Honestly, I think Peter Jackson's is my ideal version. If I would have commented this a little earlier I might have said Skull Island, but after listening to your points I might go back to 2005. It's just a movie full of love and Jackson's heart was at the right place. Not saying Jordan Vogt-Robert's version doesn't have heart, but it is a little more on the popcorn movie side than the 2005 version. If 2005 is my 100/100, Skull Island is my 99/100.
TrReach I can understand that but I still feel skull island was better to me at least, what skull island did was it took the concept and did something new with it. Even the main kaiju antagonist the skull crawlers were based on a creature that crawled out of the pit in the first movie.
I think he was good, but he seemed a little out of place in the '30s to me. It kind of snaps me out of the film in a couple places and makes me feel more like it's set in modern times.
King Kong 2005 was Peter Jackson's last passion project and it shows. The amount of heart put into it is nothing short of amazing. I loved it and it's still one of the best cinema experiences I've ever had.
The original classic was sooo brutal for its time I love it. O’Brien didn’t hold back on that movie, the screams the deaths was just out there and intense for its time. Its a absolute masterpiece
It was actually censored when it was re-released in 1938. The uncut version wasn’t shown again till around the 60s due to RKO losing the original uncut negatives.
Peter Jackson's remake is the right way to remake a classic. It struck the right balance between being faithful to the original while expanding concepts and themes of the original, making it unique and different. So many other remakes dont even try to do something different and just come across as shot for shot copies with no soul or originality, like the Disney live action movies.
DeepEye1994 I really loved the original King Kong I've seen it about leash 90 x could give you the dialogue but I was really impressed us a remake in 1976 list of bridges and Jessica Lange I thought it was a beautiful retelling of the story with a lot more sympathy and understanding of the creature thank you see you at the movies
I agree, Peter Jackson's King Kong is amazing, contains the spirit and looks ahead of its time just like the original, not as good as the original but very close
The soundtrack alone from Peter Jackson's movie is so beautiful. Loved this movie since I was four years old. Never fails to give me chills, 14 years later....
Dude, agreed. It's probably my favorite score ever. Like, the "main theme" i guess during the 1v1 V-Rex, or better, when he's climbing the Empire State is like... so iconically "monster movie", so haunting but wonderous. It fills me with childlike joy lol.
King Kong 1976 used to come on tv back in the 80s and that’s where I was introduced to kong! I love this version of kong! Kong looked bad ass! He was a true force of nature!
1976 is my favorite version. The romance of the Beauty and the Beast. The emotion that it brings out during the final scene. The acting of Charles Grodin is fantastic. 1933 was first, and will always be the classic. Just an incredible film.That one had the best music, in my opinion. But my fave is the De Laurentiis take on this great story.
Fully agreed, and the one with better message too. Tragic and ecologist at the same time, De Laurentiis version isn't just the cgi version of the old classic like Peter Jackson's. Also the cast was amazing.
@Jane Terri Lol this asswipe is so salty that the fantastic remake is universaly accepted as better than the original. 😂😂😂 Go shove your 3 comment "opinion" up your ass...
The 1933 version is the most iconic. The 1976 version is the grittier, more visceral and organic version. The 2005 film is the most beautiful, polished and poetic version (that capitalizes/accentuates the iconic nature of the original). With these elements in mind, it's why I like them all *equally* ------ for completely different reasons. Outside of featuring a giant ape---- in many ways, they cannot be compared. To me, it's not an "either or" dialectic----- it's a "yes, and" to all all 3. I love them all. If you watched them all, back to back, you'll soon realize that they're *very* different movies...and *that's* a good thing.
@@ontologicallysteve7765 , I agree with your assessments! While the first movie established this iconic character, it's dated IMO. Today we cannot forget how much better the special effects could be - even if they were groundbreaking in 1933. Kong and the other creatures look totally artificial and are therefore rarely scary for today's audiences. Even my five year old son thought that Kong was a teddy who had a bit of a fight with a squirrel (that would be the T-Rex). And the dialogs are pretty awful, too. The original movie is at it's best when everybody - except Kong - ist keeping their mouths shut! And we are not meant to feel especially bad about Kong's eventual demise. He's a mean son of a bitch and a killer on a rampage after all! That said, the scenery often looks like a precious and delicate art work in black, white and grey shades. But I definitely prefer the 1933 original version over the 1976 remake. The storyline of the remake isn't bad at all. But the two most important characters ruin this movie for me: Jessica Lange's Dwan is so immature and annoying that I cannot understand why Kong doesn't abandon or - even better - simply squash her as soon as she starts to talk about their impossible relationship and his horoscope! And Jeff Bridges should've left Dwan on that island instead of rescuing her! Lange was very lucky that her career didn't fizzle out before it even started! She went on a three-year hiatus in order to actually learn how to act. We all know in what direction her career went after Kong: she managed to redeem herself big time! Both, Lange and Bridges had an illustrious career later - and both managed to win an Oscar! Although in the 1976 movie their chemistry doesn't work at all. But what really sinks the 1976 Kong, is that the big hairy guy is even less believable and less scary than his 1933 predecessor. He always looks like a guy in a gorilla suit - because he is just a guy in a gorilla suit! Personally I prefer Peter Jackson's version of Kong hands down. Peter Jackson made a wonderful to look at oldfashioned movie with a heart and a soul. Andy Serkis' motion-captured Kong is the most realistic version of Kong we ever got and it still looks good after all these years. Jackson also had the good sense to eliminate the silly idea that a giant gorilla could fall in love in a romantic way with a tiny human woman. His Kong is simply desperate for company because he is the last of his kind and therefore very lonely. Peter Jackson's Ann Darrow understands this, and the two forge a bond not unlike someone who finds and adopts a stray dog or cat. The big question is of course who is the owner and who is the pet in the case of Kong and Ann. It doesn't matter because Peter Jackson's Kong and Ann Darrow forge a deep bond which has nothing to do at all with romantic love but everything with respecting and protecting the other creature. We do know that some primate experts who keep gorillas have allowed them to adopt and keep kittens because it was very beneficial for the mood of the gorillas. One female gorilla became extremely attached to her first kitten. She was very upset and grieved very much when the kitten was run over by a car. She kept many more kittens during her long life, and she was allowed to chose them herself from a litter. Isn't that a bit similar to the ritual offer of a woman to Kong by the natives?😉 Peter Jackson's Kong made me cry when he finally dies. Personally I prefer Peter Jackson's Kong hands down because of it's heart and beauty. Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis managed to create a completely realistic version of the big ape. Yes, the movie is a bit too long - but overall I'm never bored with Peter Jackson's wonderful visuals and great story telling. Jordan Vogt-Roberts "Kong: Skull Island" isn't really in the same category as the other three King Kong versions. This is a completely different animal - pun intended! It's a very good to look at and very entertaining pop-corn-summertime-flick. I was very entertained - but this hairy big ape has got only very little to do with the original King Kong myth which has been created by Merian Cooper. I think, though, that the newest Kong is far to big for being able to communicate effectively with humans. It's a bit surprising that he even notices them at all. But he have to move in eventually and fight the big guys who will be an assortment of popular kaijus. Therefore He needs to be far bigger than all previous Kong outings!
Peter Jackson's is arguably the greatest remake of all time, but I have to give it to the 1933 incarnation simply because of all the problem solving & meticulous work that Willis O'Brien had to do in order to produce such a pioneering work. The original 1933 King Kong was the birth of visual effects on film. It's also the movie that was so culturally relevant that it spawned the term Hollywood "blockbuster" because of the long lines and never before seen audience turnout to buy tickets for this film. The lines of customers waiting outside theaters in New York and LA were so immense that they spilled over into the streets halting traffic. In order to alleviate the congestion, local police precincts had to send cops to these theaters to "bust up the block"; i.e. dispersing & organizing the masses of humanity that were wrapping around the theaters, for entire city blocks, in order to get traffic and commerce moving again. Besides, who in the world could've logically expected the monster from a 1930s film to become the character that audiences sympathized with and wanted more of? That should've been impossible. Again, because of the visionary work and leadership of Willis O'Brien & the RKO art dept, King Kong became an immortal character who forever altered the course of motion picture history.
My pick goes to the 76 version. Charles Grodin' s campy portrayal of his character was marvelous. Jeff Bridges did a great job, and I can never take my eyes off Jessica Lange in this picture.
I like Jessica Lange, but she was more spoiled and bratty, all cared about nothing but fame, mean while Ann’s portrayal in 2005, while caring so much about fame, she is much more compassionate and more since than Dwan ever! That is why while 1933 is great, 1976 is good, the 2005 will always be the best NO MATTER WHAT!
Peter Jackson’s is one of my favorite movies in general! Definitely the most lovingly crafted remake and it is the most beautiful monster you could ever make, monster movies don’t get more beautiful than that.
The 1933 version is the most iconic. The 1976 version is the grittier, more visceral and organic version. The 2005 film is the most beautiful, polished and poetic version (that capitalizes/accentuates the iconic nature of the original). With these elements in mind, it's why I like them all *equally* ------ for completely different reasons. Outside of featuring a giant ape---- in many ways, they cannot be compared. To me, it's not an "either or" dialectic----- it's a "yes, and" to all all 3. I love them all. If you watched them all, back to back, you'll soon realize that they're *very* different movies...and *that's* a good thing.
I did recently, and I would have to agree that they are very different films, all good in their own rights, even if the 1976 version is my personal favorite.
1933 was more difficult to make and was more of a masterpiece. It's ranked the best horror film of all time. Peter Jackson is great but both the 70s version and 2005 just copy and paste a lot of 1933.
@@aspiknf No they're not! They are their own films. You know why they have so much in common with the original? BECAUSE THEY'RE REMAKES! The 70s version makes changes so it's not the same story we already saw in 1933. The '05 version tries to respect the original by taking a lot from the source material but adding new details like the length, the character changes, the new characters, the new scenes, and the relationship between Kong and Ann. If it were copy and paste, the characters would have the exact same personalities, the events would be exactly the same, and Ann/Dwan wouldn't care about Kong.
@@catchannel1484 Sonic! you know what I meant. Don't let me call Dr. Eggman on you! I didn't mean they were exact copy and pastes but that the 70s version and 2005 film have too much inspiration from the 1933 film so they aren't that special compared to the 1933 one
2005 version! Kong had much more depth and emotion in him, and the leading lady also...not just screaming all the time. There was a touching friendship and love towards each other by the end of the movie that made it much more poignant.
I feel the same way about the 2005 remake... It is bloated and too long. That being said, I really love that movie. The original is classic, the 76 film has it's moments, but the 2005 film is my favorite.
Hell, it could have been longer. I would have liked to have seen what happened with some of the supporting characters who were dropped once they left the island.
Too busy with too many dinosaurs and that over-done, silly Kong/TRex fight all the while hanging from vines. Compares miserably to the original, but at least they stayed in the same fashionable time period.
The 1933 version is the most iconic. The 1976 version is the grittier, more visceral and organic version. The 2005 film is the most beautiful, polished and poetic version (that capitalizes/accentuates the iconic nature of the original). With these elements in mind, it's why I like them all *equally* ------ for completely different reasons. Outside of featuring a giant ape---- in many ways, they cannot be compared. To me, it's not an "either or" dialectic----- it's a "yes, and" to all all 3. I love them all. If you watched them all, back to back, you'll soon realize that they're *very* different movies...and *that's* a good thing.
I seen King Kong (1976) on my 9th birthday at the theater... Blew me away... About 6 months later my dad took me to downtown Detroit, to see the original King Kong (1933) I remember going cool but old!!! I fell asleep watching the newest King Kong (2005)... I still own the original soundtrack to the 76 version.. My favorite.....
Token Dave Yes but Kong skull island was pretty much an action monster movie. The other films had a deeper meaning with the characters. Samuel Jackson had a cool story arc and I liked the movie but it’s a different category than the other Kong movies. The film is definitely good but it has a different feel/theme
skull island is great but it more about humans visitating skull island. not about kong being a monster and taken ann. HE IS NOT THE ANTAGONIST BUT A VICTIM OF HUMAN DAMAGE. Perhapa hes no my favorite kong but a neccesary concept for godzilla.vs king kong. 2005 is my favorite cause it has humans momenta but at the end still is an animal very dangerous to the world.( remembered, when kong takes ann for first time, they are multiple corpses of women on the floor of jungle. Kong killed her sacrificies eventually by playing with them or they died by other creatures.)
1976. Possibly because of the nostalgia factor. I saw it in the theater upon release that year. The 1933 original is to be respected and the 2005 version appreciated but I feel the 1976 version is the perfect middle ground. Not too overtly primitive nor unbelievably outlandish. Plus, the final scene when Kong's heart is slowly pounding, signaling his demise, is quite heartbreaking.
I grow up with the first remake, it was my first interpretation of Kong I ever watch, but for me now is Peter Jackson version which I consider my favorite Kong so far.
I PROMISE you once I start my Godzillathon in May leading up to King of the Monsters, I’m watching EVERY single one of your reviews. Your videos are EXTREMELY well constructed and I love you :3
The visionary aspect and how he took the idea of the 1933 version but gave it so much more artistic depth is so underrated and overlooked to me, like if you watch that version today, it was 2005 and that film is excellent
The 2005 is easily the best in my opinion. While I can understand that some feel is far too long, so much heart and soul clearly went into the production. You can tell that Jackson had a profound love and respect for the original and wanted to do a remake that you could achieve in an era of impressive computer effects. I also think that it's better because of how much more expensive it is. Skull Island is portrayed with such immense detail and fauna that helps make it feel like a real place, far more than the original could. Yes, the original King Kong is an important film, that can never be taken away from it. However, I feel that the 2005 film not only lives up to the legacy of the film but surpasses it in multiple ways.
My answer is Peter Jackson's King Kong 2005 because it paved a way for a new era of Kong to be embraced and in this case, he officially entered the monsterverse in which he will fight Godzilla in 2020 which is hands down, one of the most historically anticipated showdowns of all time. King Kong 2005 made Kong cool again.
I always said that the original Kong moved like an ape, but didn't look like an ape. The '76 Kong looked like an ape but didn't move like one. And the '05 Kong finally both looked and moved like an ape. My favorite, for all its flaws in the 1976 version, because it is the first one I ever saw. Do wish they had had more monsters than Kong and the snake, but can't beat the scene where the raging Kong beats down the gate into the native village. Love that scene.
Jackson had done something none of the others were able to, and that was give Kong personality. You can see his joy, his admirations, his sadness and ultimately his loneliness and this is expressed through visuals as well as scenes. enough to express that Kong is more than just a beast, he is a soul capable of love and something that feels more humane than the humans themselves. while he is the primate, they are the savages, and ultimately he dies protecting the person he loves.
Peter Jackson's not just because of the Plot but Andy Serkis' motion capture work was just stunning, you really believed that Kong was a real thing and the Island really came alive in that one, the setting was it's own character in a way
I remember being 8 years old and seeing the 1976 King Kong on TV the one when he climbed the world trade center and loving that version then my mother told me it was a remake and I didn't know what a remake was I was only 8 and then I saw the original 1933 version and I fell in love with that one as a kid. I love all the versions of King Kong
I love Kong ‘05, I feel it’s not only the best one, but massively underrated. There is so much love and heart poured into it, each frame is brimming with life; all the actors fill their roles perfectly; and the extended cut just adds more to the mix. I wish people could get past its length and give it a shot. In one respect it was probably 10 years too soon; it would probably be a HBO mini series these days.
1976 by far was my favorite one, I did like the other ones, its just something about that classic 1976, and Jessica Lange, such a beauty, I loved her with Jeff Bridges ,the whole movie was just classic, it hold the # 1 spot in my heart ,and besides its one of my childhood memories, I was 5 when this movie came out, its sentimental to me, watching this with my mother it gets no better than that💪🙏
Precisely. You have discerning taste. This cat in the video admitted he was squirming because of the Kong/ Lang dynamic-- which was the WHOLE POINT OF WHY KONG WOULD DIE FOR HER IN THE FIRST PLACE. Seriously Who WOULDNT fight for 1970's Jessica Lang??
@@consciousgentile5141 Thanks so much I was so fascinated by this movie, I will always love it, I watched it the other day with my 2 daughters, and they love it also, and for sure Jessica Lange is so beautiful:)
@@IconicDollStudios It is just amazing how beautiful women were in the 60's and 70's. They had a purity that was unreal. Lange was such an innocent beauty that IT MADE SENSE that all the men would risk their lives to save her. And that Kong would freely die for her. She was the epitome of female perfection. Everyone was smitten by her.
@@IconicDollStudios We are not going to see movies like that again anytime soon. Movies that romanticize the beauty of Woman. And how courageous and blessed female beauty can make men feel...
Peter Jackson's King Kong film is by far the superior King Kong movie. The characters feel alive and varied, the special effects are amazing, Kong looks the best he ever has in terms of the character design, the designs of the dinosaurs and insects are heavily exaggerated and don't go for a realistic, scientifically accurate look, which helps with the lost, mystical vibe of Skull Island, the action is very exciting, and the final act of the film is very emotional and doesn't end on a happy note. While yes, it is very similar to the original story (which isn't surprising, as it is a remake), Peter Jackson's vision on how to bring the classic story to life in the modern world is the absolute best when compared to his predecessors, and it is very apparent that he was very passionate about making the movie and he cared very much about doing the best job he could, and he was very successful.
Even while I'm aware of its flaws, the 1976 version is my personal favorite. It was really a groundbreaking film in terms of story. Making Kong more sympathetic than in the original was a really good choice, and it adds a lot of heart to the core of the film. The relationship between Dwan and Kong is touching to me (I can understand why some people could find it a bit creepy, but I don't think that it was the movie's intent to make it so). The characters are likable, this is my favorite version of Jack in the movies, and the oil tycoon is the type of baddie you love to hate, still human enough to be a character, but his demise at the end of the film feels like sweet justice. The ending of the film itself is brutally tragic. Almost to an extreme amount. The finale on the World Trade Center is just as gut-wrenching as it is heart-wrenching. This is also just my favorite Kong aesthetically. The 1933 stop motion is definitely dated by today's standards, and while the 2005 CGI does a great job with Kong's expressiveness, I always loved the way he looked and moved in the 1976 film. The suit looked phenomenal, able to feel both emotive and terrifying. His design, his roars, his whole presence. Everything just feels so right. Honestly, the only things I think could've been improved was adding a bit more action earlier on, allowing Kong to fight a dinosaur or something would've been nice, or even just seeing the rest of the cast encounter more monsters on the island in general. The island does admittedly feel far smaller than normal when there is less for the supporting cast to do there.
My dad asked why I was I crying during the ending to Peter Jackson's King Kong, it's the visuals and the freaking music man, it is very difficult to watch that scene without crying.
The design for the 1933 king kong was just awesome, he was like a sasquatch kinda creature, had that almost human side to him, love the stopmotion too, one day i want my own 1933 king kong armature puppet
The original is great in that way many classic films are. It was ground breaking and pushed the boundaries of its time. However though paced well the film lacks characters you sympathize with. They all feel more like generic adventure caricatures. I grew up with the 2005 version and watched it many times. It’s bloated and long yes, but it never gets boring or becomes stale. There is just so much love and passion put into ever scene and it shows. Naomi Watts gives an incredible performance, as does Andy Serkis as Kong. The action scenes are numerous, but varied (not to mention just plain fun). The extended edition is pretty fun too. It basically just adds more Dino action scenes which I can’t complain about. Overall both are fantastic, but I feel the 2005 version does more right and expands for the best on the original.
Jackson's Kong is the best imo, and I am very glad that Kong: Skull Island is not another remake but a new original story featuring Kong. Best thing about it is that it is part of the greater "monster universe" along with Godzilla. Can't wait for Kong vs Godzilla. I only have one issue with it; what is a King compared to a God?
Being a big fan of older classic movies like “Casablanca” and “Gaslight” I tend to lean towards the original “King Kong.” But that is only a part of it. First, I think the pacing is better, second I think the actors in the original are more believable in the parts they play, and last, but certainly not least, I can’t watch that original movie without thinking about what Willis O’Brien and his crew had to go through to bring it to the screen. Now most people don’t think about things like that, but I’m one who does. To understand it, think of it this way. If I shoot one minute of film of something it takes one minute. Very simple. But with stop motion photography it doesn’t work that way. They start out by shooting everything in a scene with only one frame of film. Then everything that needs to move is moved just a tiny bit and one more frame is shot. Doesn’t sound too bad until you realize that one minute of screen time uses 1,440 frames of film (24fps times 60 seconds). Now the battle between Kong and the T-Rex was three minutes and twenty five seconds long. That means that the crew had to move the creatures and snap the shutter 4,925 times. And they didn’t even know if it worked until the film was developed. And if it didn’t, well, back to the drawing board and shoot it again. Now don’t get be wrong, I have nothing against CGI effects. But sometimes they are grossly overused. That brings me to my feelings on the other Kong movies. The problem with the 1976 version was the plot. The effects weren’t bad, nor the acting, but if you’re going to remake a classic, everything should be the same almost right down to the dialogue. But not with this version. The 2005 remake corrected that problem pretty well, although I don’t know why Adrian Brody had to be a writer and not a deckhand, but that’s only a minor issue. The bigger issue, as I mentioned earlier, was too much CGI. I don’t know about you, but two hours of rampaging dinosaurs is about all I can take. After that they cease to be scary or exciting. They become something the filmmaker can do and so he does. At around two hours I think I would say he nailed it. But when I watched the blu ray director’s cut, I had to watch it over two days. Not as good as it could have been. Finally we have “Kong: Skull Island.” I thought this one was really good. They didn’t try to include any of the elements of the other films, meaning it was a standalone feature. If you had never seen a “King Kong” movie, you could still understand it and enjoy it. The acting was good throughout and the CGI effects were only used as needed to keep the story moving. Having said that, I think it’s time to give poor Kong a rest and invent a new monster. We can certainly use one.
While the original is still the best, it gets right to the point, I personally love the Peter Jackson version. There is about 30-45 minutes that could be cut to move the story along, ( the spider pit sequence for ex) I really love how they made Kong and Ann’s characters “friends” the scene on the ice in central park was wonderful, and you really felt Kong’s loneliness, and his sense of isolation. I took my daughter to see it when she was 4 and she cried at the scene where he was walking through his cave and it showed the bones of other apes. I asked her what was wrong thinking she might be afraid, but she said he is all alone. Yep. If a 4 year old gets it, you’ve done a good job of conveying loneliness. She cried at his death scene as well. Very Touching for a “monster” movie
For me is the 2005 version, it faithfully recreate the original, give is more deep story and backstory to the characters and the relation of Kong and Ann is just perfect
@John Cornell the runtime gives room for more storytelling and improvements on the overall story, over the top is good since it has the same sense of dramatic essence the orignal had, it needs cgi because most scences couldn't be possible with practical effects, the v rex fight was just as iconic and I even say influentual as the orignals version.
I like the 1976 version....the movie wasnt very good but I think that version of Kong was best as far as how he looked, sounded and moved. Peter Jackson's was basically a normal gorilla just supersized.
As far as I'm concerned, the only version of "King Kong" worth watching is the Original, unedited version. Kong's pathos, and love for Fay Wray is sooo perfect. Although the other 2 films aren't awful, they just aren't as Exciting as the original!
I've never been able to masterbate to the 1933 version of King Kong. I proudly admit that I have indeed fapped to the 1976 version. 1976 is hands down much better.
Fay Wray made it happen in 1933, while in 2005 Naomi Watts re-captured the magic Wray had provided over 70 years prior by keeping the same character (Ann Darrow). So I ignore 1976 King Kong (which had no Ann Darrow character, and lousy acting by Jeff Bridges) and will go with the 1933 B&W original and 2005 color versions _ONLY_ as they are equal masterpieces in their own right and IMHO.
The "Ann Darrow" character, the beautiful "Bride of Kong," is called "DWAN" & played by Jessica Lange in the 1976 version. Why they decided to call her "DWAN" instead of "Ann Darrow" is just another strange Hollywood mystery.But "Anne Darrow" returned in the 2005 version played this time by the lovely Naomi Watts.
I prefer the 76 version...it's super nostalgic for me....I saw it at a matinee ad an 8 year old. There were lines wrapped around the theater to see it. I had a full sized newspaper pull out that hung in my room for years.
I feel like I'm the only one who preferred the 76 version. It was the perfect mix of black humour, camp and seriousness. It was self aware of it's own craziness, unlike the 2005 version. Kong 76 also had the bleakest and unsettling ending, which really took me by surprise when I first watched it
While i do agree with you that the 76' Kong's Dwan/Kong relationship was overdone, her fighting for Kong's life and how they did Kong's death made this movie much better than King Kong 2005. In that one Spoiler- all you see is Kong on the edge of the building with Ann and he just slips off. The fight for his life and his death is not as dramatic as it should have been.
Fay Wray mentioned in her book she was so embarrassed with all the screaming, and wished the end would have been King Kong being taken back to his home.
I think 1976 Kong is underrated. There's some family tense scenes in that movie. Soundtrack is good, too. Jackson's version is bloated. Although Kong looks great.
@@consciousgentile5141 skull island is my favorite the 05 version was boring half through the movie & I hated Kong design he wasn't menacing or bad ass a overgrown ape I was very dissapointed in his size & design but Skull Island from the 05 version was amazing as hell the only thing done right in that movie .
I thought the 3 T-Rex fight was a bit much, in Jackson's version. 2 T-Rexes would have been fine. With the 3 it was harder to keep track of what was going on. Still a good scene and overall a great movie.
I like the '76 and would agree that it's underrated, but I don't think it's the best. I think the whole oil plot thing feels kind of preachy and dates it in bad way. And it's just kind of a boring concept compared to the original. The original does feel dated in ways, but I thought most of it adds to the charm and the setting of the film rather then taking from it. I guess some of that subjective, but that's just my opinion.
What they accomplished in the original Kong was just incredible. Truly one of the best films that ever had been made. I really enjoy Peter Jackson’s Kong as well.
Peter Jackson's version is by far my favorite, and never did I thought even remotely that it was too long. It felt in fact far too short to me. I related so hard to that version of King Kong, his gentleness, his adorableness and the friendship he built with Ann that felt trully real and not disgustingly sexualized like the 1976 version did. Not to mention a top notch musical score and beautiful special effects. There is a lot of reasons to LOVE that film, and I thoroughly did! The original is to me a close second. I enjoy the old school effects and lack of rempant cheesiness that seemed to often plague those movies at the time... So in short: Peter Jacson's King Kong gets a 10/10 1976 King Kong get a 6/10 And finally 1933 King Kong gets a 8/10 Well done and great overall reviews of those beloved movies!
I think story wise I prefer 2005 over 1933 mainly because of the emotional connection between Kong and Ann and because Kong felt more like a character than just a monster so it is more impactful when he dies. I understand on a technical level why the original is held so high though.
The 1976 version is definitely my favorite. I was 11 when it came out in '76, and the 70's blockbusters had the most original, emotional orchestrations I can recall. I am still moved to tears by the end of this film, something the 2005 version is totally incapable of doing for me. I fully understand why the majority here vote the the 2005 version as the best, because it most reflects today's PC ideology and simultaneous fascination with the "realism" of CGI. The free-thinking, non-PC culture of the 1970's is something most of today's generation will never be able to comprehend, and I will never be able to adequately describe to anyone under the age of 45. For the same reasons, those who feel mostly attached to the 1933 original will vote for either the '33 or the 2005 version. The 2005 ending was particularly odious having Jack Black's character delivering the final words, let alone even living, which was such an extreme disappointment, even compared to the rest of the film! ( In fact, there is no way to politely describe the torture, agony, and moral injustice of watching 2 hours of J.B., so desperately wanting him to receive his well-deserved comeuppance at the end, only to be robbed of that satisfaction entirely) The 1970's blockbusters, as cheesy as they may seem now with obvious blue-screen effects, were an emotional roller coaster that drew you into feeling for the characters as you would your own friends. And let's be honest, what teen-age male didn't wish to be Kong in those "creepy" scenes, as you put it? There is nothing wrong with good old-fashioned lust and animal magnetism, which, for modern cultural reasons, is practically non-existent in today's PC/CGI remakes. The fact that I grew up in the same cultural environment (Most importantly void of post-911 PC & CGI) as the films, makes the 1976 version all the more endearing to me. The '76 film has enough realism to let your imagination take over, and it has a heart and soul unmatched by any other version!
2005 is not only my favorite Kong but my favorite movie. Some people say it’s too long. I prefer the extended version. I hope one day I get to see a follow up to the 2005 version.
I found all three movies equally good. They all told the same atory, but each one bringing something new and unique to it. They all have their place in cinematic history.
As a fellow Kong fan, I have to agree with MOST of what you've said here, with the exception that the 1976 version is the most realistic (in terms of the performances, dialogue and cinematography), and -- at least for me -- the most emotionally moving. Unlike the other two films, the characters in the '76 version seem like real human beings; as clever as the writing is in the original 1933 film, and as spectacular as the 2005 version is, we never really believe that these are actual people living this incredible story. Kong '76 is almost documentary-style in its depiction of events; the acting is naturalistic and convincing (even if Grodin is fairly over-the-top) and the ape himself looks (in most scenes and shots) like a real primate. It is also the first instance of a true bond being developed between ape and girl, the first time we are invited to care about Kong as something more than a force of destruction and/or nature set loose. The absence of prehistoric monsters in the '76 film opens up opportunities to develop this bond, so that by the end of the movie we are on Kong's side -- and Dwan's, and Jack's -- and we lament the ape's horrific death. The 2005 film swings for this same emotional impact and misses, despite all the brilliance of its filmmaking techniques. I love all three versions more-or-less equally, and I realize I'm in the minority of Kong fans here, but the '76 version is my personal favorite. Thank you for an excellent video.
Outstanding post!! None of the other Kong movies have the EMOTIONAL DEPTH of the 1976 movie. It even had the best tribespeople as well. 1976 was INFINITELY more scary than the others.
King Kong '76 has a huge gen x fanbase, don't fool yourself. Probably the most fearsome Kong of the three (that intense beating through the wall scene scared the crap out of me as kid), and the fact that the films climax takes place at the now gone Twin Towers immortalized this film now in it's own right.
I'm not a big "Son Of Kong" fan, truth be told. Kong Jr. is too silly of a character. Not as bad as Minya (Son Of Godzilla) but still too cutesy and "tame".
I like them all in their own way. I was 9 when Kong '76 came out. The soundtrack alone will make you love this one. They all have some obvious flaws but that's what makes them great. "With thy wedding with the creature that touches heaven, Lady God preserve thee" I love that scene where Jeff Bridges tells the crew about the island. The tension in that room, along with the music, awesome.
"Para Fernando Decurez was blown south from Tenatan. He wrote of piercing the white veil and landing on the beach of the skull....where he heard the roar of the greatest beast". Loved this scene when I was a young fella. Excuse the spelling 😁
2005 version is my favorite. I love the 76 version as well but the 2005 version was just fantastic. I wish they had made it even longer than the 3 hour 7 minute run time. All that said there is no question that the 33 version had a greater impact on cinema and film making than almost any other movie.
In the 1976 version, how friggin' gorgeous was Jessica Lange! ... I was just a kid when I watched this, but I fell head over heels in love with her after seeing it!
When Andy serkis does a performance his blood sweat and tears go in to it, Peter Jacksons Kong will always be nostalgic to me and Andy took what he learned and made ceaser breathe taking in the planet of the apes trilogy.
I much preferred the 1976 remake. Why? The environmental message and I wasn't at all put off by the Kong/Dwan scenes. In fact I felt them a hell of a lot more than I did with Naomi Watts' character. I found that version bloated and boring. My problem with the original is what yours was, Fay Wray screaming all the time. As for Dwan's "showing up", it's said in the film she was on her way to Thailand to "film" a movie. In other words, the guy who chartered the Sonarra was basically a porn movie director, hence the "Deep Throat" watching. Thing is with that film I loved the fact that Jack Prescott was on Kong's side and that ending when Kong is gunned down and Dwan is crying for him...... has me in tears all the times I watch it. None of the other versions can do that to me. Your reasons for liking the 2005 version are the reasons I hate it.
2005 is the best, hands down. In fact, the older and lonelier I get, the more I feel like that version of Kong. Like I’m an old relic on its last leg. The cold-blooded types have always outnumbered me and are just waiting for their chance to take me down. So I have to play tough all the more just to survive. And usually that works; I’m big and dark and scary enough to keep the world at arm’s length. But in reality I’m just a big softy who spends way too much time staring at the sky, imagining what it would be like to have a soulmate.
While the 30s Original is by far my favorite and the 2005 remake is a close 2nd, I do want to mention that I believe the 70s remake has the best score/music, you're right in saying the film itself ditches a lot of the mystical adventurous tone of the original but the music in it not only captures that but really emphasizes the beauty and tragedy of the Kong story.
Having grown up with the original, it's hands down THE ultimate version of KING KONG, probably because it was the first, it established the trend in the first place while having an identity of its own unparalleled by all other films of the period, and of course, age actually doesn't detract from it so much as it adds to its overall value, as future generations old and new can still not only view the original in the context of the times, but also outside of the times, and give it more respect for all it inspired, and not just monster movies specifically. The 1976 remake, I was actually surprised to find that it wasn't all THAT bad. I watched it having all the low expectations that had been heaped upon it upon its initial release and continuing onward, and I could have done without most of the camp elements that weighed it down - not to mention how disappointed I was to learn that this one didn't have any dinosaurs in it - yet strangely, it actually worked more often than it didn't. I really liked how the Jack and Ann characters warmed up to Kong, I really liked the gorilla suit design, hands down my favorite of the Kong designs thanks to the practical FX work of Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi (trust me folks, we'll never get these kind of practical FX back, so enjoy their crude charm!), and John Barry's music was deeply moving, filled with adventure and romance as well as the resonance of longing and tragic loss, all of which the film features in great degree. And, as one who actually rode the Universal Kong ride AND was on top of the Twin Towers in July 1998 three years before 9-11, this version seems to show more relevance for me now than ever before. It may not be the masterpiece that the original was, but it's definitely worth reappraisal - and in any case, it's WAY better than the sequel KING KONG LIVES. In terms of more lavish scope and fluid execution, however, the Peter Jackson remake of 2005, which I saw at age 20, is the best movie overall. Yes it was overlong, and evident of Jackson's tendency to go for the "more is more" approach that seems to have been his current post-LORD OF THE RINGS trademark sadly, but it has the best acting and set pieces, the look is rich, and of course, it pays affectionate tribute to its origins way more than the 1976 version did, including with Kong himself. If I can't settle on any one particular version, it's because of several reasons. One, as much as I do love Kong, I'm more of a Godzilla fan. Two, the fact that there are THREE versions of KING KONG, each unique in its own way and a product of the times, makes it hard for me to settle on any one version overall, even if the first remains the best by default and the later versions each are more commendable for their own individual approach... and it's much easier for me to settle for the 1954 GOJIRA/GODZILLA as the ultimate monster movie than having to choose either KONG movie over the other, like the Trojan Paris deciding the fairest of three immortal Greek goddesses. Finally, there's always a possibility in the future that both Kong and Godzilla will be dethroned by a worthy and superior successor (though I dread said possibility), and whether I live long enough to see that happen remains to be seen.
Peter Jackson's King Kong hands down. The 1933 original also has my utmost respect. The 2005 version also spawned a pretty solid video game, I love it as much as I love the movie. I have the extended version of the movie and despite being so lengthy, I never get bored watching it. A true classic!
As a child, I always latched to King Kong. I saw the 76’ version first and enjoyed it, though when they announced Peter Jacksons I was excited beyond words and dug up an old copy of the original. I rewatched it at least 20 times and still love it to this day. When Jackson’s came out, I believe I had gone and seen it in theaters 6 times. And while the CGI is starting to show a bit of age, I still adore Jackson’s. Between the original and Jackson’s, I couldn’t ask for more. The new Kong is cool and unique, but nothing will top my childhood with the original and Jackson’s.
