Sunday, December 18, 2005

King Kong 2005 - Review

I have seen allot of movies in my days and I must admit this one is definitely one of the most amazing fantasy adventure films of all time. The computerized visual effects (especially Kong) are simply breathtaking at times in this film. However someone lost their perspective and went a bit overboard with certain scenes, I’ll get to that in a minute.

I personally loved the character of Kong although he was a totally computerized version of the giant gorilla he had great personality and he looked awesome. He was so huge and such a gigantic, even heroic figure I just could not get enough of him. I already want a sequel or prequel in this case and have figured out a storyline that will work perfectly.

Well Done, is all I can say to the folks who created Kong in their minds eyes and transferred that to the screen. Mr. Jackson I suppose gets the credit here and his team of software folks and art directors. Now with all that said here is the downside. There is some rough language which was offensive to me as a Christian however I realize that many people do talk this way so it will be no big deal to most adults but Not for Children.

People, you must learn to leave the young kids at home! There was a baby crying throughout the entire movie and the so called parents would not remove themselves and the baby from this theatre. There was nearly a fight in the place afterwards.

The special effects although marvelous at times were way over used. There are two or three sequences that I would have cut from the film had I been the editor which would have shortened the total time maybe by 30 minutes or so. I could have cut some regular footage as well from the first hour and made this move much closer to two hours instead of three. There is a sequence that ran for nearly 10 minutes it seemed where the crew is running from a stampede of dinosaurs that is just plain stupid and looks so horribly unrealistic that I was shocked that it was left in the movie. I can only think that Mr. Jackson lost his perspective while making this film and no one had the guts to sit him down and tell him how bad this looked. It really does take away from a movie that could otherwise be called a masterpiece. There are other scenes that are nearly just a bad and unrealistic but I will let you judge them for yourself.

The acting was good enough for any special effects driven film. Jack Black was really convincing as a shrewd film director with no-morals, basically a con man willing to do whatever it takes to get his picture. Naomi Watts was really great as Ann Darrow the woman who Kong falls in love with and her with him as well. I also thought the natives of skull Island were very well done. They were very evil and scary looking.

The rest of the cast including the writer Jack Driscoll played by Adrian Brody was well played considering the unusual circumstances they had to deal with. Amazingly enough, I have to say it was the directing and perhaps the writing that needs improvement here. Although Jackson shows brilliance as he did with the Rings trilogy, he dropped the ball and lost his perspective along the way. He tried to make us laugh at times in scenes that would have been so frighteneing for a normal person I felt it was just way out there.

Finally, what could have been the greatest special effects movie of all time was a miss-fire in my book. King Kong was a really good movie that could have been much, much better. Don't get me wrong it was worth seeing on the BIG screen as only King Kong should be seen but many will walk away with a feeling of what could have been.

I give it 3 out of 5 banana’s .....

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

John Kerry compares US troops to terrorists!

I did a search on this today after I heard on the radio that John F. Kerry (who was in Vietnam) had said this on one of the Sunday news shows. Of course no one in the so called mainstream media is commenting on this story at all that I can find. I thought it was worth mentioning. I finally found a mention of it in a blog called Captains Quarters.

John Kerry: American Soldiers Are Terrorists

John Kerry appeared yesterday on the CBS talking-head show, "Face The Nation", to discuss the war in Iraq with Bob Schieffer. Just as in his speeches on the Viet Nam War, Kerry has slipped into deep Left-speak in an attempt to gain national traction for his pose as a party leader. In fact, in language reminiscent of his infamous "Genghis Khan" speech before the Senate in April 1971, he yesterday referred to American soldiers as terrorists -- and then suggested that we leave terrorism to the new Iraqi army.

From page 3-4 of the CBS transcript, emphasis mine (h/t:CQ reader Dave Z):

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay the course because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?

Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...


Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

End of quotes.

Now I heard the tape on this and Kerry stumbled and bumbled through that part of his speech after he likened the US troops to terrorists. He is an eloquent speaker but at times he trips himself up when he gets carried away or perhaps when he lies. Again Kerry is comparing the US troops to terrorists just as he did when he returned from Vietnam in 1971 and again he has no evidence for this claim just a firm belief in his anti-military heart that all soldiers are terrorists. Is he concerned about Iraqi women and Children? Obviously not because he says in the very next sentence that it is the Iraqi troops that should be doing the terrorizing of Iraqi women and children.

Now my next question is to Mr. Kerry, how long will it be before you accuse American soldiers of raping, killing and mutilating the bodies of these same Iraqi women and children just as you did on Vietnam? You might say well it did happen in Vietnam, he was right. Yet he has since backtracked and said he never witnessed any of these events happening but he had been told by other soldiers that they had done it. This is after he testified before Congress saying that he personally witnessed and took part in said atrocities.

In Conclusion John Kerry is a documented liar who will say anything to further his political ambitions, including accusations that our troops are terrorists. I will bet that his words will be repeated by the press, yes-sir the press in the middle east where more Muslims will be enraged and take up arms against US troops when they hear this kind of talk coming from and American Senator.