King Kong (1976) User Reviews

"King" of the remakes...

[Mister-6 · 7/10 · 30 January 2000]

Okay, I'll admit that I was a kid when I first saw this so this review is done wearing rose-colored glasses. But having seen this '76 remake of "King Kong", my opinion hasn't changed much: it's still great! Maybe not the equal of the original, but how could it be? It does well enough in its own behalf.

The music grabs you right off: John Barry did aces with his pounding, dramatic score. And you couldn't ask for a better cast; Lange does okay for a first role, Bridges makes linear-thought acting look easy and Grodin is about as slimy a baddie as you could ask for. The bit parts are also filled with familiar faces (Bernsen, Piscopo, Auberjoinois, Lauter, Randolph and Lone) who acquit themselves quite well.

A lot of people blast the monkey suit. But I think Rick Baker did a good job with it. Of COURSE it's a guy in a monkey suit, but it's a guy in a WELL-DONE monkey suit. It still gets me when Kong blew-dry Dwan (Lange after her waterfall shower); those puffed-out cheeks, especially in 1976, were high tech enough for me (remember, this was before "Star Wars" came out).

But we all know how the story works; any of us who have a rudimentary knowledge of the original, that is. The new twist was having the emotional connection between Lange and ape. More enlightened than having her scream endlessly. The Twin Towers scene near the end was not only exciting but quietly moving, as it showed just how much the beast cared for his beauty.

There's plenty of corn in this one, no argument, but it's corn for a good cause. I loved "King Kong" and if I had a chance, I'd buy a copy! Anyone have John Guillermin's phone number?

Seven stars for "Kong"; long live the "King"!

One of the great movies of my youth

[Ralpho · 7/10 · 3 August 2002]

"King Kong" was one of my all-time favorite movies when I was a teenager. It was the big 'event' movie of 1976 and showed on two screens in most multiplexes. It might have been the first movie to get that treatment. With a production cost of $24 million it was the most expensive movie ever made at that time.

Promotional material offered for sale dwarfed anything that had been done in that area before. A fast-food joint offered King Kong collectible glasses (I still have a set). And you could find posters, T-shirts and a 'Making Of King Kong' book.

I very much enjoyed 'King Kong' as a 17-year-old high school senior, but not so much later as an adult. The romance between Dwan and Jack seemed contrived once I got older. Other aspects of the film struck me as just dumb. Like the ship's radar being able to pick up Kong when he was walking around the island. Or the SUNNY aerial shot of the people walking on the allegedly fog-shrouded island. Or Jack's theory that the fog was produced not by a huge supply of crude oil near the surface, but by 'animal respiration.' As if King Kong's breathing caused the fog bank. Give me a break!

Yet there's something about movies one enjoyed as a youth that makes them special for the rest of one's life, no matter how bad they really are.

But 'King Kong' had it's good points, too. First of all, it was funny. Charles Grodin's portrayal of the greedy, desperate oil company executive is scenery-chewing at its best. For years after, I watched in vain for Grodin to play a similar character, but everything else he has done is nothing like his work in 'King Kong.' (Nothing as good either, I might add.)

Speaking of singular performances, you won't recognize René Auberjonois if your frame of reference is his work on 'Benson' and 'Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.' The voice he uses in 'King Kong' is nothing like the gravely voice we're used to hearing.

Jeff Bridges is perfect in the role of Jack Prescott. His long hair is a nice touch, although it probably turned off some of the older people in the theater. Jeff has a way with a sarcastic line that few actors can equal.

Jessica Lange comes off worse than any other actor in the film. Not because of her performance, which is fine, but because her character is an airhead who is only there to be protected (and rescued when that doesn't work) from Kong. The fact that her costumes were chosen for their ability to showcase her body and that her breasts are briefly visible when Kong undresses her has got to make the actress cringe nowadays when she thinks about this movie.

I'll close by noting that John Barry's score of 'King Kong' was terrific. Twenty-six years after the movie debuted and I can still remember the title tune.

Despite it's bad reputation I actually rather enjoyed it.

[poolandrews · 7/10 · 25 January 2006]

King Kong starts in 'Surbabaya Indonesia' in a port where the 'Petrox Explorer' is about to set sail for a previously uncharted island recently photographed by a satellite orbiting the Earth, the photo's revealed that there is a possibility that the island is a rich source of oil & Petrox executive Fred S. Wilson (Charles Grodin) wants to get his hands on it before his competitors. Just before the ship sets sail paleontologist Jack Prescot (Jeff Bridges) sneaks aboard in hope of studying the islands untouched wildlife. As they head for the island they discover a raft floating in the open sea & pick up has been actress Dawn (Jessica Lange). Once on the island the initial landing party discover a primitive tribe who fear & worship a god they call Kong & they want to offer the pretty Dawn as a sacrifice, an idea which no-one is that keen about. That night back aboard the ship some natives kidnap Dawn, take her back to the island, chain her up & leave her for Kong who turns out to be a 40 foot Gorilla. Kong takes a shine to Dawn & carries her off, a rescue party is already on the island & they must set out to try & save Dawn from Kong & whatever other horrors the island holds...

Directed by John Guillermin I actually had a fair amount of fun with this usually hated remake of the original 1933 classic. The script by Lorenzo Semple Jr. moves like an absolute rocket & at least is never dull or boring but at the same time it's rather camp & silly. Would a 40 foot Gorilla really be able to avoid detection in Manhattan by simply hiding behind a skyscraper? Would a 40 foot Gorilla be able to 'sneak' up on someone? What are the chances of a small raft being found in the middle of the ocean? The odds must be astronomical! A fog bank that remains totally unchanged for 100's of years? Wouldn't the wind not affect it at all? It sticks to the originals basic story except that all the monsters & dinosaurs are gone & have been replaced by a rubber snake that looks like one of those draft excluder's that you place at the bottom of doors. This is one aspect of the original that is sorely missed in this remake. The character's are over-the-top but quite likable, Wilson as the annoying Petrox executive irritates though. I liked it as a piece of harmless entertaining fun although it can't really compare to the original.

Director Guillermin does an OK job, apparently Roman Polanski, Michael Winner & Sam Peckinpah were offered the chance to direct but turned it down, all I can say is I'd have loved to see what Michael Winner would have come up with! Now the special effects, well apparently Carlo Rambaldi built a 40 foot full sized mechanical Kong at a cost of $1.7 million but has about a minute of screen time & it looks awful so Guillermin went with Rick Baker in a monkey suit & the results variable to say the least. Each Kink Kong film had to work within limitations & are a product of they're time, the original has stop motion animation that won't impress many these days, this one has a man in a rubber suit & the recent remake has the nicest CGI effects you can get.

With a healthy budget of about $25,000,000 King Kong is well made & has that Hollywood polish to it although I'm not sure it deserved two Oscar nominations, the Hawaiian locations are nice & the climax atop the World Trade Center has a strange feeling to it. The acting is OK but nothing spectacular.

I know a lot of people dislike this remake, personally I'm judging it on it's own as I feel it's a completely separate film from the original or Peter Jacksons big budget remake. If you prefer the original to this than fine watch that, & I have to say now I'm a huge fan of it, as no-one is forcing you to watch or like this. Good fun & provides a couple of hours of entertainment & thats all I want in a film.

Guilty Pleasure

[jrs-8 · 7/10 · 11 August 2004]

I hate to admit this having read many of the reviews but I can't help but enjoy "King Kong". Yes I realize it is silly and yest I realize the special effects aren't.... well, special. But I was 11 years old when this came out at Christmas in 1976. The hype was huge. The posters screamed that it was "The Motion Picutre Event of Our Time". I was caught up in it all and the film has a lot of fond memories for me.

On the positive side I think John Barry's score is one of his best. The lack of an Oscar nomination was a crime. Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin (playing a bad guy for a change) are acceptable in their roles. Jessica Lange didn't exactly hint there was a two time Oscar winner present but she looked awfully good. And the supporting cast featuring character actors (Ed Lauter, John Randolph, etc) we've seen over and over again.

It's no classic. It may not even be that good. But every time it's on I watch it and enjoy it despite its flaws. I guess that's what a guilty pleasure is all about. And this may be my guiltiest pleasure.

Honestly, I Think This Is The Best Kong Film

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 20 May 2011]

A petroleum exploration expedition comes to an isolated island and encounters a colossal giant gorilla.

While certainly one has to give credit to the original 1933 film, I actually think this one succeeds in ways that one did not. Sure, some of it is cheesy (the ape suit is not very believable), but it brings the film to modern times. The oil company angle was interesting, and the references to "Deep Throat" were, um, interesting...

I know at the time there was a complaint that the Empire State Building was changed to the World Trade Center. Now, I guess there are two ways I can look at this. The part of me that prefers homages says that the Empire State Building was the only real proper choice. But now, seeing the film in 2011, I have to say that capturing the World Trade Center on film is a bit more historic -- though they could not have known that at the time.

Oscar award-winning Jeff Bridges is excellent as always, here playing a liberal archaeologist or anthropologist or something like that. He seems to be a jack of all trades, smuggling himself on board and being useful at countless moments (and yes, his name is appropriately enough Jack). The hair and beard give him that "Dude" look, and I can never get enough of that.

Last comment: Jessica Lange, what the heck? I have never before and will never again find her attractive. But here, she wins me over. And the rumor is that Barbra Streisand could have received the part? Yuck! Lange was the right choice, by far... and what a way to start a career.

One of the Most Brilliant Films of the 70s--no, really!

[curtis-8 · 9/10 · 20 January 2005]

King Kong (1976) King Kong was a huge hit back in the seventies--I know because I was there, I saw the frenzy, I remember the crowded theaters. Now, admittedly, it also had a huge pr campaign, which undoubtedly helped it garner a lot of that dough, but there was a lot more to the flick than just the hype. And it could have probably been an even bigger hit if the filmmakers had played it safe and hadn't gone out of their way to make a film so stubbornly odd. I mean this thing stomps over a gigantic swath of styles: panoramic spectacle, high adventure, pathos, romance, social commentary, absurdist comedy, thrills, and occasionally outright goofiness--all comprised in a slyly satiric package designed to tweak the noses of Kong purists. Lorenzo Semple Jr.'s ("Papillon ") screenplay is all over the place when it comes to style and tone, borrowing from whatever and whenever, almost as though it had been patched together from several different treatments--yet it still remains incredibly tight in terms of interesting, well-drawn, consistent characters, witty dialog, exploration of theme, and the forward momentum of the plot. King Kong 76 is a great example of anarchic postmodernism being perfectly wed to the staunch formalism of good storytelling. A contemporary example of this approach would be Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill films.

The direction by veteran John Guillermin was absolutely fearless, pushing each of Semple's concepts to its limit, even at the risk of seeming silly. And he had a great cast to work with, especially young Jessica Lange in her first film role. Unfortunately, Jessica played the role of the vivacious, childlike, kinda dimwitted bubblehead blonde Dwan so incredibly well that most people wrote her off, assuming she was just a dumb blonde playing herself. But in actuality it is a bravura performance, one of the best in her career, and certainly a more individual, more fully-realized character performance than we get in most movies these days.

As big a hit as the disco era Kong was, however, there were a lot of people who were put off because they weren't expecting anything as freewheeling and insane as what they were given. They weren't expecting weirdness and satire. They weren't expecting to see Kong blowing a hot, wet blonde dry after a dip in a lake (metaphors anyone?), a scene simultaneously erotic and ridiculous. They weren't expecting to see the captured Kong turned in to a corporate shill--is there any scene in mainstream 70s cinema more surrealistically satiric than that of Kong being presented to the masses encased in a thirty story replica of a gasoline pump? They also were not expecting to see a big budget adventure film with a downer ending--the romantic leads ending up emotionally separated by their experiences instead of united. And they didn't expect to feel bad when the monster died.

So I put it to you all that not only was the 1976 Kong a financial success, it was also an artistic success. But you can't watch it as a remake of a classic film. It is no more a remake of the 1933 King Kong than Quentin's Kill Bill is a remake of Sonny Chiba's Streetfighter's Revenge. Watch the film for what it is, not what you think it should have been, or what you wanted it to be, and you will be better able to appreciate its cracked brilliance.

That King Kong - he make-a-me cry!

[george.schmidt · 11 April 2003]

KING KONG (1976) ***1/2 Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange (debut), Charles Grodin, Rene Aubejonois, John Randolph, Ed Lauter, John Agar. Remake of the big ape run amok in NYC is just as good as the original classic with some excellent special effects and Rick Baker (self-professed "Monster Maker" make-up man) in the monkey suit. Campy in dialogue yet surprisingly emotional more so than its predecessor making Kong sympathetic as well as Lange's heroine feeling for the poor doomed creature. Admit you cried at the film's bloody end! Best moment: Kong cleaning up a muddy Lange. PS : look for John Lone as Grodin's masseur.

A GUILTY PLEASURE FOR SURE- I LOVE IT!

[lotsafun · 10/10 · 29 November 2004]

Another poster called this Kong a guilty pleasure. I agree. It's flawed and the special effects are not very special by today's standards and there's a lot of silly stuff. I won't argue about any of that. It's all true. And so what? I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I love the flaws and the not-so-special effects and all of the silly stuff. I enjoyed Dwan's comment about telling Prescott's sign by his ears and all of her silly lines to Kong. Jessica Lange is beautiful, lovely, and wonderful. Jeff Bridges is excellent too and how can ya not hate Charles Grodin in this? He's the character I most love to hate! Great work! King Kong himself is always entertaining in this even if he is incredibly goofy at times depending on which special effect they used. The giant robot Kong just kills me! LOL! I loved it! When they use an actor in a costume it works better and dammit this Kong has got the most soulful eyes! My heart strings were tugged by this sweet and silly movie. POOR KONG! HE'S JUST LOOKIN' FOR LOVE! WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE?! I guess if they did there'd be no movie. No this isn't a perfect movie but I agree with the poster who said this movie is an old friend. All of the flaws are part of it's charm and I've had a wonderful time with this Kong.

It could have been worse, as Peter Jackson proved 29 years later.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 14 August 2009]

Director John Guillerman's updated version of the classic monster story sees petroleum giant Petrox mounting an expedition to the legendary Skull Island in the hope of discovering new oil deposits. Seizing a chance for a free trip to the supposed home of a mythical giant ape, paleontologist Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges) stows away on board, and the expedition is also joined midway by beautiful castaway Dwan (Jessica Lange), who is found drifting in a life-raft after a violent storm sinks the yacht she was travelling on.

On arriving at the island, the explorers do indeed discover oil, but also find that the island is inhabited by a savage tribe who worship an ape god named Kong, and they want Dwan to be his bride, whether she agrees to the ceremony or not...

Jaws might have been the first ever summer blockbuster, but it was this 1976 remake of King Kong that turned a mere movie into an 'event': I can clearly recall the hype, the build-up, and the excitement that preceded its release, and on seeing the film, I remember being absolutely enthralled. Admittedly, I was only 8 at the time, and any trip to the cinema was an experience, but this was Kong, and as far as I was concerned, he ruled!

Unfortunately, critics weren't quite as happy with Guilllerman's version of the great ape adventure as I was: the movie was panned, and was even considered a flop despite making bags of cash. On re-watching the film, I now recognise the flaws in the script, the inadequacies of the effects, and the silliness of the dialogue, but overall, I gotta say that I still find this film a lot of fun-not as much as the '33 original (of course), but certainly more than Peter Jackson's recent bloated, three hour long exercise in excess.

Guillerman's direction is solid without being too showy, his cast are likable enough (although Lange's ditzy Marilyn Monroe style performance does irritate at times), the plot modifications are bearable given the contemporary setting, and the beautiful cinematography, by Richard H. Kline, not only delivers some breathtaking shots of the stunning locales, but also makes the most of Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi's ape effects. From a distance, Kong does look rather iffy-clearly a man in a monkey suit-but the close ups are incredible, with the creature displaying a remarkable range of expressions and emotions; the scene where Kong dries his woman after a waterfall shower is particularly impressive, with the cheeks puffing up and the lips blowing air over an appreciative Lange.

As far as excitement is concerned, don't expect too much from the island based action-the famous tree scene is kinda disappointing, and Kong only gets to wrestle one rather rubbery snake-but once our massive primate gets to New York, the really good stuff kicks in: after Kong has broken free from his cage, he gets to play havoc with the subway, goes for a swim in the Hudson, scales the World Trade Centre, is attacked by flamethrowers, leaps from one tower to another, and trashes a couple of helicopters. Then he is shot to pieces and falls to the ground.

As time has passed, people have gradually come to accept that this attempt at re-filming King Kong isn't as terrible as it was originally painted to be. And if you've seen the other two versions, you might as well see this one as well; you never know, you might enjoy it!

The worst King Kong

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 5 June 2011]

I adore the 1933 film and liked the 2005 remake, but while I don't hate this I dislike it. The cinematography, sets and most of the costumes are good, the music is decent, Jeff Bridges does what he can in his role and succeeds and I loved King Kong's ape face(if not his costume) as it did look great. However, the film is overlong and filled with pointless exposition that goes absolutely nowhere, while on the whole the entire Skull Island sequence is uneventful and devoid of tension, mystery and atmosphere. The script may be grittier and more cynical, but some of the dialogue is also so bad it makes you cringe, Charles Grodin and Jessica Lange get the worst of it. The story is poorly paced and dull, while I felt nothing for the characters and didn't believe at all in the contrived romance. Apart from Bridges the acting is very bland, Charles Grodin is more annoying than funny, Jessica Lange is very sexy but her performance is marred by insipid dialogue and a poorly written character and King Kong is little more than a man in a cheap giant ape suit and there were times when I found him creepy(in a bad way) rather than lovable and poignant. In conclusion, for me despite Bridges and other decent aspects this is the worst King Kong movie. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Why Does Everyone Hate This Version?

[TheCritic909 · 10/10 · 17 December 2005]

People seem to jump on the old' bandwagon when bashing Kong '76. It's not that bad!!! For '76 I'd say it was quite an achievement. Lange is great in it (and quite stunningly beautiful) and Bridges always rules. Can't go wrong with this version... don't believe the negative hype. I, for one, appreciate it when someone does a remake and actually interprets the story differently. Carpenter did it with The Thing and Cronenberg did it with the fly and both were amazing. I think this movies gets more negative comments because they are comparing it to the original, which back in its day was the first movie of its kind (Mighty Joe Young is still better!). For movie purists, the thought of remaking a landmark film is always touchy territory. Thus, they rip the remake. The core story is still basically the same, the writers just updated key elements that were pivotal 'classic' moments from the original (empire state building for one). Again the purists cry foul. Bottomline, see it and give it a chance... ignore the pompous so called "experts".

not as good the original but still a good remake

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 9/10 · 22 May 2014]

This is not as good as King Kong (1933) or King Kong (2005) But still a good movie third beast King Kong movie. It is better then the sequels to King Kong (1933). First there was Son of Kong from 1933. Then there was King Kong vs Godzilla from 1963. Then there was King Kong escapes from 1968. Those were good movie. All the King Kong movie are good. But those was better then Son of Kong or King Kong vs Godzilla or King Kong escapes. Some people go to an uncharted island to drill for oil. They end up battling a giant killer gorilla. It is a very good movie. Great acting. Great special effects. Great story. See this movie. See all the King Kong movies. This is a great great movie.

It dared to be different

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 9/10 · 9 January 2006]

I'd heard nothing but abuse of this film, but in fact on watching it I loved it. I thought it was a brilliant updating of the original scenario into the then-contemporary world (when you change plans from oil discovery to ape-capture, you simply call for an airdrop; the island is discovered via illicit satellite pictures, not a hearsay map drawn by a dying man), and for me it has the emotional punch that the original just doesn't have.

I was terribly disappointed when I finally saw the Cooper/Schoedsack version after enjoying this so much, since I'd heard for so long how much better it was: I was really enjoying the start, but then about halfway through it suddenly lost interest in all the characters and turned into an SFX orgy. The "Beauty and the Beast" phrase is constantly overworked, so that by the time you get to the famous last line you've heard it so often you're just tired of it; it could have been effective if they'd done it just once or twice. Fay Wray (who was a fine actress in the couple of other films of hers I've seen) is just wasted, spending more time showing her legs than showing her talent, and Bruce Cabot is simply not romantic-lead material. The one character I still liked by the end was Denham himself, and I was glad to see him show up in the sequel -- which I liked much better, being as it had far more human story and far fewer monster-fights!

(It was interesting seeing the 1933 "King Kong" again after the Merian C. Cooper documentary, though, and spotting the autobiographical in-jokes!)

I don't 'get' the critique that the film's politics are outdated, unless the suggestion is that oil companies don't have their share of ambitious underlings: the girl Dwan could have passed for a satire on today's I'm a Celebrity/Reality TV culture, and I'm told that primate protection is a hotter issue than ever... Actually, I liked Dwan (as a character, not as a person! Although she does come across as more sympathetic when she's interacting with the ape.) The whole astrology obsession/pretentious name/gratuitous body-flashing thing was a pretty accurate -- and hence funny -- take-off of Females I Have Known, and yet she is a recognisably real human being underneath all the man-catching trappings, with enough imagination to suffer.

Most of the attacks on the film I've seen, when you get down to it, are along the lines of "how dare they? they changed the *plot*!" Which seems to me to be missing the whole point of a re-make, or of the only kind that's worth doing, anyhow: to take the heart of the story and retell it in a way that's new and yet the same. In remaking "King Kong", they took a plot that didn't work for me, cut out almost all the bits that didn't work -- no random dinosaurs as Kong fails his wandering monsters roll, no single convenient escape-vine dangling over the edge of his clifftop hideaway, no ape close-ups with rolling eye-whites, no endless 'beauty and the beast' -- cleverly updated the scenario to make the myth of the thing amazingly plausible in a modern world, and above all managed to retain the character interest all the way through. Not to mention making Kong a genuinely sympathetic creature as well as a terrifying one, and creating a biting and tragic finale.

Where I thought it failed, ironically enough, was in two scenes that were a direct homage to the original. The scene where Kong rolls the log looked much more fake than all the surrounding footage, and it seemed very cursorily done: this was one of the few scenes I found effective in the original 'chase' sequence, and here it seemed very two-dimensional. And the single monster-fight that they did retain, with the inexplicable weird-headed snake, was not only unconvincing but felt as gratuitous as its predecessor (which was at least better choreographed!) It must surely have been apparent during filming that this wasn't working -- couldn't they have come up with some more imaginative way of distracting Kong at the vital moment?

Definately has its moments

[oldreekie546 · 23 May 2003]

In an era when many hollywood blockbusters are criticised for an over-reliance on sophisticated special effects to the detriment of everything else, this poorly remembered remake stands as a cautionary example of what can happen when a basically decent film gets let down by low-tech back up.

Producer Dino De Laurentis both cheated and deceived his audience here; selling the film on the hype of a state of the art full-size hydraulic ape that would re-define the effects landscape. Instead, what we got was the tired old fallback of the man in a monkey suit waddling bow-legged around some highly unconvincing sets.

Its such a shame because this film actually has a lot going for it. The screenplay is sprightly, good-humoured and faithful to the original while updating it with some then topical issues like fuel crises, feminism and even pornography. The makers also have a whale of a time with endless phallic imagery and self-referential quips more common to movies of the 90s than 70s.

The characters are far more quirky and idiosynchratic than you normally get in this sort of fare; a hippie academic, a star-struck, dipsy blonde and a buttoned-up corporate shark. Lange has gone on to become one of the most honoured and respected actresses of her generation, yet her career almost died right here. She was actually so good at playing the shallow, D-list airhead that critics and public alike thought it a reflection of her real self and dismissed her out of hand. Yet looking at her performance in hindsight she just oozes skill and star quality.

The film hardly puts a foot wrong until Kong appears. The production is smooth, the photography impressive, the locations superb and the story and characters engaging. But a fantasy adventure stands and falls by the suspension of disbelief achieved at the crucial moment. The first act of the 1933 Kong drags interminably until the King himself appears - then it soars. The reverse happens here; Rick Baker turns up in his ape suit, knocking down plastic trees and fighting a big rubber snake and the spell is shattered - in fact it was never even cast. The problem is also compounded by the screenplay's only serious error; making Kong sympathetic and pitiable far too early. The original Kong was always awesome and scary, even when he began to become sympathetic. Here he is just a bit too likeable, to quickly.

That the film remains just about watchable after this point is a testament to the performers and the strength of the story, but ultimately this effort has to go down as a missed opportunity to make a quality remake of a legendary film. Lets hope Peter Jackson doesn't make the same mistake next time round. You can't imagine him getting the film visually wrong, but it would be ironic indeed if he fell into the modern malaise of neglecting other key elements like story and character. Indeed, he could do worse than give the first hour of this movie a peek before he puts pen to paper.

A Pleasure (Sorry, NOT Guilty!)

[gwphelps2001 · 23 June 2003]

After recently rewatching King Kong '76, I was able to reconnect with why this movie haunts me to this day. True, I do LOVE both versions, being a bit of a MONSTER JONES, but it's Kong '76 that pushes buttons for me that other monster movies don't. It's something that goes beyond awkwardly dated special effects and trespassing upon classic cinema. By God, it IS Rick Baker in that ape suit, lumbering along to John Barry's emotionally moving music. Kong is more of an oversized, misunderstood pet, than a marauding monster. He is loyal to the death to the one who fulfills his emotional need, Jessica Lange. We like her because she looks and sounds like a Marilyn Monroe clone. He likes her because she tries to talk to him and doesn't try to hurt him. Kong is not really the source of the fear, though he does some terrible things. What really scares you is the almost overwhelming power and destructive force of the movie's true monster: modern civilization. No matter how loud Kong roars, the machine guns of three helicopter gunships are louder. Kong transformed from classic movie monster to symbol for nature and the environment in this movie, and that didn't set well with critics. Lange's Dwan, Jeff Bridges' Prescott, me and anyone else who watches events unfold in this movie with an open mind is rooting for Kong, but ultimately there's that stomach turning feeling deep in our gut that reminds us that despite our best efforts and intentions, it's not to be. The Powers That Be have decried that Kong is too big to live, it's too much trouble to capture him, he's gone too far and has to be "put down." To view Kong '76 as a MONSTER MOVIE is something of a mistake by everyone concerned. True Kong is a monster, in that he is monstrous, but like Mary Shelley's "Creature" in Frankenstein, Kong is that freak that nobody wants and everybody fears: He is the truth. The authorities knew that Kong had no place in a bustling city like New York, but instead of trying to right the wrong of their own exploitive nature, they cut the Big Guy down in a hail of bullets and make him fall to his death. Kong's death in '76 was even more pointless than in '33. In '33 it was like trying to escape a wild Grizzly bear. In '76 it was like watching your beloved pet get run over. It's a helpless sadness that transcends tears, cuts deep and somehow stays with you awhile. I sometimes stop the video of Kong '76 just as the Big Fella turns to face the choppers. So I can remember him large and in charge, on top of one of the majestic World Trade towers and giving the proverbial finger to the modern civilization that screwed him over. I let myself wonder if, had I let the movie roll this time, would the helicopters have those damn nets and would they get him back to the island. But movie memories take over and I remember exactly what happens and know that it will happen again and again. King Kong '76 is a hopelessly sad movie even for a monster flick. But, for some bizarre reason, it's always a pleasure to let Kong make me sad for a little bit...and for me, not a guilty pleasure. Sorry, naysayers. Like Dwan and Jack Prescott, I'll stand behind Kong '76 to the bitter end.

A dated "hit" remake awaiting the dawning of the Jackson era

[FiendishDramaturgy · 7/10 · 20 October 2003]

When this was first released, I loved this movie. At the time of its theatrical release, I remember that the line for tickets went around the building!

While this production is now heavily dated and yes, there are campy moments, and the unbearable clichés, this was a state-of-the-art production in its time. I saw this movie on the big screen when it first came out. The lines went out and around the entire theater building in the city where I grew up. Around the building and back to the front where another line formed. Many were turned away for another showing of this blockbuster hit. However good it was then, it has lost a bit of its luster over the years. The invention and subsequent refinement of CGI has vastly dated this move. Outdated it, in fact. I cannot WAIT to see Peter Jackson's newest project; the remake of King Kong, due to be released in 2005. I bide the time in great anticipation.

Jeff Bridges was a real star in this production. His character was believable and honest and his portrayal was extremely professional. I loved the way his character always got the best of Charles Grodin. It made me laugh countless times. Although the hair styles are indicative of the 70's (Bridges's makes him resemble a Wookie), as are the clothing styles, I still find this movie quite endearing, adventurous, and entertaining.

The shots of the island are absolutely breathtaking. Much like the beginning shots of Jurassic Park when you first arrive. The characters were developed quite well, and the story itself is timeless. While this endeavor does start off a bit slow, the necessary character development has begun, and takes place along the way. Perhaps you can distract yourself with Lange's striking figure and half-exposed body during this time, while you get to know the characters, or let Bridges's Wookie-like appearance endear him to your heart. Dwan (Dwan?! - Lange) is a treasure; a pink lady from another world, and the natives who found her have decided that she is the perfect offering to their god; a colossal ape they have come to call "Kong." In the opening scenes featuring the introduction to Kong, he is really quite well done. You can actually believe he is a 30' ape absconding with the pismire Dwan in his hands. Later; however, the effects go wrong, with the use of animatronics. They lost the realism they had achieved, specifically during the fight scene with the giant snake.

When his oil-finding expedition goes bad, Fred Wilson (Grodin) learns that the petroleum present on Kong's Island needs a little more time; just a tick of the clock, geologically speaking. In just around ten thousand more years, it will be productive petroleum. For lack of a cash cow to justify this farciful journey, Wilson determines it would be best to bring back Kong, rather than return to his New York investors empty handed. The plans of mice and men; however, are sure to twist, crumble, and fade.

Be sure to make note of the scene where Charles Grodin finds himself in a hole which turns out to be Kong's footprint. It shows you where the writers/directors of "Godzilla," 1998 (the Roland Emmerich one which I like to call "Jurassiczilla"), got the idea for a nearly identical scene in that movie.

The musical score is quite compelling and lends quite a bit to the feeling of mystery and wonder this movie captures, though it is classic 70's score. The sets and costumes were quite original and creatively done. I especially thought the native costuming was well designed and manufactured, with a true Polynesian feel to them.

And, while some of the scenes between Lange and the ape are campy and filled with cliché after cliché, they were still endearing and heart-warming.

With tongue-in-cheek, my mate has just quipped, "This movie just proves that anybody can fall in love with a rich white girl."

I included that because it was the sum of the underlying camp throughout. But it somehow does not detract from the richness of the production. This movie is far greater than the sum of its parts. "King Kong: the Legend Reborn," does breathe new life into the '30's classic, as I hope Peter Jackson's remake does, and bring to it at least some of the magic he achieved in his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

Once back in New York, Grodin's character is largely under foot as Kong escapes and begins to find his way back to Dwan. Of course, if you even momentarily try to imagine the mayhem that would be generated by such a massive beast loose in New York City, you have to stop and ask yourself if the residents there would even notice. In true Godzilla style, Kong grabs the subway train in which Lange and Bridges are escaping, and unceremoniously rips the top off of it just in time to see his beloved Dwan running away with that other man...again. Needless to say, he is not a happy camper. And, just like Godzilla, Kong quickly learns not to play with power lines.

Regardless of your nationality, please pay special attention to the last scenes of this wonderful production. The NYC Twin Towers are prevalent and, though I never viewed it from this perspective before 9-11, they are now the real stars in this movie. I had no choice but to view it with a certain melancholy sadness.

All in all, although admittedly not as much as when it was first released, I still greatly enjoyed this work and highly recommend its viewing; especially in light of the upcoming remake. They've changed the character's names, rearranged the story, and forgotten the dinosaurs. But in the genre of monster movies, it is a definite must-see.

It rates a 7.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Better Than I Expected

[LebowskiT1000 · 7/10 · 24 February 2002]

Given that this film was made in 1976, I thought it was a very good movie. Some of the visual effects were actually pretty good (maybe not compared to today's standards, but still good) and some of the shots must have been very complicated shots. The only complaint I have is the look of "Kong", mainly his face, it just didn't look right. Sometimes it looked pretty good, but other times I thought it just looked horrible. Also, there were a number of times that you could tell it was obviously just a man in a suite. This would be a great candidate for a remake with all the advances in special effects that we have today.

As far as acting goes, I thought all the actors did a great job. It was really cool to see Jeff Bridges (who will be forever known as "The Dude" to me...from "The Big Lebowski" if you didn't know) in one of his first films. Jessica Lange looked absolutely incredible in this film, and did a fine job of acting. It was also cool to see Charles Grodin in one of his earlier films.

All in all, I thought it was a pretty good film, and it's definitely something you should see if you're into the sci-fi genre, cause there are so many films that reference this film (and the original) that you may as well find out what their referencing. Anyhow, thanks for reading,

-Chris

Different approach to the 1933 Kong generally works well,even if it's definitely no classic like the original

[DrLenera · 30 July 2005]

The reputation of this 1976 version of King Kong seems to have improved since it's initial release. It's nowhere near as good as the 1933 version,but who would really expect it to be. That remains the greatest of giant monster movies and a milestone in film-making. However,taken on it's own,this one is not bad at all.

Rather than replicate the original,the filmmakers take a different approach. Some things work,some things don't,but kudos for trying. The updating of the characters for 70s sensibilities now seems as dated as the ones in the original movie,and Jessica Lange's heroine just comes across as an empty headed bimbo. The environmentalist message is still pertinent though,and the filmmakers stop short of labouring their issues.

Kong himself is a lot less fearsome,in fact the man-in-suit creature seems rather cuddly. Scenes when he attacks people almost seem out of place {and compare badly with similar sequences in the original}. Look out for the brief appearance of the robot Kong prop during the scene when he breaks out of his cage,it looks nothing like the Kong of the rest of the film. Special effects are generally good though. They are generally a lot less ambitious-no dinosaurs for one thing,except for one out-of-place giant snake-but they are usually quite good.

The film is a little sluggish,and seems to display little imagination at times-consider how dull the island looks in this version. However,the filmmakers were attempting a somewhat more realistic film. They also succeed in creating quite a a bit more pathos,especially at the end. John Barry's score is rarely mentioned as one of his best but it's really atmospheric,dramatic and sometimes moving. Despite some glaring flaws,this remake is certainly no disaster,and occasionally works well. Check it out,but see the older one first.

'A' for effort

[Jamie-58 · 5/10 · 9 September 1999]

Though generally regarded as inferior to the 1933 classic - which it unquestionably is - this remake of "King Kong" can at least boast the virtue of trying to be different. No mere rehash of the older film, the story has been reinterpreted, and very occasionally the effort pays off.

I rather like the notion of the explorers arriving at Kong's island with no idea of what they are going to find. The discovery of the wall - telegraphed in the original, and thus less powerful - the natives, the overall look of the island works very well.

Sadly its downhill from there. The highly touted special effects are poor. Kong is so obviously a man in an ape suit that it seems astonishing that anyone was duped by tales of giant robots. (That much publicised automaton, when it briefly appears, is ragingly bogus.) Toning down Kong's ferocity was another huge mistake. In this version he is a cross eyed lover, with little menace. In the original he was a possessive and protective lover, with a real mean streak. It worked better. And Jessica Lange lacks Fay Wray's unique blend of innocence and sex appeal. She aims at ditziness, and is merely irritating. How you'll pray that Kong makes a meal of her!

Its hard to dismiss memories of the 1933 film when it was so much more engaging. But this isn't too bad in a kiddie matinee fashion.

Guilty pleasure

[chez-3 · 7/10 · 27 August 1999]

When this film was released at Christmas of 1976 it was billed as "the motion picture event of our time." Now it seems a bit extreme but as an eager 11 year old I was sucked in. Looking at it today I admit it's certainly far from being a motion picture event. But the film has its virtues none more so then the fine performances by Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin (in an unusual villianous role). And let's not forget the beautiful musical score by John Barry.

The special effects are pretty cheap in many scenes so don't be looking for top notch in that category. I don't know....on the whole it's really not that great but I must confess that every time it is on television I watch it. This is a true guilty pleasure.

Updating from beauty and beast myth with an enjoyable giant ape

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 26 March 2008]

This remake from known story was previously adapted in the classic film (1933) by Ernerst B Schoedsack and Merian C Cooper and subsequently remade numerous times, it concerns an oil company whose owner (Charles Grodin, in the role of Robert Amstrong) travels on board vessel with a diverse crew (John Randolph , Ed Lauter , Jack Halloran, Rene Auberjonois , Julius Harris), towards remote island nearly Indonesia . On the ship stowaway Prescott (Jeff Bridges , in similar role of Bruce Cabot) and find the castaway Dwan (Jessica Lange, in the role of Fay Wray). In the foggy island they encounter Kong , an enormous gorilla , worshipped by the natives , then Kong falls in love with starlette Dwan, the genuinely touching heroine . Being captured, is brought to civilization and transported to New York City as sideshow attraction . Kong escapes , causing wreak havoc and rampage throughout the city ; ending up on top of the newly built World Trade Center replacing Empire State Building from the classic version. Ultimately, Kong battling armored helicopters with machine gun.

Lavish production by Dino De Laurentiis is long on budget , short on credibility . Again the transplanted beast suffers unrequired love in classic fashion : a huge gorilla meets girl , monkey gets girl and brandishes her while atop the World Trade Center. Spectacular and emotive scenes , including one where Kong strips Lange and an erotic shower with original drying . Problems lingered on the set and at a high cost, it was one of the most expensive movie at the time and took time to finish . Jessica Lange film debut (at 27 year old) , she didn't play again for three years but she was not glad her acting . Appearing uncredited with brief acting , someone almost extra , Corbin Bersen, John Lone, John Agar and Joe Piscopo.

Glittering and colorful cinematography by Richard H Kline , won deservedly Academy Award nomination. Sensitive and touching musical score by John Barry . At the end the producer De Laurentiis wishes to acknowledge that Kong has been designed and engineered by Carlo Rambaldi , constructed by Carlo Rambaldi and Glen Robinson, with special contributions by Rick Baker . They utilized every possible form especial effects , it reveals the genius of its creators . The picture still holds up well after more than thirty years . Followed by inferior sequel King Kong 2 (1986, equally directed by John Guillermin with Linda Hamilton and Brian Kerwin) in which scientists get the gorilla alive in spite of his upsetting asphalt fall . And the successful ¨King Kong¨ (2005) by Peter Jackson , Naomi Watts , Adrien Brody , Jack Black , Thomas Kretschmann , Colin Hanks, Andy Serkis .

Beautiful remake of a legend

[boogieknights19 · 29 February 2000]

Dino Delaurentis brought this classic fairy tale to the big screen 40 years after the original, and it has become an icon of 70's cinema. It stands on it's own as a cool monster movie, and a love story. The musical score in the film is haunting and evokes memories of the mysterious island. Jack Prscott's explanation of the legend of the great beast of the island sets the pace for the film. Jessica Lange floats in on a raft wearing a tiny black cocktail dress, and is rescued by the woman-starved sailors. She plays the role of Dwan, breathlessly a la Marylin Monroe. She parades around on deck looking like a dancer at a Gentlemen's club ("care for a dance?") wearing a pair of Daisy Dukes she appears ready to burst out of, and a succession of mini-shirts! The film goes on to carefully modernise the original story, and Rick Baker in a monkey suit is the best Kong on film to date. Even Kong gets carried away by Lange's incredible sensuality and physical perfection!

Man in rubber suit alert!

[Rob_Taylor · 4/10 · 7 July 2003]

Yes, sadly its true. Not only true, but shockingly, totally and completely devoid of even the slightest hint of "is it or isn't it?" This movie was going OK right up until "Kong" appeared. Even for 1976, the effects here are pretty diabolical.

Basically Kong is some guy in a monkey suit who, in their infinite wisdom, the film-makers of this atrocity believe will convince you he's a 50 foot ape. They even pulled their ace card out to help maintain and enhance the illusion......filming the guy in the suit from a low angle, so he appears bigger. Gasp! Oh the high-techness of it all!

One wonders, in the original '33 version, whether the crew weighed up the pros and cons of trying to get away with a guy in a suit. I can almost see them doing a few test shots and reviewing the footage. They turn to one another, the mouth of one quivers, then they all fall about laughing. "Man, this is too retarded! We'll never get away with that! Go with that new-fangled stop-motion stuff." So quite why the '76 crew thought they could make it real is beyond comprehension.

Further, the guy playing Kong, coupled with the dark makeup, had a rather unfortunate tendency to leer and letch maniacally throughout the film. The only recent actor I've seen do anything like this is Robert O'Reilly, who played (overacted gloriously) Chancellor Gowron from the ST:TNG and DS9 series. But in Kong's case, the effect is disturbing rather than humourous and you are left feeling rather unsettled.

If it was only Kong, it might have been bearable, but all manner of ridiculous things crop up here that make you wonder if you're watching some student project. The trees wobble as "Kong" pushes through them in the most rubbery way and look about as convincing as the model trees I used to have for me train set as a kid. Then there are the sets. I'm sorry, but a poorly dressed sound stage will never convince me it's a tropical island, no matter how garish it looks. In order to add realism Dino and clan added some truly atrocious back-projected scenes, including "The Mother of all Bad Back-Projection Scenes (tm)" involving Kong atop the World Trade Centres with circling helicopters in the background. In some shots, the helicopters wobble and even fly backwards as they pass by in the background. Now that's flying!

But my award for "All-Time Lame-Ass Creature Effects" goes to the stupefyingly un-lifelike snake that Kong fights (read as "wraps himself up in unconvincingly"). I will never bad-mouth the snake in Anaconda again! It's perfection compared to this. What's worse, this snake is one of that rare breed of ophidians which is both a constrictor and a poisonous variety - an Anacobra. The snake is soooo bad. Trust me. I've seen draught excluders that look more lifelike.

With the above emerging in all too terrifyingly real comic proportions, I quickly found the whole film an entertaining joy to watch. It's one of those "They don't seriously expect us to buy this? Do they?" movies that you have to keep watching just to see how awful it will get. And trust me, it gets pretty darn bad. Jeff Bridge's beard is shockingly unkempt in an uncaring Robinson Crusoe kind of way and Jessica Lange's character is so vapid that I kept hoping that someone....anyone...would slap her about a bit to get some kind of response other than the stat "I'm cute, look at me" routine she was locked into.

If you're a fan of the original, watching this will be like having your teeth pulled. If you fancy a beer-and-giggles evening then this movie has to be high on the list, if not No. 1 for bad movie-ness.

Yet again a wonderful Dino de Horrendous production. Bravo!

You know what?

[thanoseid · 7/10 · 26 October 2004]

I don't care what anybody says. I don't care how I'm supposed to feel about this movie. I don't hate it. To be honest, I kind of love it a little. Maybe if I'd been born in the 50's or 60's, and grown up loving the original, then gotten all excited about a remake, only to have my hopes dashed by a mediocre product, I'd loathe this like everyone else does. But I was born in '76. By the time I got around to being able to actually comprehend movies, this was already on T.V. every Saturday afternoon. For me, there have always been two King Kongs. Yes, the black and white ape is more believable, and scarier looking, and more lovable, and inarguably the star of a better movie. But when you're 5 years old, a man in a monkey suit is just as realistic as a stop motion model, because suspension of disbelief is not just easy for you, it's a way of life. So go ahead, hate this movie if you want. To me, it's an old friend, and I won't abandon it.

Underrated quality remake of the ultimate monster movie

[mike_23wilhelm · 8/10 · 21 February 2000]

I always feel this movie did not get the credit it deserved. O.K. it was not as good as the original but has any monster movie ever matched it? The effects and story are very entertaining and Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges are well cast. My favourite touch was the selection of the World Trade Center instead of the Empire State Building for the finale. Shame you could not see it well in the dark however. The film is great fun for any movie or monster movie fan. Watch, enjoy and await the UK DVD release. Superb entertainment!