King Kong- '33, '76, '05?

I like the 33 and the 76.
Can't stand the 05. Never understood what people liked about it. The main thing was that I found it just way too long.
But then I've been in the reverse situation as well where I like/don't mind a movie and others hate it.

 

2005 version all the way. Much better graphics, more realistic and better sound. The new "Kong" movie will probably be even better!

 

The 2005 borrowed from both the 1933 and 1976 versions. It borrowed the time and setting from 1933 and the emotional impact, the fact that we and the lead characters actual care about Kong, from the 1976 version. The 1976 version brought something new to the table. With the exception of a cartoon gorilla, cartoon dinosaurs and cartoon bugs, the 2005 version brought nothing new to the table.

 

Canadian born Fay Wray lived a very long life, like Lillian Gish, but died in her 90s. I have seen her in other films, not always blonde, as she was a good actress.

Peter Jackson's recreation of the lost 1933 scene with the men who fell off the log was wonderful! I like the 1976, but love the 1933. Simply one of the, if not thee, great adventure movies of all time. The story behind it is up there with the great behind the making ofs too.

 

Kong '33 is a perfect movie. I also agree, the bonus features make the DVD/BD a must own.

 

2005.
Though love the 1933 bedroom scene.
1976 had the beautiful Jessica Lange(Francis Farmer).

 

They should have waited another 25+ years.

 

Kong: Skull Island is not a remake of '33. It's not the same-group of explorers discovers Kong, brings him back to New York, Kong climbs tall building, gets shot and falls, the end-story. It's more of a spin-off.

 

"Kong" 1933 really does hold up astonishingly well. I won't claim it hasn't aged a day, but it still works WAY better than it should!

 

The score is still one of the best as well.

 

1933

 

33. No substitutes. Son of Kong is surprisingly wonderful despite its extreme short length.
The 76 version is flawed but had some interesting elements.
The 05 version is a bloated mess.

This current spinoff looks completely soulless. I see the trailers and think...Willis O'Brien had to do everything by hand for months on end and still managed to convey more life than anything they can ever manage today.

 

Heh Heh, I always find that funny, when family or relatives look at the online listings for a movie and go "oh look, it got 4 stars!".
And I'm like "ummm...yeah...ok" and just smile and don't say anything.

 

Something that's buggin' me about the 'new' Kong is how he stands and moves like a man! Reminds me of the Kong movies (and the majority of ape flicks!) where it's obviously a guy in an ape suit. One of the best things about the '05 movie was the amazing Andy Serkis, who studied the movements of apes in preparation. He also killed it in Planet Of The Apes. So much so that it's hard to imagine anyone else playin' the big ape!

 

Probably my favorite scene in the '05 KK was when Ann was juggling for Kong. How Serkis went from amused to enraged to embarrassed, without the use of words, great stuff!

 

How tall was he, again??

 

1933 all the way baby!

 

My copy is in the mail!

 

preferred the early movies with stop motion animation, but this is looking like it will be my favorite version.

 

In preparation for Kong: Skull Island, James Rolfe has been reviewing all the Kong films....

 

Jessica Lange seems like she is doing a Marilyn Monroe impersonation in the 1976 version

 

1933 is just beautiful, extraodinary cinema.
1976 was let down by the use of a guy in a monkey suit and has dated terribly.
2005 starts well in New York and the journey to the island but then it just gets too bonkers and over the top. The insect scene in the canyon is stupid as is the chase along the cliff road. Scooby Doo material.
2017 looks totally over top also. I'll watch it on Film 4 later on.