At the same time, it is a love letter to the original, that doesn't dishonor or disrespect it in any way, and even puts in special nods to the fans like incorporating a version of the deleted spider pit scene. They made it a more personal, emotional story, with a beautifully told 'love story' between Ann Darrow and Kong that simply didn't exist in the original film. As someone said about The Fly, they didn't just approach the 2005 Kong as trying to one-up the special effects of the original. The original Kong film is great, but at this point it feels more like an animatic that was just a stepping stone on the way to making the 2005 masterpiece, which is a full-blooded, fully realized vision.

The 'Kong' in the more recent 'Monsterverse' movies is just a pathetic character compared to Jackson's Kong.

Saw it on the big screen twice and I wish they'd bring it back. One of the best adventure movies I have ever seen. Īnd like others on this thread I find the '41 version of THE MALTESE FALCON the superior version of the movie. I find the 1951 movie decent but nowhere near as scary as Carpenter's version. I dig the 1982 version of THE THING more highly than the '51 version. I've seen both versions of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH several times now and favor the '34 by quite a bit. What the British version lacks in budget and technical polish I find it makes up for by being more entertaining. out like the too-long Albert Hall sequence.

It also helped that the '34 was 45 minutes shorter than the '56 everything was wrapped up and not who cares? The 1934 featured a little girl who was more interesting and I wanted her to be found because the 'Bad Guys' were an odious bunch. I didn't care if the little boy was found in the 1956 version. Yecch! Plus, the villains in the 1956 version are nowhere near as much fun as watching Peter Lorre menace the protagonists in the '34. → I'll take Peter-As-The-Villain over that infernal song and its various appearances in the '56. The '34 version has Peter Lorre as the Main Villain. Despite the obviously large difference in budget.

The '56 is unnecessarily long at 120 minutes while the 1934 original does a tidy job of wrapping things up in 75 minutes. The '56 is a decent movie and I kinda like it, but there's too much 'fat' in the picture. I know Hitchcock favored the '56, but give me the '34 if I had a choice of which to watch. I believe 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' was the only one of Hitchcock's films he re-made. I have the direct opposite view of the 1956 version of THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH.

Casino royale deleted scene