville? Did you miss the subtle movie posters in the backgrounds that were actually tributes to the original writers, Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace, and director and cast? Hell, he even threw in references to his own silly movies... Sumatran Rat Monkey, anyone?
"Even if this were the first gorilla-in-love movie ever made, audiences would come away vaguely dissatisfied, suspecting there was an intriguing idea buried somewhere in here, but it didn't quite come off." What do you want, Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronical? Perhaps you missed a key line in the movie and were watching the film as Ann had read Jack's script... "it's in the subtext," dork. Just because the CGI is a spectacle doesn't mean that Jackson thinks he has to hold your hand through the fucking epic. Think steel industry and next time count the number of uses you see. Ever hear of the "robber barons?" Andrew Carnegie ring a bell? How about J.P. Morgan? Cornelius Vanderbilt? John D. Rockefeller? They were industry monopolists AND bankers at the same time... a time that established the class system we have today: when ten percent of American businessmen controlled over 90 percent of US wealth. Who financed the first 2 world wars, do you think? Now, what context does that remind you of today.
Want to read more into the new context that he's created between "beauty and the beast?" I'll spare you the lengthy contrasting comparisons and let you make up your own mind, along with the whole "Schrodinger's Cat" principle, love and its consequences, and what he's trying to say about our relationship with nature. You all need to have something to discuss on your own after you see it, right? Or not. Whatever.
Regardless of my geek rant above, there is a part of me that was hoping for some luggage abuse. Or perhaps a giant crap fling... a la GHOSTBUSTERS when the Stay Puft Marshmellow man's melted remains falls on the bad guy from the rooftop way above. C'mon! Crap from the Empire State Building! You know you've all thought about that yourselves. Hell, he could have taken out several planes in one fecal curveball!
Anyway, to all you crap flinging critics out there, my guess is you're just posturing to Jackson's alpha male, chest-pounding movie skillz. To that I say: Go get a real job, poopieheads!
I feel like I've been on a great rollercoaster ride tonight! Yeah, I just came from seeing KING KONG... and as I predicted, it was indeed geek porn. My nipples got erect as soon as the fog hit the ship and didn't go back to normal until ...well... nope, still not yet.
I've read some shitnick reviews where the critic was too full of bile to like the ride, saying things like, "Our response to the ape's doom, once touched by authentic tragedy, is now marked by relief that this wretchedly excessive movie is finally over." Fuck you, Richard Corliss of Time. You people have been on my shit list ever since that piece you did for the 2000 election, using me as your lead in and making me look like a poverty stricken moron. Now, you're dead to me. Dead, I say!
First of all, did you ever actually see the original? There was no sympathy for the beast in that one. He was pure spectacle and sympathy was waaaaay down the list of what you would have felt for him at the time. And if you didn't feel sympathy this go-round, then I'm gonna guess someone wasn't breastfed as a babe. Aside from that, this pic is full of nuggets of goodness and if you were over-powered by all the "excessiveness," then maybe you're just not man enough for this film. Scratch that... you're not WOman enough for this film.
Jackson is a reader, plain and simple, and he will put homages to his favorite influences everywhere he can possibly put them. He also knows that his fans are readers and he hides these nuggets in the frame every chance he gets. Were you just paying attention to the obvious Joseph Conrad book that you missed all the Melville? Did you miss the subtle movie posters in the backgrounds that were actually tributes to the original writers, Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace, and director and cast? Hell, he even threw in references to his own silly movies... Sumatran Rat Monkey, anyone?
"Even if this were the first gorilla-in-love movie ever made, audiences would come away vaguely dissatisfied, suspecting there was an intriguing idea buried somewhere in here, but it didn't quite come off." What do you want, Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronical? Perhaps you missed a key line in the movie and were watching the film as Ann had read Jack's script... "it's in the subtext," dork. Just because the CGI is a spectacle doesn't mean that Jackson thinks he has to hold your hand through the fucking epic. Think steel industry and next time count the number of uses you see. Ever hear of the "robber barons?" Andrew Carnegie ring a bell? How about J.P. Morgan? Cornelius Vanderbilt? John D. Rockefeller? They were industry monopolists AND bankers at the same time... a time that established the class system we have today: when ten percent of American businessmen controlled over 90 percent of US wealth. Who financed the first 2 world wars, do you think? Now, what context does that remind you of today.
Want to read more into the new context that he's created between "beauty and the beast?" I'll spare you the lengthy contrasting comparisons and let you make up your own mind, along with the whole "Schrodinger's Cat" principle, love and its consequences, and what he's trying to say about our relationship with nature. You all need to have something to discuss on your own after you see it, right? Or not. Whatever.
Regardless of my geek rant above, there is a part of me that was hoping for some luggage abuse. Or perhaps a giant crap fling... a la GHOSTBUSTERS when the Stay Puft Marshmellow man's melted remains falls on the bad guy from the rooftop way above. C'mon! Crap from the Empire State Building! You know you've all thought about that yourselves. Hell, he could have taken out several planes in one fecal curveball!
Anyway, to all you crap flinging critics out there, my guess is you're just posturing to Jackson's alpha male, chest-pounding movie skillz. To that I say: Go get a real job, poopieheads!
