King Kong: 1976 vs 2005

I made a recent comment on another recent thread about Kong '76, I think the movie has some very interesting qualities to it and I was never bored watching it, and I was watching the 3 hour TV cut, but for me 2005 movie is like a dream movie. People criticize it for being overindulgent, which it is, but I feel that's a strength of the movie. This isn't just Peter Jackson reimagining his favorite movie, it's Peter Jackson capturing on film everything he's ever felt about his favorite movie. It's a lifelong fantasy come to life and truly feels like a movie he made strictly for himself. Jackson was at the very peak of his career after sweeping the oscars, and he spent all that capital well imho... it's just a shame the movie seemed to have burned him out. 

King Kong 2005 was the best for me. Unlike the movie Babe that has traumatized some of our forum regulars this particular movie about an animal a very large animal left me satisfied.

I agree.

1976 is an okay 6/10 or 7/10 film, watchable, but lets face it, it's preachy and contrived. It looks like a story someone tells you that you realize is one sided on characterizations, since the bad guy is basically just another Major Frank Burns who is always wrong about everything, and the hero is right about everything. Like the MASH legacy, there's no credibility of character.

Then there's the Bridges character cheering when human beings are killed. Okay, so Kong is defending himself, but to cheer because pilots and crews die in fiery crashes is beyond sick, and somehow the director and actor pretend it isn't sick. Hard to imagine anyone buying into this hatefulness.

But it is fun. The hero and heroine are not Hollywood, but more like ordinary people next door. They're barely attractive. Jessica Lange is probably the most average looking girl in most groups of girls. 

The ridiculous idea of the ape being sexually interested is beyond stupid. That's why the 2005 version is superior. This version makes it clear that the girl is a "pet", not a love interest. And Kong treats her like we would treat a beloved pet. And the pet tries to impress a bond with Kong the way a pet would do with a strong owner.

The 2005 version does what a remake should do. Improve on what was done before. Most remakes, we know, are horrible, because they seem to exist just to make the original movies look like classics in comparison, but this one has lots of characters that we empathize with and care about. Still, a few are "cannon fodder" for the movie, but it is more interesting than all the ones before except the classic SON OF KONG, which is undeniably the best of the series, thanks to having the best story and utilizing the most charismatic actor (Robert Armstrong) of all the Kong films, in a lead role.

The 2005 version is strong, 8/10.

Tom Hanks was in a King Kong movie?! 

Yes, he was the sailor in the scene they cut out. The sailor dribbling a basketball, who walked down to Kong in the hold and said "Life is like a boxed up chocolate ape. You never know what he'll get angry about." 

Kong roared and the sailor went overboard with the basketball and swam to another deserted island.

They decided to cut that scene out.


I do see Prime's point. The acting was good, maybe better, I don't know, in the seventies version. It certainly took more "acting" to deliver the cockeyed script in a way that didn't look stupid. And the effects were overdone in the Jack Black version. The stampede had a Three Stooges look to it. 

But for my own view, the idea that a big ape thinks of a woman the size of his finger in a sexual way is stupid. The Jack Black version clearly showed that Kong cared for the woman like we would care for a beloved pet. Even by Hollywood standards, that's the only way to make film sense of the story.

Tom Hanks has four children, three of which are boys and neither one of them was named after Tom so there is no "Tom Hanks Jr." 

I find it unfortunate that the 76 film managed to get a (crappy) sequel, while the 2005 film never did, even though I think there would’ve been potential in that. Interestingly enough, Skull Island was originally supposed to be either a prequel or a sequel to the Peter Jackson film, but when Legendary decided that they wanted it to be set in the same continuity as their Godzilla movie, it became its own thing.