what is wrong with KING KONG?

Question

I am talking about the new one..

its based on the 1933 version, and except for not being in black and white i thought it was damn near a perfect remake.

They even went as far as geting some original props for it.

So why do people put it as one of the worst remakes? have yaul seen the original?

dont critisize it based on the shitty remake of 1976 that was a piece of junk.

yes but at least this time it didnt look like a man with a bad back.. the 1976 one you could tell it was a man in a suit.. he moved terible and the eyes were off with the suit movements.

Answer 1

Clom, it's a tough question for me, but I'll try and give you an honest response.
Peter Jackson's Kong is partly remake, partly elaboration, and partly homage to the original Kong. That it tries so hard to be all three is the reason that, at least for me, it doesn't work.
The original Kong is a classic, tightly-wound, non-stop monster/adventure tale, that after a brief prologue, gets down to business and never lets up. Kong himself is primal, elemental, unique, devastatingly powerful, and ultimately tragic. Kong's island home is haunting, mysterious, full of darkness and danger, as is the jungle of New York that he is brought to. The savagery of Kong is matched only by the savagery of the planes which riddle him with bullets and send him toppling off the Empire State Building. Fay Wray's Ann Darrow is a glowing light in the darkness, enchanting to Kong, and ultimately the reason for his downfall. The fact that the film is in black-and-white, regardless of the technological reasons for its use at the time, gives the original a mystic, almost nightmarish quality that no amount of wide-screen color or digital magic can come near to recreating.

Jackson's film is first, too long. It takes too long to establish its characters, its plot and subplots, and then makes too little use of them. Once the action switches to Skull Island, once again, there is too much going on to focus on the main story. Dinosaur stampedes, multi-dino attacks on Kong, ghastly goings on in the pit, pointless minor character interactions, though interesting and exhilarating, detract from Kong himself, and the premise that he is a primal force that the adventurers have no experience in dealing with, until by stealth, cunning and explosives, they can
overcome him.
Jackson's decision to have Kong presented as a more gorilla-like entity (taking into account that we know a lot more about how real gorillas behave than anyone did in 1933) is fascinating, and changes the relationship between he and Ann Darrow and the way they interact in a lot of new and different ways, and increases the sympathetic bond between the two. But, then, it comes as much less of a surprise when we pity Kong's destruction at the end of the film. ---One of the most sriking things about the original Kong is that, despite Kong's ferocity and nearly unrelieved destructive vindictiveness all lthrough the film, we are moved beyond measure when we realize in the very last few moments of the film, his nearly human love and tenderness for Ann. That's one of the reasons the original is so great. It changes our perceptions.
For all of these reasons, all I can say for Peter Jackson's Kong is, nice try, thanks for reminding us why the original has retained its greatness or over 73 years.

Answer 2

I am a big fan of the 1933 King Kong. It is a classic, so I was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed this remake .The 1976 remake, most people will agree, was just plain silly.

Answer 3

Because of the special effects. You yawn at them. In the original and the Jessica Lange version, not much of FX.

Answer 4

I have seen all three. I think they are ok, but I was never a big fan of KING KONG...he's just "ok" to me. I saw the 1976 one in the threater....I was 14.

Answer 5

I dont know about you but i really enjoyed the special effects. I Think ILM and Weta worked together on this one