[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by simpson_yellow

I'll probably wait for DVD for Jackson's one, and I haven't seen the '76 version, so I won't vote.

I will say, however, that the 1933 version is the only movie that's ever made me cry. I must've been about 6 or 7 when I watched it, and my Mum thought it'd be an OK movie to keep me entertained whilst she did the gardening. Being so young, I didn't anticipate the ending at all, so when my Mum came back inside, she found me huddled behind the sofa, bawling my eyes out.

Good times. Good times.

Ummm...don't even bother with the new Kong on DVD unless you have a HUGE screen TV or projector. King Kong is a must see on the big screen if you're going to see it. It's an "event movie" if ever there was one. I'm telling you...the scope of this thing is nuts. New York looks AMAZING (all CG and sets, but you can't tell whatsoever), I'm still thinking about it. The movie made me want to transport myself to New York in the 1930's and go exploring. When Steven Spielberg said that he was making War of the Worlds to be a film everyone would have to see, he was actually talking about Peter Jackson's King Kong I think. See it in theaters or don't see it at all.

I feel the need to show some pics of the scope and coolness of the New York "effect". This is almost all CG folks...

Wow...

Wow again...

By the way, this one is more emotional than the 1933 one. It might bring back the childhood memories.

[simpson_yellow]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

See it in theaters or don't see it at all.

Yeah, I realise it's one of those practically-essential-to-see-on-the-big-screen movies, but I just haven't been that passionate about it. I might end up seeing it before it leaves the theatres, but I don't think I'll be making any special effort to do so.

As for bringing back the childhood memories, that's partly what I'm afraid of. If I'm likely to be trembling on the floor in the foetal position, I'd rather do it in the comfort of my own home .

Edit: Aww no, you added pictures.

Wow...

Here I go...

[Orange Brat]

Saw it and loved it. Flawless and the three major action sequences on the island were probably the most intense I've ever sat through. It also didn't seem like it was over 3 hours long, either. That means it wasn't boring.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

In my opinion, there are very few classic films that should be remade.

Personally, I don't think ANY film should be remade.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Orange Brat

Saw it and loved it. Flawless and the three major action sequences on the island were probably the most intense I've ever sat through. It also didn't seem like it was over 3 hours long, either. That means it wasn't boring.

Hmmm... Flawless? Come on... Also, how did you find the action sequences intense? I'm just curious... I found them to be a lot of fun to watch (mainly for the special effects and spectacle, but in the case of the TRex battle the choreography was astounding as well), but intensity would require some concern on my part for the characters. The only character I really cared about was actually Kong himself (which is quite an accomplishment for WETA in my opinion)... Maybe that's why the TRex scene was so far and above the other two island action sequences to me; Kong was involved in that one. The other two seemed like a damn carnival funhouse. Enjoyable but meaningless. Plus...

Spoiler:

The machine gunning bugs off of Jack Driscoll was absolutely absurd, as was the heroic "vine swinging" sailor blowing away bugs in mid-swing. All I could do was shake my head at the Spielbergian antics (think Jurassic Park 2 when the little girl uses gymnast moves to beat up a velociraptor)... That stuff isn't even fun because it's so damn stupid...

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Bastich

Personally, I don't think ANY film should be remade.

Ummm...then we wouldn't have the definitive Wizard of Oz, the greatest version of The Maltese Falcon (with Bogart), the superior version of Ben-Hur (with Heston), and so on and so forth. What's wrong with a remake? I think way too many are made, but some are superior. It's extraordinarily rare, and overall I despise remakes as much as you do. But there are certainly films that can be remade, and occasionally remade better.

[Mattsius]

Is was supposed to go see King Kong on the premiere on Wednesday, but my bro suddenly got a meeting so we chose to go watch it on Saturday instead. Can hardly wait!

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Mares

The only version I've seen was the 70's one, which I really liked as a kid. Didn't it have a sequel? I remember always feeling very sorry for the monkey.

There was a sequel. It was the absolutely terrible, horrible, and painful to view:



There was a sequel to the 1933 version as well called Son of Kong.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

There was a sequel. It was the absolutely terrible, horrible, and painful to view:

There was a sequel to the 1933 version as well called Son of Kong.

Wow, that looks so bad and the concept is so kitschy it might actually be good again.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Wow, that looks so bad and the concept is so kitschy it might actually be good again.

It's produced by Dino De Laurentiis. Hasn't he produced, like, three good films ever?

[Starflux]

Dino is awesome! He made not only Flash Gordon, but also Conan the Barbarian! I love his movies.

Anywhom, I just saw King Kong and, without ever hearing from other people that it was too long (so that you don't think I'm riding any wave), I thought the movie is too long. And not just a bit too long, but too long to the point of hurting the movie. The hour-long setup was, in retrospect, my favourite part of the movie because of the adventure feel. But then in the jungle it got all tedious. I didn't like the creepy natives who all of a sudden disappeared, and everything in the jungle besides the Kong-moments felt dragged out. Now maybe it was the fact that I have constantly in my mind that tomorrow my dentist will pull out one of my teeth, but I just couldn't connect with the ape in any which way. I appreciated his range of emotions, but it barely did anything with me. I liked Jack Black though, but his character is built up very nicely and then cut off without really bringing an end to his character arc. That's a shame.

Summing it up; I really felt King Kong would have been much, much better if it had been a two-hour feature. Now it seems to stay in that dismal longer-is-better way of making movies. It worked for Lord of the Rings, which has a lot of material and depth, but it doesn't work for a tale that's this simple and barebones, no matter how many cool pirate crew you throw at it.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Flux

Summing it up; I really felt King Kong would have been much, much better if it had been a two-hour feature. Now it seems to stay in that dismal longer-is-better way of making movies. It worked for Lord of the Rings, which has a lot of material and depth, but it doesn't work for a tale that's this simple and barebones, no matter how many cool pirate crew you throw at it.

I totally agree. I went to see the new King Kong again already (twice in two days), and I watched the original afterward on the new DVD. Let's get something straight right away: King Kong is not a deep, complex story in any version. It's not supposed to be. King Kong was always intended to be a big, exciting fantasy adventure...nothing more. It pains me to say so (because the new Kong has some wonderful, superior stuff in it), but the original succeeds in this moreso than the remake. Unlike a Lord of the Rings movie where the source material was actually condensed to become a three hour film, Jackson's ego has gotten so big that he is now padding an hour and a half of source material to create a three hour picture.

The Hayes and Jimmy relationship (about four or five pointless, lengthy scenes that try to compare King Kong to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness) should be cut from the new Kong. It's terrible. Plus, there are a number of other scenes that could be shortened, tightened up, or removed entirely. I also think Jackson went a bit too far with his zombie natives (the 1933 film surprisingly treats people of color better than this one does), and got carried away with huge computer animated centipedes, grasshoppers, penis monsters, and other assorted horrors. The new Kong has some brilliant stuff (the quiet moments between Ann and Kong, the TRex fight, the New York climax), but the "perfect" Kong would be a mixture of the 1933 and 2005 versions. Since that's impossible, I guess I'll have to prefer the 1933 version overall.

[samIamsad]

Now bring on the Tarantula remake! I liked these Japanese Godzilla vs [MONSTER] movies as a kid.

[colpet]

I saw it last night in an almost empty theatre. It was a thrilling ride. The action scenes were riveting, especially the brontosaurus stampede. The length didn't bother me at all; I found the time flew. It reminded me of how I felt when I first saw Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark in theatres. The excitement and the hughness of the action sequences were awesome. I was steeling myself for the tragic ending, but somehow I didn't feel near as devastated. I think it was because I felt that he didn't die alone. He had his only friend with him, and that companionship would not have been there for him had he stayed at Skull Island.

With regards to the original King Kong, I first saw that in the 60's, on TV.
It was thrilling then, even in black and white. I cried at the ending, and felt horrible that Kong had to die. The 70's remake was not very memorable, though I do remember looking forward to its theatrical release.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by colpet

It reminded me of how I felt when I first saw Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark in theatres.

Heh, you sound like Walter Chaw of Film Freak Central:

"I hadn't felt as exhilaratingly free and goofy in a film since I was an eight-year-old watching Raiders of the Lost Ark through my fingers."

Glad you liked it.

[Hamham Chan]

I think i´ll buy the original King Kong film on dvd, haven´t seen that one in many years.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

There was a sequel. It was the absolutely terrible, horrible, and painful to view:

Bad, bad movie.
They resurrect King Kong by inserting a huge pacemaker into his chest.That scene is hilarious, the doctors operate on Kong with oversized scalpels!
Linda Hamilton should´ve been able to get better movieparts than this, especially after Terminator.

I liked these Japanese Godzilla vs [MONSTER] movies as a kid.

Godzilla fought King Kong in one of those.
I wonder who won?

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Hamham Chan

Godzilla fought King Kong in one of those.
I wonder who won?

It was sort of a tie, but King Kong is the one you see "survive". So, technically, I guess Kong won.

Unfortunately for Universal, Kong is not winning at the American box office right now. Only $9.7 million on Wednesday and a 35% drop to score a lackluster $6.3 million on Thursday (by contrast, Return of the King made $34.5 million on the Wednesday opening, and $17 million on Thursday). This is looking really, really disappointing. If the weekend numbers are equally poor then King Kong is officially a bomb.

[Dasilva]

I saw it yesterday, and I thought it was a great movie, the only bad thing I could say is that some scenes are too long, either or the cinemas seats are unconfortable, which they probably are...

[Kolzig]

Originally Posted by colpet

The length didn't bother me at all; I found the time flew.

That was exactly how I felt through the entire movie yesterday when I went to see King Kong in Tampere.

This surely is one movie that needs to be seen on a huge screen and heard with high class audio systems, everything in the theater was top notch and so was the movie.

I agree that there were some scenes that were not that important, for example the Hayes&Jimmy scenes. I loved the Kong & Ann scenes, PJ really showed Kong's emotions, we really saw that Kong wasn't just some beast. The dialogue was great in some parts, Jack Black had lots of great dialogue and he really surprised me positively with his performance. All the cast was very well chosen for King Kong.

There were many comedic moments in the movie that I liked a lot, it was good for the overall balance of the movie to have some scenes that brought a smile to my face. Like my friend said after the movie: "You can't be serious for three hours straight when the movie is basically about a big gorilla."

I was very much pleased with the movie, and I'm hoping that the DVD for the original arrives during next week so I can finally get to see it too.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Kolzig

I was very much pleased with the movie, and I'm hoping that the DVD for the original arrives during next week so I can finally get to see it too.

The new DVD is quite good. However, if this is your first time to see the original then you will certainly come away thinking the effects are terrible (which, compared to the new film, they are). Some films age very well, others don't. There are silent films that have aged far better than the original King Kong has. However, 95% of that is due to the archaic special effects. Basically, I'm just warning you to be prepared.

However, I hope you notice how good the film is overall. The pacing is much better than Jackson's version. There is actually more information packed into the original Kong than in either remake. Believe it or not, the characters are better too, though that's not saying much. Denham is slimier in the remake, but the most important human character, Ann Darrow, is more appealing in the 1933 film. Fay Wray has personality and spunk, especially in the scenes prior to Kong's entrance. Naomi Watts in the remake spends 3/4 of the film staring into the distance with her lips parted and the same damn, bucktoothed expression plastered across her face.

Also, the natives make sense in the original, they have emotions (we seem them caring for their children and such), they aren't possessed zombies. It's much clearer in the original that they worship Kong and offer their women to him as sacrifice (this is pretty clear in the remake I guess, but it's hard to give a damn since Jackson's natives appear to be from the depths of hell themselves). Plus, there are no Jimmy and Hayes scenes to bore us to death.

Watch the movie with an open mind. It's not perfect, but neither is the remake by a long shot. As I said before, the perfect Kong would be a mixture of the 1933 and 2005 version. Unfortunately for the 2005 version, mainly all the 1933 version would need to borrow would be the effects and a more sympathetic Kong.