@@dpunkart1777 Flawed how? You can't just make a statement like that without backing it up. (Well, you CAN of course, but I doubt many people will take you very seriously. LoL)
@@MothraBlues I mean flawed in that it’s a product of it’s time. There’s obviously some blatant racism and sexism in the film. And it’s not surprising considering this was the 1930s. So yeah, that’s why I said that. If you want to disagree, then by all means do. I’m not a liberal or conservative, but It’s what I see man. Personally I think some of it is morbidly funny, at times, considering how we are today, but it’s a relic of it’s time. Anyway, peace be with you. I doubt this will change anything
Personally I love the moment when Darrow is pestering Driscoll about why it's such a problem for him having her aboard and he suddenly says "Say, I guess I love you."
So well done. You've summed up my feelings perfectly. As a 66 year old fan of the original 1933 film I find something new and marvelous every time I view it and I've viewed it countless, countless times. I was looking forward to Jackson's film but it's excess disappointed me on first viewing and in every subsequent viewing it has only increased. Again, well done, sir. Thank you.
Eventually, I just stopped watching Jackson's remake and kept watching the original. Recently, I tried watching Jackson's film again, and guess what? I just turned it off and watched the original again.
I actually didn't mind Peter Jackson's remake, for certain parts of course and saw the 1976 version as a kid on VHS with my Brother and Dad. But, my favourite will always be the original from 1933. The stop motion animation is brilliant and Fay Wray is absolutely fantastic in the film. Awesome video, keep up the amazing work.
Fay Wray wrote her autobiography called " ON THE OTHER HAND ". people always asked her where did Kong hold her when he was climbing the empire state building ? She always replied ON THE OTHER HAND !!! 😅
Back in the 1960s, I remember watching the original "King Kong" with my kid brother. He remarked, "It looks like wind blowing on his fur." My retort, "That's from the fingers of the guys who made the model of Kong move." Thank you, Willis O'Brien, RKO studios and everyone else who is associated with this cinematic gem.
I feel like part of the reason the interaction between Anne and Kong shifted is because knowledge of what gorillas are really like has become more and more widespread. Back in 1933 most people thought they were brutal, solitary, predators. But after decades of better zoological research, more gorillas being housed safely and humanely in zoos, and movies like Disney's Tarzan; knowledge that gorillas are typically very social gentle giants that are almost purely herbivorous has become more widespread. Skull Island managed to change it up some by clearly making him not just a giant gorilla.
Lol. So the love story makes sense. And the movie becomes insipid and stupid. Just like it is. Garbage. Did you see the story about the Chimp ripping it's female owner, housemate I mean, apart? Just out of the blue? Kong isn't just a gorilla...He's Kong. I just saw Peter Jackson's remake of 'Jaws', where, as luck would have it, nothing happens.
The 2005 Peter Jackson version is unduly criticized. While yes, it had its weaknesses, i.e. Jack Black. You have to appreciate the cinematic value and the special effects. Naomi Watts did a good job and Kong was the most realistic monster of all the versions. The scenes with the large insects made your skin crawl and the primal natives when first exploring Skull Island were eerie and frightening. True, the concept of Ann Darrow falling for Kong was a little over the top but hey, it gave Kong some depth. All in all, it was worth seeing just for the screen special effects!
@@atomicvinylreviews3420 I wouldn't bash Jack Black. His character, however, was a total d-bag. If he'd had any conscience (which of course he doesn't) he woulda taken the honorable way out.
My favourite Kong movie is the 1976 version. I love the score, the gore, the humor and the gritty tone. I actually liked Jack too. You could tell Jeff Bridges was really invested in that role.
I like the 1976 version too. The overall tone and music make it a masterpiece of it's own. The end is more sad and the slowly heartbeat scene in the end say it all.
absolutely, not only is a a decent remake for the time but it's just an all round brilliant film, as the kids say 'epic' it's a proper blockbuster and there' not much wrong with it. An excellent adventure film. I suspect this reviewer hates it because it's not the original.
@@docsmithdc Damn straight! When I finally watched that 1976 version in 2019, I remember thinking that Jessica's human love interest was "doing a bad Jeff Bridges impression". Halfway through I realised that holy hell, it WAS of course everyone's favourite 'Future Mr Lebowski'! A very strange moment - LoL!
1968. The original 'King Kong' was broadcast. It was the most awe inspiring film I had ever seen. Nothing following would raise this kind of awareness in me. I became obsessed with dinosaurs and stop-motion animation. I got quite good at it, but along comes CGI. Peter Jackson's version had some great moments and these occur only when Kong is on the screen. It's what the movie is about, isn't it? Yet, as you stated, there was a lot of unnecessary character development that went nowhere.
I do, too. The acting is so watchable. And I fell in love with Serkis's larger version of Caesar just like Ann Darrow did. Just knowing that a real person made all the moves translated onto Kong fascinates.
I really like it, as well. Not taking away from 1933. The only part that bothered my was Jack Black's delivery of that last line. It was out of character for the build he did and cheesed it up too much.
#1. The reason why the spider-pit sequence was cut from the original was NOT because it made the story lose focus. It was because audiences at the time found it "too disturbing". #2. Say what you want about Peter Jackson's King Kong, but at least that movie, as long as it was, was very entertaining. #3. The idea of that movie wasn't necessarily realism. For instance, the t-rexes were more reptilian/crocodilian than what we know they looked like. They were designed by Weta to look like how paleontologists from the 30's thought dinosaurs looked like. #4. The creature is a giant bat, you know, like Kong is a giant gorilla, and we know how realistic that is. Besides, animals in isolated islands evolve different from those on continents. Who's to say any different about animals on Kong island.
I’ll admit I saw Jackson’s three times in theaters... and every time the audience was amongst the most engaged I’d ever sat with, gasping, cringing, cheering and at the end applauding. Does it hold up as a living room film? No. But then does a cinematic film need to? This was following three years of friends and families seeing a LOTR film together around Christmas in cinemas and this pretty much acted as a coda to that experience. Flaws? Of course, but the amount of world building and imagination poured into the world of the original Kong defiantly merits a mention. Using Kong to showcase the ground breaking motion capture technique was doing the original a true honor, which the 76 did not. Kong was also Andy Serkis’s follow up to Gollum. Audiences wanted to see him front and center and he has since gone on to become the Haruo Nakajima of motion capture. Worth a mention I’d think. Fine video but you really just focused on the negatives of Jackson’s Kong.
I strongly disagree with your thoughts on Peter Jackson's film. Is it a bit long?, yes is it over the top, yes... but I wouldn't change it for the world ! it's one of my favorite movies! You can clearly see the love for the original film in every aspect of it I love the mood the film creates, the world building and environments are so rich and spectacular
it's absolutely rank, the length would be ok it the script and acting was good enough to carry it but they're not. Jack Black in particular who hugely miss cast, that CGI is hideous in parts and it's just awful. But i love the 70s version so what do i know.
@@MephProduction I really don't get the hate Jack Black gets for this role, I always thought he did great, then again I pretty much love him in everything, he rocks the rest of the acting was pretty solid all round. and while yes at times the CG was a tough rushed, through the majority of the movie it was done exceptionally well, especially for 2005 I dunno what to say, I kinda just feel sorry for you that you didn't get to enjoy such a great movie! I'd say give it another chance, even if you have to skip most of the into and stuff on the ship and jump strait to the action on the Island, everything from then on is fantastic ! and dripping with adventure and atmosphere. also there's extensive behind the scenes docos on the making of this movie, and it's all fascinating to watch, almost more so than the movie itself. I'd strongly recommend checking that out too.
Thanks bro -- that was a spot on review. The original KING KONG rules! A minor correction: the film runs 100 minutes, not 96. The tagged on overture brings it up to 104 minutes.
I have a distinct memory of seeing King Kong 2005 in theaters, my best friend spilt his popcorn on the floor 5 minutes in, and for 187 minutes, the entire row was subject to the unintended crunching as he moved his feet, much to the annoyance of others in our aisle.
Many excellent points! Really spot on about Jacksons ”visual diarrhea”!!👊🏻 I have to admit though that I’m pretty fond of the 76 remake, even though it is clearly inferior the the original!! Great video!!!🙏🏽
The original King Kong was one of the first Horror Monster films i saw on TV when i was a kid. I remember sitting frightened and exited at the same time sitting next to my Dad on the sofa hugging a cushion tightly at the scary parts. Great Days👍😃👍
The original Kong was the best it could be for its time. As far as remakes are concerned, Peter Jackson's remake was admirable and a labor of love, if you believe Jackson's inspired story line. I think you are being a bit unfair in your criticism of the latter vs the first .
I had a vague memory of going to the cinema when I was very young and seeing a film featuring King Kong versus a robot King Kong. I wasn't even sure if it was a real memory or just something I'd imagined. Thank you for reminding me about King Kong Escapes!
You are absolutely correct, the 1933 version is the one all other directors must compete with. I enjoy watching the movies of the past - 30's to the 60's - because you have better acting, plots and actors. Today you are lucky if you have 2 of the 3. Thank you for reviewing and giving good comments on these classics. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
KIng Kong was a groundbreaking movie back in 33 there wasn't much like it and today it still holds up and you are right no matter what remake or sequel comes out sure some will be good i did enjoy peter jacksons king kong but i will always still prefer the 1933 original because nothing beats the classics
All, just about all, of the horror movies of the pre '50s were great and all remakes sucked, can't really recall an exception. Like the old saying goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
FINALLY -- someone who agrees that the original king kong is absolutely and easily the best of the batch! nearly every single person i've ever talked with about kong movies always insists upon the silly notion that either the misguided '76 remake or the horrifically awful jackson revision are the best. i had the good fortune to see kong '33 in a big-screened theater a couple of years ago and it still holds up as one of the greatest popcorn features ever made. :)
Saw this at The Main Theater it was a kids Theater! We’re you could watch two movies for the price of one! Kong vs Godzilla and many other Bad Monster Movies! Way back in the 60s!
SImply put -- the original is a masterpiece. It is briliantly groundbreaking in story, in characterization, and in technology. It is art, and deserves to be viewed as such. Kong is a metaphor for all of us -- once ruling our world and suddenly it changes and we're imprisoned by it. We know we can't win but we'll kick some ass on the way out! By ultimately, the new beats the old. That's the pathos of it all. The '76 version was a lame attempt at updating a "monster movie" to make a buck while Jacksons overblown bloated tumor is a genuine attempt to showing what modern effects would do to enhance the original -- and it succeeded in that it perfectly showcased that all that updating did absolutely nothing to make for a better picture.
Kong 76 was a good movie, they did their own thing to update the story and give it a modern twist, OK their were no dinos or stop motion but that was the choices that were made at the time, why do people complain when a shot for shot re-make is made, and on the other hand give out cos changes were made
Geez.... the Kong remakes weren't THAT BAD! Are they as good as the original? No. But I thought they were good in their own right (even if 2005 was too long). I just think you blew the flaws out of proportion in this video. No offense to your opinion, I just feel the other Kong films aren't as bad as you're saying they are.
@@CashelOConnolly soulless ? are you kidding, that film had a lot of heart in it and you could just tell there was so much love and respect for the 33 film oozing from the screen
For many years as a kid Kong was my favourite movie. I've seen all the remakes and they are garbage. ( Although I do like the Japanese Kaiju movies because they are fun). When the Jackson Remake came out on DVD my Son and I watched it together. "what did you think?" I asked to which he replied "Too long" I then showed him the original he still loves it now he's 15. In fact he loves stop motion and is having a go at it himself. Kong 33 is still one of my favourite movies and I watch it at least once every year.
It’s not a good movie, but I have a lot of affection for Jackson’s 3 hr remake. There’s so much love in that movie, so much ambition. Yes, Jack Black, but screw it, I like Jack Black. And yes, the script is overstuffed and at times almost insane. But it has heart, style, and imo impressive, imaginative design work from Weta Workshop. Plus, I have a bladder of steel.
Nice twist at the end. I agree: the special effects and the music of the original are still terrific. Unfortunately, the dialogue and acting are still woeful. ... Although it doesn't star Kong, I wish you had also mentioned Mighty Joe Young (1949), another giant ape film involving many who had worked on the 1933 film.
In the 1942 Le Belle Et Le Bete movie (Beauty and the Beast) a french actress famously cried out in the theater when the beast turned back into a prince "OH GIVE ME BACK MY BEAST!" showing that Women do have a thing for Beastly folk, so I can actually get behind why the 2005 film went in for that and it does have its charm
Great review! The original was a brilliant film. We have seen some of the Japanese films and they are fun but avoided the recent remakes - rightly so from the clips we have just seen. Many thanks.
Thank you for your spot on analysis /rant on the visually stunning but frustratingly bloated ill realized Jackson remake, I've been telling people essentially the same things you observed for years!
That insect scene was so ridiculous. Why didn't the large bugs simply start feeding on one another? It was so arrogant that things that huge would want to feed on the tiny humans when there was much larger varieties of prey crawling everywhere. Nothing compares to the original of course but what I'll always love about the '76 version is John Barry's score. And it was made in an era where a popular pop song was being sung by a porn actress "More, More, More (How Do You Like It), Foxy was thumping and humping to "Get Off" and Donna Summer was having an orgasm with a retro 20's twist. It was all about sensuous excess and the ending seemed to fit. The hairy sensitive 70's dude left the moon child wannabe starlet right where she wanted to be. At the center of a mob of flashing cameras and all she could do was cry and desperately call for him. And he just stood there in all his commando Hai Karate glory. Roll credits.
In the original, my fav line is, after the crew is chased by a prehistoric lizard: "What was THAT?" Answer: "I think it's something from the dinosaur family."
The original is as close to a perfect film as possible, it's like a course in screenwriting and directing. I wonder if it would be possible to take an hour out of Peter Jackson's film, and end up with a better film experience.
It's a shame one of Naomi Watts's best performances is in Jackson's Kong, rather than a better movie I'd want to watch again and again. She is really terrific.
Great analysis! Back when I was a kid in the 70s I saw the 1933 version on TV, and it was the first film i remember being totally sucked in to. When my dad bought me a book on the making of it, I got hooked on learning how movies were made. We went to the premiere of the '76 version, and 12 year old me thought it was fun, but not as good. (Adult me cannot get through the movie at all.) I was excited about the Jackson version because I LOVED what he did with The Lord of the Rings (those books were another youthful passion of mine), but absolutely hated it. So much so that I thought I must have been in a crappy head space when I saw it, as it couldn't possibly have been that bad. So I went back about a week later to try it again, and just walked out about halfway through.
Yep, Jackson's remake was flawed, but the good parts made me forget. When Kong gets mad... NO other movie (even the 1933 one) made you feel how powerful Kong can be! But I do get and share your point of vue : a lot of old movies made it perfect the first time.
I'm not sure if it was Peter Jackson's love of digital effects that made the 05 version such a bloated mess as much as it was a case of "I've got a $300 million budget for this movie & I'm going to spend every last dime of it."
@@joehansell1331 I'm so glad he did though. Delicious bloated mess, like cheesecake with cream and ice cream and chocolate sauce and sprinkles. And even though you're full there's several more courses to go and you still don't feel sick, in fact it's still appetising. (Hmm do you think I might have liked Kong 05?).
@@GregBreden Yeah, it was no match for the original, but, as a fan of the original, I actually appreciated the bloat of Jackson's version; it allowed me to wallow in Kongness that much longer. I appreciated the fact that it gave me a glimpse into the lives of the crew of the S.S. Venture that I had never before seen. People don't realize that Jackson makes his movies for the fans, not critics or general audiences. That's why his 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy was so well received, while Disney's corporate vision of Star Wars is killing that franchise.
Previous to the 1976 Dino de Laurentiis's version of King Kong was released, A standard for a new was that a hand full of prints were made for the big markets. New York, Hollywood, Chicago, ect ect. Depending on box office the film may or may not go city-wide.. Dino De Laurentiis's version of King Kong was the first movie to open world-wide on the same day, including the dubbed foreign versions. This was preseeded by heavy pre-release advertisement. The movie was a flop but everyone went on the same day and de Laurent made his money back on the first day...This type of saturated market is now standard..
13:05 I remember a serious movie review, by a serious critic, claiming the fact that Kong's nose is heart-shaped indicated that he was a true romantic.
+Dark Corners Reviews - Cute intro. Kind of reminds us more of 'Attack on Titan' (2015) (live-action movie, based on the manga (2009) and anime (2013) series of the same name), rather than 'King Kong' circa 1933. But still a solid effort. Know you've likely put some hard work into that - and it came out well; relevant and amusing introduction to the special. Entertaining. This might actually be your best review, yet. re: (00:59, etc.) Fay Wray (actor) - She's actually one of the supporting cast members in the movie we're reviewing next for the Silver Screen Halloween movie round (vintage mysteries from the 1930s-1950s). Although 'King Kong' (1933) is probably the role most viewers would immediately associate with that particular actor. re: (01:32) King Kong (char.) vs. Godzilla - There was such a Twitter explosion in September 2015 about the fact that a King Kong (char.) vs. Godzilla (char.) movie is apparently in the works. But we were kind of just thinking, 'Well...actually, you - could - see that match-up right now, if you like - "King Kong vs. Godzilla" (1962).' So, it's great to see it mentioned here. A lot of overlooked vintage titles out there, it's kind of odd. re: (15:01 - 15:24) +Robin Bailes (host) flips his wig - ...but tell the audience how you - really - feel, Bailes. re: Halloween specials - This was a solid effort. Cool to see all the different Halloween specials going up around the place - a lot of variety. Halloween specials spotted around various channels this season (by Twitter name): @DarkCorners3 (you - 'King Kong' (1933) retrospective) @SciFiNight (top five episodes - 'evil clowns,' etc.) @BobSamurai (horror manga) @LookieShow (us - 1930s-1950s mystery movies) @OddPodRetro (behind-the-scenes) @GrahamDoh (fave horror streaming on @Netflix) @TheJaySwick (collaboration, incl. various channel hosts) and others.
Actually, I like it when stuff in films happen that simply builds character or makes you care more for them, even the side characters. A great example in my opinion, is in the film Hell. The world is a waterless dessert. The main character finds a car and searches it. She finds some perfume and keeps it. This scene is irrelevant to the story, but it shows what life in that world is like. When I watched that film at a festival, there were viewers complaining that the perfume scene was pointless. I disagree. Also, giving side characters a back story can make one care more for them. Yet, I absolutely agree that one can overdo this... And the brontosaurus scene was too much, even for me.
It would be interesting to see a remake of the original Kong film, with today's special effects, while keeping to the premise that Fay Wray is terrified of the ape, and keeping it under 2 hours. Plus without any "woke" messages.
@@DarkCornersReviewsYou were right on with the '33 being the loyal epic. And way right on with the '05 Jackson. I think that might leave '76 as 2nd and that leaves me on board!
The original King Kong, still gives you spine tingling horror. Because the 1933 version is still the best I’ve ever seen.
No contest here !
Without question! 👍🐵👍
No doubt for its technical innovation. That cannot be understated. However, aside from that, it remains a flawed time capsule nonetheless.
@@dpunkart1777 Flawed how? You can't just make a statement like that without backing it up. (Well, you CAN of course, but I doubt many people will take you very seriously. LoL)
@@MothraBlues I mean flawed in that it’s a product of it’s time. There’s obviously some blatant racism and sexism in the film. And it’s not surprising considering this was the 1930s. So yeah, that’s why I said that. If you want to disagree, then by all means do. I’m not a liberal or conservative, but It’s what I see man. Personally I think some of it is morbidly funny, at times, considering how we are today, but it’s a relic of it’s time. Anyway, peace be with you. I doubt this will change anything
My favorite line in the original film is:
"It's some kind of a big gorilla."
""Cheese, ain't we got enough of those guys in New York already?"
Personally I love the moment when Darrow is pestering Driscoll about why it's such a problem for him having her aboard and he suddenly says "Say, I guess I love you."
So well done. You've summed up my feelings perfectly. As a 66 year old fan of the original 1933 film I find something new and marvelous every time I view it and I've viewed it countless, countless times. I was looking forward to Jackson's film but it's excess disappointed me on first viewing and in every subsequent viewing it has only increased. Again, well done, sir. Thank you.
Eventually, I just stopped watching Jackson's remake and kept watching the original. Recently, I tried watching Jackson's film again, and guess what? I just turned it off and watched the original again.
First one is great- Jacksons is good, needed edits, but has great moments.
I actually didn't mind Peter Jackson's remake, for certain parts of course and saw the 1976 version as a kid on VHS with my Brother and Dad. But, my favourite will always be the original from 1933. The stop motion animation is brilliant and Fay Wray is absolutely fantastic in the film. Awesome video, keep up the amazing work.
Fay Wray wrote her autobiography called " ON THE OTHER HAND ". people always asked her where did Kong hold her when he was climbing the empire state building ? She always replied ON THE OTHER HAND !!! 😅
Back in the 1960s, I remember watching the original "King Kong" with my kid brother. He remarked, "It looks like wind blowing on his fur." My retort, "That's from the fingers of the guys who made the model of Kong move." Thank you, Willis O'Brien, RKO studios and everyone else who is associated with this cinematic gem.
Wonderful things we learned from FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND magazine, eh?
@@starmnsixty1209 -- You betcha! Thanks, Forrest J. Ackerman!
I feel like part of the reason the interaction between Anne and Kong shifted is because knowledge of what gorillas are really like has become more and more widespread. Back in 1933 most people thought they were brutal, solitary, predators. But after decades of better zoological research, more gorillas being housed safely and humanely in zoos, and movies like Disney's Tarzan; knowledge that gorillas are typically very social gentle giants that are almost purely herbivorous has become more widespread. Skull Island managed to change it up some by clearly making him not just a giant gorilla.
I LOVE Skull Island! Hold on to your butts!
Lol. So the love story makes sense. And the movie becomes insipid and stupid. Just like it is. Garbage. Did you see the story about the Chimp ripping it's female owner, housemate I mean, apart? Just out of the blue? Kong isn't just a gorilla...He's Kong. I just saw Peter Jackson's remake of 'Jaws', where, as luck would have it, nothing happens.
I still love the 2005 version and I think it’s a good remake but my heart will always go for the 1933.
The 2005 Peter Jackson version is unduly criticized. While yes, it had its weaknesses, i.e. Jack Black. You have to appreciate the cinematic value and the special effects. Naomi Watts did a good job and Kong was the most realistic monster of all the versions. The scenes with the large insects made your skin crawl and the primal natives when first exploring Skull Island were eerie and frightening. True, the concept of Ann Darrow falling for Kong was a little over the top but hey, it gave Kong some depth. All in all, it was worth seeing just for the screen special effects!
Jack Black's awesome, I don't get why people keep bashin' on him...
other than that i totally agree with your comment here, and I loved the 2005 film
@@atomicvinylreviews3420 I wouldn't bash Jack Black. His character, however, was a total d-bag. If he'd had any conscience (which of course he doesn't) he woulda taken the honorable way out.
@@DDlambchop43 haha! you're not wrong, he was a bit, I still liked him though
Jacksons Kong is an awesome Movie
My favourite Kong movie is the 1976 version. I love the score, the gore, the humor and the gritty tone. I actually liked Jack too. You could tell Jeff Bridges was really invested in that role.
I first saw the original King Kong in it's entirity in 1976,and didn't see any remakes.
Saw it 25 times when I was 12. Still watch it today. John Barry elevated it, Jessica , Jeff and Rick Baker did as well. Thanks for the vindication.
I like the 1976 version too. The overall tone and music make it a masterpiece of it's own. The end is more sad and the slowly heartbeat scene in the end say it all.
absolutely, not only is a a decent remake for the time but it's just an all round brilliant film, as the kids say 'epic' it's a proper blockbuster and there' not much wrong with it. An excellent adventure film. I suspect this reviewer hates it because it's not the original.
Hated his character...thought Lange played it like Kong was Charlie Manson and she was just there for the love and drugs.
The 1933 film was the best and always will be. The films that came from it, are always a fun watch. What's not to like!
No question the best part of the 1976 version was Jessica Lange in those Daisy Dukes.
The only thing.
@@docsmithdc Damn straight! When I finally watched that 1976 version in 2019, I remember thinking that Jessica's human love interest was "doing a bad Jeff Bridges impression". Halfway through I realised that holy hell, it WAS of course everyone's favourite 'Future Mr Lebowski'! A very strange moment - LoL!
@@MothraBlues I gotya !
Can you call them that? Daisy Duke didn't come along for three more years.
@@DamnedSilly Details.
I'm so grateful for this channel - you're doing a great job! Admiration from Germany!
1968. The original 'King Kong' was broadcast. It was the most awe inspiring film I had ever seen. Nothing following would raise this kind of awareness in me. I became obsessed with dinosaurs and stop-motion animation. I got quite good at it, but along comes CGI. Peter Jackson's version had some great moments and these occur only when Kong is on the screen. It's what the movie is about, isn't it? Yet, as you stated, there was a lot of unnecessary character development that went nowhere.
Mighty Joe Young.
Nuff said.
Ohhh! All right! All right! All right!
Now we're talking
I love the Jackson remake.
I do, too. The acting is so watchable. And I fell in love with Serkis's larger version of Caesar just like Ann Darrow did. Just knowing that a real person made all the moves translated onto Kong fascinates.
It's my favorite personally, but the only problem I have with it is the obvious cgi Adrian Brody in the scene where Kong wrecks the theater.
I really like it, as well. Not taking away from 1933. The only part that bothered my was Jack Black's delivery of that last line. It was out of character for the build he did and cheesed it up too much.
#1. The reason why the spider-pit sequence was cut from the original was NOT because it made the story lose focus. It was because audiences at the time found it "too disturbing". #2. Say what you want about Peter Jackson's King Kong, but at least that movie, as long as it was, was very entertaining. #3. The idea of that movie wasn't necessarily realism. For instance, the t-rexes were more reptilian/crocodilian than what we know they looked like. They were designed by Weta to look like how paleontologists from the 30's thought dinosaurs looked like. #4. The creature is a giant bat, you know, like Kong is a giant gorilla, and we know how realistic that is. Besides, animals in isolated islands evolve different from those on continents. Who's to say any different about animals on Kong island.
11:53 I have to admit, watching Kong's fur shift around and almost strobe in the original movie is pure Claymation.
I still think the "Puttin' on the Ritz" number in Young Frankenstein is the best Kong scene of all time.
I’ll admit I saw Jackson’s three times in theaters... and every time the audience was amongst the most engaged I’d ever sat with, gasping, cringing, cheering and at the end applauding.
Does it hold up as a living room film? No. But then does a cinematic film need to?
This was following three years of friends and families seeing a LOTR film together around Christmas in cinemas and this pretty much acted as a coda to that experience.
Flaws? Of course, but the amount of world building and imagination poured into the world of the original Kong defiantly merits a mention. Using Kong to showcase the ground breaking motion capture technique was doing the original a true honor, which the 76 did not.
Kong was also Andy Serkis’s follow up to Gollum. Audiences wanted to see him front and center and he has since gone on to become the Haruo Nakajima of motion capture. Worth a mention I’d think.
Fine video but you really just focused on the negatives of Jackson’s Kong.
Peter Jackson's King Kong was a masterpiece!
I love this channel so much. I’m so happy I found it!!
I strongly disagree with your thoughts on Peter Jackson's film.
Is it a bit long?, yes
is it over the top, yes...
but I wouldn't change it for the world !
it's one of my favorite movies!
You can clearly see the love for the original film in every aspect of it
I love the mood the film creates, the world building and environments are so rich and spectacular
Agree totally, AVR! In fact, the longer the better (and any scene with Andy Serkis playing any part at all is too short).
@@rameyzamora1018 yes !
I would love a version of it with even more of the movie taking place on the island in particular
@@atomicvinylreviews3420 Yup that sounds great! Is this Jacob of Atomic Vinyl Reviews? I just subscribed.
it's absolutely rank, the length would be ok it the script and acting was good enough to carry it but they're not. Jack Black in particular who hugely miss cast, that CGI is hideous in parts and it's just awful. But i love the 70s version so what do i know.
@@MephProduction I really don't get the hate Jack Black gets for this role, I always thought he did great, then again I pretty much love him in everything, he rocks
the rest of the acting was pretty solid all round.
and while yes at times the CG was a tough rushed, through the majority of the movie it was done exceptionally well, especially for 2005
I dunno what to say, I kinda just feel sorry for you that you didn't get to enjoy such a great movie!
I'd say give it another chance, even if you have to skip most of the into and stuff on the ship and jump strait to the action on the Island, everything from then on is fantastic ! and dripping with adventure and atmosphere.
also there's extensive behind the scenes docos on the making of this movie, and it's all fascinating to watch, almost more so than the movie itself. I'd strongly recommend checking that out too.
I'm so glad to find someone who loves the original version and hates the Jackson version as much as I do!
I am so glad I saw that opening. Thanks for the great video.
I really liked Peter Jackson's King Kong.
Same
I loved the PJ remake myself.
Thanks bro -- that was a spot on review. The original KING KONG rules! A minor correction: the film runs 100 minutes, not 96. The tagged on overture brings it up to 104 minutes.
I've always wanted to remake King Kong... But now I'm worried how you'd react to it.:(
Just do it right. ;)
I'm hoping to. How's this for a title? "The Legend of King Kong" or maybe "King Kong: The Eighth Wonder of the World".
I have a distinct memory of seeing King Kong 2005 in theaters, my best friend spilt his popcorn on the floor 5 minutes in, and for 187 minutes, the entire row was subject to the unintended crunching as he moved his feet, much to the annoyance of others in our aisle.
For most people, Kong may have been the star. For me, I loved the T-Rexes, in both the 1933 version and the Peter Jackson version.
Many excellent points! Really spot on about Jacksons ”visual diarrhea”!!👊🏻 I have to admit though that I’m pretty fond of the 76 remake, even though it is clearly inferior the the original!! Great video!!!🙏🏽
-Never mind Godzilla, when's Kong going to fight Herbie? That's a match up the kids would love.
Car 53 versus the Eighth Wonder of the World!!!
The original King Kong was one of the first Horror Monster films i saw on TV when i was a kid. I remember sitting frightened and exited at the same time sitting next to my Dad on the sofa hugging a cushion tightly at the scary parts. Great Days👍😃👍
The original Kong was the best it could be for its time. As far as remakes are concerned, Peter Jackson's remake was admirable and a labor of love, if you believe Jackson's inspired story line. I think you are being a bit unfair in your criticism of the latter vs the first .
The fact that Jackson had passion for the subject doesn't make his film a good one.
I had a vague memory of going to the cinema when I was very young and seeing a film featuring King Kong versus a robot King Kong. I wasn't even sure if it was a real memory or just something I'd imagined. Thank you for reminding me about King Kong Escapes!
You are absolutely correct, the 1933 version is the one all other directors must compete with. I enjoy watching the movies of the past - 30's to the 60's - because you have better acting, plots and actors. Today you are lucky if you have 2 of the 3. Thank you for reviewing and giving good comments on these classics.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
KIng Kong was a groundbreaking movie back in 33 there wasn't much like it and today it still holds up and you are right no matter what remake or sequel comes out sure some will be good i did enjoy peter jacksons king kong but i will always still prefer the 1933 original because nothing beats the classics
If you do something right the first time,why do it again?
All, just about all, of the horror movies of the pre '50s were great and all remakes sucked, can't really recall an exception. Like the old saying goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
FINALLY -- someone who agrees that the original king kong is absolutely and easily the best of the batch! nearly every single person i've ever talked with about kong movies always insists upon the silly notion that either the misguided '76 remake or the horrifically awful jackson revision are the best.
i had the good fortune to see kong '33 in a big-screened theater a couple of years ago and it still holds up as one of the greatest popcorn features ever made. :)
Saw this at The Main Theater it was a kids Theater! We’re you could watch two movies for the price of one! Kong vs Godzilla and many other Bad Monster Movies! Way back in the 60s!
SImply put -- the original is a masterpiece. It is briliantly groundbreaking in story, in characterization, and in technology. It is art, and deserves to be viewed as such. Kong is a metaphor for all of us -- once ruling our world and suddenly it changes and we're imprisoned by it. We know we can't win but we'll kick some ass on the way out! By ultimately, the new beats the old. That's the pathos of it all. The '76 version was a lame attempt at updating a "monster movie" to make a buck while Jacksons overblown bloated tumor is a genuine attempt to showing what modern effects would do to enhance the original -- and it succeeded in that it perfectly showcased that all that updating did absolutely nothing to make for a better picture.
Kong 76 was a good movie, they did their own thing to update the story and give it a modern twist, OK their were no dinos or stop motion but that was the choices that were made at the time, why do people complain when a shot for shot re-make is made, and on the other hand give out cos changes were made
I love the 1976 version. Dont care!!
Geez.... the Kong remakes weren't THAT BAD!
Are they as good as the original? No. But I thought they were good in their own right (even if 2005 was too long). I just think you blew the flaws out of proportion in this video.
No offense to your opinion, I just feel the other Kong films aren't as bad as you're saying they are.
Peter Jackson’s Kong was awful,soulless and overlong. It was CGI that killed the beast
he aint wrong tho!
@@CashelOConnolly soulless ? are you kidding, that film had a lot of heart in it and you could just tell there was so much love and respect for the 33 film oozing from the screen
Exactly how many people were on that rickety boat in the 2005 version and how the hell did they get Kong across the ocean?
Fans: "When will Hollywood learn, the key is keeping it simple."
Hollywood: "King Kong 12: Zombie-Ape vs Cyborg-Martian-Vampires"
Great points. Exactly how I feel. 👍🏼
For many years as a kid Kong was my favourite movie. I've seen all the remakes and they are garbage. ( Although I do like the Japanese Kaiju movies because they are fun). When the Jackson Remake came out on DVD my Son and I watched it together. "what did you think?" I asked to which he replied "Too long" I then showed him the original he still loves it now he's 15. In fact he loves stop motion and is having a go at it himself. Kong 33 is still one of my favourite movies and I watch it at least once every year.
Love this. King Kong Lives!
It’s not a good movie, but I have a lot of affection for Jackson’s 3 hr remake. There’s so much love in that movie, so much ambition. Yes, Jack Black, but screw it, I like Jack Black. And yes, the script is overstuffed and at times almost insane. But it has heart, style, and imo impressive, imaginative design work from Weta Workshop. Plus, I have a bladder of steel.
I remember seeing the 1976 film in the theater and afterwards thinking what in the heck did I just watch?
Too harsh on the 70s remake, dude....
This was great!
THIS made me understand the "beauty killed the beast" (never seen the original).
Nice twist at the end. I agree: the special effects and the music of the original are still terrific. Unfortunately, the dialogue and acting are still woeful. ... Although it doesn't star Kong, I wish you had also mentioned Mighty Joe Young (1949), another giant ape film involving many who had worked on the 1933 film.
The Spider Pit Scene -- prospective nightmare fuel for '30s movie audiences.
An absolutely spot on critique of all the films.
Well done.
As a kid I loved King Kong. I remember each time they remade it, I thought, no, we don't need another King Kong.
Great video!
In the 1942 Le Belle Et Le Bete movie (Beauty and the Beast) a french actress famously cried out in the theater when the beast turned back into a prince "OH GIVE ME BACK MY BEAST!" showing that Women do have a thing for Beastly folk, so I can actually get behind why the 2005 film went in for that and it does have its charm
Totally disagree with your thoughts on Jackson’s Kong. But that’s just me.
Great review! The original was a brilliant film. We have seen some of the Japanese films and they are fun but avoided the recent remakes - rightly so from the clips we have just seen. Many thanks.
I love Peter Jackson's King Kong!
Thank you for your spot on analysis /rant on the visually stunning but frustratingly bloated ill realized Jackson remake, I've been telling people essentially the same things you observed for years!
THANK YOU, NEEDED TO BE SAID
That insect scene was so ridiculous. Why didn't the large bugs simply start feeding on one another? It was so arrogant that things that huge would want to feed on the tiny humans when there was much larger varieties of prey crawling everywhere. Nothing compares to the original of course but what I'll always love about the '76 version is John Barry's score. And it was made in an era where a popular pop song was being sung by a porn actress "More, More, More (How Do You Like It), Foxy was thumping and humping to "Get Off" and Donna Summer was having an orgasm with a retro 20's twist. It was all about sensuous excess and the ending seemed to fit. The hairy sensitive 70's dude left the moon child wannabe starlet right where she wanted to be. At the center of a mob of flashing cameras and all she could do was cry and desperately call for him. And he just stood there in all his commando Hai Karate glory. Roll credits.
I have to see the original again. i Saw it 6 or 7 years ago. I have never seen any of the others
Hmm...Either King Kong Escapes, or the '76 remake. I have no idea which entry is my personal favorite Kong movie.
Some good points. But Kong means different things to different people. Each generation grows up with a new take (like godzilla)
Peter Jackson is obviously a "gamer"
In the original, my fav line is, after the crew is chased by a prehistoric lizard: "What was THAT?" Answer: "I think it's something from the dinosaur family."
You're spot on, love the original, really like the 76 and actually really don't like the 2005
The original is as close to a perfect film as possible, it's like a course in screenwriting and directing. I wonder if it would be possible to take an hour out of Peter Jackson's film, and end up with a better film experience.
Very entertaining.
I like 2005 version.that last one was ok
Kong skull island was excellent let's hope King Kong Vs. Godzilla isn't going to suck..
It's a shame one of Naomi Watts's best performances is in Jackson's Kong, rather than a better movie I'd want to watch again and again. She is really terrific.
I like the 2005 Peter Jackson remake. Please don't drive a stake through my heart.
Great review with excellent and clever use of clips.
I do wanna see King Kong Lives
I like King Kong Escapes-it has an evil Dr Who.
Brilliant !!
Great analysis! Back when I was a kid in the 70s I saw the 1933 version on TV, and it was the first film i remember being totally sucked in to. When my dad bought me a book on the making of it, I got hooked on learning how movies were made. We went to the premiere of the '76 version, and 12 year old me thought it was fun, but not as good. (Adult me cannot get through the movie at all.) I was excited about the Jackson version because I LOVED what he did with The Lord of the Rings (those books were another youthful passion of mine), but absolutely hated it. So much so that I thought I must have been in a crappy head space when I saw it, as it couldn't possibly have been that bad. So I went back about a week later to try it again, and just walked out about halfway through.
Yep, Jackson's remake was flawed, but the good parts made me forget. When Kong gets mad... NO other movie (even the 1933 one) made you feel how powerful Kong can be!
But I do get and share your point of vue : a lot of old movies made it perfect the first time.
I'm not sure if it was Peter Jackson's love of digital effects that made the 05 version such a bloated mess as much as it was a case of "I've got a $300 million budget for this movie & I'm going to spend every last dime of it."
@@joehansell1331 I'm so glad he did though. Delicious bloated mess, like cheesecake with cream and ice cream and chocolate sauce and sprinkles. And even though you're full there's several more courses to go and you still don't feel sick, in fact it's still appetising. (Hmm do you think I might have liked Kong 05?).
@@GregBreden Yeah, it was no match for the original, but, as a fan of the original, I actually appreciated the bloat of Jackson's version; it allowed me to wallow in Kongness that much longer. I appreciated the fact that it gave me a glimpse into the lives of the crew of the S.S. Venture that I had never before seen. People don't realize that Jackson makes his movies for the fans, not critics or general audiences. That's why his 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy was so well received, while Disney's corporate vision of Star Wars is killing that franchise.
You forgot Queen Kong......
Previous to the 1976 Dino de Laurentiis's version of King Kong was released, A standard for a new was that a hand full of prints were made for the big markets. New York, Hollywood, Chicago, ect ect. Depending on box office the film may or may not go city-wide.. Dino De Laurentiis's version of King Kong was the first movie to open world-wide on the same day, including the dubbed foreign versions. This was preseeded by heavy pre-release advertisement. The movie was a flop but everyone went on the same day and de Laurent made his money back on the first day...This type of saturated market is now standard..
If he made his money back on the first day, how could it be a flop?
13:05 I remember a serious movie review, by a serious critic, claiming the fact that Kong's nose is heart-shaped indicated that he was a true romantic.
Over 80 years old and still going strong.
my favorite Kong kameo is when he had a passing speaking role in Cat's Don't Dance
+Dark Corners Reviews - Cute intro.
Kind of reminds us more of 'Attack on Titan' (2015) (live-action movie, based on the manga (2009) and anime (2013) series of the same name), rather than 'King Kong' circa 1933.
But still a solid effort. Know you've likely put some hard work into that - and it came out well; relevant and amusing introduction to the special.
Entertaining. This might actually be your best review, yet.
re: (00:59, etc.) Fay Wray (actor)
- She's actually one of the supporting cast members in the movie we're reviewing next for the Silver Screen Halloween movie round (vintage mysteries from the 1930s-1950s).
Although 'King Kong' (1933) is probably the role most viewers would immediately associate with that particular actor.
re: (01:32) King Kong (char.) vs. Godzilla
- There was such a Twitter explosion in September 2015 about the fact that a King Kong (char.) vs. Godzilla (char.) movie is apparently in the works.
But we were kind of just thinking, 'Well...actually, you - could - see that match-up right now, if you like - "King Kong vs. Godzilla" (1962).'
So, it's great to see it mentioned here.
A lot of overlooked vintage titles out there, it's kind of odd.
re: (15:01 - 15:24) +Robin Bailes (host) flips his wig
- ...but tell the audience how you - really - feel, Bailes.
re: Halloween specials
- This was a solid effort. Cool to see all the different Halloween specials going up around the place - a lot of variety.
Halloween specials spotted around various channels this season (by Twitter name):
@DarkCorners3 (you - 'King Kong' (1933) retrospective)
@SciFiNight (top five episodes - 'evil clowns,' etc.)
@BobSamurai (horror manga)
@LookieShow (us - 1930s-1950s mystery movies)
@OddPodRetro (behind-the-scenes)
@GrahamDoh (fave horror streaming on @Netflix)
@TheJaySwick (collaboration, incl. various channel hosts)
and others.
+Lookie! You give the best comments! Glad you enjoyed it and checking your halloween review now.
Robert Armstrong is the best. His Carl Denham is fabulous!
My favorite part of Jackson's Kong , was the quoting of Heart of Darkness by the First Officer Hayes . I put up with him and jimmy for that scene.
Actually, I like it when stuff in films happen that simply builds character or makes you care more for them, even the side characters. A great example in my opinion, is in the film Hell. The world is a waterless dessert. The main character finds a car and searches it. She finds some perfume and keeps it. This scene is irrelevant to the story, but it shows what life in that world is like.
When I watched that film at a festival, there were viewers complaining that the perfume scene was pointless. I disagree.
Also, giving side characters a back story can make one care more for them.
Yet, I absolutely agree that one can overdo this...
And the brontosaurus scene was too much, even for me.
King Kong is still my favorite giant monster
poor kong he only got one movie leading up to the GZ VS KONG movie. Godzilla had two.
"Enter Peter Jackson" What? Do I have to?
It would be interesting to see a remake of the original Kong film, with today's special effects, while keeping to the premise that Fay Wray is terrified of the ape, and keeping it under 2 hours. Plus without any "woke" messages.
Wouldn't the rights to King Kong go into the public domain in 2033?
I think it would 2028. 95 years after publication
@@DarkCornersReviewsYou were right on with the '33 being the loyal epic. And way right on with the '05 Jackson. I think that might leave '76 as 2nd and that leaves me on board!
I can't resist King Kong Escapes or 'King Kong vs Doctor Who' as it should have been called.