View Poll Results: Which KONG film is Superior?
Kong Kong - 1976
20
20.62%
King Kong - 2005
77
79.38%
Voters: 97. You may not vote on this poll
Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
#1
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
I'm not talking about special effects, necessarily, but really I'm talking "overall story" and feel.
King Kong (1976) was on TV the other day, and I thought it was really well done, even though it gets abused due to comparison of the original 1933 version (which NOTHING can touch, imo). But as a "stand-alone" movie, I think it was terrific! The actors played it straight, which I think is what really continuously attracts me to this film over the 2005 remake.
Now - that 2005 remake. Those actors couldn't be more campy, particularily Jack Black as "Carl Denham." The ridiculous scenes on Skull Island really ruin the movie for me. During the stampede, hardly anyone was crushed. ALL of them should have been smashed to bits. Ann Darrow should have had her shoulders dislocated (amongst other things) after Kong grabbed her off the sacrificial altar.........so so many things.
Yes, I know it's a movie..........but ALL King Kong movies are just movies, and one has to be more enjoyable than the other.
I bought 2005's Kong because I liked "Kong," the gorilla. I bought 1976's Kong because I liked the entire picture.
How about you? Which is the "classic?"
1933's Kong is in a class of its own, and needs no mention in this thread.
King Kong (1976) was on TV the other day, and I thought it was really well done, even though it gets abused due to comparison of the original 1933 version (which NOTHING can touch, imo). But as a "stand-alone" movie, I think it was terrific! The actors played it straight, which I think is what really continuously attracts me to this film over the 2005 remake.
Now - that 2005 remake. Those actors couldn't be more campy, particularily Jack Black as "Carl Denham." The ridiculous scenes on Skull Island really ruin the movie for me. During the stampede, hardly anyone was crushed. ALL of them should have been smashed to bits. Ann Darrow should have had her shoulders dislocated (amongst other things) after Kong grabbed her off the sacrificial altar.........so so many things.
Yes, I know it's a movie..........but ALL King Kong movies are just movies, and one has to be more enjoyable than the other.
I bought 2005's Kong because I liked "Kong," the gorilla. I bought 1976's Kong because I liked the entire picture.
How about you? Which is the "classic?"
1933's Kong is in a class of its own, and needs no mention in this thread.
#2
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
so in reality Ann Darrow would've dislocated her shoulders after a giant ape grabbed her on an island filled with Dinosaurs, got it.
I prefer the 2005 version, the story and action just does it for me.
I prefer the 2005 version, the story and action just does it for me.
#3
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
While Jack Black and Adrian Brody annoy the piss out of me more and more on each subsequent viewing, the 2005 version is a much better movie.
#4
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Minding the precious things in the Local Shop
Posts: 4,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
I actually like then both equally. There's something about each one that merits repeat viewing. Adrien Brody is definately the weak link in the 05 version but I still enjoyed it.
#6
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#7
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
I've watched all three versions in the last few years, the 1933 version just a few weeks ago. What a masterpiece it continues to be. As for the remakes, I actually like both of them, but prefer 2005 for a number of reasons. I like the way Jack Black and Naomi Watts react in awe to the wonders of Skull Island. They act like they really believe they are there. (Unlike Adrien Brody, an actor who is generally pretty lethargic, if you ask me.) And I thought the wonders of Skull Island were imaginatively presented. And the dinosaur stampede had the virtue of being very funny. What's wrong with a little humor? (The original is unbelievably relentless and alarmingly grim for much of the time.) I could have done without the spiders/insects scene, though. That was a bit too much. There was a good reason why they cut it from the 1933 version in the first place.
Furthermore, I enjoyed the period flavor of New York in the 1930s. As a longtime New Yorker (although maybe not that far back), it felt right to me. And they got the geography of Manhattan exactly right. If you head downtown from Times Square, where do you end up after ten blocks? Macy's and Herald Square! And I thought the Kong-sliding-on-the-frozen-pond-in-Central Park scene was charming and beautiful. And I believed it. I've seen that pond in Central Park on cold winter nights like that and the film just perfectly captured the magic of the place.
Furthermore, I enjoyed the period flavor of New York in the 1930s. As a longtime New Yorker (although maybe not that far back), it felt right to me. And they got the geography of Manhattan exactly right. If you head downtown from Times Square, where do you end up after ten blocks? Macy's and Herald Square! And I thought the Kong-sliding-on-the-frozen-pond-in-Central Park scene was charming and beautiful. And I believed it. I've seen that pond in Central Park on cold winter nights like that and the film just perfectly captured the magic of the place.
Last edited by Ash Ketchum; 04-15-09 at 06:11 PM.
#9
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,085
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
2005 is the better film, has the better looking Kong and has the best FX work.
1976 has the BEST score, a great cast and some decent FX work.
I voted for 2005, but I really enjoy 1976.
1976 has the BEST score, a great cast and some decent FX work.
I voted for 2005, but I really enjoy 1976.
#13
Cool New Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
The 33 original is one of my favorite movies and after one less than stellar remake I didn't have high hopes for the 2005 remake,but I ended up loving it.
Peter Jackson knows hoe to USE special effects. Not make a special effects movie.
Peter Jackson knows hoe to USE special effects. Not make a special effects movie.
#14
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
I have a soft spot for the 1976 version, and re-watch it fairly often (couple of times a year)
While I have an appreciation for the 2005 movie, I just can't get over being almost 1 1/2 hours in and still thinking..."Where's the damn monkey?"
While I have an appreciation for the 2005 movie, I just can't get over being almost 1 1/2 hours in and still thinking..."Where's the damn monkey?"
#15
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
76. I'm still waiting for 2005 to end. That movie was an example why it's sometimes not always wise to give complete control to a director.
#16
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
Where's King Kong Lives?!
Not really a fan of any version as I never found a gigantic gorilla terrifying. White killer gorillas fighting against a talking, Taco-Bell eating, robotic gorilla are a different matter.
Not really a fan of any version as I never found a gigantic gorilla terrifying. White killer gorillas fighting against a talking, Taco-Bell eating, robotic gorilla are a different matter.
#18
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
I enjoy them both, but prefer 2005 Kong. It catches a lot of shit around here but I LOVE that movie which is saying a lot considering I normally can't stand Jack Black.
#19
DVD Talk Reviewer/Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Formerly known as L. Ron zyzzle - On a cloud of Judgement
Posts: 14,454
Received 1,823 Likes
on
1,224 Posts
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
The 'overall story' is the same for all three, and it's an infallible classic. For my money, I'll take Bridges, Lange and Grodin.
#20
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sesame Street (the apt. next to Bob's)
Posts: 20,195
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
Anyway. The 76 version has lousy performances, dialogue, action, & special effects. The 05 version is quite a bit overblown, but still the much better movie. The stampede was a ridiculous scene and should've been cut.
#21
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
Agree with others that 1933 is miles above either, but 1976 is also miles above the 2005 mediocre effort.
#23
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
You must have been disappointed, because KK is not a monkey.
Anyway. The 76 version has lousy performances, dialogue, action, & special effects. The 05 version is quite a bit overblown, but still the much better movie. The stampede was a ridiculous scene and should've been cut.
Anyway. The 76 version has lousy performances, dialogue, action, & special effects. The 05 version is quite a bit overblown, but still the much better movie. The stampede was a ridiculous scene and should've been cut.
Also, I think more flairs would have done a safer job of repelling the bugs.
#24
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Which KING KONG film (not 1933 version) do you think is "better?"
I like them both but the scenes in old New York and the arrival on Skull Island puts the 2005 a bit ahead.