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.

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.

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.

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.

1933

Which part of "not the 1933 version" was unclear to you?

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.

the part of polling 2 sub-standard movies that have almost nothing to do with each other.

Other than both being remakes of the same movie, you mean?

I think it's a given that the 1933 version is superior, so the question would be: Which is the best remake?

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.

nevermind.

2005 Kong. I thought it was one of the best movies of that year .

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.

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?"

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.

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.

2005 beats 1976, but 33 owns them both

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.

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.

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.

Agree with others that 1933 is miles above either, but 1976 is also miles above the 2005 mediocre effort.

Voted for the 2005. That damn personal preference again.

Not only the stampede scene - but how about that lily-livered actor guy who decided to turn around and save his own ass, having been called a coward by Adrien - only to find him effortlessly (and apparently fearlessly) swinging back and forth on a vine (with a machine gun), shooting the spiders and bugs that were attacking Adrien's surviving party? Defies belief.

Also, I think more flairs would have done a safer job of repelling the bugs.

I like them both but the scenes in old New York and the arrival on Skull Island puts the 2005 a bit ahead.

No mention of Kingu Kongu tai Gojira?