King Kong (1976)

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.

Fmovies: 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.

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.

King Kong fmovies. 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.

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!

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.