Rating: 
Summary: THIS WILL BE A CLASSIC NOW
Review: After September 11, 2001- This remake of the 1933 Masterpiece "King Kong" will go down in film history for two reasons.
First it was Academy Award winning actress Jessica Langes first
film and it prominently featured The now destroyed World Trade Center in the final chapter of this movie where Kong takes Jessica's character for refuge. Though this film is pale to the original it has it's good moments. Funny, there is another remake that featured the WTC Towers and that happened two years later with 1978's "THe Wiz"- the all black musical remake of "The Wizard of Oz". If you want celluoid history of WTC buy these films on DVD. They will probably be big sellers now.
Rating: 
Summary: I Heard The Original Is Much Better!
Review: One of the top money-makers of the 70's. Producer Dino Delaurentis up-dates the 1933 classic. Jessica Lange's first starring role. Academy Award Nominations: 2, including Best Cinematography, Best Sound. Academy Award: Best Special Effects.I thought KING KONG was a good movie but I heard the original is much better. My favourite parts are when Kong kills people by stepping on them and knocking over subways. This film is a classic. A lot of people hated this remake but I didn't quite mind it. The only time I never liked this was the first time I seen it when I was about twelve-years-old. There's not really much I can say about KING KONG. It's a good movie and that's about it. Even to someone who didn't like it, will still find it watchable. I hope my review was helpful to you!
Rating: 
Summary: Underrated
Review: The remake of King Kong is a wonderful film, it's better then the original in every category. Here is what I mean 1. MUSIC: The remake of King Kong has a dark, haunting score, the original has a decent score, but it gets old after a while. 2. SPECIAL EFFECTS: The remake has a very convicing Ape suit, with a great animatronic head. The original has clay ape, that looks good, but not as life like as the remake. 3. ACTING: The acting is much more convincing than that of the original. 4. STORY: The story is very well thought out and much more beleivable than that of the original. As you can see these are all reasons why the remake of King Kong is a wonderful movie. By this film, and don't listen to what the critics say.
Rating: 
Summary: Too dull, too campy, too fake.
Review: The first thing that comes to mind when watching Kong '76, is Godzilla '98. Both were remakes of beloved classic's that utterly failed to do justice to the original. Perhaps the biggest sin Kong '76 commits is being dull. While King Kong of '33 had the Depression for its backdrop, this one has the mid-seventies oil crisis and a bunch of corporate types as the villians. YAWN. Sorry, but the adventures of an oil prospecting crew don't exactly stir the blood. And where are the dinosaurs? Were the film makers that determined to kill any sense of fun? The farcical tale of Carlo Rambaldi's mechanical Kong, and the ultimate decision to use a laughable Rick Baker and his laughable ape-suit instead, is well-documented. HA! With such an implausible looking Kong at its heart, this version of the story never really had a chance. The film also suffers from a screenplay that can't make up its mind whether the story is a drama or a comedy. The whole thing is just too dull, too campy, too fake. I'm done.
Rating:
Summary: Not the original, but worthwhile entertainment
Review: I am a big fan of the 1933 version as well, but the 70's version does an admirable job of putting a great story in a modern light. Kong was a little too human for me compared to the original, but the 2nd version just has an appeal that's hard to describe. The DVD cover immediately reminded me of all the fast food posters back in the 70's as this movie was very popular when it was released. It remained popular in theaters and drive-ins for several years, with reason.
Rating:
Summary: A brave failure
Review: A few years ago, I viewed this 1976 remake of the classic "King Kong" for my first time. My father and I both agreed that it paled when compared to the original. Recently, I got to view this one again on television. I still think it stinks, but it has a couple of good things going for it. However, lets do the bad first. First, The special effects are good but not as believable as one would think (Considering a 43-year time span). The stop-motion 18-inch Kong has been replaced by some five foot guy in an ape suit and a fifty foot robot Kong who has about 10 seconds of screen time. The best parts of the original film were all the dinosaurs that King Kong and the men of the SS Venture battled on Skull Island. The only opponent in this film is some plastic snake, which is killed the same way as the T-Rex was in 1933. Where did that amazing, $25 million budget go? That one million spent building the robot head (Today a prop at Universal Studios) should have been used for some dinosaurs (You could have bought costumes at the thrift shop). Also, Kong is subdued with Chloroform the moment he breaks through the gate. He does not do one bit of damage to the village or the natives, like in the original. If something valuable to me were just stolen, I would be in a foul, destructive mood. I also found more sympathy for the first King Kong in how he was taken away from his home and bundled up to become a sideshow freak. He was also a Christ-like figure when he died at the end. Here, I really didn't feel much for him since he wasn't shown to be much, except a giant who likes to smash people and to play with blondes. Next, the cast. Jeff Bridges plays Jack Prescott, who is a far cry from the Jack Driscoll that Bruce Cabot portrayed so well in 1933. Jack is a stowaway, rather than a mate on the ship, which is an interesting change in character. An
oil mogul named Fred Wilson (Played by Charles Grodin) replaces intrepid filmmaker Carl Denham He does get some laughs in this film and is somewhat fun, but is unable to save the film. Jessica Lange plays Dwan is her film debut. I have to say that I did admire her, not just for looks, but for her characterization. She doesn't scream as much as Fay Wray did in 1933. Instead, she punches or kicks a couple of times. She also seems to care for Kong, such as when Kong is shot at by helicopters on top of the World Trade Center. Instead of being happy, she yells at the pilots to stop their shooting. It fails, however, and Kong is killed (Or so it seems, for he would return in 1986 for the forgettable "King Kong Lives"). But perhaps the biggest problem with the film is lack of suspense. Not much change is made to the plot beyond what I already stated. Most of the scenes from the original have been kept, which reduces some suspense. A remake should try to do more than change around names. It should try to take a different outlook on the plot or on scenes in the original. This one didn't do that, which was a mistake. An example would be when Kong breaks out of Shea Stadium in New York and rampages around the city. We all know he will capture Dwan and climb up the highest
building, because that's what he wants to do and that's what he did in '33. Something the producers could have done was to have the humans use Dwan as bait to lure Kong up the World Trade Center, where he would meet his doom with the helicopters. However, as I said in the opening sentences, there are things I admired about this movie. In addition to Lange's character, there is more believability in the Skull Island voyage. Instead of an adventure for a legendary monster, it is a hopeful search for a large oil strike. There is a clever attempt at satire in this (The country was going through an oil crisis in 1976). I also liked how the film poked fun at itself. For example, after King Kong rampages off with Dwan in its grasp, her rescuers gaze at the damage done. When one of them asks what did it, another responded "Who do you think it was? Some guy in an ape suit?" Also, the music score in here is superb, adding some atmosphere to the film. It might even be on par with Max Steiner's film score. I also thought the cinematography, which received an Oscar nomination, was well done also. Finally, Rick Baker's ape suit is a great one and is very realistic, though that somewhat takes away from the campy fun of the original. This Kong is a controversial film. While it surpasses the original in a couple of ways and is one I will view once in a while, it fails to live up to its predecessor. One has to credit the cast and crew, however, for having the guts to make it. For it is truly a brave failure.
Rating:
Summary: Decent remake
Review: Okay, I admit that the original King Kong (1933) was technically a better film, and I admit I was innitially disappointed with this film -- mainly because it lacked the driving force of the original and its many cool prehistoric animals (the giant snake just doesn't hold a candle to the original's t-rex, triceratops, etc.). But this '76 version has many attributes that can't be denied -- many that the original version DOESN'T have. For instance, great photography (from Hawaii)and score. Jeff Bridges and the oil expidition leader (I forget his name) are great characters -- no where near as "campy" as some criticize. And how about Jessica Lange?! The scenes of her after their innitial arrival to the mysterious island are unforgettable! Lange is dressed in skimpy jeans shorts and a striped billy shirt and... guys, you just have to see her -- she is SO beautiful. No wonder Kong fell in love with her. For all these reasons, this movie is a must see. Buy it, own it -- if for no other reason than to possess the beauteous Jessica Lange captured on film in the prime of her physical beauty. I was glad I gave this film a second chance.
Rating:
Summary: A brave failure.
Review: Despite notoriously flopping at the time of its release, Guillermin's remake of 'King Kong' has many admirers, who see it as a black comedy, a moving inter-species love story, a critique of U.S. global capitalism, U.S. razzmatazz politics or U.S. foreign policy in the 1970s. 'Kong' even has an old-fashioned psychoanalytic reading - a boat full of unrelieved men rescue a beautiful woman; one in particular is interrupted three times from making love to her - Kong is the bestial emanation of these unspoken or frustrated desires. 'Kong' is all these things and is thus worthy of respect - other wannabe blockbusters should be so brave or intelligent. I just didn't get it. The lack of camp made the old-fashioned material look silly. The mismatch between live action and special effects seems more dated than the original. The direction and narrative never sparkle.
Rating:
Summary: King Kong 1976 : Great Movie, Wonderful Acting,
Review: The year was 1976, oil was a big problem in the 70's because there was a shortage of it. So the plot in this movie that involves Fred Wilson ( Charles Grodin ) fits just perfectly because it is a reflection of what was going on at that time,and a lot of people critize this movie because of that.they need to look at the facts, what was going on then. the idea of having the Twin Towers as Kong's final stand was excellent because in the flashback sequence they remind him of the two large mountains that were at his home. Now the biggest success of this movie was the lifelikeness of the Gorilla except in the famous shea stadium sequence... The Cinematography was great and so was John Barry's haunting score, this movie is a modern beauty and the beast retelling and should not be compared to the original. a must see....watch it.
Rating:
Summary: Too Cool!
Review: King Kong was a great movie. The remake is 100 times better. This remake is awesome. One of the great diffrences between the two films is the natives and their city. The gate in the 1933 version is stone and plain. They ring a gong to get kong. The new movie has a huge wooden gate and the whole sacrifise ceremony is exicting. While chanting KONG the people dance and sing, It is really too cool. However, the ceremony is only one of the many things that make KING KONG 1976 cool. See it for yourself.
|
