I don't like the looks of 2005 - lika a sort of big chimpanzee! on all fours! I think 1976 was the ugliest, an thus the best - 1933 looks to me sort of a "good guy" I think even he's smiling when he sees Ann for the first time. 1933 is the classic austere story. 2005 is an encyclopaedia on Kong. They should cut out one entiry hour of the film - too long. 1976 is too different from the classical one. Let's wait for.... 2020?
The 1976 version looks the best to me.It's more organic than stop motion & cgi but I can see alot of work was put into the other two versions.Maybe it's a case of less is more.
The 1933 virsion was the best it was pains taking work to make King Kong Move and was much better the the `1976 kong which didn;t look real at all. the 05 Kong was ok I still like the original. Just my opinion lol :)
@Fckstyre what do you expect? It a classic they didn't have any other music they didn't have special effects and fuck you you don't even care about the people that put the care and effort to making those miniatures they didn't have sets for the movie they could MAKE FRICKIN KONG INTO A RUBBER SUIT OR ROBOT BESIDES THE 1976 version fucking sucked so much it was lousey why are you calling 1933 bad it was shocking and great to other audiences not to you you fucktard
i prefure the 1976 version, it was in my lfe time that this film was made in my life time and i saw it with my dad in the cinema, a great effect!, the others doesnt quite have the same impact for me personally.
i get why so many people didn't like the 1976 version it took away from a lot of the adventure of the original and made kong look like a guy in a suit but i still think it was a good film i think they had an interesting vison on the film i think the acting was very good especially jessica lange she was probably the most beautiful out of all the kong woman imopo and the musical score was by far the best out of all the kong films but nothing can match up to the effects of the (05) version imopo..
Though the 1933 Kong was excellent, I think Ann screamed too much, and in the 1976 one, Kong was a pervert. He was trying to strip the girl. I think the 2005 one got the love between Kong and Ann, without screaming everytime she saw him, and Kong not trying to get it on with a girl one fifth his size.
The original king kong movie was a great classic, but the 1976 remake is fucking horrible. If the avgn reviewed this "movie" he would say that it sucks MONKEY fuck. As for the 2005 remake it's epic and it was one of my second best movie ever!
1976 one is the only one that had "real" atmosphere and true emotion and a big movie feel. The newest one was kind of like a cool fancy video game with some cheesy style... and some BORING scenes with characters that amounted to nothing! The original was just genius pioneering vision.
1976 one is the only one that had "real" atmosphere and true emotion and a big movie feel. The newest one was kind of like a fancy video game with some cheesy style... and some BORING scenes with characters that amounted to nothing! It did have some cool moments but was alway marred with cheesy elements like staccato slow motion or demonic natives. The original was just genius pioneering vision.
I'm a big defender of the '76. But the '33 entrance scene was not just the best scene but a great one. Look at the details as Anne/Fay tries to pull free of her bonds. And when she pulls out of the second one, she slams back into the post and then tumbles out of sight. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't even in the script.
@alexalex3131 I think Ann's fall was in the script. Kong was back plated onto a screen and Ann live acted in front of that screen. Notice how Kong's left hand never looks like it's near the cotter pin to release Ann's right arm. Ann had to fall to effectively remove the live action actress so she could be replaced by the "doll Ann" when Kong picks her up.
I grew up with the 1933 version, back in the 60s when mothers would say "don't watch horror movies - you'll have nightmares!" So I guess I'm biased. But the musical score of the '33 version is matchless.
1976 was the first I ever saw, and it is better than 1933 or 2005. How can people not like it ? It's *very* atmospheric, & the only one with Charles Grodin being stomped on. (No offence to Charles Grodin BTW)
@5355vbxjbj76rvn atmospheric indeed. With the untamed mighty growl of an ape that would be incredibly powerful beyond imagination. This giant beast approaching cracklin' forest of trees branches. Showing his eyes a bit off yellow.You get the impression that this is a giant ape and if indeed a real creature would be extremely dangerous given its proportions.If cinema took this filmstyle"76" and adapted it with just enough cgi "which is little as possible"movies would be awesome like "king kong"
The third version is the best to me.. Nothing of other two give me a rage like the finally of Guillermin version. That movie is the most sentimental, and put in my harth to mutch warry. Also, if talken about the soundtrack the distance from the '33 and '05 version became an abyss. If talken about the interpretation of actors ideed, all the three actress are good, but Jessica is incomparable beauty and fascinous and Jack (Bridges) is absolutly the more credible and right for that story..
hm i like the way the 76 vershon was made but it stoll from an old classic but i've gota say 2005 was number 1 beuas i like that enctrance and the 33 vershon of it was not that great i mean it shows the giant monkey coming but it is number 2
The "33 version will never be surpassed, no matter the technique.
The "76 version was ok but had Kong less of a monster and more of a creature being in love which I thought was great. It was the script that ruined it. (Fay Wray herself read it and that it was awful).
Jacksons version was more faithful to the original story and setting, Watts (in certain shots), looks almost identical to Wray. Loved the movie but the #33 version will still always be #1 to me.
There is something really dark and intracing about the '76' version. And the classic Barry score just adds even more power and life to it. In a way it's a lot more like the setup in the '33' version than Jackson's was. Which is ironic because his was a direct Homaze to the original. But I like Jackson's as well , just mabie not generaly as much and for different reasons.
I don't know about you but for me the 76 version entrance trumps all of em. The pregnant pause as Jessica Lange slowly cranes her head up to see how tall Kong is!! Classic. Just the energy and weight of the scene is terrific. John Barry's score gives it so much power. I absolutely HATED Jackson's abomination i thought it was a soulless piece of junk. Horribly cast with some TRULY ridiculous scenes. At one point i even thought i was attending a Zucker bros comedy it was so bad.
Roquefortfiles, I understand we all have our opinions on movies - but are u FUCKING kidding me? The '76 version of "Kong" a "classic"? Jackson's version was superior in every way possible. First, the Orignal1933 Cooper/Schoedsack version, buried the '76 heap of shit - but basically served as a rough draft to Jackson's. Its story and effects (given it was 1933) just wasn't enough to tell the tale as it should have been; and as far as Kong being a "mean badass" only, we only saw THAT side of him.
You have GOT to be kidding me??? If you think that you know NOTHING about movies NOTHING!!! Peter Jacksons version was an abomination. CGI sequences so ridiculously STUPID (the dino stampede??).. Kong and The T rexes falling through vines on and on??? Oh COME ON!!! I went to that film with an open mind and halfway through it i wanted to throw my drink at the screen. As far as the CGI ape.. yes Jackson did a wonderful job for sure BUT that does not MAKE a film good.
What gals me about Jackson is that he slags the 76 version and when i walked out of his film i felt like calling him and saying.. "You know what Pete? your version makes me love the 76 version even more" I thought the entire film up to the end sequence was completely unmemorable and horribly cast. In fact i believe Jackson simply made the film so he could shoot the ending sequence, which i will say was well done. The rest of it was utter drivel.
(continued)..However, it DID show glimpses of his more "human" side, as he admired and played with her, as a child would a doll. BUt again, as a "Clif's Notes" version, they really skimmed over the story - Jackson elaborated all the emotional features of the characters. Also, have you ever been to the zoo? Ever? Have you ever studied the anatomy of a Gorilla? The movements, the hair, the gravity, anything? You want to talk about a "Zucker Comedy", your '76 man in a ape suit fits that de -
I agree with you on the ape. YES Andy Serkis did a fabulous job. But technologically accurate tricks do not MAKE a film great. You could replace the shark in Jaws today but IMO it would not MAKE the film great. The reason it is great is because the characters are good, the music is powerful and memorable, the sequences are memorable it has an IDENTITY outside of the "shark". Its the same with Kong 76 John Barry's score is SUPERB it gives the film a certain feel and identity. Jacksons? none
(continued) ..scription. Talk about a "Zucker Comedy", at any moment I was expecting Shaggy and Scooby to take off his rubber ape mask, and reveal who the "real killer" was. Pathetic - didn't even know how a gorilla walks and moves. And cinematography? HA - Director "Dino hasn't a clue. It was like watching a Power Rangers episode - and Lange is horrible! You have NO idea what to look for in a movie, nor do you know how to give a proper critique. So, pull your head out, and look at details.
For one Dino Did not direct this. John Guillerman did. So if you want to tear a strip of someone at least know what the hell you are talking about. As i said this is not a perfect film by any stretch but it is a THOUSAND times better than the absolute horse shit of CGI that Peter Jackson made which was LAUGHABLY bad in spots. In fact i thought i was at a comedy many times. If you want to defend that piece of junk your welcome to it. BTW i work in film!!
'05 version blows. They turn him into a teddy bear. I guess they kind of do in the 76 version too but not as bad. He was an absolute son of a bitch in the first one. A real mean, hardass bastard.
2005 Kong too long and Peter would've stayed with his orginal idea of updating it. 1976 Kong has a certain charm to it specially on TV. 1933 Kong shows how enterning people isn't always a bad thing.
He can climb to the top of the Empire State Building, but he can't get over that wall! Besides which, what was he doing during the six months it would have taken the villagers to build that wall - just sitting there scratching his arse?
Kong 1933: A movie classic, and a pioneer of its time in special effects, creature features, and story telling. One of the most important and well done movies in history.
Kong 1976: Terrible remake that was so ambitious that it lost itself in its importance rather than its quality.
Kong 2005: One of the most underrated films of the new millennia, and one of my personal favorite movies. It really brings to life the themes that the original tried so hard to get across.
What are you talking about? King Kong 2005 was an insult and a bastardisation of the themes in Kong 1933. King Kong 1933 was meant to be a nightmare horror adventure, not a chick flick buddy movie, which is what Kong '05 turns into half way through.
King Kong 2005 actually stole much of its themes from King Kong 1976.
The best ever was of course the original, but I thin Jackson's was almost as good. It fouind a balance with the effects and story and had good actors. PLus it allowed Kong to be more than a monster which was the original's only flaw. The 76 version wasn't really good though. Kong looked alright and the girl was hot, but the stroy jsut did't have the right charm to it and some of the other actors weren't that good. But making this is really hard. It's a truely classic film.
King Kong 1933: Scaled models and stop-motion. The Epic Original.
King Kong 1976: Green screen and mechanical large-scale models. Ambitious Remake.
King Kong 2005: CGI. Consummate remake that adds the polished touches to the epic tale of beauty and the beast.
For each movie's era, they are all very unique and make good use of the technology and special effects that were ON HAND during the DIFFERENT times in which each movie was made. King Kong is a superb and memorable tale for the ages!!
But anyway, I know it was like, a classic and had better special effects then all the other movies of its time. But technology has advanced so much, that the toy king kong looks like a third graders art project. Plus, i wanted the bug scene, why did they edit that out?
ehm...'33 crap???? my god, u dont understand the art of filmmaking??? i agree that 76 was the best (especially the ending scnene) '05 was tooo much of all.... (altough the love between kong and girl is superb)
After seeing the original again, I finally get the "abominable snowman" joke. The animation for the 1933 Kong and the Abominable Snowman in Rudolph are very similar.
Thanks for posting this. Brings back memories. I really hated the 1976 version, but it still brings back memories.
Well, if you saw a giant ape towering over you, you'd be struck speechless, too.
In the 2005 version, I'm surprised her arms weren't dislocated or worse from being yanked like that, strong enough to break those big ropes. In the 33, he breaks the ropes himself off the pillars, and in the 76 the ropes were thin vines, like shoelaces, and I believe she was drugged by The Skull Islanders, which is why they held her so well.
i think in the 76 one they gave her drugs, that why she's acting all weird before hand, and seeing a giant 25ft ape sprang her out of it. there no music for more shock value, to add realism. and king kong isn't a sci-fi film, it's a monster movie.
I like the 76 one the best: the terrific score, the girl swaying dazedly on the altar, the firelight. I find the two later versions work better for me because the women (and the audience) don't really see him clearly until he's towering over them. Plus, less screaming. The silence is more tense.
I say 1933 was best. You have to understand the technology then was nothing compared with now. The 33 monster looked more real than 1976 but they did a good job with the o5 version.
i am watching the 05 version on TNT right now and it is hands down the best version, allthough 33 was a masterpiece that started the scifi thriller genre
'76 and '05 are roughtly on a par. Neither can hold a candle to the original and while both do have some good moments they have an equal amount of flaws. In '76 the FX are crap while in '05 overall sillyness of too many OTT scenes is crap and annoying.
No-one can ever top 1933 Kong, in my opinion. Jackson's version was ok, if you like CGI but the 1976 effort was a waste if celluloid. If you're looking for good Kong movie with a guy in a monkey suit go for 'King Kong Escapes' and 'King Kong Vs Godzilla'. Much more entertaining.
greens ur so stupid the 76 version sucked so bad the 33 version was good for its time the 05 version was by far the best of the three. it got way deeper and it was just better. fuck ppl got to realize that the original is not always the best.
I said this on the ending post, but will say it again- '33: The best. It was revolutionary, all but created the giant monster flick. Denham 33 was way better than Fred Wilson or Denham 05. Had more of a showman quality to him than '05 (all Robert Armstrong IMO). And Kong was more beast in this one than the others. Just a rampaging monster.
'76: Least fav of the 3, but still fun to watch. Had the best musical score of the 3 by far (Thanks John Barry), that's a plus. And Jessica Lange was gorgeous. Kong in this one, blah. They made him some horny monster. Updating it to present time (then) was cool as well. It was kinda cheesy, very campy, but still good fun.
'05: Good, but waaaayy too long. Could've done without the 1st hr, the Rex fight dragged, no train attack. Kong in this one, the best. More like what a gorilla should be. He wasn't just some monster or a horny ape. He was the last of his kind and found a friend in Ann. The visuals were fucking great. PJ recreated Depression era NYC to perfection. Great watch. All are 3 of my fav flicks for differing reasons, though. Thanks for the post.
He's just a giant gorilla period if he wasn't just only a gorilla he would have other features they just wanted him to be more menacing back in 1933 thats all i mean come on lions tigers and bears noises pj added a little lion to the roar but not like the 1933 film
wrong, Obie invented Kong not PJ, he was a gorilla-like creature, he had human traits too, he's not just a gorilla, he's something Monsterous, still holding that Island in a grip of deadly fear
The director of the 1933 version didn't know much about gorillas as in studying them and their behavoirs all he knew was what he saw in the zoo or in pictures of apes he told his sound effects editor to just go out and collect sounds from feline animals at a zoo and mix the roars the kong in that film crawled on all fours in that film also like a regular gorilla if you watch the movie again peter jackson just made it like it was meant to be by studying gorillas behaviors and movements
Obie knew plenty about gorillas, he wanted Kong to be a monster-not a gorilla, Pj fucked it up, that's why it flopped and why the original is considered one of the top films of all time, Obie knew what a gorilla sounded like and it wasn't fierce enough for his monster, which kong was-he wasn't just a gorilla, I've done enough research to know what I'm talking about
2005 kong did not flop at all i dont know where you got that info from it made more than what it cost to make the film plus it won 3 oscars for best effects and musical score and best sound bottom line he was built like a gorilla he had all the features of a gorilla from head to toe but the effects back then where unstable his look changed throughout the movie it was crappy merian new nothing about true gorrillas
wrong he did not just look like a gorilla in 33 and there is a reason for it, Obie didn't want just a gorilla
PJ's barely made money. it cost over 200 million to make and made 218 million back, add in the ads and promotion and it barely if at all made money, PJ blew it with his stupid pot bellied silverback gorilla
Let me let u in on something about the word flop if it flopped it wouldnt have mad 218 back it cost 200 mill to make if it had made under 200 million then it would have been a flop understand now and why did it get 3 ocars if it was so bad i dont think the original made any oscars at all just was a hit and thats it
Yeah, but the international market is extremely important as well. With dvd sales, movie goes and all the movie has made 700 million. It counts as a success.
KK 05 did not make 700 million, and don't forget it cost more to make than any other movie in history when it was released, and that doesn't count the advertising either, trust me, it was barely successful, and it is barely the 2nd best Kong movie in MHO
peter jackson just kept it real when it came to animals like steven speilberg did with the dinosaurs in jurassic park he didnt make them out to be monsters just creatures that reacted with confusion to modern soroundings 2005 kong was how kong should have been meant the CGI of today did it credit
Peter Jackson's 2005 Kong was the best of the three. i didnt care much for the other two. i think the one made in 76' was the worst. sure, Jessica was good lookin, but they went way off the storyline. when did he learn to stand on two feet, and they coulda stuck to the 'getting shot by planes' bit. dont think im getting negative, it was alright, but they could've done alot better.
You are the bafoone with no TASTE! 76 is no where near the excellence of 05, in 05 kong looks and acts the way a real gorilla does, in 76 he is a man in a suit for pete's sake!
76 man in a suit is sooo much better then a shitty fake ass looking cgi gorilla!!!...u need a brain buddy...05 kong sucked ass thats why it bombeb at the box office...peter jackson sucks ass...ur a stupid mofo...an i alwayz knew it
2005: best production values, best FX, Naomi Watts Very Good. 1976: Imperfect, but greatly underrated. Jessica Lange trumps all as Anne/Dwan (!) and first rate musical score by John Barry (Somewhere In Time) 1933: So good almost could be sold as a documentary to young-uns. Still The Best.
yea i agree the 1976 version is underrated especially since Jessica Lange doesnt get nearly enough credit for being WAYYYY hot in this movie. The 1933 version could be sold as a documentary for young-uns if you take the music out. Think Texas Chainsaw MAssacre (from 1974) there was no music in that version
lolz at 1933 kong for smoking the bamboo again.......
reksub10 5 days ago
I don't like the looks of 2005 - lika a sort of big chimpanzee! on all fours! I think 1976 was the ugliest, an thus the best - 1933 looks to me sort of a "good guy" I think even he's smiling when he sees Ann for the first time. 1933 is the classic austere story. 2005 is an encyclopaedia on Kong. They should cut out one entiry hour of the film - too long. 1976 is too different from the classical one. Let's wait for.... 2020?
voltape 2 months ago
The 1976 version looks the best to me.It's more organic than stop motion & cgi but I can see alot of work was put into the other two versions.Maybe it's a case of less is more.
disasterzone1974 5 months ago
The 1933 virsion was the best it was pains taking work to make King Kong Move and was much better the the `1976 kong which didn;t look real at all. the 05 Kong was ok I still like the original. Just my opinion lol :)
SirLesful 6 months ago in playlist King Kong
THEY COULDNT I mean
GoRamonez 8 months ago
@Fckstyre what do you expect? It a classic they didn't have any other music they didn't have special effects and fuck you you don't even care about the people that put the care and effort to making those miniatures they didn't have sets for the movie they could MAKE FRICKIN KONG INTO A RUBBER SUIT OR ROBOT BESIDES THE 1976 version fucking sucked so much it was lousey why are you calling 1933 bad it was shocking and great to other audiences not to you you fucktard
GoRamonez 8 months ago
1933 Kong certainly looks more monstrous than the other two in my opinion
Crystasorrow 8 months ago 4
i prefure the 1976 version, it was in my lfe time that this film was made in my life time and i saw it with my dad in the cinema, a great effect!, the others doesnt quite have the same impact for me personally.
Loverboy19691 10 months ago
You know...I'd be pretty fuckin scared if something like that was coming my way
92Sevv 10 months ago
king kong is a f*cking pedofhile!!!
thehalfblodprincess 1 year ago
@thehalfblodprincess How is he a pedophile? Ann is an adult i think you meant he is a pervert!
CHADE47lol 1 month ago
0:33 to 1:50 To quote the Nostalgia Critic: Yeah scream some more, maybe he'll finally go away. XD
By the way, the 2005 version is my favorite! :-)
musicxisxlife15 1 year ago
In my opinion the 33 movie was really good. The 76 one is just okay. But the 2005 one is my favorite. Made me sad when kong died.
XxXMissPeppermintXxX 1 year ago
Is that 50 Cent?
Rightist2 1 year ago
1933: best
1976:worst
2005:scariest
qwertyrobot5 1 year ago
'33 Kong- Keep Anne as a trophy
'76 Kong- Pervert
'05 Kong- Just wanted a friend
Danzilla1996 1 year ago 15
king kong 1933 version-the best!
Ronnie15381 1 year ago
1:36 Kong looks more docile there.
StarFoxAutobot 1 year ago
i get why so many people didn't like the 1976 version it took away from a lot of the adventure of the original and made kong look like a guy in a suit but i still think it was a good film i think they had an interesting vison on the film i think the acting was very good especially jessica lange she was probably the most beautiful out of all the kong woman imopo and the musical score was by far the best out of all the kong films but nothing can match up to the effects of the (05) version imopo..
Cropsy25 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Cropsy25 1 year ago
1933 versions are everybodys favorit.. I hate it, bad music, looks awfull and the stop motion are terrible. 1976 was and will always be the best
Fckstyre 1 year ago
@Fckstyre nope the 1976 was terrible 1933>2005>1976.
CHADE47lol 1 month ago
Though the 1933 Kong was excellent, I think Ann screamed too much, and in the 1976 one, Kong was a pervert. He was trying to strip the girl. I think the 2005 one got the love between Kong and Ann, without screaming everytime she saw him, and Kong not trying to get it on with a girl one fifth his size.
NoobTwinz5 1 year ago
@NoobTwinz5 i agree
princeton707 1 week ago
Oops I meant favorite movie
abiel998 1 year ago
The original king kong movie was a great classic, but the 1976 remake is fucking horrible. If the avgn reviewed this "movie" he would say that it sucks MONKEY fuck. As for the 2005 remake it's epic and it was one of my second best movie ever!
abiel998 1 year ago
1976 one is the only one that had "real" atmosphere and true emotion and a big movie feel. The newest one was kind of like a cool fancy video game with some cheesy style... and some BORING scenes with characters that amounted to nothing! The original was just genius pioneering vision.
ufoclub1977 1 year ago
1976 one is the only one that had "real" atmosphere and true emotion and a big movie feel. The newest one was kind of like a fancy video game with some cheesy style... and some BORING scenes with characters that amounted to nothing! It did have some cool moments but was alway marred with cheesy elements like staccato slow motion or demonic natives. The original was just genius pioneering vision.
ufoclub1977 1 year ago
76
maybe cause i was just 4 years old :b
joeylodes 1 year ago
THOS WOOMENS ARE CRY BABYS
tonyfloresxtreme1 1 year ago
1976
MassaiSoul3 1 year ago
I'm a big defender of the '76. But the '33 entrance scene was not just the best scene but a great one. Look at the details as Anne/Fay tries to pull free of her bonds. And when she pulls out of the second one, she slams back into the post and then tumbles out of sight. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't even in the script.
alexalex3131 1 year ago
@alexalex3131 I think Ann's fall was in the script. Kong was back plated onto a screen and Ann live acted in front of that screen. Notice how Kong's left hand never looks like it's near the cotter pin to release Ann's right arm. Ann had to fall to effectively remove the live action actress so she could be replaced by the "doll Ann" when Kong picks her up.
Yeah, I know you wrote this a year ago. ;o)
knightflyte 6 months ago
Actually it came out in 2006 :)
katiemay14 1 year ago
I grew up with the 1933 version, back in the 60s when mothers would say "don't watch horror movies - you'll have nightmares!" So I guess I'm biased. But the musical score of the '33 version is matchless.
poetsteve1 1 year ago
@poetsteve1 lol wite boi
LucherTV 1 year ago
1976 was the best who are we kidding.
dad2ujunior 1 year ago 2
@dad2ujunior
1976 was the first I ever saw, and it is better than 1933 or 2005. How can people not like it ? It's *very* atmospheric, & the only one with Charles Grodin being stomped on. (No offence to Charles Grodin BTW)
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 year ago
@5355vbxjbj76rvn atmospheric indeed. With the untamed mighty growl of an ape that would be incredibly powerful beyond imagination. This giant beast approaching cracklin' forest of trees branches. Showing his eyes a bit off yellow.You get the impression that this is a giant ape and if indeed a real creature would be extremely dangerous given its proportions.If cinema took this filmstyle"76" and adapted it with just enough cgi "which is little as possible"movies would be awesome like "king kong"
dad2ujunior 1 year ago
los del cerro esperan a Cachola. Ahí viene. Jajajaja.
pedrock1979xxx 1 year ago
I was getting really sick of Ann's screaming in the 1933 version! I just wished she would shut the fuck up!! I prefer the 2005 version all the way!
IndigoMoon88 1 year ago
The third version is the best to me.. Nothing of other two give me a rage like the finally of Guillermin version. That movie is the most sentimental, and put in my harth to mutch warry. Also, if talken about the soundtrack the distance from the '33 and '05 version became an abyss. If talken about the interpretation of actors ideed, all the three actress are good, but Jessica is incomparable beauty and fascinous and Jack (Bridges) is absolutly the more credible and right for that story..
WHITEORSE 1 year ago 3
The only thing I didn't like about Jackon's version of King Kong was the casting of Jack Black. Who's bright idea was that?
They should be dragged out into the street and horsewhipped.
TomatoeAssassin 2 years ago
hm i like the way the 76 vershon was made but it stoll from an old classic but i've gota say 2005 was number 1 beuas i like that enctrance and the 33 vershon of it was not that great i mean it shows the giant monkey coming but it is number 2
i dislike 76
SkittleE275 2 years ago
IMHO,
The "33 version will never be surpassed, no matter the technique.
The "76 version was ok but had Kong less of a monster and more of a creature being in love which I thought was great. It was the script that ruined it. (Fay Wray herself read it and that it was awful).
Jacksons version was more faithful to the original story and setting, Watts (in certain shots), looks almost identical to Wray. Loved the movie but the #33 version will still always be #1 to me.
CruiserLeo2007 2 years ago
There is something really dark and intracing about the '76' version. And the classic Barry score just adds even more power and life to it. In a way it's a lot more like the setup in the '33' version than Jackson's was. Which is ironic because his was a direct Homaze to the original. But I like Jackson's as well , just mabie not generaly as much and for different reasons.
jayce79 2 years ago 3
I don't know about you but for me the 76 version entrance trumps all of em. The pregnant pause as Jessica Lange slowly cranes her head up to see how tall Kong is!! Classic. Just the energy and weight of the scene is terrific. John Barry's score gives it so much power. I absolutely HATED Jackson's abomination i thought it was a soulless piece of junk. Horribly cast with some TRULY ridiculous scenes. At one point i even thought i was attending a Zucker bros comedy it was so bad.
roquefortfiles 2 years ago
Roquefortfiles, I understand we all have our opinions on movies - but are u FUCKING kidding me? The '76 version of "Kong" a "classic"? Jackson's version was superior in every way possible. First, the Orignal1933 Cooper/Schoedsack version, buried the '76 heap of shit - but basically served as a rough draft to Jackson's. Its story and effects (given it was 1933) just wasn't enough to tell the tale as it should have been; and as far as Kong being a "mean badass" only, we only saw THAT side of him.
VampyreRabbit 2 years ago
You have GOT to be kidding me??? If you think that you know NOTHING about movies NOTHING!!! Peter Jacksons version was an abomination. CGI sequences so ridiculously STUPID (the dino stampede??).. Kong and The T rexes falling through vines on and on??? Oh COME ON!!! I went to that film with an open mind and halfway through it i wanted to throw my drink at the screen. As far as the CGI ape.. yes Jackson did a wonderful job for sure BUT that does not MAKE a film good.
roquefortfiles 2 years ago
What gals me about Jackson is that he slags the 76 version and when i walked out of his film i felt like calling him and saying.. "You know what Pete? your version makes me love the 76 version even more" I thought the entire film up to the end sequence was completely unmemorable and horribly cast. In fact i believe Jackson simply made the film so he could shoot the ending sequence, which i will say was well done. The rest of it was utter drivel.
roquefortfiles 2 years ago
(continued)..However, it DID show glimpses of his more "human" side, as he admired and played with her, as a child would a doll. BUt again, as a "Clif's Notes" version, they really skimmed over the story - Jackson elaborated all the emotional features of the characters. Also, have you ever been to the zoo? Ever? Have you ever studied the anatomy of a Gorilla? The movements, the hair, the gravity, anything? You want to talk about a "Zucker Comedy", your '76 man in a ape suit fits that de -
VampyreRabbit 2 years ago
I agree with you on the ape. YES Andy Serkis did a fabulous job. But technologically accurate tricks do not MAKE a film great. You could replace the shark in Jaws today but IMO it would not MAKE the film great. The reason it is great is because the characters are good, the music is powerful and memorable, the sequences are memorable it has an IDENTITY outside of the "shark". Its the same with Kong 76 John Barry's score is SUPERB it gives the film a certain feel and identity. Jacksons? none
roquefortfiles 2 years ago
(continued) ..scription. Talk about a "Zucker Comedy", at any moment I was expecting Shaggy and Scooby to take off his rubber ape mask, and reveal who the "real killer" was. Pathetic - didn't even know how a gorilla walks and moves. And cinematography? HA - Director "Dino hasn't a clue. It was like watching a Power Rangers episode - and Lange is horrible! You have NO idea what to look for in a movie, nor do you know how to give a proper critique. So, pull your head out, and look at details.
VampyreRabbit 2 years ago
For one Dino Did not direct this. John Guillerman did. So if you want to tear a strip of someone at least know what the hell you are talking about. As i said this is not a perfect film by any stretch but it is a THOUSAND times better than the absolute horse shit of CGI that Peter Jackson made which was LAUGHABLY bad in spots. In fact i thought i was at a comedy many times. If you want to defend that piece of junk your welcome to it. BTW i work in film!!
roquefortfiles 2 years ago
Comment removed
Moseslawgiver 2 years ago
King Kong 2005 was the hell of a movie! It was great in so many ways....The first/classic/original (whatever) is not always necessarily the best...
Makemyday2006 2 years ago
'05 version blows. They turn him into a teddy bear. I guess they kind of do in the 76 version too but not as bad. He was an absolute son of a bitch in the first one. A real mean, hardass bastard.
spanishwhiskey 2 years ago
The original King Kong was Adolf Hitler's favorite movie.
codzilla12 2 years ago
1933 looked like a kids tv show
punaniswabber 2 years ago
Such a cool scene!
Faye was the best screamer ever wasnt she lol?
This original was great but the '76 one had such a sexy cast...:-)
joeygsmom 2 years ago
2005 Kong too long and Peter would've stayed with his orginal idea of updating it. 1976 Kong has a certain charm to it specially on TV. 1933 Kong shows how enterning people isn't always a bad thing.
rathraven1313 2 years ago
The 1933 version of King Kong scares the hell out of me.
peabody66 2 years ago
even to this day 1933 entrance was the most epic and scariest one of all
alexcub25 2 years ago
TRIVIA - Reportedly, the 1933 version was Hitler's favourite film!
cottonwhiskersuk 2 years ago
He can climb to the top of the Empire State Building, but he can't get over that wall! Besides which, what was he doing during the six months it would have taken the villagers to build that wall - just sitting there scratching his arse?
cottonwhiskersuk 2 years ago
Kong 1933: A movie classic, and a pioneer of its time in special effects, creature features, and story telling. One of the most important and well done movies in history.
Kong 1976: Terrible remake that was so ambitious that it lost itself in its importance rather than its quality.
Kong 2005: One of the most underrated films of the new millennia, and one of my personal favorite movies. It really brings to life the themes that the original tried so hard to get across.
Nanaman12345 2 years ago 5
2003 was the worst cast ever
kellysmash99 2 years ago
2003? You mean 2005? Dude, that cast was amazing!
Nanaman12345 2 years ago 3
why the fuck does it go 2 ways with the 1976 one you either hate it or love it i think its very good
colpetne 2 years ago
Nanaman12345,
What are you talking about? King Kong 2005 was an insult and a bastardisation of the themes in Kong 1933. King Kong 1933 was meant to be a nightmare horror adventure, not a chick flick buddy movie, which is what Kong '05 turns into half way through.
King Kong 2005 actually stole much of its themes from King Kong 1976.
FredFoswell 2 years ago
I suppos there's no real point in asking why there's still trees around the platform?
CallumJStewart 2 years ago
the 1976 one sucks balls
KlayTube1 2 years ago
the 1976 one sucks so much!
only 1933 and 2005 were good
LoFilms1 2 years ago 5
i second that
KlayTube1 2 years ago 4
@LoFilms1 damn right its not even the right story line and its 1 and a half hour the 1933 and 2005 movies were about 3 hours
shadow78944 1 year ago
@shadow78944 what are you talking about, the 1933 one wasn't even 2 hours. It was only about 1 hour and 45 minutes.
ChrisMagoo99 1 year ago
@ChrisMagoo99 O well I was thinking its was 1 hour and 30 min long
shadow78944 1 year ago
The best ever was of course the original, but I thin Jackson's was almost as good. It fouind a balance with the effects and story and had good actors. PLus it allowed Kong to be more than a monster which was the original's only flaw. The 76 version wasn't really good though. Kong looked alright and the girl was hot, but the stroy jsut did't have the right charm to it and some of the other actors weren't that good. But making this is really hard. It's a truely classic film.
balrog13571 2 years ago
King Kong 1933: Scaled models and stop-motion. The Epic Original.
King Kong 1976: Green screen and mechanical large-scale models. Ambitious Remake.
King Kong 2005: CGI. Consummate remake that adds the polished touches to the epic tale of beauty and the beast.
For each movie's era, they are all very unique and make good use of the technology and special effects that were ON HAND during the DIFFERENT times in which each movie was made. King Kong is a superb and memorable tale for the ages!!
badabing003 2 years ago 2
Forgot 1976 King Kong was a guy in a suit named Rick Baker.
rathraven1313 2 years ago
r THERE 3 KING KONGS?!?!
dratimusprime09 2 years ago
I was say the movies go in this order:
Kong 2005- really deep and epic with great effects
Kong 1933-a classic with awsome effects for its day
Kong 1976-I really don't like this one much but I watch it whenever it's on tv.
IsFearItself 2 years ago
King Kong 2005 was Epic!!! XD
DaddlerTheDalek 2 years ago
i saw the 2005 version it was awesome but the 1933 one suckish
fredfan9056 2 years ago
No offense to all the fans, but i think the 1933 version was wrong.
Videot01 3 years ago
how can you hate the 1933 one? it was amazing and i doubt to many people agree with you because its one of the biggest movies of all time
colpetne 2 years ago
I blame it on me watching the 2005 version first.
But anyway, I know it was like, a classic and had better special effects then all the other movies of its time. But technology has advanced so much, that the toy king kong looks like a third graders art project. Plus, i wanted the bug scene, why did they edit that out?
Videot01 2 years ago
They should have used Keeley Hazell instead of Naomi Watts.
codzilla12 3 years ago
ehm...'33 crap???? my god, u dont understand the art of filmmaking??? i agree that 76 was the best (especially the ending scnene) '05 was tooo much of all.... (altough the love between kong and girl is superb)
tomrayder 3 years ago
I noticed that you don't exactly have to be a film scholar to leave a comment!
SargeantFunshine 3 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the best king kong is the 1976 version. the 2005 is all about CGI and the 1933 its a crap compare it with the others but a classic.
japantoine 3 years ago
Hooray 4 Faye Raye!!!
cheeeeeesseeeee 3 years ago 3
the natives in the new version were very cool. Totally unique to that island.
Clois4evaAndeva 3 years ago
After seeing the original again, I finally get the "abominable snowman" joke. The animation for the 1933 Kong and the Abominable Snowman in Rudolph are very similar.
Thanks for posting this. Brings back memories. I really hated the 1976 version, but it still brings back memories.
WolfDreamer1112 3 years ago
Thanks Blendre.
TheThingKing 3 years ago
cool video thnx
Blendre 3 years ago
Both are equally racist
bulls912000 3 years ago
but the 2005, it's kinda odd.
That very tight and strong rope is tied around her wrists. When Kong yanks her off it
1- Her arms would have been ripped right owff.
2- She would have gotton very bad cuts on her wrists and the ropes would have stayed losely on her wrists.
nddlj 3 years ago
why isn't there any music in the 1976 an why isn't she sreaming? It takes her a long time
to react lol.
I thought 05 was the best to me. I just love it. You're all going to hate me though because I'm the 05.
I appreciate the very first 1933 King Kong movie for starting this scifi thriller!!!!!
05 BEST entrance! and I like the idea of her being pulled down slowly by that crane thing.
nddlj 3 years ago 3
Well, if you saw a giant ape towering over you, you'd be struck speechless, too.
In the 2005 version, I'm surprised her arms weren't dislocated or worse from being yanked like that, strong enough to break those big ropes. In the 33, he breaks the ropes himself off the pillars, and in the 76 the ropes were thin vines, like shoelaces, and I believe she was drugged by The Skull Islanders, which is why they held her so well.
deblouses 3 years ago 2
i think in the 76 one they gave her drugs, that why she's acting all weird before hand, and seeing a giant 25ft ape sprang her out of it. there no music for more shock value, to add realism. and king kong isn't a sci-fi film, it's a monster movie.
LTstudios 3 years ago
I like the 76 one the best: the terrific score, the girl swaying dazedly on the altar, the firelight. I find the two later versions work better for me because the women (and the audience) don't really see him clearly until he's towering over them. Plus, less screaming. The silence is more tense.
Darrow1933 3 years ago
i like the original of 1933 most. but don't ask me why. i just like it !
claptonfreak6 3 years ago
I'm more partial to the 76 and 05 entries, but I do like the original too.
Darrow1933 3 years ago
TNT sucks now.
mustangs1fan 3 years ago
Jessica Lange was hot!
gvader 3 years ago
I say 1933 was best. You have to understand the technology then was nothing compared with now. The 33 monster looked more real than 1976 but they did a good job with the o5 version.
gvader 3 years ago 2
My fave is the 1976 movie followed by 2005, I tried to watch the 1933 one but I didn't like it.
CavChick4 3 years ago
i am watching the 05 version on TNT right now and it is hands down the best version, allthough 33 was a masterpiece that started the scifi thriller genre
nelsoncarra 3 years ago 6
Kong '33 is easily the best.
'76 and '05 are roughtly on a par. Neither can hold a candle to the original and while both do have some good moments they have an equal amount of flaws. In '76 the FX are crap while in '05 overall sillyness of too many OTT scenes is crap and annoying.
Mangani245 3 years ago 2
33 and 05 are very fun films,anda 05 is epic.The 76 is a piece of shit.
DINGOEGRET 3 years ago 4
The 2005 one was epic.
WaddleDuu 3 years ago 5
No-one can ever top 1933 Kong, in my opinion. Jackson's version was ok, if you like CGI but the 1976 effort was a waste if celluloid. If you're looking for good Kong movie with a guy in a monkey suit go for 'King Kong Escapes' and 'King Kong Vs Godzilla'. Much more entertaining.
GrantRamone 4 years ago
the one in 76 had worse quality than 1933
kidkong584 4 years ago
ok heres the order
1. 1933 a true classic the best
2. 2005 a great remake of the 1933
3. 1976 the king kong in the movie sucked and they took out the fight with the v-rex and replacedit with a sort boring snake fight
Eric12h44 4 years ago 4
The 76 film had worse special effects than the first film.
Dazor99 4 years ago 3
The 1933 and 1976 versions were by far the best. Jackson's attempt was noble but fell flat.
greens47 4 years ago
greens ur so stupid the 76 version sucked so bad the 33 version was good for its time the 05 version was by far the best of the three. it got way deeper and it was just better. fuck ppl got to realize that the original is not always the best.
jkf1993 4 years ago 3
Long Live Kong '76
donkeykongisNo1 4 years ago 4
are you retarded? there is no way '76 is the best.'05 and'33 were exellent movies, but '76looks like me and my freinds made it in the backyard!
JerrryLeeLewis 4 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
are you dumb? the '76 kong movie is the Best kong film ever! far Better than the crap 33 and 05 versions it also the Best score and effects too!
donkeykongisNo1 4 years ago
@JerrryLeeLewis They are all good in their own ways...even the 1976 version, although I don't doubt you, the 1933 and 2005 are way better.
slayerette86m 1 year ago
I said this on the ending post, but will say it again- '33: The best. It was revolutionary, all but created the giant monster flick. Denham 33 was way better than Fred Wilson or Denham 05. Had more of a showman quality to him than '05 (all Robert Armstrong IMO). And Kong was more beast in this one than the others. Just a rampaging monster.
GeneralZodFDNY77 4 years ago 4
'76: Least fav of the 3, but still fun to watch. Had the best musical score of the 3 by far (Thanks John Barry), that's a plus. And Jessica Lange was gorgeous. Kong in this one, blah. They made him some horny monster. Updating it to present time (then) was cool as well. It was kinda cheesy, very campy, but still good fun.
GeneralZodFDNY77 4 years ago
'05: Good, but waaaayy too long. Could've done without the 1st hr, the Rex fight dragged, no train attack. Kong in this one, the best. More like what a gorilla should be. He wasn't just some monster or a horny ape. He was the last of his kind and found a friend in Ann. The visuals were fucking great. PJ recreated Depression era NYC to perfection. Great watch. All are 3 of my fav flicks for differing reasons, though. Thanks for the post.
GeneralZodFDNY77 4 years ago 4
never heard of a gorila sounding like a lion and tiger mix ..the 1933 version i speak of thats to over the top
fashizze 4 years ago
he sounds that way because he's not just a gorilla, that's where Pj made his first (of many) mistakes with his KK film
Kingkongkessler 4 years ago
He's just a giant gorilla period if he wasn't just only a gorilla he would have other features they just wanted him to be more menacing back in 1933 thats all i mean come on lions tigers and bears noises pj added a little lion to the roar but not like the 1933 film
fashizze 4 years ago
wrong, Obie invented Kong not PJ, he was a gorilla-like creature, he had human traits too, he's not just a gorilla, he's something Monsterous, still holding that Island in a grip of deadly fear
Kingkongkessler 4 years ago
The director of the 1933 version didn't know much about gorillas as in studying them and their behavoirs all he knew was what he saw in the zoo or in pictures of apes he told his sound effects editor to just go out and collect sounds from feline animals at a zoo and mix the roars the kong in that film crawled on all fours in that film also like a regular gorilla if you watch the movie again peter jackson just made it like it was meant to be by studying gorillas behaviors and movements
fashizze 4 years ago
Obie knew plenty about gorillas, he wanted Kong to be a monster-not a gorilla, Pj fucked it up, that's why it flopped and why the original is considered one of the top films of all time, Obie knew what a gorilla sounded like and it wasn't fierce enough for his monster, which kong was-he wasn't just a gorilla, I've done enough research to know what I'm talking about
Kingkongkessler 4 years ago
2005 kong did not flop at all i dont know where you got that info from it made more than what it cost to make the film plus it won 3 oscars for best effects and musical score and best sound bottom line he was built like a gorilla he had all the features of a gorilla from head to toe but the effects back then where unstable his look changed throughout the movie it was crappy merian new nothing about true gorrillas
fashizze 4 years ago
wrong he did not just look like a gorilla in 33 and there is a reason for it, Obie didn't want just a gorilla
PJ's barely made money. it cost over 200 million to make and made 218 million back, add in the ads and promotion and it barely if at all made money, PJ blew it with his stupid pot bellied silverback gorilla
Kingkongkessler 4 years ago
Let me let u in on something about the word flop if it flopped it wouldnt have mad 218 back it cost 200 mill to make if it had made under 200 million then it would have been a flop understand now and why did it get 3 ocars if it was so bad i dont think the original made any oscars at all just was a hit and thats it
fashizze 4 years ago
wrong. The 2005 movie made well over 500 million dollars worldwide. One of the highest in the history of Universal Pictures.
Dazor99 4 years ago 3
I was talking US not worldwide and it barely made a profit
Kingkongkessler 4 years ago
Yeah, but the international market is extremely important as well. With dvd sales, movie goes and all the movie has made 700 million. It counts as a success.
Dazor99 4 years ago
KK 05 did not make 700 million, and don't forget it cost more to make than any other movie in history when it was released, and that doesn't count the advertising either, trust me, it was barely successful, and it is barely the 2nd best Kong movie in MHO
Kingkongkessler 4 years ago
peter jackson just kept it real when it came to animals like steven speilberg did with the dinosaurs in jurassic park he didnt make them out to be monsters just creatures that reacted with confusion to modern soroundings 2005 kong was how kong should have been meant the CGI of today did it credit
fashizze 4 years ago
Thanks HELLOPEOPLEPEOPLEHI I'm glad you liked it.
TheThingKing 4 years ago
Good video.
HELLOPEOPLEPEOPLEHI 4 years ago
Peter Jackson's 2005 Kong was the best of the three. i didnt care much for the other two. i think the one made in 76' was the worst. sure, Jessica was good lookin, but they went way off the storyline. when did he learn to stand on two feet, and they coulda stuck to the 'getting shot by planes' bit. dont think im getting negative, it was alright, but they could've done alot better.
womacksgurl 4 years ago
""when did he learn to stand on two feet, ""
LOL, in the original '33 King Kong he walks on two feet MOST OF THE TIME. Just watch all the New York scenes and the scenes in the native village.
Not surprising, therefore, that '76 made him upright.
cameronburge 4 years ago
i think the 1976 movie is the best out of them all....i hated 2005 peter jackson film...2 fuckn long
davidgalindo07 4 years ago
You are an IDIOT! The 2005 is best!
mrsjackbauer1 4 years ago
your a bafoone..2005 an its shitty cgi effects were horrible...get real dude...76 an 33 rule..get ur shit straight
davidgalindo07 4 years ago
You are the bafoone with no TASTE! 76 is no where near the excellence of 05, in 05 kong looks and acts the way a real gorilla does, in 76 he is a man in a suit for pete's sake!
Get a BRAIN and get REAL!
mrsjackbauer1 4 years ago 7
76 man in a suit is sooo much better then a shitty fake ass looking cgi gorilla!!!...u need a brain buddy...05 kong sucked ass thats why it bombeb at the box office...peter jackson sucks ass...ur a stupid mofo...an i alwayz knew it
davidgalindo07 4 years ago
1933 is the best!
sorcieremagic 4 years ago 3
2005 is the best
zzfuterazz 4 years ago 2
king kong 1976 is the best,jessica lange is the most hot gilr, that the others.Ilove her.
ArkaneX 4 years ago
2005: best production values, best FX, Naomi Watts Very Good. 1976: Imperfect, but greatly underrated. Jessica Lange trumps all as Anne/Dwan (!) and first rate musical score by John Barry (Somewhere In Time) 1933: So good almost could be sold as a documentary to young-uns. Still The Best.
alexalex3131 4 years ago 2
yea i agree the 1976 version is underrated especially since Jessica Lange doesnt get nearly enough credit for being WAYYYY hot in this movie. The 1933 version could be sold as a documentary for young-uns if you take the music out. Think Texas Chainsaw MAssacre (from 1974) there was no music in that version
andyreidsweight 4 years ago
Cheers mate ;)
TheThingKing 4 years ago
awesome video!!!!!!!!!! This makes me realize how long ago this movie was made and how old this is. This makes me actually enjoy this movie even more
utubelovr93 4 years ago
brought tears to my eyes, my favorite film.
JORDANTATE 4 years ago
That was good but I think with the 2005 one you could of w8ed till the bit where Kong pix her up and does that massive scream!!!
katiemay14 4 years ago
Also agree,1976 Kong is my favorite
gpl992 4 years ago 2
1976 kong is the Best Movie ever !
donkeykongisNo1 4 years ago
hey ThingKing....just one of the many disagreements he had with Rambaldi during pre-production.
joeyvader 4 years ago
Cheers joeyvader thanks for the information.
TheThingKing 4 years ago
Baker wanted Kong to knuckle walk in the 76 version...
joeyvader 4 years ago 3
Really? I didn't know that.
TheThingKing 4 years ago
"Baker wanted Kong to knuckle walk in the 76 version..."
Yes, but it was De Laurentiis who told Rick Baker that he didn't want a realistical gorilla.
riccardobruero 4 years ago 2
The first movie (1933) it was good 'cause it was the original,but the best version it's 1976 without any doubt ^^
kozifran 4 years ago
1976 - the best!
Rockstarkong 4 years ago
quality wasnt that good but nice try
rover6666868 4 years ago
hehe loooks like kong is constapated
mrbitchezzz 4 years ago
Great idea for a video thanks.
Blendre 4 years ago