Customer Reviews

King Kong

5 star:		(60)
4 star:		(61)
3 star:		(47)
2 star:		(23)
1 star:		(33)

 

 

Firstly, I'd like to dispel a misconception that many "reviewers" here onsite are promoting: that the 1976 verison of "King Kong" was a notorious financial flop. This is simply not the case.

King Kong (1976)was a huge hit back in the seventies--I know because I was there, I saw the frenzy, I remember the crowded theaters. It cost $24 million and made $60 in 1977 dollars, only a little less than the highly regarded blockbuster "Jaws" made a couple of years earlier. Calling the film a commercial "flop" is not just inaccurate--it is a statement that borders on stupid.

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.

While the commercial success of the film is a matter of indisputible record, its artistic success is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to think this is one of the best pop films of the Seventies--and there are a lot more folks out there who agree with me than you think.

Many people rag on the film for not being reverential to the original, ignoring that fact that "being reverential" was the antitheseis of what the 70s were about. Kong 76 could have probably been an even bigger hit than it was 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.

This was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid (I was 2 when it came out), and I was a little scared to watch it again, thanks to its reputation as a disaster.

However, I found the movie to be fairly good. I can certainly see why I loved it as a pre-teen. The decision to have Kong be so obviously infatuated with Jessica Lange is a strange one, for sure, and leads to a lot of scenes that involve Kong glaring at Lange and widening his eyes like the world's biggest pervert (literally, one supposes). He even tries to remove her top at one point, and while that may seem like a natural enough desire given the inescapable fact that Jessica Lange was, in 1976, hotter than broiled charcoal, I'm not sure it is believable from a ten-story-tall gorilla.

I always like seeing Jeff Bridges, and he's pretty good in this movie. Charles Grodin is pretty good, also, playing an oil prospector who will do anything to salvage his professional reputation. The music by John Barry is just what you'd expect from late-'70s Barry; that is, it sounds like James Bond music. Since I really like Barry Bond music (no baseball or steroid jokes, please), this is fine by me.

The special effects aren't too special by today's standards, but I've got to think that they were pretty fine in 1976. Keep in mind that this was before both "Star Wars" (which revolutionized effects in general) and "Superman" (which revolutionized blue screen effects specifically), and I think the blue screen and matte painting work looks good, considering. The gigantic Kong robot at the end is a piece a crap, though, and is wisely held to about half a second of screen time. The frequently employed huge robotic arm is better, although it moves very slowly, whereas the actor playing Kong moves with precisely the fluidity and grace that one would expect from a gorilla; hence, when the film cuts to the robot arm, it is extremely obvious.

Best of all, I was surprised to discover that the movie was actually about something. It works on two levels at once: (1) Kong as a metaphor for the environment, with his death as a metaphor for how industrial society was/is literally killing nature; and (2) Kong as a metaphor for post-'60s promiscuity.

That last one needs some explaining. Lange's character, Dwan (she changed it from Dawn to sound more distinctive; it sounds like she's getting called Juan for most of the movie, which makes me chuckle), is apparently a good-hearted but naive girl who runs about as wild as it's possible for a woman to run. She is shipwrecked at sea on her way to star in a movie in Hong Kong; the implication is that it's an, um, adult film. Dwan doesn't want anything to do with this, but the implication is that she's a wild enough girl that someone could justifiably THINK she would want to be in that sort of movie. I'm inferring a lot here, but I think the inferrances work.

Dwan's dilemma is choosing between "stardom" and Jack (Jeff Bridges); I see this as a choice between promiscuity and monogamy. Ultimately, she chooses stardom over Jack. Kong functions, then, as a stand-in for Dwan's libido, or instincts, or desires, or id, or whatever. At the end, when Kong meets his inevitable demise, Dwan all of a sudden wants very badly to be consoled by Jack, but standing between them is a sea of photgraphers, snapping away merrily at the hugest corpse on record while Dwan shouts Jack's name into the rising tide of voices.

The end of the film, unsurprisingly, is brutally sad, and in that sense, it is totally in keeping with the era in which it was made. Interestingly, the finale is similar to the finale of 1976's Oscar-winning "Rocky," in which Rocky is shouting for Adrian across a sea of photographers. The future is rosier for those two than it appears to be for Jack and Dwan, and that picture is more upbeat (and far better) than this one, but it's interesting to note, nonetheless.

The focus on Dwan's morality makes me wonder if the movie can be seen as anti-feminist. Since Jack isn't putting a great deal of pressure on Dwan to change - simply letting her know that they have a future if she DOES change - maybe it isn't. I'm no expert on the subject, but I know enough to be able to say that it's worth consideration. Either way, the movie serves nicely as a transition point between the promiscuity of the '60s and '70s and the more conservative (in image, at least) '80s.

This may all be giving too much credit to a movie that is not by any means a masterpiece. But I don't think it's a crapsterpiece, either. I'd happily buy a special edition if they ever issue one.

By the way, the picture and sound on this DVD are fairly good for a bare-bones release of a thirty-year-old movie.

I'll admit this film holds extra appeal for me. That's because it made a King-sized impression when I first saw it in a darkened theatre in Massapequa Park, Long Island at seven years of age. I still remember the anticipation leading up to the first big "reveal" of Kong: The sounds of heavy foot-falls and the downing of trees as the giant gorilla approaches the primitive altar where Jessica Lange stands tethered with vines as the sacrificial bride. The score grows louder as torch-holding natives chant atop heavily fortressed walls ("Kong!, Kong!..."). Finally, he emerges in full view and beats his chest as the ominous score goes suddenly, eerily quiet. Lange looks up from her drug-induced stupor, her swimmy eyes now focusing, sobering with fear...and screams!

This is one of the great cinematic sequences of my personal memory bank.

------------

September 11, 2001 came in all its horror and loss. Some days later, I found myself thinking of this movie, which features the World Trade Center prominently. This was perhaps the only movie to cast the Towers in such a prominent role. They represented our greatness as Americans, and provided a scale grand enough to fuel our imaginations for the task at hand - bringing Kong to life. During that September, I ordered the DVD so I could see the towers once again as they were meant to be seen, at a time when they stood tall with promise - over-sized symbols of over-sized American optimism.

------------

Sure the movie has its flaws, and many of the effects aren't effective anymore, but if you enter in as a willing participant, many charms await. The film features the talents of Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange, and Charles Grodin. The cinematography is rich with vast hawaiian vistas. Rick Baker, the make-up wunderkind behind Gorillas in the Mist and Planet of the Apes ('01), added a sympathetic dimension to Kong in his performance (he was the guy in the suit). The movie gives sufficient emphasis to character, while patiently building anticipation for the final act. And the soundtrack! It features a John Barry score that is dark, grand, and memorable. Today, on DVD, it makes for a terrific home theatre experience.

If you, too, were one of the kids who were awed by Kong's cinematic advent thirty years ago, you'll get a nostalgic thrill from this disc. Enjoy.

In five short words, "THIS FILM IS A MASTERPIECE". Do not listen to the critics. This film was a work of art as far as modern film technology was in the 70's. I remember my mother & father taking my sister and I to the movies to see this. The movie theatre was packed for weeks and people often stood in line for hours to see this. If it were re-released, I'd go see it again. Yes, it is sad that it was filmed at the WTC that is no longer there and many lives were lost. Watching the movie and seeing the WTC scenes affected me emotionally too but lets not beat up the film makers.

I remember seeing this movie in '76 when it first hit theaters. I was amazed and entertained! Many reviewers here have done a very good job of describing the film and why so many people liked (even loved) the movie then and now. I still enjoy it. Kong is menacing yet relatable. Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange and Charles Grodin are excellent and the special effects are pretty darn good for their time. I've seen Peter Jackson's new version and actually prefer the man in the suit to his CGI Kong. '76 Kong is three dimensional and more "human" but also more "monstrous". I've long thought that Kong should be bi-pedal and not just a giant version of your garden variety gorilla. This Kong delivers what I want in a sci-fi fantasy; good action, a cool monster, decent acting, good special effects and a satisfying ending! Long live Kong!!!

When I first saw this movie, I hated it. However, with Peter Jackson's Kong being released in several months, I decided to give this one another chance. I'm certainly glad I did, for it is actually a very good movie.

The slow-moving beginning couldn't have been better, gathering suspense and making you really feel that something big and epic is about to take place. The soundtrack by John Berry is one of the best I've heard, and not just from a monster movie. As the ship approaches its destination, one begins to feel the ominous presence of something very... well... LARGE.

The acting is good, with terrific performances delivered by Jeff Bridges (Prescott) and Charles Grodin (Wilson). The low point of the entire film, however, is Jessica Lange. I haven't seen any of her other movies, but I really didn't like her in this one. During her introductory monolog, I felt like jumping into the film and strangling her. Of course this would have ruined the story, but it would have spared us her bland performance.

I might note that, if you had not known what the film was about previously, you might not guess that it was a monster flick while watching the first fifteen minutes. There are several dead giveaways, like Prescott's recitation of the nifty stories of the island, but that isn't very clear. This helps the film considerably, making the eventual appearance of Kong very exciting indeed.

Once Kong takes Dwan, the film really gets going. While not as genuinely thrilling as the original, this version is very dark. This film's tone is unbelievably dark, from its ominous, vast feeling of oncoming fate (not sure if that makes sense), to its haunting musical score. Kong's design is very fierce looking, and is probably my personal favorite of his many faces. The suit is much more sophisticated than any of the Godzilla suits (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge G-fan), and is pretty convincing, despite the fact that the suit actor doesn't know how to walk like an ape. Considering that this film is pre-Star Wars, all the effects are very well done.

The scene where Kong is put on display in NYC is extremely well done, as the event is so exceedingly tacky and stupid, you just know that this is the way it would happen in real life. I was laughing all the way through, as Wilson tells the "lucky contest winners" to "Behold the power of Kong... and Petrox!"

The climactic battle atop the (late) World Trade Center is easily the highlight of the film. Kong's leap from Tower A to Tower B is breathtaking, and you can't help cheering when he throws the barrel of something-or-other at the soldiers, blowing them to smithereens. His death is violent and tear-jerking, as gattling guns rip into him, making blood spew forth in amounts not seen since the Black Knight sequence in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A very upset Dwan (finally giving a good performance) begs Kong to pick her up and stop the attack, but Kong refuses. He slumps over and falls more than a thousand feet to the ground below, where his heart slowly stops beating, his eyes eternally fixed on Dwan. This scene has more emotional impact than an Emo song.

Overall, this is one heck of a movie. Although it has its moments of blatant stupidity, it's probably the best monster flick of the 1970's (besides Alien). If you haven't seen it, you now have my recommendation. If you've seen it once and hated it (like I did before), please give it another chance. If you've seen it a billion times and still hate it, than I guess you're still entitled to your opinion. 4/5 stars. It's good.

Well, after reading some of the other reviews for this film, at least I know I'm not alone. If there's any problems with the acting, I've never been able to see it. The action scenes are still exciting, I'm able to engage with the characters, and when Kong dies at the end (unless you follow the god-awful sequel, KING KONG LIVES) and we hear the melonchaly music, I still am greatly saddened by it.

Aside from the more contemporary setting, differences between the film are: The guys who come to the island are oil company men, Jack, the main male human hero, is an animal scientist (forget the exact name of his profession,) who stows away on the ship, and when they find him it's too late to turn around and drop him off, so they take him with them. Then they find a raft with an unconcious woman, Dwan, floating in it, which is how she comes to be with the crew. There are no dinosaurs on the island, only the human natives, Kong and a giant snake. (At least that we see.) The guy played by Charles Gordon (who would probably be this film's answer to the Carl Denham character of the other two films,) ends up getting killed by Kong. At the end, Kong climbs the World Trade Center and battles flame thrower troops and attack helicopters.

To compare to the other King Kong films, both the origonal and the recent one, this new one is set in what was then the present day (1976), which I liked because, really, it makes more sense. (Having the film set at any period in history is rather absurd since a giant ape being found and captured and then rampaging in New York is something you wouldn't think would ever be forgotten.) This is comparing the 70s Kong film to just the recent one. (The original 30s one was, of course, also set in what was then modern day.)

Peter Jackson wrote that one of the things he wanted to do differently as opposed to the original film was actually have Ann find love for Kong, while in the '33 film she is terrified of him from beginning to end, and we have every reason to think that when he dies at the end she feels nothing but joy and relief. Well, Pete, and anyone eles who thinks the 70s Kong is inferior the first one, that's another thing they, like you, did differently, was have the heroine come to love and emphisize with Kong and then be devistated when he dies at the end.

One thing I noticed watching the new King Kong film was the human natives were incredibly savage, as every bit as wild and as dangerous as the animals on the island. Funny how even in modern day a movie can be made depicting natives who happen to still live in the spear-carrying stage as vicious, blood-thirsty villainized brutes who we have no reason to feel anything for but hate and fear. That sort of movie would seem to me to be much more at home in the time the first Kong film came out in, but even the natives in that film weren't nealy as savage and violent as the ones in the Peter Jackson film, (in fact we even have reason to sympathize and be afraid for them when Kong attacks their village) and they certainly weren't nearly that savage in the 70s film.

Finally, when it comes to the Dino Delarentes version, many people complain about the fact that there are no dinosaurs. My thinking on this-and I suppose this was probably also the way the makers of the 70s Kong saw it-was that it was too ridiculous the idea that when dinosaurs went extinct everywhere ele on the planet hundreds of millions of years ago they somehow survived on this one little island.

Though I know many people will strongly disagree with me, in my own humble opinion this film itself is also a classic in it's own right, and deserves more respect than it is given

Why is there flap about this film being bad? With the exception of a few changes, this movie was all the same as the original 1933. Just because it was redid in the 70s it was not like King Kong was wearing silk shirts and bell-bottoms and doing Disco moves. As for saying that it did not respect the original...How? If you want my opinion on a remake of a monster movie that did not do the original justice rent the 1998 sorry-ol American remake of Godzilla! Talk about dissin' was this our attempt to bash Japan for Pearl Harbor? For kicking butt in the electronic gadetry department, for all the Animie movies that we love? We made a PUSH-OVER out of Godzilla! This was not the case with King Kong.

So Kong did not scale the Empire State Building but instead one of the new World Trade Center Towers where then he does an Evil Knivel jump from one to the other, that is far from Godzilla running like a chicken through the streets of N.Y. hardly knocking over anything - whereas in the Japanese movies, if a building was in the way, it ceased to be so. Furthermore, Japan's Godzilla did not spare the firey breath as the American one did, nor did he act like one's pet like the American one did - see the feeding scene where Am-Godzilla is fed a pile of fish - whatever.

No, this 1970's rendition did not take away from the original. In both versions, King Kong is basically Gorilla-napped from his home and brought to the mainland to be exploited but he gets away and raises a bit of rukus. In both versions he is offered a human sacrifice whom becomes his 'girlfriend' and in both movies a woman is mistaken to be her - as Kong is trying to find her - and is murdered for it.
In the original it is a newly-wed in a hotel with her hubby where she is retrieved by the Gorilla and then - upon discovery of her not being the one - is dropped to her death. Now in the remake, it is while Kong trashes the elevated train that he finds who he mistakes to be his girlfriend and upon discover that she ain't his tosses her away.
In the orignal it is not clear why Kong trashes the elevated train, perhaps he mistakes it for a beast - remember, he battled giant beasts on his home island. In the remake, he attacks the elevated train because he smells the ladies scent in the vicinity and then sees the approaching train and attacks it - he is correct that she is on the train, but she gets away and a similiar looking lady gets the unfortunate position of being mistaken to be the gorillas girl.
In the original - as mentioned previously - Kong scales Empire State Building and battles with little fighter bi-planes while in the remake, he scales the WTC and then battles chopper helicopters.

All in all I thougth this remake was very good indeed. Bringing Kong into a then modern world but the story remained the same. I swear some of you critics need to take a Valum.

As for the King Kong/Godzilla comparison something else comes to mind. It is a Japanese Godzilla movie staring King Kong, where Kong is napped from his island by the Japanese in order to fight their star champ dragon. At least the Japanese know how to show love for our star monster and - if anything - give him more attitude, not trivalize him. In King Kong vs Gozilla (see even Kong gets first in the title) Kong actally takes a smack at a building much like Godzilla does - just on a grander scale. In KKVGZ our star gorilla acquires a girlfriend from - well - an elevated train he attacks for no apparent reason - perhaps it looked like a snake. Anyway this was a good movie too.

C'mon people, lighten up!!!

Perhaps the most memorable movie of my childhood is this 1976 remake of "King Kong." Over the years, much has been said to discredit this underrated film, and those fans of the 1933 classic (including myself), have inevitably made comparisons. Peter Jackson's new Kong (2005) will no doubt go under similar scrutiny in years to come.

When I tell people that the 1976 version of "King Kong" makes my top ten list of all time favorite movies, there's generally a smirk of disapproval. Admittedly, there are flaws in the special effects by today's standards, but there's a magical quality to this production. Perhaps it's the engaging musical score of John Barry that lures viewers into the heart of this picture. And despite its intentional campy nature, this film has heart.

As I grow older, I still watch this film with a sense of fondness. Jessica Lange's performance has long been belittled by the press, but I cannot recall an actress that made more of an impression on me as I watched her as a 9-year-old boy. Her beauty still resonates on screen, and I appreciate the producer's insight in recognizing her as a true talent (as she would later demonstrate). To me, I'll still listen for Dwan's voice in all of Lange's characters. I saw glimpses of this childlike innocence in her performance in "Tootsie" a few years later, which she was awarded an academy award.

I find the rest of the cast equally good, particularly Grodin's performance as Fred Wilson. He's perfectly cast here, and fits in well with the campiness. Jeff Bridges gives a solid performance, and plays off Lange well. The real star of the picture, Kong himself, is not as ape-like as some would have hoped. He seems to have a human element to him, which I think is the point. We are saddened by Kong's death when he plummets from the World Trade Center, particularly because he is more human to us than animal. And notice Dwan's reaction at the end of the film when approached by Jack...not the typical happy-ending for a Hollywood film.

The overall production was lavish of course, making this remake one of the most expensive of its time. But I would like to echo the thoughts of some other reviewers here by stating that the 1976 remake of "King Kong" was not a commercial flop. In fact, the film did exceptionally well at the box office and was given some excellent reviews by some respected film critics.

Watch "King Kong" with an open mind and appreciate its campy nature. It's not merely a remake more than it is a retelling of a classic story. This movie took chances, and some of these chances work better than others. But it's not just a mimic, trying to recreate the past. It's fun at times, silly at others, but in the end, you will remember this film. For that reason, the 1976 remake will forever be a favorite of mine.

I remember seeing this film in the theatre in Hong Kong when it first came out back in 1976, I was only 10 and it was marvelous!!! Getting the record years later [which I still have] and just the other day the re-release of the soundtrack from Silver Age Classics. It's such a memorable score!

I also just saw the new 2005 Peter Jackson's King Kong last night, the CGI was superb, I especially liked the t-rex bit... but I gotta say, with the dinasaur scene, it really isn't much compared to this 1976 classic. I loved this version from beginning to end. The music worked superbly!!! The whole package just works - for me!