[Kolzig]

I generally love films that come from the black&white era. I've seen a ton of them and I realize that the effects, which were groundbreaking at the time, might today seem quite bad.

I'm pretty sure that I will enjoy the original film, thanks for the good advices and opinions OAV.

[Lucien21]

I saw the film today.

Pros:

The story and setting was great.
30's New York was lovingly created.
The SFX especially the movement and facial expressions of Kong.
The Atmosphere through the whole film.
The T-Rex smackdown
The whole end sequence
Naomi Watts

Cons:

Jack Black - Wasn't overly convinced in his character.
There were a few cheesy bits - The Bug machine gun bit, Swinging in on a vine and the ice dancing bit near the end.
It's WAAAAAAAY to long. They should have trimmed it down to 2.3 hours or smaller.

Overall i really liked it, but it's not a perfect movie by any measure.

8/10

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

There were a few cheesy bits - The Bug machine gun bit, Swinging in on a vine and the ice dancing bit near the end.

Equally bad IMO:

Spoiler:

When Adrian and Naomi "rode" the huge bat thing down from Kong's lair to safety... Lame.

[TheGamingBastard]

What is up with all of these votes for the 2005 version? Have you all even SEEN the original, or is this a case where everyone here thinks movies made before 1990 are "old" and not worth watching?

Let's see...bloated overdone CGI fest that wastes my time or the original that gets right to the point and despite bad effects still suspends your disbelief? It's a wonder I even come here sometimes...

[Lucien21]

Originally Posted by TheGamingBastard

What is up with all of these votes for the 2005 version? Have you all even SEEN the original, or is this a case where everyone here thinks movies made before 1990 are "old" and not worth watching?

Let's see...bloated overdone CGI fest that wastes my time or the original that gets right to the point and despite bad effects still suspends your disbelief? It's a wonder I even come here sometimes...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion which you seem to have forgotten.

Just because you didn't like it. Fine, but please stop the idiotic general-isms thrown at the rest of us for not sharing your opinion.

No. People here don't think movies made before 1990 are not worth watching.

Don't like to come here then DON'T.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by TheGamingBastard

What is up with all of these votes for the 2005 version? Have you all even SEEN the original, or is this a case where everyone here thinks movies made before 1990 are "old" and not worth watching?

Let's see...bloated overdone CGI fest that wastes my time or the original that gets right to the point and despite bad effects still suspends your disbelief? It's a wonder I even come here sometimes...

GamingBastard, why not tell us why you think the new one is inferior? I was actually the person who voted for the 1933 version, so technically I agree with you. Why do you prefer the 1933 version though? Wouldn't that be a better way of going about this discussion?

[TheGamingBastard]

To name just a few...

-The subplot between the older african american and the kid was a waste of time. Bad editing
-The portrayal of the natives was offensive. Heck I'm white and *I* was offended! Why are they mindless demonic like beasts? More on that later.
-Bronto stampede. Incredibly stupid. Enough said.
-Over the top CGI action heroics.
-Why do we need to flesh out the human characters so much before they are killed? It is unnecessary. Jackson was far too in love with his own material


-In the original it is very apparent the natives are sacraficing Ann so that he won't wipe them out, and they rever him as a god. Far different from the savages in the new one. You have no real motivation for them to be the way they are. They are just black mindless beasts. Jackson should be ashamed. Literally ashamed. I can't imagine how scenes like this would make me feel if I were of African descent.

-Length. The original isn't a self indulgent over bloated mess. The human characters are better as well. Jackson changed them and their relationships for the worse. Carl Denham was less exploitative in the original etc. This section can be discussed in length.

This comparison could go on and on. Basically what it comes down to is for 2005 "Kong looks great! Wow!" and for 1933 "What a classic!" Sorry if this reads like I rushed through it, because I basically did.

[Once A Villain]

Well, I agree with most of your points, but isn't there anything good you can say about the film? It had a lot of good qualities, mostly in the big special effects set pieces. I agree with a lot of Lucien's points about what he liked and disliked about the film too, but for me it would average out to a lower score.

By the way, in all honesty, though the 1933 King Kong is a "classic" it's only as an action adventure fantasy movie. I mean, it's a fun movie. But I don't think any version of King Kong should rank in anyone's Top 300 movies list or anything...

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

But I don't think any version of King Kong should rank in anyone's Top 300 movies list or anything...

It would do if I'd seen it. But then, I'm not sure that I've seen over 300 films ...

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by RLacey

It would do if I'd seen it. But then, I'm not sure that I've seen over 300 films ...

Man, that's my damn problem... I've seen way too many movies. Get this, six years ago I started making a list of my Top 100 films. I quickly saw that I couldn't possibly do such a thing because I would be leaving too many brilliant movies out. I decided to extend it to 200 films. It didn't take long for me to see that I would have to move up to at least 250. Now I'm up to 300, ha ha. That's why I used that number for my example. 300 to me doesn't seem like very many. I'm STILL leaving out a lot of high quality work.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Man, that's my damn problem... I've seen way too many movies. Get this, six years ago I started making a list of my Top 100 films. I quickly saw that I couldn't possibly do such a thing because I would be leaving too many brilliant movies out. I decided to extend it to 200 films. It didn't take long for me to see that I would have to move up to at least 250. Now I'm up to 300, ha ha. That's why I used that number for my example. 300 to me doesn't seem like very many. I'm STILL leaving out a lot of high quality work.

Sounds like my top video games lists...

[Tanukitsune]

I find hard to believe the movie was about 3 hours long!

Did anyone else spot a reference to Dead Alive?

One of the first cages you see has the label "rat monkey of Sumatra"!

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

Did anyone else spot a reference to Dead Alive?

One of the first cages you see has the label "rat monkey of Sumatra"!

I noticed it. That was an amusing touch. Braindead (Dead Alive) is hilarious, and still the bloodiest film ever made I think.

[eriq]

I thought the film was a masterpiece. And whoever was complaining about the Bronto stampede... get over it. It's a ****ing movie about a big ass ape. What did you expect?

I think the CG and technology only served to enhance the film. Visually, it plays just like the old film posters of the period. This is a loud, roaring, suspense-filled classic adventure film with heart. It left me breathless.

[Kolzig]

One scene that made me smile was when

Spoiler:

Jimmy was crying because Hayes had died, Lumpy cried because that chinese guy died, then next we saw that Carl Denham was crying because the camera had broken and the film was destroyed.

[Starflux]

One of the jokes I liked was when they were talking about getting an actress for the part and then said that Fay Wray wasn't available because she was making some movie for RKO (which obviously was the original King Kong).

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by eriq

I thought the film was a masterpiece. And whoever was complaining about the Bronto stampede... get over it. It's a ****ing movie about a big ass ape. What did you expect?

I'm not the only one who has complained about that scene (I also complained about the "billions of bugs" scene), but I can give my reasons for disliking it at least:

1) It's the worst scene in the entire film as far as believably mixing live actors with computer animated creatures (many other scenes did a fantastic job). It's way too obvious that the actors are running on treadmills in front of a green screen.

2) There is no drama, no suspense, no feeling... It's just a big, loud rollercoaster. I simply can't care about that. I prefer substance to eye candy. I have no problem with big special effects sequences, but if I don't care about the characters...then where is the excitement of the scene? Watching CG dinosaurs run around squashing people is boring. Watching CG dinosaurs run around squashing people I give a shit about...now THAT would be a good scene.

3) Even for a fantasy movie there should be some application of reality. This whole scene defied common sense. The tiny humans were outrunning a massive stampede of huge dinosaurs, while bitch slapping and jump kicking the smaller velociraptors. This stuff works in Saturday morning cartoons, where it's usually intended to make children laugh...it doesn't work in serious movies. Also, what are the chances that all of the movie stars in the scene will manage to avoid being crushed by massive dino-feet? 100% in a big blockbuster movie, I guess. No suspense.

Originally Posted by eriq

I think the CG and technology only served to enhance the film.

For the most part, I agree with you. But in the island scenes Jackson just took it a little too far. It had the Star Wars Episode I and II syndrome. So much going on, but so little really happening... However, the V-Rex scene (yes, apparently they weren't T-Rexes afterall) was brilliant, and all the Empire State Building stuff was sensational. Those scenes are textbook examples of how to make a great computer animated sequence in a live action film.

[Tanukitsune]

Speaking of the movie, Peter Jackson recreated a lost scene from the 1933, but the thing is I'm not sure if he's including it in the 1933 DVD or his one...

[Ninth]

Plenty of flaws, cheesy as hell, too long, and it gave me a headache that's been annoying me since yesterday evening.
But it's still really good.

So my verdict is:
- Jackson is a great filmmaker, but not a great artist.
- It's very pleasant to see, and breathtaking at parts, and cheesiness aside, a bit moving.
- I think it makes the original redundant, historical interest aside.

[colpet]

When I watch movies with special effects, I never think about how it's done (the fact that it's not real). I buy into most movies, and accept what is happening as part of the story. I find it funny that people are so critical, I mean it is fiction. There has to be some kind of imagination on the part of the viewer as well. Being a devote LotR fan, I watched the special features showing the execution of the special effects. I wish I hadn't, because now I see 'how they did that' in the films and it takes away from the impact. I'd rather not know.
You can argue it's the same with games. I find there is a disturbing trend to need more realistic, better definition, seemless transitions, etc. to make a game acceptable. Ultimately it is how the game (or the movie) captures your imagination. I seem to suspend disbelief easily, a trait I'm grateful for.