This, Or The 2010 Remake?


Not even close. THIS! Much better storytelling, more passion, more heart, somewhat better acting (the protagonists in both versions are weak, but, much as I like Liam Neeson, it’s hard to equal Sir Laurence Olivier) and the swan song for the stop-action animation of Ray Harryhausen, to
which homage was paid in Coraline. To its great credit, the 2010 version included a scene with the mechanical owl from the original. YES! The FX in the remake were more fluid and compelling. So were the FX in all remakes of King Kong. So what? The heart and passion of the first Kong (once again, with Harryhausen’s stop-motion animation FX) tower over the remakes.

reply

This one has better acting. The new has better CGI. We all love CGI. LOL.

reply

I like them both for the reasons you listed. The remake has grown on me over the years. I like CGI in the remake, those giant scorpions looked damn good. And for all the heart and soul lacking, it still had better action over original. Still original is always gonna be a classic with better acting and atmosphere.

reply

Absolutely agree! The original has heart, it takes its story seriously without being overwrought, has room for a little humor, is blessed with the ethereal beauty of Judi Bowker, and of course features the last work of the wonder-working Ray Harryhausen.

reply

Despite the cheesy special-effects, I prefer this film, hands down. It has all the heart, soul, and substance the 2010 disaster did not. But the 2010 movie does get points for a truly scary and terrifying Krakken.

reply

1981 but I do like the remake

reply

I like both versions, but the Kraken in this original version is so much better it's off the charts.

reply

I liked this one, but I haven't seen the remake.

reply

The CGI in the remake looked terrible. I'll take the original any day over the remake.

reply