They'll eat your balls off!!!! Think of Feisty and Bad Boy! Think of the children you will never have nor wanted!!

So, again. How do you feel about balls?

Did they finally give this Kong a set of balls?

Or did they make him like his predecessors and Kong is a eunich, too?

August 12, 1926

today I saw the great ape's genitalia up close.

oh. my. God.

The original King Kong film was one of the most anti-negro films of its era. Here is a photo of the pilots in one of the Biplanes who shot Kong off of the Empire State building.

I had to hotlink it.

If they don't make this version of Kong anatomically correct, then I'm not going to bother going. No way am I going to spend two hours in the theatre watching characters I can't relate to, because none of them have absolutely enormous genitals.

Actually, I believe gorillas have some of the tiniest junk in relation to body size of all the primates.

But then he could have just been rationalizing. At least he was a good dancer.

Eh. It's probably yet another sign of my advancing age, but I probably won't bother to see this in the theater. I'm getting to the point now that the whole "theater experience" is so lackluster, expensive, and worthless that the three-to-six month wait for the DVD is worthwhile. Plus, Kong isn't really a "must see" movie for me in the same way the LOTR movies were -- I'm not much of a fan of the original movie, so a remake isn't really going to light my fire much.

What Monty said. The second remake of a so-so movie is not going to get me to the theatre. I'll wait for the DVD.

I don't like to say I told you so...

So I wont..;-)

So, in other words, Hewitt was right?

Go ahead, RWS. You can say it. If it was the other way around you can bet we'd hear about it.

Sl let's see... if a six-foot ape has a two-inch-long Kerry, than a sixty-foot-tall ape should be...
oh dear...

Tom, I was going to mention that little factoid about apes getting the short end of the stick -- proportionally, that is.

But how would it look if Timmy starts talking penis?

I really dont get why people expect this to be a huge blockbuster. Endless ads aside, it doesn't seem that interesting.

And obviously, this is a movie america needs to see. If you don't, you're an apeaphobe.

Well, I was wrong. Expected Narnia to open well, maybe 40 million, not 67. Also, if these numbers hold up, expected Kong to do much better.

Didn't have much invested in Kong. Really only knew it in my youth through that Delaurentis version which really kinda bored me and that Kong V. Godzilla movie (where I wasn't rooting for the monkey, believe you me). Just thought it was one of those archtypal adventure stories that, fully CGI'd, would appeal to mass audiences.

But then I saw it yesterday. Wow. Great movie. A lost island, hints at a dead civilization, giant creatures in big, real fights. World's biggest monkey climbs the worlds biggest building (of course!). Characters arent' wandering around doing stupid things for stupid 'movie plot' reasons. What more could you want out of a movie?

Just saying, now that I've seen it, I'm even more surpised that this ain't doing big business. Still suspect it'll do much better long run, but surprising it's not opening huge.

Dr. Reo --

I just opined this over at Dave's place, but what the hey. After seeing it today, I am unsurprised by Kong's underperformance at the box office, and I will be equally unsurprised if it winds up laying a giant egg. It is simply way, way, WAY too long.

Skull Island and its various denizens look amazing and are initially terrifying, as are the action sequences there -- but they go on far too long, to the point of becoming wearying. That first hour is even more of a killer -- it is filled with pointless exposition and is deathly boring, to the point I found myself asking my brother, "Isn't there supposed to be an ape in this movie somewhere?"

With at least an hour cut out of it, Kong would have been the best adventure movie in years. At its current length, I found it a crashing (in many senses of the word) bore. Too bad Jackson is too powerful for anyone to dare cut down the excessive length of this movie.

What more could you want out of a movie?

A Queen Kong?

Despite its general awfulness I have a soft spot for the 70s remake because I was an extra in the stadium scene where Kong is hidden under a giant gas pump. (I still have some of the ballons and stuff they gave us in a box somewhere. Seemed like a great souveneir to a 12 year old.) The extent of the robot's abilities was just a bunch of facial animation but this was before that sort of thing became common in film and seemed pretty amazing at the time.

And of course I watched the original on TV a zillion times. For a monster movie crazed kid it still looked pretty good when all you had was a B&W set.

But I just cannot summon any enthusiasm for this new version. I'm sure I watch it on TV and review some of the better FX sequences whenever the opportunity arises but nothing about the idea of this remake holds any interest for me. No matter how beautifully done it is still a case of been there done that. For much the same reason I had no interest in seeing the SE version of the Star Wars movies. OK, you've gotten rid of the horrible optical printing shadows in 'Return of the Jedi' but it remains the same movie and just not interested enough to spend money on it.

There are far too many good stories waiting to get made for bother with retreads. I'd love to see a Man-Kzin Wars mini-series done right.

JESUS WINS! My Jesus can beat your monkey (ahem.)

Merry Christmas!

I wonder .... if Kong had been cast as an albino ape and the heroine black ... would that have put the racist accusations to sleep?

>There are far too many good stories waiting to get made for bother with retreads

Dante's tale about descent into the inferno would make a good horror movie.

I just didn't have a problem with the first hour. Nothing I hate more than clunky plot setup through fakey expostion-ridden dialogue. Just rips me outta the fantasy and screams 'Movie" (and bad movie at that). GHlad there was none o that.

Also, the fact that hour was spent on the steamer on the way. I hate in movies how they try to convery the sense of a long journey through a montage or something, or don't try at all with a jump cut. If you're on the way to some hidden island around far distant singapore, take your time. The longer the journey feels, the more real its impact. The more you have invested on its arrival.

Also, some of my lack-of-issue with it is that it was set on a tramp like that. Trips into the mysterious orient on tramp steamers just cry out adventure to me, trigger something in my brain. Gald they didn't rush it one bit.

I know peope are gonna talk up the 'but it's Three Hours' angle, but I wonder if they're not just repeating what they're expected to say. ( Yes, i'm arguing the 'false consciousness' theory of movie criticism.) That critics, though not hating it themselves, talk that up 3 hours thinking the 'regular guy' (Mr. modern short attention span, internet twitchy fella) is gonna be bothered by it, and audiences, thinking they're supposed to be bothered by it, complain about it fulfilling the prophesy.

I've had trouble with long movies before (I liked most of the LOTR, but looked at my watch frequently in those) but honestly didn't feel it here. Again, maybe this is just me and my tramp steamers romanticizing along with a kind of fascination with the era the movie was set in, but I loved the build up and was very glad it took its time.

Does King diddle the lady like in the original version?

Dr. Reo --

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I agree with a lot of what you like -- and not only do I like tramp steamer journeys and trips to the orient and lost worlds, but I was thrilled that it was set in the 1930s. The period is among my favorites, and I am a big fan of pulp.

That being said, I assure you that the only critic telling me it was too long was the giant lead weight my ass had turned into by the end of the first hour. I had been disposed to like this movie, as I really had no qualms about Kong being remade and as I am a huge Peter Jackson fan, but I was bored silly nonetheless.

What struck me, though, was that I went with two people who felt *exactly* the way I did when the lights came up. One was neutral to it when we went in, the other was foaming at the mouth in anticipation -- I had been looking forward to it as well. All three of us were immensely disappointed. If it had just been my reaction I wouldn't be expecting the lousy box office, but I really think it's simply too long, too indulgent, and too draggy to appeal to mass audiences -- whatever the critics are telling them.

The new ape could never hold a candle to the origional KING KONG just like DINO DELARINTISES putrid remake its just a cheap imatation

The comment quality control fairy must be drunk and passed out, spurwing, so let me offer you a link you might find useful.

Who are you to call Ace a drunk fairy??

What more could you want out of a movie?

He vould haff an enormous schwanschtucker!

thought I'd repost this pic showing how every-thing's just a rerun

hmm. a movie about a giant ape who climbs the Empire State Building...THAT'S ORIGINAL!!!

I'm looking forward to watch it someday for its fantastic cinematography and storyline.

I just assumed that no one wanted to watch a 3-hour movie on a Wednesday night. I'll see it when I don't have work the next morning, thank you.

And Teri Garr was the hottest woman ever in YF. What enormous knockers.

There used to be a KING KONG cartoon on TV back a few years ago