twain - i think you, like others, keep missing my point. i'll get to that later but i wanted to comment on something, since you took the effort to quote me and then argue against something i didn't actually say...
the staring bit - there was plenty going on in the film without the (i bet if we took a timer to it there'd be at least 10 minutes) of straight up staring. yeah, i totally agree, you'd stare at a monster gorilla, so would i. but you so thoughtfully ignored what I said immediately after that - eventually people STOP staring. eventually. yes, that's what i said.
this means, i don't mind they stared. this means, i think it makes sense they stared. so what i meant was sometimes maybe the 5 minute stare should have been, oh, say 1 minute. and maybe the 35 shots of staring could have been, hmm, mebbe 10? we'd still get the point. (note: these are example numbers. i did not actually time them. so leave me alone about it.)
your statements can imply i don't know what i'm talking about and need to pull up and get outta dodge with my conflicting opinion, but in the end it's just your opinion. i'm not about to say, why'd you bother go seeing X film and go watch a documentary instead cuz clearly you can't appreciate what i appreciate. sheezus. no need to go there, hot stuff.
you think kong did way better than the other films. good for you. my point wasn't to compare it to the other films. i could care less about them for my review. i didn't pay $8 to go see them. my point was to take it as it was, and say, it had the potential to be way more than it was (and don't many things in this world?) and it still overdid it for me. but it did a pretty good job, just fell short, and i gave my reasons. no worries if you don't agree.
so, glad you liked it. and by the way, i didn't even say i didn't. or did my 8 out of 10 not make that clear for you?
the staring bit - there was plenty going on in the film without the (i bet if we took a timer to it there'd be at least 10 minutes) of straight up staring. yeah, i totally agree, you'd stare at a monster gorilla, so would i. but you so thoughtfully ignored what I said immediately after that - eventually people STOP staring. eventually. yes, that's what i said.
this means, i don't mind they stared. this means, i think it makes sense they stared. so what i meant was sometimes maybe the 5 minute stare should have been, oh, say 1 minute. and maybe the 35 shots of staring could have been, hmm, mebbe 10? we'd still get the point. (note: these are example numbers. i did not actually time them. so leave me alone about it.)
your statements can imply i don't know what i'm talking about and need to pull up and get outta dodge with my conflicting opinion, but in the end it's just your opinion. i'm not about to say, why'd you bother go seeing X film and go watch a documentary instead cuz clearly you can't appreciate what i appreciate. sheezus. no need to go there, hot stuff.
you think kong did way better than the other films. good for you. my point wasn't to compare it to the other films. i could care less about them for my review. i didn't pay $8 to go see them. my point was to take it as it was, and say, it had the potential to be way more than it was (and don't many things in this world?) and it still overdid it for me. but it did a pretty good job, just fell short, and i gave my reasons. no worries if you don't agree.
so, glad you liked it. and by the way, i didn't even say i didn't. or did my 8 out of 10 not make that clear for you?
__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.