Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
Oops. I was hoping to have a little time to mull it over before I came across this match up. I guess I'll have to go with Peter Jackson's King Kong...
No way! King Kong was way too long. Kong: Skull Island is Jurassic Park meets Never Ending Story. It's an amazing moviews and will destroy Jackson's sorry effort in the box office. The best movie I have seen in a long time.
You make a good argument. I agree that King Kong is too long, and I definitely agree with your last sentence! Skull Island is certainly the more fun of the two too.
Jackson, for sure.
Both very different beasts (both literally and figuratively). Jackson's Kong is more reverent to the original King Kong film, with more effort to give life to both the human characters and Kong, who is clearly designed to behave more like an actual gorilla, albeit with some humanised behaviour for emotional depth. Kong: Skull Island bears more resemblance to the Kong in the original Kaiju movies (a deliberate choice, obviously), with the ape being a more polished version of the men in suits and the human characters being there purely to move the story along. Skull Island is the better looking film, channeling Apocalypse Now for inspiration, and it helps that Skull Island was filmed more on location (Jackson's looks a lot more green-screeny, despite the excellent mo-cap), and strikes a better balance of camp and entertainment, like a decent B-movie. That being said, it's pretty dumb (I hate using that as an argument but still) and exists purely to fuel a franchise that I have no interest in (do we really need an MCU-style Kaiju-verse?). Jackson's Kong, despite undeniably being too long, is still an impressive passion project with a lot more heart in it. It's very close, both flawed, entertaining middle-of-the-road flicks, but for now, Jackson's Kong just about wins out.
Jackson's Kong IS too long, but to me, that's it's only real flaw. I love everything in it (except maybe the dino stampede). I thinkneven the creature stuff is more effective than it is in Skull Island, despite 12-years-older CGI. Skull Island is a fine, entertaining movie, but Godzilla has it beat, as does Jackson's Kong. If nothing else, the emotional payoff of Kong '05 is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition here.
Neither compare to the 1933 original masterpiece, but ultimately the shorter length and greater fun of Skull Island gives it the edge
Kong: Skull Island. Plain and simple imo. Tons of fun and a good soundtrack of Vietnam era songs.
Peter Jackson's Kong is epic and has great character development. Skull Island has no development of it's cliche characters and is no different than any other over-the-top action movie. The only thing that saves it is John C Reilly.
Peter Jackson's Kong SUCKED. Terrible green screen CGI and a run-on sentence of a story. Skull Island had its problems but was better.
Peter Jacksons King Kong!
Kong: Skull Island wins but certainly isn't exactly great cinema. I'm still surprised at how bad Jackson's Kong turned out.
Skull Island....so much more him...
I've been surprised at how much invective Skull Island has inspire among some viewers. For me, it provided just about everything you could want from a popcorn movie featuring giant monsters and pretty people. It's not great cinema, no, but it's a fun ride. The Jackson film feels about twice as long as it is (which is LONG) and aside from a great soundtrack and updated special effects, doesn't really do anything the original didn't do better. Also, it doesn't have Tom Hiddleston and his ripped arms killing flying dinosaurs with a katana.
Skull Island had more heart and less cheese.
Peter Jackson's film is far superior in my opinion.
Jackson's film was a flat out embarrassing drawn out mess save that T-Rex brawl. Kong: Skull Island wins by default.