| Author |
Message
|
| frusnak |
 Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:56 am Post subject: king kong |
 |
|
CFO
|
Just got back from seeing the new king kong movie  Man the special effects were totally awesome! Might not win academy awards for acting but it is worth the price of admission. Do not drink too much while your in the theater though because it is three hours long  you might miss some of the action  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Benjamin |
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Administrator
|
I've also heard it is a great flick well worth the price of admission. It's box office take has been very disappointing though. Nick Digilio (my favorite movie critic) was practically disgusted more people weren't seeing this movie.
I'd better go. heh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dave Rathbun |
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
I'm not going, have no plans to go. The story is been done many times before, and I'm not inclined to sit through a 3 hour movie (even if it is by Peter Jackson) just to see how the special effects have improved.
I think whoever okay'd the $200M development price tag is in big trouble. I can't imagine they really thought that the box office take would support that kind of budget. There's too much of a "been there / done that" feeling about the movie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrbradg |
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Sr. Associate
|
| When has it been done before? I went and saw it with my son and thought it was very good. I think natural disaster movies and romance comedy's are the ones that have been done and done again. That's the movies I'm sick of. This movie is good and well worth seeing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| seraphim101 |
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Sr. Associate
|
I didn't appreciate it nearly as much as the old version. And why is hollywood against using real trained animals with a good camera view. Now all movied are computer generated.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dave Rathbun |
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
| mrbradg wrote: | | When has it been done before? |
1933 with Fay Wray
1976 with Jessica Lange
and finally 2005 (featuring Naomi Watts as the object of affection this time) as the current release. One remake is sometimes okay, a second remake is just, well, another remake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| frusnak |
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CFO
|
 I rate them in this order
1. 1933-originality, pretty scary in its day. I was a little kid when I saw it! Did not see it in the theater, I am not that old 
2. 2005- special effects by far some of the best yet from hollywood!
3. 1976- not worth the price of a ticket even at 1976 prices! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| romi0 |
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Investing Associate
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 15
This Month: 0
6148.09 e$
Net worth: 8,119.27
Portfolio Value: 1,971.18
Monthly Return: 10.44%
Trades this month: 0
Churn Rate: 0.00%Items
|
| i was not very pleased - effects were to overwhelming.... maybe P. Jackson gould wait another 10 years to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
stock market game on the web. At eInvesting you compete for monthly cash prizes while you interact, make virtual dollars, purchase items, and trade in the realistic stock market simulator. We make investing FUN!
