| King Kong | | Cast : | Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin, Jessica Lange | | Director : | John Guillermin | | Studio : | Paramount Studio | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen | | Released Date : | December 17, 1976 | | DVD Released Date : | March 12, 2002 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), English (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 01, 2005 | | Summary | It Was Amazing | Content
 | This was a great fun movie that I saw 3 times in the theatre during the winter of 76/77. All the actors were good and Jessica Lange was wonderful.
My point for writing this review is that people are comparing this to the upcoming Peter Jackson version and complaining that there were no dinosaurs in the 1976 version. If history serves me well, dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago and if there are these dinosaurs on the island I am sure the natives would have been gobbled up.
If you want to see a King Kong movie made with love and heart you cant go wrong with the 1976 version. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 18, 2005 | | Summary | A Sad Travesty | Content
| Back when the 1976 KING KONG was being publicized I shuddered. I didn't (and don't) see anyone trying to remake GONE WITH THE WIND, THE WIZARD OF OZ, or CITIZEN KANE. And for good reason. These cinematic experiences are not just great films. They have proven to be timeless Icons of their bygone eras. After K.K circa 1976 was released I read a few reviews. Most were kind. Even the New York Times and Pauline Kael gave it good reviews. But actually viewing the film confirmed my worse suspicions. I disliked 1976's version because it reeked of waisted expense. Rick Baker in the monkey suit was actually not bad. But the concept, the silly characterizations, the pathetic looking snake battle--and that ridiculous robot that only got a few seconds of air time (which was HIGHLY publicized)--ruined whatever camp value the film may have had for me. The jungle scenes with Kong were so sparse and cheap looking I thought I was looking at a film costing well under a million dollars. I'm not going to lie and say I wanted to "like it". But I was hoping I wouldn't have hated it as much as a I did. At least the 2005 Kong coming up looks like it's truly a state-of-the-art homage to the original, rather than a 25 million dollar (where did the money go) exploitation flick. And at least Jessica Lange got a second chance. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 18, 2005 | | Summary | Defending the bicentenial KONG | Content
| I'll start with a personal note. I saw this film when I was 9 years-old and it was the first PG film I'd even seen, after nothing but childish Disney films and "wilderness" movies that were popular in the '70s. This was the first movie I saw that was grand and eventful, and the most spectacular thing I would see on screen (until STAR WARS, that is).
While the 1976 version of KING KONG is definetaly "bigger" than the 1933 original, I don't feel it was ever meant to be better. I don't think a studio can ever hope to achieve "better" when re-making a black and white classic (take note, Gus Van Sant. Hitchcock is still puking in his grave over your remake of PSYCHO). The point is, if you're going to remake a film, then REMAKE it. That's just what KONG '76 did, and rather well, I might add.
Granted, the ape suit was a bit cheap, and there needed to be more monster fights, but the performances by the actors are very good and John Barry's score is dark and menacing, the way KONG is meant to be. I should also add that since September 11, 2001, seeing the twin towers highlighted the way they are during Kong's ultimate fate, makes the film even more chilling today.
One final thought now regarding Peter Jackson's upcoming version; while I am looking forward to it with anticipation, I think it was a mistake to have it take place in the 1930's, once again. When you think about it, one thing that all three versions will have in common is that during the years they were (and will be) released, our country is at a time of great crisis. In 1933, we were in the midst of the Great Depression. In 1976, we were painfully recovering from Vietnam, Watergate and in the middle of a serious energy crisis. Now in 2005, we are unjustly at war with Iraq and have to put up with the likes of George W. Bush for a second term. The point is, it makes sense to update a movie with the current times and events of our world. Again, that's what "remaking" a movie should be about.
And, hey, Paramount, how about releasing a special edition DVD of the 1976 KING KONG with all that extra footage that NBC TV used to show when it aired the movie in the early 1980s over two night. And don't forget to include a full-screen option. Some of us don't have widescreen TVs yet! |
| Rating | | | Date | July 17, 2005 | | Summary | A Classic | Content
| How can anyone call the 1976 remake of King Kong a flop? It had a strong supporting cast, great special effects and the film still looks great today. Jeff Bridges does quite well with his acting as well as expressions throughout the movie, and I for one fell in love with Jessica Lange in this movie. Dwan has an innocence about her as she years to be found and by the end of the movie she's being seduced by the media not by Kong.
It brings a tear to the eye now when you see the Twin Towers in the movie, and I feel that it wasn't beauty that killed the beast, but man.
When the remake of Kong comes out this year, I don't think it will be compared to the 1933 version, but rather 1976.
Hopefully in 2006 they'll have a 30th anneversary edition DVD come out of the 1976 version with tons of extras. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 12, 2005 | | Summary | the original masterpiece blows it away like a torpedo | Content
| I'm a big Kong fan and I liked this one fine, the biggest disapointment was a few changes and scenes not in the orginal masterpiece, but Peter Jackson's may have more scenes to make it longer, but it will have more connection with the orginal and it should be longer anyway. These are changes from the orginal and Peter Jackson's is exactly like the orginal which is fantastic.
Kong 33/05(better)
Empire State Building
Dinosaurs
other big reptiles
Ann Darrow/Carl Denham
Skull Island
film starting in New York
gets on all fours sometimes
Fay Ray was way better and Naomi Watts will be
a better screamer
Kong is captured by a non lethal bomb
grabs blonde from Hotel room
a New York theater where Kong is shown
Ann is only tied up before Kong
Kong is attacked by airplanes
Ann Darrow is discovered by Denham
going to Skull Island to film movie
Kong 76(minor disapointments)
World Trade Center
no dinosaurs
only giant snake
Dwan/Fred Wilson
island no name
grabs blonde from bar
doesn't get on all fours for a few moments
no much of a lush jungle
Kong is shown to N.Y. in a cage
Dwan is found in raft
waterfall scene added
Kong is captured by a trap
helicopters attack Kong
It still has the basic story of a big gorilla is discovered on an island, takes a blonde,is captured to New York and carries blonde up building. The original thrilling masterpiece and I'm sure Peter Jackson's Kong blows away this one like a torpedo, blows right out of the sky
if your Kong fan give it a try and see what you think, I think it's fine and it's only 10 bucks it's the only Kong in the world I have on DVD before I get the orignal. So I had to buy it.
|
|
|
|
|
