I Just Watched

[Fresh Tendrils]

...the original King Kong. I thought the movie was pretty good, but definitely the special effects were great (once you got used to them and took into consideration this was the early 30s!). I just saw Peter Jackson's remake this past Thursday and I thought they were both great, not sure which one I like better. Anyway, on to something else about the original Kong: Fay Wray. Wow. What hottie. And you definitely get a couple good looks of her if you know what I mean Definitely a worthy rental for anybody who enjoyed PJ's Kong and loves classic movies in general.

[Heelfan71]

Re: I Just Watched

There is another one too that was done in the 70's.

[Blzer]

Re: I Just Watched

I liked the 70s version much more than the 30s version, but I can't let great effects and actors/actresses that I know take away what was so great about the 2005 version.

[gtm]

Re: I Just Watched

The original was fantastic and still is, all these years later. Say hey for Faye Wray.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: I Just Watched

There is another one too that was done in the 70's.

I know. Then there's numerous sequels, Kong v. Godzilla, etc and the reviews for them aren't that good (including the 70s remake), so I skipped and went straight to the original. I like the reference to Fay Wray and RKO in the 2005 remake, great touch.

[SPTO]

Re: I Just Watched

I've seen the '70s version. It's definitely not worth your time. I do want to see Godzilla vs King Kong tho. I know what to expect with that and it'd be great fun.

[forensicd]

Re: I Just Watched

godvilla vs king kong is pretty good, but pretty cheesy as well, and i like those kind of movies (especially Gamara!). The original is the best, but i still have yet to see the new one. Im not a big fan of remakes, its like trying to redo the mona lisa. Even if you make it the exact samein every detail, its still not the mona lisa. The original vision can never be improved upon, as it was ORIGINAL! There is nothing original about peter jackson, all he has done is take things that already exist, then hire a bunch of special affects people, take the original script and go with it. Nothing special really about that. And the ones he does do are ones that are bound to be hits. LOTR and king kong, those have been amazing creations by their original authors, and are bound to be hits IF remade, becuase of their following. I guess i just want some originality coming out, as all the songs, movies, etc of today are just rip offs of old versions.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: I Just Watched

I thought the characters and their relationships from PJ's remake were superior to the original. You never really get a sense of any of the characters in the original, including Kong himself. PJ does a good job fleshing out those parts of the storyline.

[Blzer]

Re: I Just Watched

I thought the characters and their relationships from PJ's remake were superior to the original. You never really get a sense of any of the characters in the original, including Kong himself. PJ does a good job fleshing out those parts of the storyline.

By the way, I sure hope people don't think acting was good at all back in the day. I started cracking up when hearing how "scripted" everyone sounded. So vile!

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: I Just Watched

By the way, I sure hope people don't think acting was good at all back in the day. I started cracking up when hearing how "scripted" everyone sounded. So vile!

Are you talking about all movies "back in the day" or what? I can give you examples of movies that have come out recently with horrible acting.

[SlimKibbles]

Re: I Just Watched

The only thing the 1976 version really had going for it was Jessica Lange. She was gorgeous in that one.

[Blzer]

Re: I Just Watched

Are you talking about all movies "back in the day" or what? I can give you examples of movies that have come out recently with horrible acting.

Back in the day. Everything is very scripted, it's really not funny. I keep hearing people say how Saw has terrible acting, how Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor, etc. I just don't see it. Just because Keanu doesn't show many expressions, it doesn't make him a bad actor... at least not compared to what I saw in King Kong 1933 or whatever.

And, remember about Saw... if you're just upset that Cary Elwes' character did nothing but scream and moan at the end, what in the hell would you do in that situation? Believe me... when your life (and your family's life) is at terrible risk, and you're stuck to a chain in a bathroom, you have nothing to do but curse until you feel it will come off.



At any rate, I know that it was 1930s and stuff, but it's just funny to watch and laugh at for some reason. Of course... at the time, that King Kong was spectacular. But, come now, you can't admire what it was before after seeing what there is now.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: I Just Watched

Back in the day. Everything is very scripted, it's really not funny.

King Kong wasn't suppose to be funny though. I don't know what your cut-off is for "back in the day" but I can assure you good acting existed then.

But, come now, you can't admire what it was before after seeing what there is now.

Why can't you admire it? I don't see how anybody who uses a little bit of perspective cannot admire this movie. It was groundbreaking special effects, an original story, and a new twist on the Beauty & the Beast relationship. The only thing the movie suffered from, IMO, were the under developed characters. Thats like saying you can't admire the original Star Wars because of the new special effects in the new episodes.

And Keanu is, typically, a bad actor. He's 2-dimensional. The only role is capable of performing well is the slacker/stoner role. Its not that he doesn't show many expressions, he doesn't show any expression or know how to change the tone of his voice. Everytime he speaks it sounds like I'm listening to a documentary for a science class.

[Blzer]

Re: I Just Watched

Everytime he speaks it sounds like I'm listening to a documentary for a science class.

I feel the same with Morgan Freeman, but I admire the strength in his voice nonetheless. I enjoy watching his movies all of the time (same with Keanu, though).

Anyway, I think I went overboard with my statement on King Kong in the 1930s not being considered admirable. Of course it is. What I meant to say is that I don't see how somebody should choose to enjoy one thing over the other because of it in comparison to everything else in its time. It's like... I mean, if there's something better, I'll shoot for it and call it better than its predecessor (or original).

I don't admire a movie for being original (against its remake/s). I'll admire the story and the originality of the movie, but to me, the story is the same, so I'll go for what's better everywhere else. I know I've said this before, but I don't believe in "Classics"... at least, for them to be better just because they are classics.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: I Just Watched

I don't admire a movie for being original (against its remake/s). I'll admire the story and the originality of the movie, but to me, the story is the same, so I'll go for what's better everywhere else. I know I've said this before, but I don't believe in "Classics"... at least, for them to be better just because they are classics.

Why can't you admire a movie for being original, especially when comparing it to remakes? Of course the story, for the most part, is going to be the same, or else it wouldn't be a remake. It took more effort, time, and most importantly, creativity for the original than the remake. The original had to start from scratch. Remakes is essentially like a paint by number. They already have the story, the characters, the problem, the climax, and the resolution. Admiration doesn't necessarily mean you like it over the other, it just means that you acknowledge the fact that the story was once unique and original, until it became a cliche as the years went by.