User reviews

"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.

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"!

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.

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.

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.

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.

This version of King Kong is an entertaining film with a fun updated look. A good cast, impressive effects, overall worth watching.

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.

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.

On the list of terrible crimes people have committed throughout history, in some people's eyes Dino De Laurentis' decision to remake King Kong ranks slightly higher than the Holocaust, 9/11 and slavery. Basically, this movie apparently has no redeeming features whatsoever. De Laurentis' decision to build a 40 foot robot Kong that was virtually unusable; the fact that Kong was mainly played by a man in a suit; the contemporary setting; the absence of dinosaur battles; the climax on top of the World Trade Centre; Jessica Lange's character's stupid name (what in the blue buggery is a Dwan, anyway?); if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Jack the Ripper, Hitler and Satan formed a gang and started burning down orphanages, they wouldn't receive the same level of criticism.

Personally, I have something of a soft spot for this movie, and consider it to be extremely underrated. Much like the 1998 U.S Godzilla, it's not as good as the original, but it's still a decent film. I suppose the reason I like it is because, like Godzilla, I saw the remake before the original, and as such I didn't have any preconceptions about what I should see; I wasn't expecting fights with dinosaurs, and so I wasn't disappointed when I didn't see them.

I suppose what people dislike about this film is that, unlike Peter Jackson's 2005 version, which is a faithful retelling of the 1933 King Kong, Kong 76 bears little resemblance to the original. It's set in 1976 and has a whole new set of characters who, it has to be said, aren't great. Charles Grodin's Fred Wilson is annoying and it's a relief to see him get splattered by Kong at the end. Jeff Bridges does better as Jack Prescott, but he's still fairly forgettable, and Jessica Lange just doesn't engage the viewer like Fay Wray. Fortunately, these three actors emerged unscathed and went on to have successful careers, unlike director John Guillermin, who ended up having to make the unnecessary sequel, King Kong Lives, which was seen by about three people. The contemporary setting just doesn't lend itself to the fantastical story, and having a petrochemical company at the heart of proceedings feels like the producers were trying to hard to be modern. Also, having Kong in a cage wearing a crown with the company logo on it just looks moronic.

The most vociferous criticism has been directed at the film's special effects which, given that they were done by Carlo Rambaldi and Rick Baker, ought to have been something really special, or at least better than those of a movie that even back in 1976 was over forty years old. To be fair, Rick Baker's Kong suit is a lot better than most gorilla suits seen in movies (see King Kong Escapes, APE and The Mighty Gorga for example of how bad these things can be) and at least he tried to make it look like a real gorilla, wearing contact lenses that looked like a gorilla's eyes and basing the muscle structure on real apes. The real problem is Rambaldi's 40 foot robot Kong; while this creation had tremendous publicity value (no one could ever accuse Dino De Laurentis of being understated) when it came time to actually use the thing, it was obvious that having a 40 foot tall robot that needed to be operated by an army of technicians rampaging around New York and climbing the World Trade Centre was ever so slightly unfeasible, and so the robot only appears in a couple of scenes, mainly where Kong is standing still. The only time the thing moves is when it lifts one arm and then it just looks like a big, unconvincing robot.

In spite of these criticisms, King Kong 1976 does have some good points, notably his NYC rampage and the finale still makes you feel sorry for the big ape, particularly the close-ups of machine gun fire hitting him. The scene where Dwan punches Kong on the nose is amusing and may have inspired Naomi Watts' feistier heroine in the 2005 version, and, in a strange way, making Kong look so stupid in that crown and cage actually increases viewer sympathy for him. Basically, this movie is not the Antichrist of cinema, and if you're in the mood for some big gorilla action, it's definitely worthy of your time, provided you don't expect a shot-for-shot reworking of the original.

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

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.

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 never got to see this when I was a kid. Finally got around to watching at the age of 59. Really enjoyed it. Not a great movie, but fun to watch. I would certainly enjoy watching it again. I was surprised by the subtle humor and the acting was not bad. Jessica Lange is beautiful and the film itself is beautiful to watch. Kong's facial expressions were great! Sad to see the World Trade Center had such a prominent presence in the film. But who ever would've known what the future held in 1976.

I know, I know--anything from the '70s that didn't star Jack Nicholson or wasn't directed by Martin Scorcese is suspect these days, and if you're talking about a heavily-hyped remake of an indisputable classic, the urge to take potshots is irresistible. But despite the dated special effects and elements of camp, the movie does not fall on its face into a Kong footprint. The doomed love that the giant beast felt for the beauty (who, in the person of Jessica Lange, is a stunner) is well-delineated, there's actual excitement and suspense, and the allusions to the rape of the environment by "civilization" are not amiss here. Moreover, the movie's intended humor really is funny. And John Barry's score has stayed with me all these years, although the same basic sound recurred in his music for "Out of Africa" and "Dances with Wolves." For anyone who was in New York on 9/11, there's an inadvertent poignancy in this movie's concluding scenes at the Twin Towers. I'm sure that within a few weeks of posting this, I will have seen Peter Jackson's new version, which updates the effects with CGI technology yet returns the story to the 1930s. Speaking of heavily-hyped remakes...

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

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!

The popular label stamped on this film is that it is a failure. While this I agree, there are certain good points that are done better than the original.

In the original classic, Ann Darrow, the damsel in distress, had no good feelings whatsoever for the unfortunate giant ape. Her function in the story was to be carried about by Kong, and, of course, scream. This remake, however, is more developed as a drama. Kong is treated more as a character, rather than a destroying machine that happens to have a certain bewildering attraction to blonds. Ann is also portrayed more as a character than a screaming doll, and she develops a liking for Kong that allows this film to become quite touching. And the eccentric who captures and brings Kong to the civilized world is appropriately portrayed as the scoundrel he should be.

But the problem is, King Kong is not just any old love story. What is lacking in the remake is action. While the original Kong spent half the movie beating up an impressive collection of fanged agents of death, this film contains only one other monster, which, after a very brief and very boring struggle, never shows its rubber muppet-like self again. The quality of the effects is also very bad. Although the film is in colour, the effects are, in all practicality, inferior to that of the original, which was already over forty years old at the time.

Another potential problem is that this film, on top of the lack of action, ended up a little too serious than need be. One element is that, what was a film-making expedition in the original was turned into a corporate-run oil expedition. While this is no problem in itself, it strays a little too far from the fact that King Kong is not expected to be anything more than entertainment. Personally, I feel that this message of how dangerous corporate society can be is a very good and important one, but in this movie it lacks the ominous subtlety I believe best fit for it (as in the earlier "Alien" movies, for example), and, as if aware of the fact that fans don't want a story too dark, this angle seems to be only half-heartedly pursued. The effect is that it comes out a little deliberate and cheesy.

All in all, the good thing about this movie is that it puts emphasis on the drama. The bad thing is that that is all it pays attention to. It was a very good try, but to sum up the mistakes of this movie, while the drama of King Kong is what mostly makes it distinguishable from other monster flicks, this story is simply not allowed to be just a drama. The lord of all monster movies is, after all, a monster movie, and the makers appear to have forgotten that.

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".

Jessica Lange in her prime - worth watching for that alone. a child of the 70s, i was maybe 8 or 9 when this came out and recall being frightened by those crazy islanders and the roaring of Kong himself. Jeff bridges does a decent job, although the effects are pretty cheesy. hey, before digital effects they needed to rely on creativity. the twin towers also add a pretty epic dimension to the film. it's worth checking out. i saw clips from peter Jackson's new version and it looks a bit over-produced and digital. the dinosaurs, creatures, etc don't look great.

This movie is violent, too. Kong is pretty rough on new yorkers, tossing a few around and wrecking subways, etc. Rick Baker did the make-up and he's the best actor in it.

Not only is this the worst of the 3 Hollywood Kong movies, but it is also one of the poorest directed movies of this size I have ever seen; in every area, it fails (visuals, emotions, editing, characters, storytelling). Kong is a hideously designed sexual predator who parades around as a supremely perverse king of the incels...yet it still wants us to empathize with him.