How many can say that they are named after "Rodan"?????
LOL  I can, hello my name is Roadann.  My momma loved the old monster,
so she named her little monster after it. :)

I've been waiting to read your review until after I'd seen the
movie, after catching the flick and reading your review, I pretty
much agree.

I'd give the movie a solid "B" maybe even a "B+", but this ain't a
homerun.

Biggest problem is length, the movie is just too long. Scenes are
too long and a defter quicker editing hand would have kept the story
moving briskly.

I too question the casting, especially the male leads. Watts is
perfectly okay and even at times excellent but it's uneven. Black
looks great but his voice seems too squeaky at times. Brody does
okay with his offbeat role and better than I expected, but his final
scenes leave me cold. Much better were the side characters,
especially the camera crew and the ship's crew.

As for the settings, superb. This is where the movie really shines,
in evoking several weird and unusual places, specifially NYC and
Skull Island. Both are truly specific and wildly interesting places.

I knew the movie was in trouble during the dinosaur stampede scenes.
There's just too much going on here for visual clarity and the scene
is both too long and too uninvolving. The crewmen become
insignificant as they are killed, and how some of them survived is
beyond me.

Kong is much better than I expected, fully realized and very
convincing. The final scenes are way too long and actually hurt the
emotional intensity. It was almost as if Jackson couldn't say
goodbye, but really needed to. This movie could've lost a half hour
and have been much better.

I still want it on DVD though!

Dean :)

I saw King Kong last night and overall this movie was a 7.5 to an 8.

There was the makings of a classic but just too many scenes that were
drawn out and some ridiculous ones that no human could survive.

Even after 70+ years this movie is not better than the original.
Some really good fx shots and some lousy ones.  Kong himself is
really good and outshines any human actor.  The casting was okay but
the three leads can't hold a candle to Wray, Armstrong & Cabot.

There are cool references to the original film throughout which is a
nice touch.

The good:

Kong himself -- very impressive.

The natives -- very creepy.

The dinosaurus -- very cool

Special effects depicting 1933 NY -- very well done


The bad :

Kong vs. final T-Rex fight is way too short.

Too many unnecessary characters and dialogue with
scenes that go nowhere.

Casting is questionable but they did their best.

Watts is ok but she is no Fay Wray.


I may be in the minority but King Kong vs. Godzilla was just as fun
as this epic adventure.

I almost never go to movie when they debut. The crowds, the hassels,
etc. But I might just make an exception for King Kong. I've done it
for two movies in the past...Batman and Lord of the Rings, so Kong
might deserve it.

What are your holiday plans for King Kong!

Dean:)

Sadly my current cable provider doesn't offer TCM and it's a shame. It
was my favorite entertainment channel.

Dean

Same to you, Dean and all!

Hey, I'm enjoying watching the remastered version of KING KONG which
aired earlier this week on TCM!!! Man, if you haven't seen this one
yet, you have to!  It will be airing again a couple more times in
December!  So crisp and clean, I've noticed things I haven't seen
before, plus there is a cool overture at the beginning that was
restored.  Gotta check it out! :)

Mark


--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "ripjagger" <ripjagger@y...>
wrote:
>
> I want to wish all the membership (even those who might not
celebrate
> the day) a Happy Thanksgiving!
>
> I'm off to visit, eat, and help my daughter settle into her new
house.
> Life's pretty good, even if I can't find everything I need when I
pack!
>
> See Ya Later!
>
> Dean :)
>

I want to wish all the membership (even those who might not celebrate
the day) a Happy Thanksgiving!

I'm off to visit, eat, and help my daughter settle into her new house.
Life's pretty good, even if I can't find everything I need when I pack!

See Ya Later!

Dean :)

Well the new King Kong flick is almost upon us, and it looks pretty...well..
ahem...average. I'm very disappointed in the casting, but hopefully I'll be
pleasantly surprised. The few scenes I've caught look pretty rich, but I'm
afraid we might have a luscious movie that just sort of sits there. I'm
downright shocked that Kong has been so visible. I'd have thought his specific
look would be something they'd have wanted to keep under wraps, but I run across
image of him everywhere.

I want to like it, but I'm not getting any more confident as the date
approaches.:(

What do you all think?

Dean



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is still time to order a 2006 50s Sci-Fi/Horror calendar for a
Christmas present for your favorite ghoul. Go to the link below for a
look at a few of the cards featured in the calendar and for a link to
my web-site for ordering information. Thanks for looking. Larry

tinyurl.com/aup9f

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Dean" <ripjagger@y...> wrote:
> My very first Ebay purchase showed up in the mail, and I'm pleased as
> punch!
>
> My mowing is done, and I'm going to spend the afternoon watching the
> movie "The Mole People" and then enjoying the fumetti version from the
> Famous Monsters folks. On first glance it looks excellent.
>
> I'll issue a review after.

Dean-

I bought the VHS tape of "The Mole People" a few years back when the
local MediaPlay was blowing out tapes to enlarge space for their DVD
section.  This was before I had started to convert.  Can't remember
what I paid for it.  $10 maybe?

Anyhow, I really enjoyed the film.  It had some neat stuff in it.  The
scene where the heroes' guide falls, then gets it from a falling
boulder surpised me a lot, since I had more or less considered it as
basically a kiddie matinee feature from the 'innocent' 1950's.  That
violence, though tame by today's standards, still shocked me a bit,
which was a good thing.  The matte paintings of the subterranean city
were cool.  Hey! that's 'Alfred the Butler' from TV's "Batman" as the
baddie!  Cool!

And of course what film isn't automatically ratcheted up several
notches with sturdy John Agar at the helm??  He rocked.  One of my
all-time fav sci-fi actors.  He triumphed over some pretty lame
scripts, movies and monsters throughout his bumpy career - all with
that chisled jaw cocked in a sly, disarming smile.

The movie's ending was a bummer, and again, not what I was expecting
from a 50's monster flick.  The letdown finale somehow sort of lifted
the movie to a level more with the 'serious' films of the era - for
me.  Kind of cool that you felt for the hero while admiring him for
suriviving at the same time.  The downbeat climax was far less
superficial and therfore more memorable thanthe traditional upbeat,
triumpahnt fanfare music, "hero conquers all" endings I am used to
seeing in 50's sci-fi.  Nice touch.

Gee, all this talk makes me want to see it again.  Maybe I'll watch
"The Mole People" while I eat lunch today!

I sincerely hope that Universal gets off their collective butts and
issues ALL of the great titles in their "Universal Pictures' Golden
Age of Science Fiction Thrilers" onto DVD, with quality transfers,
(and maybe even some extra goodies), like their recent excellent
"Legacy Collection" releases.  Those DVDs were terrific, and very
reasonably priced, too.  More of this, Universal!!!! (Please?!?!)

Later.
-JN

My very first Ebay purchase showed up in the mail, and I'm pleased as
punch!

My mowing is done, and I'm going to spend the afternoon watching the
movie "The Mole People" and then enjoying the fumetti version from the
Famous Monsters folks. On first glance it looks excellent.

I'll issue a review after.

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur Lortie" <alortie@t...> wrote:
> Curt Phillips sez:
> > I thought that trailer looks pretty darned good myself.
> > And I'm very glad to see that it's a period film; set
> > around 1930 or so.
> > I see that the trailer is on the web:
>
> I have a friend who went to a licensing show in New York in June and
> collected a bunch of hypes for the inenvitable movie tie-ins. Start
saving your pennies and lires. Lots of stuff you're gonna want.
>
> The 1933 movie just had a book, a couple of movie mag appearences, a
half hour radio show and a jig-saw puzzle.


I will forever regret selling a book that I bought with birthday money
when I was around 10 or 11.  It was one of those big, thick, coffee
table-type jobs all about the making of the '33 Kong.  It had so many
amazing behind the scenes photos and such.  It was awesome for a young
kid to see the "nuts & bolts" of SPFX way back when.  Got me hooked on
finding out 'how they did that' which today drives my passion for DVDs
that have tons of bonus material included.  That book had a lot of
really cool info on the making of the life-size Kong head, including
some amuzing pictures of one of the model makers holding one of Kong's
  giant eyeballs in his hands.

Can't remember what I paid for it, but I vividly remember selling it
at a garage sale for a buck.  Ahhhh, the stupidity of youth...

(Hopefully someone will re-release it, or do a new one that's just as
nice, to tie-in with the Christmas movie.)


-JN

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Dean" <ripjagger@y...> wrote:
> Makes "cents"! (Ha!)
>
> In fact it's the Godzilla movie that I am thinking of. The trailer for
> that movie with the Museum guard talking about a T-Rex with a bunch of
> kids and the Godzilla foot smashing the relatively tiny T-Rex skeleton
> was a great, great ad. (I though so anyway.)
>
> Then I'm in the minority of folks I guess who actually likes that
> movie. I don't mind the revision of Godzilla, and I found the human
> story pretty interesting overall.
>
> But different strokes and all that.
>
> Dean
>
The American G-film was a passable time killer for me, but it simply
should not have carried the 'Godzilla' moniker.  It truly was Godzilla
in name only.  I will say that I think that the Tri-Star's teaser,
with the museum tour & crushed T-Rex was the best thing about the remake.

It would've been more fitting instead of "Godzilla" to have called it
"The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" or even better... "Q." Whether they
would ever admit it or not, the Centroplolis 'Zilla script steals from
Larry Cohen's killer aztec bird-god film in several ways, right down
to an almost shot-for-shot rip off of that film's climax!  As such,
I'd rather just watch the original "Beast" or "Q."  Which gives me
pause for thought... what would Larry Cohen's version of "Godzilla"
have been like?  Mmmmmm...  Five times better at 1/10th the budget!

Anyhow, I agree that the upcoming "Kong" sure does LOOK great.  Let's
just hope the rest of the thing is as good.

Now if "Kong" does boffo box office, can we expect "Son of Kong" in a
couple years?  Better yet, how about remaking "King Kong vs.
Godzilla?"  Now THAT would be cool!

-JN

Curt Phillips sez:
> I thought that trailer looks pretty darned good myself.
> And I'm very glad to see that it's a period film; set
> around 1930 or so.
> I see that the trailer is on the web:
>
http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_splash.html

Ahhh ... I was waiting for a straight man! [and don't forget
http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml ]

I have a friend who went to a licensing show in New York in June and
collected a bunch of hypes for the inenvitable movie tie-ins. Start saving
your pennies and lires. Lots of stuff you're gonna want.

The 1933 movie just had a book, a couple of movie mag appearences, a half
hour radio show and a jig-saw puzzle. The real blitz was in newspapers.

Here's some at http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/kk/

A couple of papers ran a coloring contest; I have all 6 entries plus the
winners list [didn't see any familiar names, though].

There was also a comic strip -- I put 5 of those up.

The jig saw puzzle gets a mention in one piece I posted.

I thre up 6 ads, plus one for Lost World. One -- which misspells as Kink
Kong! -- puts the emphasis on Wray-Cabot love subplot, a homage of sorts to
the previous Lost World, where the early ads stressed that subtext over the
dinos.

Also included two reviews, a brief article on creating the sounds of Kong,
and the announcement of the sequel only weeks after the film opened.

Enjoy

Arthur Lortie
16 Adams Street #3
Taunton, MA 02780-2504
USA

ALortie@...
508-828-5821

Flash Gordon column: http://www.perpetualcomics.com/column.asp?colid=350
International Flash Gordon books:
http://www.keefestudios.com/flashfile/story.html

Web site: Frank Godwin's Connie: http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/Connie.htm
Web site: Russ Winterbotham / Art Sansom's Chris Welkin:
http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/ChrisWelkin.htm
Web site: Strip indexes: http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/indexes/

"H. G. Wells did not invent the future, but he tried." - Joel Achenbach

Makes "cents"! (Ha!)

In fact it's the Godzilla movie that I am thinking of. The trailer for
that movie with the Museum guard talking about a T-Rex with a bunch of
kids and the Godzilla foot smashing the relatively tiny T-Rex skeleton
was a great, great ad. (I though so anyway.)

Then I'm in the minority of folks I guess who actually likes that
movie. I don't mind the revision of Godzilla, and I found the human
story pretty interesting overall.

But different strokes and all that.

Dean

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Dean" <ripjagger@y...> wrote:
> I agree it looks nice, but I was more than a bit taken aback that they
> showed as much of Kong as they did. I would have thought the bellow
> alone after the girl's scream would have been enough of a tease this
> early. Or at the most the big arm that slams down into the shot. To
> actually show Kong's face and form makes me think they're nervous
> about the movie's chances. I have a general rule about trailers, that
> the more they show the weaker the film is believed by the company to
> be.
>
> It's not Jack Black I'm worried about, but that Brody guy. He looks
> completely out of place, but maybe it'll work.
>
> Dean

I think that everyone making big-budget, effects-heavy pictures
nowadays that feature a character who has a well established past
remembers the fiasco of TriStar's "Godzilla."  That film was an
enormous let-down to fans of that series.  The ploy by the producers
to keep the big guy's appearance a secret may have worked to get
people into the theatre that first weekend, but their redesign was
such a brutal slap in the face to both hardcore and casual fans that
the box office suffered as a result.  Of course being a grade "Z" film
touting itself as an A-level pic sure didn't help.

I think today's movie makers want to assure fans that there beloved
characters haven't been messed with in order to avoid bad word of
mouth far in advance.  Spider-Man, Hulk, Batman and others which I
can't remember at the moment spring to mind.  Pictures and/or footage
of these characters were released well before the films came out.  I
think this was done primarily to calm the fans.  Maybe Hollywood is
finally realizing that fans really can make or break a film.
Especially now, with the instant-world of the internet.  Getting the
fans "on board" (at least in regards to a character's design or
costume or whatever), can help take some of the heat off the studios
and let them re-direct their focus on the other aspects of the film,
and spend less time being on the defensive over whether or not a
director or producer has remained "true" to the character.

My $.02

-JN

Dean sez:
> I give this movie a solid "B". I found the special effects
> very special indeed, and I agree there are real moments of
> tension.

Dakota and special effects get an A. Irate son gets a D.

Tim Robbins was very good but incredibly unnecessary, as was the Gene Barry
- Ann Robinson cameos.

Cruise was just Cruise: a strong screen presence, but I can think of a dozen
actors who could have delivered the same performance [but probably not the
box office]. Now if he had converted the aliens to Scientology at the end,
I'd have been more impressed.

The Spielberg treatment was just OK; the most effective scene was the rehash
from Jurassic Park. The Cruse-as-hero in the cage was soooo contrived, from
finding the grenades to explosion in under 3 minutes. Equally contrived was
the plane crash and TV crew.

Equally rushed was the ending. There was no foreshadowing; just "wham-bam-to
the moon, Alice!" and Gaia wins. Combined with the brief grenade sequence,
can we expect lots of DVD extras?

Unanswered was a major question re the invasion: why? Why wait "millions of
years" for this food source? Great hindsight or the natural progression of
instellar farming? Surely the dinosaurs would have been easier prey and a
larger source of fertilizer. Travel clearly wasn't the problem.

Also left open was: the terraforming required the destruction of man's
structures, but why zap the ineffectual -- and useful! -- humans at all?

Got my money's worth, but there was nothing there to make me want to watch
it twice.

But the Kong preview has made me a believer in the film's casting and
Peter's direction. I can't wait!

Arthur Lortie
16 Adams Street #3
Taunton, MA 02780-2504
USA

ALortie@...
508-828-5821

Flash Gordon column: http://www.perpetualcomics.com/column.asp?colid=350
International Flash Gordon books:
http://www.keefestudios.com/flashfile/story.html

Web site: Frank Godwin's Connie: http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/Connie.htm
Web site: Russ Winterbotham / Art Sansom's Chris Welkin:
http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/ChrisWelkin.htm
Web site: Strip indexes: http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/indexes/

"H. G. Wells did not invent the future, but he tried." - Joel Achenbach

Dean sez:
> I have a general rule about trailers, that
> the more they show the weaker the film is
> believed by the company to be.

The only "rule" is that SFX takes longer than actual filming, so the early
trailers tend to focus more on the stars. In some cases, the effects in a
key scene is finished out of sequence in order to facilitate the trailer.

The most obvious example of this was Jurassic III where the dinosaurs
weren't shown as late as one week before the film's release. There were no
surprises -- we'd seen them before and knew they were there -- but the
scenes were unfinished until just before the film's release.

Arthur Lortie
16 Adams Street #3
Taunton, MA 02780-2504
USA

ALortie@...
508-828-5821

Flash Gordon column: http://www.perpetualcomics.com/column.asp?colid=350
International Flash Gordon books:
http://www.keefestudios.com/flashfile/story.html

Web site: Frank Godwin's Connie: http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/Connie.htm
Web site: Russ Winterbotham / Art Sansom's Chris Welkin:
http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/ChrisWelkin.htm
Web site: Strip indexes: http://personal.tmlp.com/alortie/indexes/

"H. G. Wells did not invent the future, but he tried." - Joel Achenbach

I give this movie a solid "B". I found the special effects very
special indeed, and I agree there are real moments of tension. My
daughter was much impressed, but she's only read the novel and not
seen the first 50's movie. With that earlier flick in mind, it was
hard not to detect parallels, and I think Spielberg drew from that old
bit of cinema more than the novel itself, though there's plenty of
that too of course. All in all a good afternoon at the movies.

Outside of the buffoon on the cell phone in my particular theatre!
What a troll!

Dean

I agree it looks nice, but I was more than a bit taken aback that they
showed as much of Kong as they did. I would have thought the bellow
alone after the girl's scream would have been enough of a tease this
early. Or at the most the big arm that slams down into the shot. To
actually show Kong's face and form makes me think they're nervous
about the movie's chances. I have a general rule about trailers, that
the more they show the weaker the film is believed by the company to
be.

It's not Jack Black I'm worried about, but that Brody guy. He looks
completely out of place, but maybe it'll work.

Dean

Went to see "Fantastic Four" Friday afternoon and I was treated to my
first viewing of the trailer for Peter Jackson's new KING KONG.  I had
my doubts (and still do) about Jack Black in the Carl Denham role, but
who cares!  OMG does the action look astounding!  All three Jurassic
Park put together and placed on fast forward!  And Kong himself?
Whew!  All I can say is that you better believe I will be there for
the first show opening day!!!

I actually have somehting to look forward to this winter!

-JN

Well kids, I finally got to see the new Spielberg-version of the old
Wells chestnut "The War of The Worlds" this past weekend.  I was a
little leery about having to endure another Tom Cruise-as-a-hero
flick, as I'm not his biggest fan.  I still don't think he's the best
choice for the role. However, he is a fairly competent actor; and
there's no denying his star-power ability to draw in people who'd
never see a sci-fi flick, but would watch anything with him in it.

That said, he did a good job.  He's come a long way from the boyish
blowhard in Top Gun.  The range of emotions wasn't too broad here, but
was well-done.  The little girl was annoying more than cute, so I'm
still not sure whether I liked her or not.  The son was a typical
I-hate-everyone type, which was right on-target to me, as I felt much
the same way towards my then-divorced father at that age.

The story was interesting in that it stayed much closer to the
original Wells novel.  The beloved 50's film took the core concept and
jettisoned everything else.  This new version takes a little from that
great old film, but sticks closer to Wells' intended narrative.  It
was a riveting two+ hours.  My only real gripe with the film is that
there wasn't enough exposition about the aliens themselves. BTW...
Mars is not where these baddies are from, though they follow the
"everything-in-threes" pattern that Wells' novel discussed, and the
50's film version showed us.  I was fascinated by them and wanted to
learn more.  As the film follows only our central character, we never
get to see any "nuts & bolts" of the military or takes on the aliens
from scientists. In fact the only things we ever "learn" about the
aliens are some conspiracy theories from fellow refugees that Cruise
and his family meet, and some conjecture based on a few fragments of
video gathered by a news crew that Cruise briefly encounters.  They
tantalize you with a few tidbits, but that's all. Bummer.

As for the effects... WOW!  As you'd expect in a summer blockbuster
film, especially one from Spielberg and Co., they are nothing short of
amazing.  The level of realisim in CGI-based shots has been upped a
notch here.  There are scenes and shots that will have your eyes
bulging and your jaw dropping.  They are incredible.  The alien
tripods are pure Wells this go-round.  They look and move extremely
convincingly.  There's really no need to suspend your disbelief.  It
all looks so realistic, you could believe that they just pointed a
camera and started shooting footage as a real alien device worked
itself out of the ground.  The scenes of destruction are amazing and
heart-breaking at the same time.  Perhaps it's still too soon after
9/11 to see chunks of major city real estate being leveled. It sure
made me wince a few times.

And this is one of the few films in recent memory that actually scared
me. I don't mean cheap shock effects meant to startle you.  I mean a
building sense of dread that coils in the pit of your stomach and
makes you wish you were anywhere but there with those characters.
Delightful.

I loved the Wells novel as a child in school, and I am a huge fan of
the beloved 1953 George Pal film version, having it on VHS and now on
DVD.  This new version is damn good.  I don't know if it'll ever
achieve cult-status and engender the warm love for it that the Pal
version does, but who knows?  It has the potential.  I know I'll be
buying it when it comes out on DVD.  It has a high repeat-viewing
factor, at least for me. :)

PEACE ALL! (and keep watching the skys!)

-JN

Thanks for the link. I have Target Earth on VHS, and it's a
surprisingly involving movie, given the microscopic budget.

Dean

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Dean" <ripjagger@y...> wrote:
>
> Here's a fun link I found, for all the Konga and Teenage Monsters
> fans:
>
> http://www.hermancohen.com/index.html
>
> Check it out!

Very good & interesting biography of Cohen's life as a Special Feature
supplement on the "Target Earth" DVD.  Cool movie, which I had never
seen or even heard of before.  Minimalist on every level, but with
Richard Denning in the lead, ya can't go wrong!  Got it at MediaPlay
for around $14.

PEACE ALL.
-JN

Just finished this four-part 30-year long adaptation of Bram
Stoker's great novel, and it was pretty good. The artwork by Dick
Giordano is very good, and often excellent. The covers in particular
are very striking and vivid images (see Photo Album). Roy Thomas and
Dick Giordano began this adaptation way back in the 70's when Marvel
was all about monsters, and they ran the series in the back of the
B&W magazine Dracula Lives. After about seven chapters and about 100
pages of material, the magazines were cancelled and the adaptation
was put into limbo. Eventually after years of other things to do,
they have come around to it again and it's a good adaptation.

Dick Giordano is a personal hero of mine. His Action Hero line at
Charlton is arguably my favorite comic book run. His tenure at DC as
editor was remarkable and important. His artwork has always been
clean and dramatic. But it's clear that he's moved on from where he
was in the mid-70's. The early chapters of this saga have an energy
that's sadly missing from the later stuff produced last year.
Giordano's storytelling might be better, but the sense of scope and
drama is diminished. The characters have lost some of their iconic
feel, and the panel size seems oddly reduced, perhaps a limitation
of page count caused Giordano to squeeze the adaptation a bit.

It's good. But it's not as good as it might have been had Thomas and
Giordano been able to complete it way back when. Still it's worth
the price, though I'd wait for a collected edition.

Hi there.

I'm working on my companion website just now (non-genre) but I shall return to
the original Chroma-Noize sometime at the end of April/start of May.  I note
that all the Kevin Connor/John Dark dinosaur movies are now available on DVD in
the UK.  I'll need to get my hands on Warlords of Atlantis, I think.

Cheers.

Iain

Chroma-Noize cult sci-fi and horror movie reviews: 
www.geocities.com/bigfatpav2000
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Dean
   To: sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:04 AM
   Subject: Re: [Sons of Kong] What's Up Monster Fans?



   >
   > I was thinking of reviewing either Irwin Allen's The Lost World or
   The Beast of Hollow Mountain at some point.  Any comments on these?
   >

   I'd love to read these. I've never seen The Beast of Hollow
   Mountain, though I've read about it. The Irwin Allen movie is a real
   festival of shlock. I'd like to see what you say about them.




         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sonsofkong/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     sonsofkong-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here's a fun link I found, for all the Konga and Teenage Monsters
fans:

http://www.hermancohen.com/index.html

Check it out!

>
> I was thinking of reviewing either Irwin Allen's The Lost World or
The Beast of Hollow Mountain at some point.  Any comments on these?
>

I'd love to read these. I've never seen The Beast of Hollow
Mountain, though I've read about it. The Irwin Allen movie is a real
festival of shlock. I'd like to see what you say about them.

Hi there.

The Kevin Connor/John Dark Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptations date from 1974-77
while the pastiche Warlords of Atlantis dates from 1978.

The JP Simon movie Where Time Began dates from 1976 and I did a review of it at:

www.geocities.com/bigfatpav2000/wheretimebegan.html

and the version of She I mentioned dates from 1935 and was made by the same team
as King Kong.   My revew:

www.geocities.com/bigfatpav2000/she35.html

I was thinking of reviewing either Irwin Allen's The Lost World or The Beast of
Hollow Mountain at some point.  Any comments on these?

Cheers.

Iain
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Dean
   To: sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 4:59 PM
   Subject: Re: [Sons of Kong] What's Up Monster Fans?



   I'm unfamiliar with those. Are they relatively recent productions
   (say from 1975 to now) or are they more vintage?

   Dean




         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sonsofkong/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     sonsofkong-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm unfamiliar with those. Are they relatively recent productions
(say from 1975 to now) or are they more vintage?

Dean