King Kong vs. King Kong

6 comments

15 comments

Damn... what're the odds? Easy win for '38 though.

No friggin' competition. The original from 1933 is just superior in every damn aspect.

Battle of the Kongs - gotta go with the original

The original told the same story in half the time... and had better special effects. The only thing the new one has going for it is a great cast, and they were all asleep at the wheel. KONG '05 is one of the most self-indulgent films I've ever witnessed -- and I thought HEAVEN'S GATE was a good movie.

Not even close. The original "King Kong" is just much better than its remake.

I love both of these movies. I just love King Kong 1933 a little bit more, though.

Like both. I just think we have had longer to like the original and put it on a pedestal.

ear
ear

I used to prefer the Original but the Peter Jackson version has grown on me and now I prefer it.

The original King Kong didn't have the emotional impact on me that Peter Jackson's version did, probably because the old school Kong was more amusing than realistic. Still, Jackson's Kong was too bloated, and most of the build-up to the climax lacked any spark. Really, the only thing that redeemed the latest Kong movie in my mind were the peaceful moments between Naomi Watts and the gorilla. The original is more entertaining overall.

I should clarify that Jackson's movie was too bloated, not the gorilla. I liked the gorilla.

Have to go with the original King Kong. One of the best monster movies, if not the best, of all time.

The Skull Island segment of the remake went on WAY too long, otherwise it was pretty good. The original is still one of my favorite movies ever.

King Kong '05 was my favorite movie in my childhood. I didn't even like the original at all, it didn't impact me emotionally the same.

I'll go with the original. The remake was simply too damn long. The original still holds up today...

I love the Jackson remake more than most, but nothing can beat the original giant monkey film.

The new Kong has great visuals, some good dialogue (especially for the first third of the movie), and a cast that deserved a whole lot better. The second act became an effects extravaganza, however, and I disliked the softening of the Kong/Ann relationship. The original wins.

You cant compete with the entertainment value of King Kong (2005)

King Kong (2005) has better entertainment value.

I Like The 1933 Version Of King Kong Better Than The 2005 Version.

I havent seen either in a long time ill go with the original based on it being a very good classic movie.

I've heard a lot of inspiring things about how the original King Kong changed people's lives, the way they think about film, etc, but at the end of the day, it's a spectacle film (just of its time), and they don't tend to wow me. But obviously it is better than Peter Jackson's shameless computerized cartoon remake.

Remake is pretty good, but check out "The Nostalgia Critic"'s ""Old vs New: King Kong" for why the original still holds up.

Quality is timeless. If one is to compare the pure quality of these two films, one has to ignore when they were created/released and analyze them as though they are from they same time period (Otherwise you'd be judging the films by irrelevant behind-the-scenes aspects of what went into the films rather than the actual results). With that said, in what way is the original even remotely superior (save for being shorter)?

1933