People get hung up on the 1976 effects (which were awesome in their day), but there is more to good filmmaking than effe
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — King Kong
Cyclo Rider — 11 years ago(September 25, 2014 08:57 PM)
People get hung up on the 1976 effects (which were awesome in their day), but there is more to good filmmaking than effects. This film is better than the 2005 Jack Black film in virtually every aspect of filmmaking.
-
sonofbeach-sheet — 11 years ago(September 26, 2014 06:00 PM)
I totally agree. The Jack Black one was like a 30's movie played in modern times and on steroids. The island in this one was SO atmospheric and tyhe natives a more realistic bunch than those voodoo ones in the other two.
-
Hendry_William_French — 11 years ago(December 07, 2014 06:38 AM)
Yeah, agreed. This movie is far superior, it's an absolute underrated treasure.
King Kong 76 is an actual film. The 2005 Kong is far too melodramatic especially the chick's relationship with the beast - jeez, dial it down a notch. This movie was way more subtle in that respect and played it right. Peter Jackson's version was just bloated with too much CGI and a torturous running time. It's the definition of overblown.
we're almost certain that ghouls and werewolves occupy high positions at city hall -
RynoII — 10 years ago(March 15, 2016 04:03 AM)
I think I am going to have to disagree on the chemistry between Kong and Ann. In this one I found the chemistry to be really flat. Even if it was taken to a bit of an extreme in the 2005 at least they had it, where as hear, they really kind of don't.
I agree that the music is better, but John Barry is my favorite composer of all time, so that's easy for me. The pacing is better in this one as well, but the 2005 one had a better atomsphere. I just thought that New York and the island looked a lot better.
I still think that the 2005 one is a much better shot movie. When Kong is on the Empire State Building, I like how they have aerial views of him, pointing downward as he is climbing and as he is defending himself. The aerial views pointed down really make you afraid of heights when you watch that scene.
But the World Trade Center sequence in this one, the shots are all grounded, and most of them are pointed upward at him, making him seem high and mighty, when he is suppose to be at his vulnerable death, and things are suppose to be too big for him so to speak. So I felt that the 2005 one was better shot in those regards at least. -
motter25420-153-699254 — 9 years ago(July 22, 2016 04:35 PM)
Can't agree, still would have had too much CGI and lame characters, not saying the leads in this film were anything stellar either, but this one just has much more of an epic (an overused word if there ever one, but I can't think of anything better) feel to me.