1/5 From the first frame to the last---yuk!
  by Jery Tillotson (new york city)
While channel surfing last night, I came upon the AMC channel which was just telecasting the l976 remake of "King Kong". I began watching, just to see if it was as bad as I remembered.

It was even worse. One naturally recalls the exhiliraing magic of the l933 original. This one was such a travesty on every level, that I watched in dumbfounded horror. In many scenes, the giant ape resembles a big toy or a man in a gorilla suit. Close-ups of his hands resembles glistening rubber. Instead of fighting animated models that was so brilliantly done in the original, we watch this Kong fight a rubber snake.

The cast do what they can with their roles but you feel nothing for the characters of Ann Darrow (Jessca Lange) or her boyfriend, Jeff Bridges. Lang plays the heroine as some poor, simpering little creature who needs the protectin of her boyfrend at all times.

This should be condemned, along with the ghastly, over-produced version made by Peter Jackson.

Classics like King Kong should never be remade. But this is a lesson ignored by Hollywood because if you go to the multiplaces today, you're offered ghstly remakes of Haloween, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Prom Night and Sorority Row.

5/5 "My Favorite Kong Film"
  by Terry Richard (Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada)
Many people would argue by saying this is a terrible film based on the "King Kong' franchise, but I have to say I have always enjoyed and loved this version. Maybe it's because it's one of the first films I saw when I was a little boy, but after viewing the film again on DVD the movie still holds up. The story is strong, the special effects are impeccable, and Paramount wasted no money on its 24 million dollar budget. I just believe many expected the film to be up to par with the Fay Wray original, but like many remakes this film has always struggled to gain acceptance among "King Kong" enthusiasts.
As many know the movie is about an ape that is taken from its habitat from a South Pacific island to New York City where all hell takes place when the giant ape breaks free. I always felt the movie really dramatizes how hard it is for someone, in this case an animal, to be taken away from its home, only to be placed in a strange part of the world with unfamiliar surroundings and people. This is something we all can relate to.
"King Kong" was also Jesscia Lange's first film role and she pulls it off remarkably. This version, contrary to popular belief, was a boxoffice smash raking over 80 million dollars in ticket sales. "Kong" also won an Oscar for Best Special Effects.
In 1978 NBC paid nearly 20 million dollars to broadcast "King Kong" on its network, the largest amount of money paid by a broadcaster for a theatrical film at that time.
The DVD comes in beautiful widescreen format and the movie is cleaned from the original print. The theatrical trailer is included along with english subtitles. The sound is dolby digital with french mono.

2/5 Dumb Blonde, Dumb Movie
  by G. D. Garduno (Aurora, CO USA)
I'm watching the 1976 remake of "King Kong" on AMC as I write this review. I'm not one of those who believe this film is "artistic", as some other reviewers have opined. Yes, it does have satire, humor, and even possesses a bit of a green message before people knew what "green" meant. In the end analysis, DeLaurentiis' film is just bad; there are many poorly done scenes, and the effects are mediocre. There is simply no getting around the fact that any remake of Kong is going be compared to Merian C. Cooper's 1933 masterpiece. Here is a list of things I base my opinions on regarding this film:

1. First of all, many people do not understand the difference between "monkeys" and "apes". This includes the makers of this film, who include many instances of calling Kong a "monkey". There are many differences between monkeys and apes, among them the fact that monkeys are far smaller than apes, and monkeys have tails-apes do not. Kong was a gorilla, NOT a monkey.

2. The film depicts Kong as walking upright, as humans do. This is a fallacy; gorillas travel on all fours, using the knuckles of their hands to support the front part of their body. Makeup effects maestro Rick Baker (who was inside the Kong suit in this film) has stated that looking back he made major errors in his work on this film. Look closely at Kong's back and flaws in the gorilla suit are plain to see.

3. At the time "Kong" was made, a great deal of press was put out about the giant robotic version of the central character. The robot Kong came out so badly that it was only actually used in two brief shots during the infamous "gas pump" escape scene. However, Kong's mechanical hands came out fairly well in closeups with Jessica Lange. The vast majority of Kong shots were done with Rick Baker in a gorilla suit, with animatronics for facial movements in closeups.

4. Composite sfx shots in this film are done very badly (Academy voters disagreed; Kong won an Oscar for best visuals). An prime example is the "log/chasm" scene, where Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges) hides in a cave while Kong rocks the log, hurling men into the canyon. The composite shot of Bridges clearly does not match the set background, and looks very amateurish. This is but one of many scenes that look equally bad. Cooper's 1933 original was done more than 40 years earlier, but looks much more convincing than this one.

5. The acting is absolutely awful in this film. While some have stated that Jessica Lange did a bang up job in her portrayal of the brainless Dwan, that doesn't say much for the overall quality of the film. Jeff Bridges gives it the old college try, but he is lost in a lousy movie. In my opinion, the best performance in the film belongs to Charles Grodin, who goes way over the top as oil company hack Fred Wilson. Baker's facial animatronics do succeed in gaining sympathy from the audience for Kong, in spite of the aforementioned anatomical errors.

6. The story is lifted pretty much lock stock and barrel from the 1933 original, with a few tweaks to update the plot for a fuel-starved U.S. population in the 1970s. The original screenplay was a masterpiece to begin with, so DeLaurentiis would have been nuts to change it too much.

In the end analysis, the 1976 remake comes up far short of the 1933 original. Merian C. Cooper broke new ground by using stop-motion animation to create the original Kong. DeLaurentiis decided to stay away from this approach, apparently not wanting his film to be labeled a copy of the earlier one. The man-in-a-gorilla-suit approach came out little better than a low budget 1950s film. Merian C. Cooper and Willis O'Brien need not have worried that their legendary film might be eclipsed by this turkey.

4/5 High adventure and... Jessica Lange
  by - Durrkk (Ohio/PA border USA)
The first time I saw this '76 version of "King Kong" (in the 80s) I was very disappointed that the numerous dinosaurs contained in the original were no where to be found; and the giant snake just didn't cut it. One of the best features of the original is the thrilling Skull Island sequences with numerous dinosaurs; these sequences hit you one right after another -- BAM, BAM, BAM! The Skull Island part on this '76 version is lethargic by comparison (I'm talking about AFTER Kong appears and kidnaps Dwan).

I saw it again back in the mid-90s and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the film. You gotta respect the fact that the filmmakers went for something different than the original. It's like they said, "Dinosaurs? We don't need no stinkin' dinosaurs!" What they went for, instead, was to highlight Kong's human-ness and how awestruck he was by Dwan's beauty.

For instance, Kong walks more like a human than an ape. Apparently Rick Baker, the man in the Kong suit, wanted to walk like an ape but wasn't allowed. This is fitting because, again, the film attempts to emphasize Kong's human-ness.

As far as comparisons to the original film and the 2005 version, if we're honest about it this '76 version, albeit flawed, is better or just as good in many areas. Although the original is a masterpiece considering its era, let's face it, it has quite a few obvious flaws aside from its datedness, e.g. Jack's premature declaration of love for Ann, the blandness of the characters (except Fay), the natives' kidnapping of Ann (Why sure!) and the goofy appearance of Kong himself (all the dinosaurs look great but they couldn't come up with a better, more authentic look for the film's star monster, even though they had apes in zoos to compare with?). As for the 2005 version, it's a fun film but seriously marred by cartooney overkill. It plays out like a Road Runner cartoon more than anything else. It's just impossible to suspend disbelief while watching it.

So what's so good about this '76 version?

WHAT WORKS:

- The film has a serious vibe of high adventure. The ship scenes and the initial island sequences with the tribal people are all great. Take, for instance, when they discover the great wall, ominous music and all.

- The score by John Barry is exceptional.

- The three main characters are both memorable and likable -- Jack (Jeff Bridges), Dwan (Jessica Lange) and Fred Wilson (Charles Grodin). Bridges in particular makes a distinctive long-haired protagonist. This wasn't the case in the original. Although Fay Wray was fine, the two male leads are bland and forgettable. Even though Fred (Grodin) is a greedy opportunist in this '76 version he's still kinda likable. For instance, he could have kept Jack locked up the entire trip but chooses to give him a job instead. Also, he could have tried to hog all the profits from Kong's capture but shares the 'success' with others, including Dwan and Jack (even though Jack ultimately declines).

- Of all three films, Jessica Lange is the best in the Ann Darrow-Dwan role and, by far, the most beautiful. As a matter of fact, the film's worth watching just to catch Jessica in her curvey physical prime. The scenes of her after their initial arrival to the mysterious island are unforgettable! Lange is dressed in skimpy jean shorts and a striped billy shirt and, guys, you just have to see her -- she's incredible! Check out the feminine muscle tone on her legs! No wonder Kong became fascinated with her.

- The Kaua'i, Hawaii, locations are magificent! The other two versions don't hold a candle to these breathtaking locations, including Jackson's cartooney CGI jungles.

- Kong looks best in this version. Yes, it's just a guy in an ape suit but it works. His facial expressions are great. Kong looks so much better in this version compared to the original that there really is no comparison. Of course, Kong looks great in the 2005 remake as well, but Jackson basically just made Kong out to be a gargantuan gorilla. By contrast, in the original and '76 version Kong is a huge ape with human qualities. I prefer the huge human-like ape over the (mere) giant gorilla.

- This version is more adult-oriented and believable. Skull Island is a mysterious island with large animals but no dinosaurs. This makes more sense. The thilling dino-scenes have been omitted in favor of sequences of a more dramatic nature. I prefer the thrilling dino-encounters but have to respect the risk-taking originality and believability of this version.

- This is the only version that shows Kong being transported from the island to the U.S.A. Quite a bit of runtime is devoted to it, in fact.

- The World Trade Center (RIP) is featured and the ending is pretty gorey; you can't help but sympathize with Kong.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

- The giant ape hand/arm gets the job done but that's about it. It's used too often and moves too slow.

- Likewise, the giant snake is okay but that's about it. This sequence required a thrilling battle between two colossal creatures and what we get is pretty weak and forgettable.

- The studio sets for the island look fake; they're not much better than the sets seen on the original Star Trek tv series. They should have stayed with the great Kaua'i locations instead of lame studio sets.

- The footage of the 40-foot mechanical ape prop shown in the last act for about 4 seconds should have been left on the cutting room floor. It's horrible.

Some have criticized that this version is campy but, really, the only remotely campy aspect is the Charles Grodin character. Besides, is he all THAT campy? I've met people like him in real life (take, for instance, when he steps out of the boat on the island to the vainglory of the camera's eye -- it rings true).

Aside from Jessica Lange, what I like most about this film is its spirit of high adventure. If you're in the mood for serious high adventure you can't go wrong with this version of "King Kong."

GRADE: B+ (I'm in a generous mood, but it's at least a B or B-)


2/5 BETTER THAN PETER JACKSON'S VERSION
  by Anthony Crnkovich (Chicago, Illinois)
It had to take Peter Jackson's 2nd remake of the '33 classic to finally force me to say something positive about this first remake attempt. I think this one is actually BETTER than Jackson's version for the simple reason that at least an effort was made NOT to copy the original. It was contemporary, it spoke for its era just like the original film did during the Great Depression. For example: The expedition goes to Kong's island in search of oil and this was relevant to the time the movie came out with all the fuss there was about energy during the '70's. Also, Kong's last stand atop the World Trade Center now seems disturbingly prophetic, given the tragic events of 9/11. This gives the '76 version some legitimate standing on its own as a movie, and therefore puts it a notch above the completely pointless '05 version.