[Vision2020] King Kong Review

[Tom Hansen]

Are you kiddin', Arnold?

King Kong is a classic among classics.  

Who hasn't seen King Kong?

For that matter, whose grandparents haven't seen King Kong?

What started out as a minor-level, entertaining, sci-fi excursion depicting
1930's technology has become a giant of giants.  It (as you say) has
everything: horror, romance, heroes, good guys, and bad guys.  And all
presented with (as I said) 1930's technology.

Note to Carl Westberg:  Rumor has it that the next remake will feature
Angelina Jolie in a tight black leather catsuit cast in Faye Ray's old role.
Stay tuned.

I realize that the original King Kong and the succeeding remake after remake
after remake are not in keeping with such televised marvels as Comedy
Central's "Short Attention Span Theater", but I am not about to change the
channel, or my viewing habits.

Take care, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

 “Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, chocolate in one hand, a drink in the other, body thoroughly used
up, totally worn out and screaming 'WOO HOO. What a ride!'”

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Chasuk
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:21 AM
To: Donovan Arnold
Cc: Vision2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] King Kong Review

On 12/19/05, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no intention of watching this movie. It is the most overdone movie
> and was only good to start with because of the special effects.

I'm afraid I don't understand the above paragraph.  You write:

"I have no intention of watching this movie."

The words "this movie" should logically apply to the film I have
reviewed, Peter Jackson's King Kong, so that is how I will interpret
them. You then write:

"It is the most overdone movie..."

"It," as a pronoun, should refer to the film mentioned in the previous
sentence, which confuses because the first sentence clearly reveals
that you haven't seen Peter Jackson's King Kong, hence are unqualified
to make the judgement that the first half of the second sentence
indicates you are making.  You conclude:

"...and was only good to start with because of the special effects."

Unambiguously, the remainder of this sentence also refers to Peter
Jackson's King Kong.  To understand why, re-write the sentence with
the middle omitted, and for clarity re-insert it in your paragraph:

"I have no intention of watching this movie.  It was only good to
start with because of the special effects."

I'm guessing that you intended to write something similar to this:

"I disliked the 1933 King Kong (which, in my opinion, was only popular
due to the special effects), so I have no intention of wasting my
time, or money, watching a modern remake."

If that is what you meant, I'll have to disagree with your opinion of
the 1933 version.  Special effects didn't seduce me as a kid, and they
don't seduce me now.  I loved the story then, and I love it now,
because I am a chump for romantic tragedies.

_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯