Films/DVD Asylum

Duncan Shepherd on the King. (I am often accused of reading only Boston reviews. Others say...

208.58.2.83

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email Next ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

clarkjohnsen

(R)

...I read too much from San Diego... whereas they prefer Ebert's town of Chicago?
Whatever, Duncan and I do not enjoy CGI.
"Three hours are not automatically 'better' than one and three-quarters or two and one-quarter. Even the supposed progress in special effects -- from stop-motion models to computer animation -- is largely illusory. The former falsity of stiffness and creakiness has simply been replaced by the falsity of fluidness and facileness."

http://www.sdreader.com/published/current/shepherd.html (Open in New Window)

Follow Ups:

"I am often accused of reading only Boston reviews." - Actually, you've been accused of posting reviews of films... - Audiophilander 13:41:38 12/23/05 (10)
... you haven't taken the time to watch yourself, rather than 1st hand reviews! Of course this isn't always true, but unfortunately it turns out to be the case far too often from my humble perspective. In any event, I'm much more interested in what YOU have to say about this film than debate contrasting viewpoints with a newspaper column written by someone whose opinions you apparently worship. So Clark, what did YOU think of Peter Jackson's King Kong, without looking at the teleprompter or trying to extract nuance from Mr. Shepard's pompous newspaper column? ;^)
AuPh
- Unlike some -- I am interested in writing and criticism for its own sake. For instance... - clarkjohnsen 09:26:10 12/24/05 (9)
  ...when I read about a music performance, I don't have to have been there to learn something about music. Criticism is not the simple-minded determination of whether one is agreed with (or, not). A good critic introduces us to a larger view, one that may be taken without having seen (or heard) the event in question.
  Also, kettle to pot! Kettle to pot! Duncan is being called "pompous" by YOU?
  clark
  - Re: I appreciate this approach, personally. * - Guy 01:03:02 12/28/05 (0)
    ...
  - Okay, since you skillfully evaded my question, here's a more direct one (I'm pretty sure that I know the answer): - Audiophilander 00:22:31 12/25/05 (7)
    Have you seen Peter Jackson's King Kong? BTW, a simple YES or NO response will suffice!
    > > > "Also, kettle to pot! Kettle to pot! Duncan is being called "pompous" by YOU?" < < <
    Was that too harsh? Endorsing a critic's opinion without having seen the film in question is indeed pompous and your unwillingness to sever your apparently uninformed opinions from his informed opinions only limits the value of his review. BTW, I do see the movies I review, even if I link other's reviews, after the fact.
    AuPh
    - "BTW, I do see the movies I review." Is that a fact? Then why do you doubt that someone else wouldn't? nt - clarkjohnsen 11:16:37 12/26/05 (6)
      x
      - Re: A Question for Mr. Johnsen... - Guy 01:02:47 12/27/05 (5)
        
        In Reply to: "BTW, I do see the movies I review." Is that a fact? Then why do you doubt that someone else wouldn't? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on December 26, 2005 at 11:16:37:
        
        Is the way you report on movies (if AuPh is correct) the same way you report on audio?
        Respectfully submitted,
        Guy
        
        I did not "report on" that woman.. er, that movie. Bug off, don't be a big creep. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:04:53 12/27/05 (4)
        
        In Reply to: Re: A Question for Mr. Johnsen... posted by Guy on December 27, 2005 at 01:02:47:
        
        x
        
        Re:Pot to kettle, kettle to pot: Mr. Johnsen calling on others for name-calling * - Guy 22:14:46 12/27/05 (2)
        
        In Reply to: I did not "report on" that woman.. er, that movie. Bug off, don't be a big creep. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on December 27, 2005 at 09:04:53:
        
        ...
        
        Mommy! That mean ol' Mr. Johnsen across the street, he called me a POT!... Mommy, what's a pot? nt - clarkjohnsen 07:30:04 12/28/05 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re:Pot to kettle, kettle to pot: Mr. Johnsen calling on others for name-calling * posted by Guy on December 27, 2005 at 22:14:46:
        
        s
        
        Re: How did you know I wasn't *affected* by "kettle"? * - Guy 12:43:32 12/28/05 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Mommy! That mean ol' Mr. Johnsen across the street, he called me a POT!... Mommy, what's a pot? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on December 28, 2005 at 07:30:04:
        
        ...
        
        A-ha! So, you didn't see the movie; technically, you're just peddling second hand opinions as your own. - Audiophilander 10:36:10 12/27/05 (0)
        
        In Reply to: I did not "report on" that woman.. er, that movie. Bug off, don't be a big creep. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on December 27, 2005 at 09:04:53:
        
        LOL! You're definitely a piece of work, Mr. Johnsen. ;^D
        AuPh
"The Kong films show a sharp decline, this one a farther step down from the last than the last was down from the first." - WinthorpeIII 13:28:37 12/23/05 (4)
Amen.
- Wrong! - Audiophilander 13:51:10 12/23/05 (3)
  Sorry, Windthorpe, I couldn't disagree with you more. This King Kong is so much better than it's predecessors, with the exception of the original on which it was based, that it makes earlier efforts pale in comparison. It isn't without flaw mind you, but the pompous critic who trashed this film in the San Diego Reader critic's column doesn't know $#!+ from Shinola, IMHO.
  AuPh
  - Right, Wrong? C'mon! - WinthorpeIII 14:29:21 12/23/05 (2)
    Why do you think there has to be a right and wrong on this? It's entertainment and to use the term very loosely, art. It's subjective.
    The review is just a viewpoint and to me one that is more reasonable than any praise of that mess. You enjoyed it -- great. I did not. I found it impossibly boring and pointless, bad filmmaking. There was very little story and so much wrong with it. Am I WRONG? Please.
    - "The review is just a viewpoint and to me one that is more reasonable than any praise of that mess." It's an isipid ... - Audiophilander 02:27:16 12/24/05 (1)
      ...review, IMHO; you should've described your experience rather than tossing in the dismissive "amen" as your curt response. That's why I responded as I did.
      You certainly have a right to differ with my viewpoint, but having seen these films I'm left with the unavoidable conclusion that your opinion and that of the reviewer's is in error regarding Kong's decline from production to production. For anyone to even attempt to rank the lousy 70's Dino Delaurentis King Kong above Peter Jackson's magnificent effort is, shall we say, naive at best.
      AuPh
      - Re: "The review is just a viewpoint and to me one that is more reasonable than any praise of that mess." It's an isipid - TomD 07:10:23 12/24/05 (0)
        
        In Reply to: "The review is just a viewpoint and to me one that is more reasonable than any praise of that mess." It's an isipid ... posted by Audiophilander on December 24, 2005 at 02:27:16:
        
        "For anyone to even attempt to rank the lousy 70's Dino Delaurentis King Kong above Peter Jackson's magnificent effort is, shall we say, naive at best."
        I agree with you on that. The PJ film is tons better then the Delauerentis version.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

McShane Design

You can not post to an archived thread.