|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 20:56:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Jun 29, 2021 21:00:19 GMT
1933 easily, 2005 is barely better than 1976.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 21:03:03 GMT
Results so far.
The War of the Worlds (1953) vs. 2005 - 15/9
Last House on the Left (1972) vs.2009 - 11/1
1956 vs. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - 12/11
Let the Right One In (2008) vs. Let Me In (2010) - 6/5
1977 vs. The Hills Have Eyes (2006) - 9/5
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009) vs. 2011 - 7/5
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 21:04:41 GMT
1933 easily, 2005 is barely better than 1976. For me it's the other way around and both are much better than the 1976 version.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 29, 2021 21:19:38 GMT
Both are a 10/10 for me but I do have to give a slight edge to the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 29, 2021 21:24:39 GMT
1933
The 2005 was ok, and i am sure people will disagree with me. but personally i think they could have cut about 70-80 minutes of the 2005 movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jun 29, 2021 21:25:50 GMT
2005
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jun 29, 2021 21:26:43 GMT
2005
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 21:29:24 GMT
1933 The 2005 was ok, and i am sure people will disagree with me. but personally i think they could have cut about 70-80 minutes of the 2005 movie. That is a slight issue with the 2005 version. I think it could have been cut by 20 minutes, but not more than that. I like the bloat of the remake, but the main reason I prefer it is the relationship between Naomi Watts and Kong. In the 1933 movie Kong might as well be a robot. Having an actor that is able to portray emotion as Kong adds something that the original was unable to do. I think the difference is the goal. The 1933 movie is more of a horror movie, whereas the remake is more of an action drama.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 29, 2021 21:36:25 GMT
I didn't like the remake.
Bloated, CGI overkill, and made stupid changes.
Original had a better script too.
"Holy Mackerel. Do you think I want to haul a woman around?...Because the Public, bless 'em, must have a pretty face to look at...Well, isn't there any romance or adventure in the world without having a flapper in it?...Makes me sore. I go out and sweat blood to make a swell picture and then the critics and the exhibitors all say, 'If this picture had love interest it would gross twice as much.' All right. The Public Wants a Girl, and this time, I'm gonna give 'em what they want."
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Jun 29, 2021 22:16:19 GMT
1933
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 29, 2021 22:47:59 GMT
I didn't like the remake. Bloated, CGI overkill, and made stupid changes. Original had a better script too. "Holy Mackerel. Do you think I want to haul a woman around?...Because the Public, bless 'em, must have a pretty face to look at...Well, isn't there any romance or adventure in the world without having a flapper in it?...Makes me sore. I go out and sweat blood to make a swell picture and then the critics and the exhibitors all say, 'If this picture had love interest it would gross twice as much.' All right. The Public Wants a Girl, and this time, I'm gonna give 'em what they want." That's what you call a good script? Kong's shit probably chats less shit than that quote. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 29, 2021 23:10:20 GMT
What else is he supposed to say when he is talking to people in a room about his film plans?
Tell a joke--quote Heart of Darkness with Lumpy the cook?
Charlie the cook made sense since they were routinely taking trips to Asia.
It wouldn't make sense for him to speak the Queen's english.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 29, 2021 23:25:27 GMT
King Kong for the win
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jun 29, 2021 23:32:12 GMT
2005
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jun 30, 2021 0:10:30 GMT
Fortunately, I've been able to see the three versions on classic theatre screens.
The original remains my favorite; saw it during a limited theatrical release in the mid 70's.
I also like the 2005 version for a number of reasons, some of which turned off quite a few viewers.
I have only disdain for the 1976 travesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Jun 30, 2021 0:12:38 GMT
33 is one of my all-time favourite films.
05 is enjoyable, but Jackson’s Kong is just a big gorilla, technically impressive but with none of the otherworldly charm and strangeness of the original. It starts well, had some strong stuff on the island but the NYC final act goes on, and on…
Naomi Watts is very good, though - one of her best performances.
10/10 (33) and 6/10 (05).
|
|
|
|
Post by alpha128 on Jun 30, 2021 0:32:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 30, 2021 1:45:43 GMT
33 because PJ didn't make Kong a monster on 2 feet, he just made a giant ape on all fours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winston Wolf on Jun 30, 2021 4:50:34 GMT
2005, although the 1933 original is impressive for its time. And the remake could've been a good 30-45 minutes shorter.
|
|
