|
|
Post by darkpast on Feb 21, 2020 8:44:20 GMT
Why?  |
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Feb 21, 2020 8:53:16 GMT
Why? +GIF+-+Acting+Madness.gif)
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Feb 21, 2020 12:07:22 GMT
I grew up with the 1976 remake, when I was playing with my King Kong action figure, I set up card board boxes to have him do battle with my micro machine X Wings on the World Trade Center, not the Empire State Building. It wasn't until I was probably 12-13 that I even saw the original movie in it's entirety, but just immediately I fell in love with it and didn't really care about the '76 movie anymore. In the lead up to Jackson's remake I bought a DVD copy of the 76 version and felt no nostalgia for it. It's just a poorly made that feels really cynical and dated. Peter Jackson's remake came out when I was around 19, I went to the midnight showing and just really loved it. Sure, it's overindulgent and overlong, but it's a work of sheer love. It's not just King Kong, it's everything Peter Jackson ever felt about King Kong. There's no cynicism or shoulder nudging there-- and in my opinion it's really entertaining and well made. I think Naomi Watts set the standard for how to sell a CGI character through interaction. Is it the essential version of King Kong, no, the 1933 movie is King, but I can't really think of a better straight remake (The Thing and The Fly are better but not straight remakes).
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Feb 21, 2020 13:53:00 GMT
2005, and jonesjxd summed up my reasons quite nicely, so I won't repeat them. The only thing 1976 has going for it is Jessica Lange's boob flash.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 21, 2020 14:04:24 GMT
The Peter Jackson version. It's one of the best remakes I've seen and certainly the best dinosaur movie since the first Jurassic Park. The 3 hour length admittedly is unnecessary. But Jackson plays it straight and with genuine appreciation for the original film instead of the shit camp factor De Laurentis felt was necessary in the '76 version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Feb 21, 2020 14:24:14 GMT
King Kong (2005)
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Feb 21, 2020 14:37:04 GMT
2005 - Better action and liked the cast more.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on Feb 21, 2020 16:27:53 GMT
2005
It is much more emotional which really counts (to me at least) in any kind of a Movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Feb 21, 2020 17:11:28 GMT
Can't really comment on the 1976 version - I watched it when it came out but I was only nine or ten years old, so I have very little recollection of it. I did like the Peter Jackson version a lot, as I did the original from the 1930s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 21, 2020 17:17:36 GMT
Not even close. The 2005 one.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Feb 21, 2020 17:33:32 GMT
2005. 1976 felt dirty & whorish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Feb 21, 2020 18:43:16 GMT
Remaking Kong was a mistake but with that out of the way, I liked the 1976 version better.
Charles Grodin is a much better actor than Jack Black.
Jeff Bridges is much more fun to watch than Adrian Brody.
Charlie the cook was more appealing than Lumpy the cook and his bosom buddy Tom Hanks Jr.
I like tyrannosaurs, but not when swinging from trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Feb 23, 2020 15:48:33 GMT
The 76 one for me was better and had more heart the 2005 version had good effects but was rather cold and dull.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Feb 23, 2020 17:18:48 GMT
Sorry Mr. Jackson, I am for real!   How about the super-hype? The most exciting original motion picture event of all time!Yeah, it was pretty great in the 70's, but the 2005 movie is pretty awesome and is probably the better movie. I still love the greasy 70's version, always will. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 23, 2020 20:29:12 GMT
The most exciting original motion picture event of all time! But it's a remake. 🤔
|
|
Farside
Sophomore
@alienwerewolf
Posts: 890
Likes: 232
 
|
Post by Farside on Feb 23, 2020 20:37:47 GMT
King Kong 2005 Because I loved the natives. They were so savage and animalistic. They should make a movie just about them and how they survive on Skull Island.
|
|
|
|
Post by marth on Feb 23, 2020 21:37:13 GMT
 2005 is my choice, but I think Adrien Brody is the weak link there. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Feb 23, 2020 21:53:35 GMT
The 1976 film is pretty lacking in terms of spectacle. Part of what made the 1933 film such a classic was the sheer spectacle and sense of adventure that it had. The 1976 film is kind of just a boring product of the era it was released in. Skull Island didn’t come across as this mysterious and super dangerous place, and the characters were fairly stock 1970s archetypes. Also, the film put way too much emphasis on this idea that Kong has a thing for human ladies. The scenes between him and Jessica Lange’s character are just awkward to watch. The 2005 film has its problems, but it did a much better job of staying true to the spirit of the original film.
So, yeah, I prefer the Peter Jackson film.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Feb 23, 2020 22:26:16 GMT
The 2005 version is better. I disagree with a lot of creative choices that Jackson made but it is a great movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Feb 24, 2020 2:44:05 GMT
The 2005 version, though I find it overlong.
|
|
