CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › King Kong (1976)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

King Kong (1976)

post #1 of 44
3/26/05 at 1:33am
Thread Starter 
Why does this film get so much hate? I saw it when I was very young and loved it to death. It all seemed very realistic to me then. Watching it now, as I just did with my sons, it's still a great flick and looks pretty damn good considering it was filmed in the mid 70's. Hell I'd put this Kong up against most of the CGI crap that's out there today. Sure CGI is getting better and better but there is some really godawful uses of it floating around.

I think the cast is top notch. Who better to play the greedy oil executive than Charles Grodin. I love the guy in everything he's done and this is no exception. Then there's Jeff Bridges as Jack Prescott the academic hero. He totally looked and played the part. I half expected him to drop a hit of acid during the natives ceremony and begin chanting himself. For some reason whenever I watch King Kong it makes me want to watch Altered States. Last but not least you have the ultra sexy Jessica Lange as Dwan the starlet wannabe. Every thing she does is sexy. When she finally comes to after being pulled aboard the ship I swear she looks and acts like she wants to get gang banged by all the guys in the room.

Anyway, I just think it's a fantastic monster movie and certainly the best King Kong movie to date. I'm quite confident though that Peter Jackson will blow our minds. Again.
Reply
post #2 of 44
3/26/05 at 1:35am
Okay, who wants first dibs?
Reply
post #3 of 44
3/26/05 at 1:43am
Thread Starter 
Bring it on!
Reply
post #4 of 44
3/26/05 at 10:15am
I agree with you Floydian.

It was my first experience with Kong on the big screen, after watching all those King Kong and Godzilla films at my elementary school on Saturdays during the early 70's. Maybe it was because it was in color and was on the big screen, but I fell in love with this movie too. Jessica Lange got my juices flowing and I have always been a fan of Jeff Bridges. I totally love this film.
Reply
post #5 of 44
3/26/05 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floydian_Trip
....and certainly the best King Kong movie to date...
I'll just leave that bit alone.

Kong '76, while not being the giant piece of garbage that most people make it out to be, is still at least a moderate piece of garbage. In my opinion.

Here's a great article at Kong is King.net that puts things into perspective though....
Reply
post #6 of 44
3/26/05 at 11:06pm
King Kong vs. Mega Kong, now that was a lick..of crap. I liked the orginal that was made, and now the mega kong was a rip off of MeggaGodzilla. Oh well, i guess someone wanted to see a robot kong. Maybe Peter Jackson's remake will blow our minds.
Reply
post #7 of 44
3/28/05 at 8:07pm
"Anyway, I just think it's a fantastic monster movie and certainly the best King Kong movie to date"
Anybody who says the 76 film is better then the 1933 original has lost all creditbility in my book.
Reply
post #8 of 44
3/28/05 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
"Anyway, I just think it's a fantastic monster movie and certainly the best King Kong movie to date"
Anybody who says the 76 film is better then the 1933 original has lost all creditbility in my book.
A lot of people don't read your book.

Anyway, I think the 1976 film is much more watchable than the 1933 version.
Reply
post #9 of 44
3/28/05 at 8:47pm
The 76 version is awful. It rips every bit of majesty, wonder, sympathy and dignity out of the KONG story and replaces it with a back-talking Jessica Lange. Rick Baker looks awful in his suit, Guillerman's directing is pedestrian and the only person who comes out of this with any credit is John Barry.

It's exactly the same as the Devlin/Emmerich GODZILLA. Then again, it came from the same man who wanted to make KING KONG VS. ORCA.
Reply
post #10 of 44
3/28/05 at 8:54pm
John Barry.
Great Music.
Reply
post #11 of 44
3/29/05 at 1:21am
While it doesn't come even close to touching the original, it's still a decent movie that catches a little too much hate. Would have been nice to have a few more creatures on Skull Island other than Kong and a giant snake though.
Reply
post #12 of 44
3/29/05 at 2:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
"Anyway, I just think it's a fantastic monster movie and certainly the best King Kong movie to date"
Anybody who says the 76 film is better then the 1933 original has lost all creditbility in my book.
I have to agree. I recently attempted to re-watch the '76 version on one of the pay movie channels and I lost interest after about 7 minutes. I don't know what it is, but something about the film just doesn't sit right with me.

It's certainly not the worst Kong film (Godzilla vs Kong springs to mind) but it doesn't hold a candle to the original.
Reply
post #13 of 44
3/29/05 at 2:37am
I've always enjoyed this version. Jessica Lange is piping-hot and she at least seems to care about Kong, unlike Fay Wray in the original.

The posters were all too cool.


The original is superior, I won't be the fool to argue that, but this is not a complete waste. Maybe Jackson's will make it that way though, who knows?

Although the most frustrating and annoying things about this flick are the special-effects. What is up with the inconsistency?

One scene they look great and are quite stunning, the next scene they look awful and cheap.


looking forward to Jacksons take definitely.

That said, I've always been partial to "Mighty Joe Young" a little more. I'm a sucker for that films happy ending.

Where is the DVD?
Reply
post #14 of 44
3/29/05 at 9:33am
How about the sequel, King Kong Lives?
They actually manage to bring back Kong to life by replacing his heart with a giant pacemaker!
Reply
post #15 of 44
3/29/05 at 11:28am
I watch a lot of monster movies with my boy. That means that I watch a lot of bad movies.

As far as bad monster movies go, the '76 King Kong is about average. It's got your giant monster, it's got your destruction of real estate, and it's got your Dude.

I mean, really. At the end of Destroy All Monsters, Baby Godzilla helps defeat King Gidorah by blowing a cute little smoke ring that settles around KG's neck, choking him.

It's all about your frame of reference.
Reply
post #16 of 44
3/29/05 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randolph Carter
How about the sequel, King Kong Lives?
They actually manage to bring back Kong to life by replacing his heart with a giant pacemaker!
I think you just answered your own question.
Reply
post #17 of 44
3/29/05 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
I've always enjoyed this version. Jessica Lange is piping-hot and she at least seems to care about Kong, unlike Fay Wray in the original.
Yes, Jessica Lange was quite hot - but I think it's more in an actresses-who-snort-coke-centipedes-before-delivering-their-lines-always-appear-sexually-unihibited type way.

At times, she looks like she is dusted to the eyeballs. Indeed, when the chloroform got dumped into the pit, I half expected her to shove Kong out of the way and dive in.
Reply
post #18 of 44
3/29/05 at 12:24pm
I suggest that Lange is a gifted and sophisticated actress who played her character as a dumb actress.

She did such a fine job that it hurt her career, and she later refused to discuss the movie.
Reply
post #19 of 44
3/29/05 at 11:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin L. Bishop
I think you just answered your own question.
Touche!
Reply
post #20 of 44
3/31/05 at 7:31pm
IMO, it's impossible for anyone who lives in the (grim) North of England to dislike a movie which features a tropical, lush and unpolluted island in the middle of nowhere.
Reply
post #21 of 44
4/3/05 at 3:45am
I also saw the 76 Kong as a kid, so it had a HUGE impression on me. After some years I watched the original, and was just weak... no Petrox, no hot chick, no crazy kong...

UNtil this day I believe the Laurentis version is the best. Great music, some good efects (And some awfull), HOT CHICK, cool story, and some violence (Kong stomps a lot of people when he escapes, plus there´s tons of blood in the end)

And yes, I cried when the ape died.
Reply
post #22 of 44
4/3/05 at 4:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster

Indeed, when the chloroform got dumped into the pit, I half expected her to shove Kong out of the way and dive in.
Damn funny motherfucker.
Reply
post #23 of 44
4/3/05 at 5:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
I suggest that Lange is a gifted and sophisticated actress who played her character as a dumb actress.
No. It was just really written in completely the wrong tone.

From the writer of the 60s Batman movie, no less. At least that explains the camp, and Dino Di Laurentiis' involvement explains why it's shite.
Reply
post #24 of 44
4/4/05 at 5:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabalite
A hundred foot tall ape gets her wet, blows on her and then pulls off Jessica Langes tube top!!!!
I was so into this as a kid. If I caught the movie on TV at any time day or night, I would drop everything and watch it up until that point. I'm not sure if I've ever seen the end.
Reply
post #25 of 44
4/4/05 at 7:04pm
Kong marked the beginning of a lamentable period of history when Jeff Bridges and Kurt Russell dueled to see who could “out beard” each other.
Reply
post #26 of 44
4/14/05 at 8:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arvin Sloane
I also saw the 76 Kong as a kid, so it had a HUGE impression on me. After some years I watched the original, and was just weak... no Petrox, no hot chick, no crazy kong...

UNtil this day I believe the Laurentis version is the best. Great music, some good efects (And some awfull), HOT CHICK, cool story, and some violence (Kong stomps a lot of people when he escapes, plus there´s tons of blood in the end)

And yes, I cried when the ape died.

It's opinions like this that make me despair of the intelligence of the Human Race.
How anybody can logically argue that the 76 version is better then the 33 version is just beyond my comprehension.
The 76 Version is not a total piece of shit..there is some good stuff there...but one fact should factor in here:
The 1933 version is still remembered and talked about.
The 1976 version has been forgotten except when Jessica Lange jokes about it or when a few fanboys get together.
Reply
post #27 of 44
4/17/05 at 2:56pm
I love the 1976 version for a number of the same reasons that others listed. To call it "better" than the 1933 version though? I like "Godzilla 1985" more than "Gone With The Wind" but that doesn't make it a better movie. I guess there are two types of bad movie fans: The kind who will admit that the movies they enjoy are bad and the kind who will try to convince themselves they are legitimate cinema. The 1976 remake of "King Kong" is far from being the worst as far as bad movies are concerned but it is certainly an "acquired taste" as far as movies go and it's nowhere near the original version.
Reply
post #28 of 44
4/17/05 at 5:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
"Anyway, I just think it's a fantastic monster movie and certainly the best King Kong movie to date"
Anybody who says the 76 film is better then the 1933 original has lost all creditbility in my book.
So your opposed to the freedom of one having ones own opinion?
Reply
post #29 of 44
4/18/05 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutant X
So your opposed to the freedom of one having ones own opinion?
No, but I reserve the right to call an opinion stupid and silly, and the idea that the 1976 KK is better then the 1933 original qualifes as stupid and silly in my book.
I don't hate the 1976 version but even most people who like it think the 1933 version is much better.
I get so tired of people who think their freedom of speech is being violated if their opinion is criticised or attacked.
Freedom of Speech gives you the right to state your opinion...and others the right to say it is bullshit.
Reply
post #30 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
No, but I reserve the right to call an opinion stupid and silly, and the idea that the 1976 KK is better then the 1933 original qualifes as stupid and silly in my book.
I don't hate the 1976 version but even most people who like it think the 1933 version is much better.
I get so tired of people who think their freedom of speech is being violated if their opinion is criticised or attacked.
Freedom of Speech gives you the right to state your opinion...and others the right to say it is bullshit.
I think the 1976 is a better movie but the 1933 film is more iconic. It`s like comparing Bella Lugosi to Gary Oldman.

As for the Godess known as Jessica Lange, let me say no way Naomi Watts will be able to compete in any way, shape or form as Kong`s love interest. That`s why I was mad at PJ that he chose her, I was hoping somebody at least as impressive as JL because that`s an important role. Adrian Brody as the hero is not very good either. It should have been Rhada Mitchell and George Clooney.
Reply
post #31 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:47am
"I think the 1976 is a better movie but the 1933 film is more iconic."

lol?
Reply
post #32 of 44
5/13/05 at 5:39am
You're all wrong...

The Mighty Peking Man is far superior to either the 1933 or 1976 version of Kong. Also, Van Helsing is far and away a better film than any of those old, crappy Universal horror movies that couldn't even afford color film. Finally, the Moebius Silver Surfer is better than the Kirby Silver Surfer.

But seriously, I find that I can't watch the '76 film today. I just find it dull, unengaging, and technically inept. (Slowing the film to give Kong's movements a feeling of weight would have helped.) To this day, the best thing about the film for me was the one-sheet of Kong on top of the Twin Towers. That captured my imagination more than the film, which was just spectacle.

As much as the '33 version in mired in the melodramatic conventions of the time, I find it far more imaginative and engaging, and Willis O'Brien's work really made Kong the Gollum of its day. Even compared to today's standards of special effects, that Kong can still move you as a character.

Besides, the '76 movie had a distinct lack of Kong vs. T. Rex action, which immediately brings the film down several notches for me.
Reply
post #33 of 44
5/13/05 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daimajin
You're all wrong...

The Mighty Peking Man is far superior to either the 1933 or 1976 version of Kong. Also, Van Helsing is far and away a better film than any of those old, crappy Universal horror movies that couldn't even afford color film. Finally, the Moebius Silver Surfer is better than the Kirby Silver Surfer.

But seriously, I find that I can't watch the '76 film today. I just find it dull, unengaging, and technically inept. (Slowing the film to give Kong's movements a feeling of weight would have helped.) To this day, the best thing about the film for me was the one-sheet of Kong on top of the Twin Towers. That captured my imagination more than the film, which was just spectacle.

As much as the '33 version in mired in the melodramatic conventions of the time, I find it far more imaginative and engaging, and Willis O'Brien's work really made Kong the Gollum of its day. Even compared to today's standards of special effects, that Kong can still move you as a character.

Besides, the '76 movie had a distinct lack of Kong vs. T. Rex action, which immediately brings the film down several notches for me.

Anybody who claims that Van Helsing was a better film then the classic Universal horror films has automatically lost any credibility with me on the topic of film, period.
And ,uh, good quality color film was not available until 1936. There were a few early attempts such as Two Tone Technicolor. but the result was terrible and they did not catch on. It was not 1936 and "Becky Sharp" that you had good quality color...and even then it was very expensive process.
What next guy?Gonna say the Adam Sandler is a greater comic then Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton because Sandler films have sound and Chaplin and Keaton Don't?
Reply
post #34 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:10pm
Umm, dudalb, you might want to read his post again.

Just sayin'...
Reply
post #35 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:11pm
People using words and sentiments to humorously describe feelings that they do not actually feel?

OH SWEET JESUS NO!
Reply
post #36 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
Anybody who claims that Van Helsing was a better film then the classic Universal horror films has automatically lost any credibility with me on the topic of film, period.
But the classics don't have horse-drawn carriages leaping over impossible chasms! That is cinematic gold.
Reply
post #37 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:14pm
You clutz.
Reply
post #38 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:20pm
Now that, Fett, is gold.
Reply
post #39 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
"I think the 1976 is a better movie but the 1933 film is more iconic."

lol?
Yea I was trying to be showy and fell right on my face. Naa the first one was better, no questions.
Reply
post #40 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Helix
People using words and sentiments to humorously describe feelings that they do not actually feel?

OH SWEET JESUS NO!
I wish I could be sure that post like the one in question are sarcastic in nature. But I have seen posts with opinions just as ridiculous that were meant seriously.
But you are right, the fact that the post was very literate should have been a dead giveaway that we were most likely being spoofed. Usually post with those opinions meant seriously are AICN talkback level illiterate.
Serously, I have read a lot of posts in which the opinion that "Black and White sucks" is expressed seriously.
Reply
post #41 of 44
5/13/05 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
I wish I could be sure that post like the one in question are sarcastic in nature. But I have seen posts with opinions just as ridiculous that were meant seriously.
But you are right, the fact that the post was very literate should have been a dead giveaway that we were most likely being spoofed. Usually post with those opinions meant seriously are AICN talkback level illiterate.
Serously, I have read a lot of posts in which the opinion that "Black and White sucks" is expressed seriously.
Actually, the giveaway was this:

Paragraph 1: Humourous comment on Van Helsing etc

Paragraph 2: Serious comments on how shite KK76 is, beginning with the qualifier "But seriously,"
Reply
post #42 of 44
5/13/05 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daimajin
You're all wrong...
This is why I love the Internet.
Reply
post #43 of 44
5/13/05 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb
I wish I could be sure that post like the one in question are sarcastic in nature. But I have seen posts with opinions just as ridiculous that were meant seriously.
Actually, I was hoping the Silver Surfer quote was a dead giveaway. I knew I shouda used a smiley face.
Reply
post #44 of 44
5/13/05 at 6:28pm
Maybe he though you were Denzel Washington.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › King Kong (1976)