King Kong 1976's rating seems to be going up. It's 5.8 now, while King Kong 2005 is dropping down to 7.3. A difference of just 1.5 points out of 10. At the rate Kong '05 is dropping, it'll be lower than Kong 1976 in 20 years time.
shareGood! because the 2005 version was a soulless piece of s h i t
share
"That gentleman has placed a deposit on this meat.. No.. a monetary deposit hahaha!"
I agree. The movie felt pointless once they were of the boat. If it wasn't a remake I would not even have remembered it. Peter Jackson didn't deliver at all. Way too much boring and fake green screen ruined the movie. And the plot was very weak too.
shareI don't know what to say, but I like the 1976 remake more than the 2005 film. I hope it's not trolls rating them, but people who watch both and finally decide which they like more.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
This has been on TV the past couple of weeks. I think I was turned off by the casting of the last one, never saw it.
This one is worth watching, even if it is a little campy.
Kong '05 had far too much peripheral plot. I love PJ but he really does enjoy stretching things...
shareABSOLUTELY! 1976 King Kong BLOWS the 2005 Peter Jackson version OUT OF THE WATER! I went down to Georgia a few years ago for a wedding, and the day after the wedding, we were entertained at the family's home "movie theatre" ...... There were kids there all watching the 2005 P.J. version w/parents enjoying the "Disney" style scenes, such as when the crew is trying to kill off the over-the-top large bugs and insects and the silly "puppy love" w/Kong and the girl! After that movie had ended, some of us wanted to watch the 1976 version and that's when the parents said "NO WAY" that their children were going to watch the 1976 version....... ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!
shareThough I'm sure some kids, if they view the 1976 one, will ask what those two tall towers are...We have to erase them from future art of the movie.......:)
shareYes, if one puts any stock in statistics.
If someone likes a film, that is all that matters.
I feel as though time will be kinder to this movie than the 2005 one. The CGI is already feeling pretty dated but the main problem with Jackson's film is that it just drags on soooo long. It's an utterly exhausting experience of overkill, kind of like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies which just throw visual stimulus at the audience ad nauseum and into an excessive run time.
The 1976 version, primitive blue screen effects and all, at least had tighter storytelling and more interesting characters. Even the nominal antagonist Charles Grodin still behaved like a rational human and showed compassion and positive qualities. It also boasted an excellent musical score and a much more interesting cast of character actors. For the most part, the makeup effects I think worked very well as did Rick Baker's performance as Kong. Not even once as a kid did I think it was just a guy in a suit; I totally bought everything.
Well said, excellent post Alymer.
There is much more atmosphere in this film, more presence surrounding Kong and his mystery. It's a typical 70s overblown epic with a lot of nice qualities. Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange were a great pairing. The ending on the WTC is a bit too creepy, though. I liked the 1986 sequel with Linda Hamilton as well.
Jackson's movie is way overblown and melodramatic despite the incredible sfx. I liked it at the time, but I'd probably not like it much on reviewing. As you said, it's long and bloated, while the 1976 film does more with less.
Hah yeah as a kid I noticed too how relatively enjoyable the movie was but with an ending so absolutely gloomy and downbeat. There's a shot of Bridges running around the empty halls of the WTC with nothing but John Barry music to accompany him and it always reminded me of the shot on the Cygnus in THE BLACK HOLE with all the empty chairs in the docking hall (before the evil robots show up). Barry really understood feelings of loneliness, creepiness, and isolation and brought an element of that into most of the movies he worked on at the time (also see THE WHITE BUFFALO - similarly gloomy ending note).
On top of that, everything focused so heavily around the WTC for those of us old enough to remember 911 gives the ending a heavy level of gravitas. I don't think any other film focused so heavily on those buildings until after they were destroyed in real life.
Kong as a character goes from feeling like a dark, ominous force to increasingly irrational and desperate as the climax moves along. You really get the sense that there's now nowhere out for him, and no good ending. It adds to the depressing feeling of inevitability when the helicopters show up.
I was also disturbed as a kid that the mayor straight up lies to Jeff Bridges and pays no price for that. It was an early lesson in how corrupt the system is - politicians can lie and get away with it even when their decisions produce tragic results.
I did enjoy most of KING KONG LIVES as a kid too, even though it's racked with a lot of stupidity. There's a section of the film 40-60 minutes in where it's quite enjoyable in a goofy and unpredictable way (around the golfing scene). A lot of people hated that but I loved it.
There's a shot of Bridges running around the empty halls of the WTC with nothing but John Barry music to accompany him
I did enjoy most of KING KONG LIVES as a kid too, even though it's racked with a lot of stupidity.