Shhh... That's what I tell the ladies.

Nothing turns them on more than the time I killed that lion with my bare hands when I spent a year studying Buddhism in Antarctica, at the expense of half my manhood.

Though I have a different opinion regarding the scope of dramas, I tend to agree with Irish on his view regarding comedies. They should at least try to be funny. If they are not funny(to me) then they are are not comedies(to me). Though someone else may find them to be comedies. There is no way one can speak for others, so that definition sounds right to me.

Yeah, but a comedy can not be funny, but still be a good movie. Just like a comedy can be really funny, but not be a good movie at all.

I am sure I am ok with that , though I am not finding any examples to justify myself that I agree. Did you find any popular comedy not funny, yet good?

Smokin' Aces ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

In these interlocking tales of high stakes and low lifes, Mob boss Primo Sparazza has taken out a hefty contract on Buddy "Aces" Israel (Piven)--a sleazy magician who has agreed to turn state's evidence against the Vegas mob. The FBI, sensing a chance to use this small-time con to bring down big-target Sparazza, places Aces into protective custody-under the supervision of two agents (Reynolds and Liotta) dispatched to Aces' Lake Tahoe hideout. When word of the price on Aces' head spreads into the community of ex-cons and cons-to-be, it entices bounty hunters, thugs-for-hire, smokin' hot vixens and double-crossing mobsters to join in the hunt. With all eyes on Tahoe, this rogues' gallery collides in a comic race to hit the jackpot and rub out Aces.

The style of this film reminded me of Snatch somewhat, which I enjoyed. Some light humor early on but I thought the ending was too dramatic (better than the alternate ending but still too dramatic). I always love Jeremy Piven's work.

Piven's good Irish, no doubt. He plays smug little weasels so well that I can't help but think he's one in real life.

That he does. My favorite movie of his is probably PCU. I do however need to start watching Entourage

If you even are remotely interested in Piven, start watching it. He's absolutely brilliant in it.

This is more than a day late and a dollar short, but I went a year and a half ago around Christmas time to see the new King Kong. The film went black with about a half hour left to go. They couldn't fix it, gave the audience a free admission and apologized. Of course this happens right before my favorite part, at the end where Kong gets loose and runs the streets of NYC. I never did see the ending....

Until today, when I happened to see it was on with about a half hour or so left to go and finally saw the end. Poor Kong, the big lug.


TIS

Which version is your favorite TIS?

I'm one who really doesn't mind remakes, if they are done well. I like the updated look. However, nine times out of ten the remakes are never as good. Of course it really depends on the movie too. If one actor/actress is the only one you see in a role, no number of sequels would make it IMHO.

As far as King Kong, I'd probably with go with the Fay Wray original even though so dated and very old.

I did like the one with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, but liked this new one better than that one. Both the remakes were a little too long but the special effects in the new one were good I thought.

TIS

Personally, I'd rank them:

-2005
-1933
-1976

I've only seen parts of the Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange 1976 version. I need to sit down and watch it but as you said, visually the 2005 version is the best and I'm spoiled which is the reason why it's my favorite.

Remember Irish when me and LLC lectured you on how it doesn't matter a movie's length as long as its justified?

Well that said, why did PJ decide on a 3 hour Kong? Nothing that I saw in theatres justified it.

I think the main coarse problem with Peter Jackson's fanboy remake of the 1933 movie he loved is that he applied the same very serious "epic war movie" attitude towards KONG when its the wrong approach. For God sakes, this isn't saving Middle-Earth or some shit...its a bloody giant monkey!*

Worse, there is no fun with the movie. Oh the film TRIES to have fun, but there is nothing to get us perked up for a popcorn ride. Nothing. Nada.

*=The original 1933 movie seems more logical than the $220+ million remake in one way. The old school, its a wild beast of a creature that stomps, kills, eats and does what a undomestic monster of nature is expected in New York City. Yet it seems to have this fascination with the female protagonist as what...plaything or a pet?

Either way, we dig how Kong fights the Air Force off, kicking ass before he goes down in Tony Montana fashion.

With the 2006 remake, it becomes the most expensive f*cked-up beastiality subtext flick I've ever seen. PJ tries and fails to make Kong a victim of...something. With such a crazy love story, why bother having Adrien Brody then? I mean, besides the most f*cked-up love triangle in this decade so far?

I would think Irishman would argue with me, but I can expect it won't happen. He knows that possibility of arguing successfully for his case is about as fruitfull as well punching a brick wall.

As for the 1976 movie....Dino DeLaurentiis makes another super-expensive flop of a would-be superhit flick thats remembered only as cheesy, silly-looking, and worse....looking cheap despite the budget figures. Even Jeff Bridges admits its his greatest mistake(which he only did because he loved the 1933 movie as a kid). It happens. The '33 movie works for what it is, an adventure/monster movie at a time when parts of the world seemed still wild and unexplored and when exploring was still considered a profession of legends and awesomeness.

KING KONG (1933) - ****
KING KONG (1976) - *1/2
KING KONG (2005) - **

"With the 2006 remake, it becomes the most expensive f*cked-up beastiality subtext flick I've ever seen. PJ tries and fails to make Kong a victim of...something. With such a crazy love story, why bother having Adrien Brody then? I mean, besides the most f*cked-up love triangle in this decade so far?"

I find that very funny. Yea, one hell of a love triangle isn't it? It goes to show that some women really do like a little "animal" in their man.

I think as far as remakes go, perhaps another good reason they usually aren't as successful nor as good as the original is simply because we know the story. It was told once, and that same "magic" doesn't occur the second time.

I know it's discussed here how Hollywood has to make remakes because it can't come up with anything original. Sometimes, maybe that's the case. If KK was a new story it most likely would have been better received. Imagine what a spectale it must have been when the 1933 version came out.

I saw the recent remake of "The Omen". The storyline/script was faithful to the original, the acting was good, but it still wasn't the same as the original.

TIS

Midnight Cowboy ***
(Second Viewing)

Texas greenhorn Joe Buck (John Voight) arrives in New York for the first time. Preening himself as a real 'hustler', he finds that he is the one getting 'hustled' until he teams up with a down-and-out but resilient outcast named Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman). The initial 'country cousin meets city cousin' relationship deepens. In their efforts to bilk a hostile world rebuffing them at every turn, this unlikely pair progress from partners in shady business to comrades. Each has found his first real friend.

Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight put together some really great performances. Definitely better the second time around and I LOVE the film's soundtrack of Everybody's Talkin'

No ronnie I'm just tired of seeing you post, reading through 5 paragraphs of pointless chatter to get to the point. Oh and you always say I have to get the last word. Have you still not looked in the mirror yet? I guess not

Girls, let's settle this with good old fashion group sex.

You bring the condoms, I'll bring the harpoon. Oh, and can someone bring this thing?:

Hey what you and your friend do on the other board, leave it there when you come over here

I haven't seen Midnight Cowboy in years. Dustin Hoffman was wonderful in that film. If I'm not mistaken, at the time before or even when it was released they gave it an "x" rating. Anyone else remember that? Even though it was a serious movie, one of the most memorable lines.... "I'm walking here!" Ha ha

Btw, I'm sure you all know that Jon Voight is Angelina Jolie's father.

TIS

In other words, you don't have an argument against me, as always. How about you call me elitist and wind this up? Its bedtime for you bonzo.

On second thought, using your preference for statements instead of reasoning, lets see how it works:

Old Style: "Irishman states but never explains in comparative criticism why a movie is better than another. When people outargue him or sink his points to shit like that iceberg did to the Titanic, he calls them elitist and cries about it. He defends himself like a girl with polio. Either movies are great or boring-as-hell. He's a whore for Tarantino, yet unlike many whores, he doesn't display any creative thoughts on his own that make people stand attention and think."

New Irish-Proposed Style: He Sucks.

Just watched Rhinestone again. The production quality of that movie, the acting, Stallone's singing, the depth of his perfromance, I just can't watch it enough. It's the only movie I have on CD. I don't understand why it wasn't nominated in all categories.

Yes, such a loving father figure, she absolutely f*cking hates him. I hate him for ANACONDA alone, but thats another thing.

MC is a really good movie, and whats funny about that X-rating is, the director approved it. He thought the subject material wasn't appropriate for young people, with guardians or not, to watch it at the time.

Wait wait, RHINESTONE with Dolly Parton and Sly?

No ronnie as I just said I'm tired of seeing you post. If you want me to say it and if it'll end this, fine you win. Happy?

Win? WIN? WIN?!?

The fight was won before it even began!

Seriously, you would be a good jobber in wrestling. You would masterfully sell it(which even in my best substantial-days can't cut off as well). You'll rule like the Conquistadors and Flash Funk!

...or Brooklyn Brawler, making a living off of surprising Royal Rumble berths.

Fine. Whatever. Get in your cracks and let's get back on topic and discuss movies.

You laugh, but I get the feeling you're posting in nothing but a single tube sock.

Guess where you're wearing it? I'll give you a hint. It's not your foot.

Why is it that people demand to get back on topic when they lose?

But, I agree...back to the movies. Enough of kids stuff.

300 (2007) - ***

Yeah I reviewed it already, but I tell ya, that SOUTH PARK episode guaranteed that I can't watch 300 without piss-laughing again. I should feel bad for Zach Snyder, but he did the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake so fuck him. Lost of half-a-star.

THIS IS LESBOS! *groin-kick*

Yeah, that macho movie that some people gave 4-full stars to, I wonder how they can watch it without realizing how some of it just...so...gay. I mean before the dyke jokes on SOUTH PARK. Man-Meat versus Dead-Meat.

He's the greatest of the jobbers...making one hell of a career of being a jobber-to-the-stars(to those that don't know, thats a guy that beats up super-jobbers and sometimes mid-cards, but job out to "stars". Self-explaining I know) while his poor brother was an outright jobber.

Besides, Brooklyn Brawler fought The Rock. Now Aint That Cool?