BETTER than Peter Jackson's vanity piece
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — King Kong
SealedCargo — 3 years ago(March 26, 2023 07:56 AM)
Peter Jackson's multi-million dollar vanity project, which had an unheroic hero, a whiny woman and enough melodrama to fit a million soaps… and a completely miscast Jack Black who is actually more fitting than Adrian Nose Brody… and King Kong ICESKATING and smiling while his girlfriend JUGGLED APPLES…
this movie did its OWN thing, had its own version of the story, showed Kong coming back on the boat to explain how on earth he'd fit, and had a much prettier dame…
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/ -
BlablaBlackSheep — 3 years ago(March 26, 2023 09:02 AM)
Both versions have their good and bad moments. The ‘76 one is a true gritty, violent, 70s reimagining. The cast is great too.
The Peter Jackson version acts more as an homage and love letter to the original (when those words still meant something in Hollywood). It really felt like a lifelong passion project that didn’t entirely suck. The main advantage it has over the ‘76 version is a truly incredible Kong that feels utterly lifelike and runs the full gamut of emotion. Andy Serkis’s portrayal was amazing, and the fact they modeled the character on real Gorilla physiology brought realism to the animation. This Kong might be the most fully realized and “human” CGI creation there will ever be, other than Gollum. The chemistry he had with Anne Darrow had so much more heart than the ‘76 version, which was straight up goofy at times.
‘05 one went overboard with the CGI, yes, it was overlong, Jack black was awful, but overall it swung a hit more than it missed. I didn’t mind Brody either.