Review King Kong (1976)

Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
fafer.jpg


Your thoughts on this movie.....

A petroleum exploration expedition comes to an isolated island and encounters a colossal giant gorilla.



 
Last edited:
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
King Kong (1976) - Discussion With Cast And Crew - Los Angeles - December 2016


This video is for loyal fans of the 1976 KONG. It is a panel discussion after a 40th anniversary cinema screening of the movie in 2016.

Also, for lovers of this version, there is this nice and lovingly put together dedicated website.

KINGDOM KONG:

http://www.pulpanddagger.com/canuck/kongpage.html

The owner sadly passed away in 2005, but the website is still a lovely source of info, including reviews and articles from the time of the film's release.
 
Last edited:
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
Yes, I am very much looking forward to it too and was also disappointed with the Jackson version, which I felt was too long and had at least one major subplot that could have been hacked out out the film, namely the whole Heart of Darkness subplot. I was hoping that the extra time was going to be used to explain the practicalities of shipping Kong from Skull Island to New York, but no, he was suddenly there again, just like in the original.

The size of the new Kong certainly makes him look formidable and the sequel in 2020 should be interesting!
 
GhostOfTheWest

GhostOfTheWest

Member: Rank 1
A sequel planned already wouldn't normally be a good sign for the sequel but at least it's three years away which gives them plenty of time to prep a sequel.
 
Lucas

Lucas

Member: Rank 4
The original 1933 King Kong is great, I haven't seen the 1976 version and I'm not a fan of Peter Jackson's King Kong - in fact I prefer the videogame.
 
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
This is one of my favourite movies of all time.

And I can't explain why....

I love the 1933 version too, but have to say that this may well be, in my opinion, the most watchable of all the versions. This could be down to the amusing script, the lush cinematography and the wonderful John Barry music.

It will never supercede the original in terms of technical brilliance, nor does it - or any other Kong follow up - have the dream/nightmare quality of the 1933 version, but it is, to my mind, the second best Kong movie of all time - any yes, I have seen Kong Island now, but neither the 1933 or 1976 films have been knocked off their perches by it i.m.o.
 
ant-mac

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
Doctor Omega said:
This is one of my favourite movies of all time.

And I can't explain why....

I love the 1933 version too, but have to say that this may well be, in my opinion, the most watchable of all the versions. This could be down to the amusing script, the lush cinematography and the wonderful John Barry music.

It will never supercede the original in terms of technical brilliance, nor does it - or any other Kong follow up - have the dream/nightmare quality of the 1933 version, but it is, to my mind, the second best Kong movie of all time - any yes, I have seen Kong Island now, but neither the 1933 or 1976 films have been knocked off their perches by it i.m.o.
Click to expand...
I have the 1933 version, the 1976 version and the 2005 version, but this version is the only one I can't really recall. I'll have to watch it again soon and get back to you on it.
 
ant-mac

ant-mac

Member: Rank 9
Sorry, Doc, but it's an underwhelming effort at a monster film. I know it features the special effects work of Carlo Rambaldi and Rick Baker, but I can't say I'm impressed by it. When you see King Kong from a distance, it's painfully obvious that it's a guy in an ape suit. And when you see King Kong up close, I'm not convinced for a moment that any of his separate parts - such as his arm, body or head - are connected together as one living creature.

I also know the film won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, but it somehow manages to look less impressive than the original film, which is at least 43 years older than it is. If you ask me, that's one hell of an accomplishment. It must have been a real slow year at the Academy Awards...

And as for Jessica Lange... My god was that woman irritating in that film! As King Kong was carrying her through the jungle back to his territory, I was actually shouting at the TV set, "For fucks sake, just eat the bitch! And I don't mean in a good way..." For me personally, the only amusing thing she did in the entire film was comment on the fact that she was one of the only women to ever be saved by DEEP THROAT (1972). I refer to the film, not the act.

In any case, the best parts of this film for me were the presence of René Auberjonois and the musical soundtrack by John Barry. However, at least it didn’t take as long to watch as that interminable fucking version Peter Jackson did, back in 2005... and 2006... and 2007! What? You say Peter Jackson's version was only three hours long... That's strange, it felt more like three years to me.
 
Doctor Omega

Doctor Omega

Member: Rank 10
That's okay, AM. I think it is the nostalgia attached to it that blinds me to it's faults! I have many memories of the anticipation of seeing it and all the hype surrounding it. From the poster to all the magazine coverage to the merchandise and books that came out around the time of the film's release.

One year later, Star Wars arrived. But 1976 was, for me, the year of Kong! :emoji_grin:
 
Gavin

Gavin

Member: Rank 6
VIP
This was the first version of King Kong I ever saw so I've got reasonably fond memories of it. Haven't seen it (or any version) for many years now. Probably the last time I watched a King Kong movie was the 2005 version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top