which version is best??
1933 or 2005? I love both, but I do think 1933 is the best, I feel the new one is too long
share1933
share
MovieChat Forums > King Kong (1933) Discussion > which version is best??
I like Peter Jackson's version, a real labour of love. However, there was just to much happening on the island. Much like 'Indiana Jones an the Temple of Doom', it seemed almost obsessed with the various 'creepy crawlies' and grossing out the audience.
For me, the original is still a tremendous achievement. Today's audience expect special effects to be outstanding. Back in 1933 SFX, if not an entirely new concept, they were in their infancy. I can appreciate the impact the original Kong would have had on an audience of that era.
The 1933 version gets my vote.
You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!
[deleted]
The 1933 film is the best. One of the greatest films ever made. And Kong is possibly the greatest movie monster ever conceived. 5 star masterpiece.
The 2005 film is a great film in itself, but it does need some serious editing in places. The two main characters, Kong and Ann, hold the entire film together. Great action and wonderful storytelling based on the original also makes this a close second. And the FX are a wonder to behold. Kong is now considered the greatest living CGI creature ever developed. He is an effect that you believe in, like the original, magnificent Kong of 33. 4.5 stars.
The 1976 film, while it has its merits, has some terrible main elements. Kong is a man in a suit. It is hard to watch at times, no matter how hard Rick Baker tried. The mask is good at times and really bad at other times. The Dwan character is similar, good at times and bad at other times. Skull Island is terrible in every way. The original Skull Island is a place of nightmares. A perfect setting for Kong to rule. The 1976 film ran out of money and we get really bad looking sets with no creatures except a giant snake. The John Barry score and a pretty terrific, heart-wrenching ending keep this at around a 3.5 star film.
The 1976 film, while it has its merits, has some terrible main elements. Kong is a man in a suit. It is hard to watch at times, no matter how hard Rick Baker tried.
I agree. Baker in a suit is the main problem with the 1976 film.
The mask is good at times and really bad at other times.
That's because when Kong is seen in full length mode its not the same mask as the excellent facial close up mask unfortunately.
Skull Island is terrible in every way. The original Skull Island is a place of nightmares. A perfect setting for Kong to rule. The 1976 film ran out of money and we get really bad looking sets with no creatures except a giant snake.
I can't agree with this. The real location footage of Kauai is breathtaking and awesome, especially the first landing on the beach and the amazing long shot of the party walking up the valley. You can't top reality. It's a shame they didn't do more location shooting. I agree about the horrible fake sets but the real life locations are incredible. Loved the wall sweeping across a large expanse of land as well.
The John Barry score and a pretty terrific, heart-wrenching ending keep this at around a 3.5 star film.
Agreed. share
That's easy. This original, of course, by a wide margin. It remains one of the wonders of film making. The 2005 version had too much change. I had thought that Jackson was going to "re film" the original with color and some modern techniques. However, i was very disappointed when I saw it. The changes were terrible and made it almost unwatchable.
shareThe 1976 version is my favourite!!! Yep the 1933 version is a classic, and I love it, but as a personal preference it has to be the 1976 movie... The 2005 version is down a fair way on my list... It would go like this:
1. King Kong 1976
2. 1933
3. Son Of Kong
4. King Kong Escapes
5. King Kong 2005
6. King Kong Lives
7. Kong Vs Godzilla
hjl
1933. When compared to the 2005 version, it's almost half the running time, but twice the thrills.
Time to make up a new signature.
1933 was a masterpiece, 2005 was a bloated mess..
shareI agree with you somewhat.
1933 trumps all. And here's why. Because it's a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark. It gets going and it pretty much never stops. I never feel bored watching it. I don't know if it's the pacing plus the music score. But it's place in history is well-earned because it's a tight adventure, good SFX (if you can respect that it's 80 years old), and a great script.
2005 has its moments. I think some of the SFX are good. I love the T-Rex fight and think that that's what King Kong should be...over the top and extravagant. Too much is never too much when it comes to Kong. I have a lot of small problems with the 2005 version and 2 big ones. I'll just go into the big ones because I don't have time to type every quibble out.
Problem 1: The length. OMFG, it's an adventure movie and it clocks in at, what, over 3 hours? That's absolutely too much. I wouldn't have a problem if it were like Titanic and it had enough story to fill the time. But the first hour is basically filler and story set-up, which didn't need to happen. King Kong is about some people who go to an island and find a big monkey. Case closed. I don't care about the romance and character development. It's not important. PJ should have taken a cue from Indiana Jones and Jaws and other adventure movies. Give us action, give us spectacle and screw the rest.
Problem 2: Humanizing Kong. Sheesh, it's a monster movie. Why do we need to love the monster? We should love the humans. We should be rooting for Ann. Because of that, I find it difficult to watch.
Honestly, Jackson should have taken the original script, fixed up the dated dialogue, strengthened Ann so she wasn't an out-dated damsel in distress, and shoot the f'ing thing.
I don't understand why the two remakes have felt the need to try to "improve" what was already a really strong story to begin with. Audiences would respond to a faithful remake with minor tweaking.
Case closed. I don't care about the romance and character development. It's not important. PJ should have taken a cue from Indiana Jones and Jaws and other adventure movies. Give us action, give us spectacle and screw the rest.
But Jaws had lots of character development and character nuances. In fact that's the strength of Jaws. It's not just action and spectacle with nothing else. Jaws is more human drama than anything else and Jaws is in Jackson's top 5 favourite films. The very best scene in Jaws is an acting/character scene....Robert Shaw's USS Indianapolis monologue. share
[deleted]
I'm still watching the 2005 version. I'll let you know when it ends.
shareThe monumental 1933 film is undoubtedly the best. 10 of 10 stars
Some seem to like to say that the 2005 remake is superior, but they should take note that even Peter Jackson himself would disagree with such a rather presumptuous assertion. King Kong [1933] has been Jackson's favorite film since his early childhood and he's perfectly aware of its (rightfully) Classic status. A competent filmmaker such as himself knows that probably no one could ever top the iconic mythos of Merian C. Cooper's and Ernest B. Schoedsack's masterpiece, not even himself.
When Jackson made his own version, he intended it to be a homage. And in that, I think he succeeded greatly. 9 of 10 stars
Regarding the 1976 remake, I can appreciate what the makers were attempting, but all in all in retrospect it just seems a less than great idea.
It does have some merits, but quite many more flaws. The starring of Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin are great, but those two good actors are not enough to actually save the entire film themselves.
I won't go into every quibble about it here, but what pops quickly into mind is how when I saw the giant villainous gas-pump in its third act, I didn't know if that was a dramatic cue to puke or if I was being whacked over the head with an ultra-Liberalistic brain-numbing stick when I thought I was supposed to be watching the tale of Beauty and the Beast / King Kong placed in the 1970s. 4 of 10 stars
In summary: The iconic 1933 original is the best, with Jackson's 2005 remake close as a worthy homage, following many of the best aspects of the original, both apparent and subtle. One may watch the 1976 version for the sake of contrast, hmm...or at least to make up one's own mind about it relative to the other two productions.
1933 with 2005 coming in a close second, and 1976 coming in at no#3. Dino Kong is just a little too campy, but did influence Jackson more than a lot of people would want to admit.
share