This was WAAAYYYYY better Kino than Skull Island. Dont you think Sup Forums?
>Better Story
>More realistic Kong
>Acting and Characrers were far superior especially with beautiful Naomi Watts.
>Fight scenes were GOAT as fuck compared to Skull Island
Skull Island dont have shit on King Kong.
>>Better Story
True.
>>More realistic Kong
25 foot gorilla vs 100 foot gorilla. It's still a giant fucking gorilla. Regardless, the creatures in SI were better that 2005.
>>Acting and Characrers were far superior especially with beautiful Naomi Watts.
Watts good acting was drowned out by Jack Black, meanwhile John Goodman and Samuel Jackson complemented each other nicely. The only bad actor in Skull was Larson, but even then she was better than Black.
>>Fight scenes were GOAT as fuck compared to Skull Island
Ahahahaha, you dumb nigger. You actually think dinosaurs swinging around from vines beats anything in SI?
Neck urself.
I agree OP
Yes.
Watts alone is more memorable than the entire Skull Island's cast.
>Pleb, pedantic and proud: The post.
Agreed, Saw SI earlier today and just thought it was mediocre and I went into it wanting to love the movie.
I just wanted some B movie monster battles, and I got it
The in-your-face war critiques were surprisingly well done for what the movie was intended to be
>Watts good acting was drowned out by Jack Black
this, what the hell was hackson thinking
>John Goodman and Samuel Jackson complemented each other nicely. The only bad actor in Skull was Larson
This has to be bait. Literally everyone was either wasted or shit.
>Hating Jack Black in King Kong
Why? I think he was good
It used a tried and true story and had a larger budget. The ice rink scene was stupid and Jimmy Hayes plot went nowhere.
KSI at least tried something new. Not necessarily better but Kong scenes were good and the Ahab Sam Jackson was cool. Brie larson's character was awful
>Skull island had better creates
Woah all 4 of them?
>Creatures
I haven't even seen Skull Island and already know the creatures from 2005 are more memorable. That dude getting all his limbs eaten couldn't have possibly been surpassed
I don't see how King Kong 2005 can be considered better when it didn't even do the very basic lead-in to a future Godzilla crossover.
its an overblown mess that doesnt know how to pace itself. all the excessive shti like the stampede and 3 t rex fight only add to how bloated it is. its basically a precurser to what hackson would do to the hobbit. he loves kogn to much to make a good movie out of this overengorged mess.
>>more realistic
this matters? ina dinosaur filled island where half the characters shouldve died (jimmy shooting the bugs off jack and ann shouldve having ehr neck broken when kong ran with her in hand).
its just a bloated over drawn out remake of a story told well the first time, fuck even the second time telling it was better than this time.
The worst was the stampede.
Dude getting shishkebab'd by a giant spider tops it.
At least Peter Jackson TRIED to make a great movie, unlike this new Shit Kong: Shit Island fiasco.
the bronto stampede and the "let's shoot giant bugs off each other with machine guns" scenes were the worst scenes
It wins simply by having better characters.
Kong Skull Island managed to get some of the best old and new up and coming actors and have them do almost nothing for 2 hours.
The two dinos fighting King Kong in 2005 is far more memorable than anything in Skull Island.
Godzilla tease made my dick hard.
PJs Kong also had a pretty based game that came out with it
The game was better than the movie desu
Kinda want to buy a PS2 to replay it
it was on 360 as well
Seeing Skull Island tomorrow and had never seen the original, so I did last night. Great fucking movie. I had to flip a switch in my head to appreciate the FX and imagine what someone in 1933 might have thought. It's violent as hell too. Several gruesome on screen deaths in the version I watched. And Fay Wray's tits.
1933 - 9/10
1976 - 5/10
2005 - 5/10
It wasn't the planes...