King Kong
|
List Price: Our Price: $5.18 You Save: $7.81 (60%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $3.24 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of King Kong
Movie Review: A really weird remake, but it's worth seeing
Summary: 4 Stars
This is one of the first movies I ever remember seeing in a theatre - the only thing I remember about the experience, though, is the fact that the film broke; I'm not sure we ever even got to see the end of the thing. Had I been a little older, I no doubt would have remembered much more about Dino De Laurentiis' infamous remake of the 1933 classic: the oftentimes horrible special effects, the weirdness of several aspects of the story, and the effectively sad ending (had I been a good bit older, I'm sure I also would have remembered how hot that new girl on the block, Jessica Lange, was). This film has some of the worst projection screen shots I've ever seen; every single shot of Jessica in the hopelessly artificial gorilla's hand, to take just one example, is ridiculously fake. The special effects of this film are among the cheesiest I've ever seen (which is in contrast to those of the 1933 original King Kong, which still amaze me). Then there's the script itself, which does find its way into some pretty weird areas. And Jeff Bridges may be even hairier than the ape. Fortunately, though, the film does succeed (thanks largely to the close-up shots of Kong's dramatic performance) in generating loads of sympathy for the ape and thus pulling off the ending as the great tragedy that it was and is. King Kong, in both its 1933 and 1976 incarnations, is a very sad film.
Forget about making a movie on Skull Island. In this version of the film, it is the prospect of huge oil reserves that first draws outsiders to the island - a team of Petrox oil company people led by Fred Wilson (Charles Groden). Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges), a scientist, stows away onboard because he wants to study the animal life on the island. As for the blonde bombshell that will be the Beauty for Kong's Beast, Dwan (Jessica Lange) is found floating aboard an empty raft in the middle of the ocean. Everyone is surprised to find a group of natives living on the island, but Jack must have some kind of extrasensory perception because he figures out much too easily that the natives worship a gigantic living ape god and sacrifice maidens to it for their own protection. The natives kidnap Dwan from the ship, hand her over to Kong, and you pretty much know what happens from there. It is unfortunate, of course, that the climax of the film takes place at the World Trade Center rather than the Empire State Building, but the Twin Towers were new at the time and offered a stunning backdrop for the final confrontation between Kong and man.
I suppose we're all clear on the fact that King Kong is not the monster in the story; he's a victim - a victim of extreme exploitation in this 1976 version. Wilson only wants to use Kong to make himself rich, and he actually reveals him to the world from behind a gigantic gas pump (one of several incredibly strange images in this film). Thankfully, Kong makes this guy pay this time around. It's painful to see the big guy brought so low in the end, though. Kong is easy to sympathize with - he's just another poor sap destroyed by love. He's a lonely guy doing his own thing back home, and then this gorgeous blonde shows up right in front of his eyes. It's love at first sight, and he does everything he can think of to impress the girl, yet she just keeps running away. He keeps chasing her until he winds up humiliated and helpless, with thousands of eyes staring at him in his moment of defeat. Still, after moping around and feeling sorry for himself for awhile, he rises again and makes another bold attempt to win the girl back, but that only ends in total disaster. And, of course, the girl then figures out that she sort of loves the guy after all, but it's too late to do him a lick of good. I don't know about you, but that sounds kind of familiar to me.
This film is not in the same league as the 1933 original (it's not even close), but it is worth seeing. Kong is a unique monster character whose story always manages to touch the heart, even in an overblown, frankly weird adaptation such as this one. Plus, it's unintentionally amusing - especially in terms of the not so special effects.
Movie Review: What's wrong with it?
Summary: 4 Stars
Why is there flap about this film being bad? With the exception of a few changes, this movie was all the same as the original 1933. Just because it was redid in the 70s it was not like King Kong was wearing silk shirts and bell-bottoms and doing Disco moves. As for saying that it did not respect the original...How? If you want my opinion on a remake of a monster movie that did not do the original justice rent the 1998 sorry-ol American remake of Godzilla! Talk about dissin' was this our attempt to bash Japan for Pearl Harbor? For kicking butt in the electronic gadetry department, for all the Animie movies that we love? We made a PUSH-OVER out of Godzilla! This was not the case with King Kong.
So Kong did not scale the Empire State Building but instead one of the new World Trade Center Towers where then he does an Evil Knivel jump from one to the other, that is far from Godzilla running like a chicken through the streets of N.Y. hardly knocking over anything - whereas in the Japanese movies, if a building was in the way, it ceased to be so. Furthermore, Japan's Godzilla did not spare the firey breath as the American one did, nor did he act like one's pet like the American one did - see the feeding scene where Am-Godzilla is fed a pile of fish - whatever.
No, this 1970's rendition did not take away from the original. In both versions, King Kong is basically Gorilla-napped from his home and brought to the mainland to be exploited but he gets away and raises a bit of rukus. In both versions he is offered a human sacrifice whom becomes his 'girlfriend' and in both movies a woman is mistaken to be her - as Kong is trying to find her - and is murdered for it.
In the original it is a newly-wed in a hotel with her hubby where she is retrieved by the Gorilla and then - upon discovery of her not being the one - is dropped to her death. Now in the remake, it is while Kong trashes the elevated train that he finds who he mistakes to be his girlfriend and upon discover that she ain't his tosses her away.
In the orignal it is not clear why Kong trashes the elevated train, perhaps he mistakes it for a beast - remember, he battled giant beasts on his home island. In the remake, he attacks the elevated train because he smells the ladies scent in the vicinity and then sees the approaching train and attacks it - he is correct that she is on the train, but she gets away and a similiar looking lady gets the unfortunate position of being mistaken to be the gorillas girl.
In the original - as mentioned previously - Kong scales Empire State Building and battles with little fighter bi-planes while in the remake, he scales the WTC and then battles chopper helicopters.
All in all I thougth this remake was very good indeed. Bringing Kong into a then modern world but the story remained the same. I swear some of you critics need to take a Valum.
As for the King Kong/Godzilla comparison something else comes to mind. It is a Japanese Godzilla movie staring King Kong, where Kong is napped from his island by the Japanese in order to fight their star champ dragon. At least the Japanese know how to show love for our star monster and - if anything - give him more attitude, not trivalize him. In King Kong vs Gozilla (see even Kong gets first in the title) Kong actally takes a smack at a building much like Godzilla does - just on a grander scale. In KKVGZ our star gorilla acquires a girlfriend from - well - an elevated train he attacks for no apparent reason - perhaps it looked like a snake. Anyway this was a good movie too.
C'mon people, lighten up!!!
Movie Review: Much better than I remembered!
Summary: 4 Stars
When I first saw this movie, I hated it. However, with Peter Jackson's Kong being released in several months, I decided to give this one another chance. I'm certainly glad I did, for it is actually a very good movie.
The slow-moving beginning couldn't have been better, gathering suspense and making you really feel that something big and epic is about to take place. The soundtrack by John Berry is one of the best I've heard, and not just from a monster movie. As the ship approaches its destination, one begins to feel the ominous presence of something very... well... LARGE.
The acting is good, with terrific performances delivered by Jeff Bridges (Prescott) and Charles Grodin (Wilson). The low point of the entire film, however, is Jessica Lange. I haven't seen any of her other movies, but I really didn't like her in this one. During her introductory monolog, I felt like jumping into the film and strangling her. Of course this would have ruined the story, but it would have spared us her bland performance.
I might note that, if you had not known what the film was about previously, you might not guess that it was a monster flick while watching the first fifteen minutes. There are several dead giveaways, like Prescott's recitation of the nifty stories of the island, but that isn't very clear. This helps the film considerably, making the eventual appearance of Kong very exciting indeed.
Once Kong takes Dwan, the film really gets going. While not as genuinely thrilling as the original, this version is very dark. This film's tone is unbelievably dark, from its ominous, vast feeling of oncoming fate (not sure if that makes sense), to its haunting musical score. Kong's design is very fierce looking, and is probably my personal favorite of his many faces. The suit is much more sophisticated than any of the Godzilla suits (don't get me wrong, I'm a huge G-fan), and is pretty convincing, despite the fact that the suit actor doesn't know how to walk like an ape. Considering that this film is pre-Star Wars, all the effects are very well done.
The scene where Kong is put on display in NYC is extremely well done, as the event is so exceedingly tacky and stupid, you just know that this is the way it would happen in real life. I was laughing all the way through, as Wilson tells the "lucky contest winners" to "Behold the power of Kong... and Petrox!"
The climactic battle atop the (late) World Trade Center is easily the highlight of the film. Kong's leap from Tower A to Tower B is breathtaking, and you can't help cheering when he throws the barrel of something-or-other at the soldiers, blowing them to smithereens. His death is violent and tear-jerking, as gattling guns rip into him, making blood spew forth in amounts not seen since the Black Knight sequence in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A very upset Dwan (finally giving a good performance) begs Kong to pick her up and stop the attack, but Kong refuses. He slumps over and falls more than a thousand feet to the ground below, where his heart slowly stops beating, his eyes eternally fixed on Dwan. This scene has more emotional impact than an Emo song.
Overall, this is one heck of a movie. Although it has its moments of blatant stupidity, it's probably the best monster flick of the 1970's (besides Alien). If you haven't seen it, you now have my recommendation. If you've seen it once and hated it (like I did before), please give it another chance. If you've seen it a billion times and still hate it, than I guess you're still entitled to your opinion. 4/5 stars. It's good.
Movie Review: Truer to the source material than the new "Kong"
Summary: 4 Stars
Maybe I just have a soft spot in my heart for this version of "King Kong" because it was the first "Kong" I ever saw, but I've always enjoyed the 1976 incarnation. When Peter Jackson's "Kong" came out on DVD, I picked it up, as well as the 1933 original (which I'd never seen all the way through) and had myself a little "Kong" marathon, beginning with the original.
As I watched the 1933 version of "Kong," I realized that, other than a few superficial changes (Kong's captor is an oil magnate, rather than a filmmaker; Jack is an environmentalist hippie rather than first mate of the ship; "Beauty" is named "Dwan" rather than Ann Darrow) the 1976 remake actually stayed very close to the original. Others have described the 1976 version as satirical. That may be so -- is certainly seems campy enough at times, but then so do a lot of other DeLaurentiis films I've seen. One thing that is obvious, however, is that DeLaurentiis has great respect for the source material. In my opinion, he shows it a lot more than Peter Jackson did. Really, all that DeLaurentiis did was take the original story and set it in the 1970's, making changes only to make it more relatable to a more modern audience.
In the 1930's people were more concerned with the Depression and movies were the main way they escaped it for awhile. In the 1970's the big issue was gasoline shortages, and people were becoming more aware of the impact our dependence upon fossil fuels was having on the environment. Hence the change from a veteran moviemaker trying to make a fantastic, gripping new film to a veteran oilman trying to find the next big strike.
While in the original movie all of the characters had some redeeming qualities, in this version the Carl Denham character (can't remember the character's name in this version) doesn't have any, and it feels so good when Kong stomps him flat -- but that's in keeping with the image of Big Oil as soulless bloodsuckers, which was how many people felt in the '70's.
1976's "Kong" is set in the 1970's with 1970's sensibilities, rather than in the 1930's with 1970's sensibilities, while still keeping the same story (and, for the most part, characterizations) as the original. Taking into account the difference in the two decades, 1976's "Kong" is not much changed from the original, other than the fact that DeLaurentiis' film looks slicker, and his giant monkey looks much more realistic. Sure, it's cheesy, but without access to the CGI effects of today, the only way they could have made Kong look like a real gorilla would have been to film a real gorilla rampaging through a miniature set of New York.
Movie Review: John's Kong
Summary: 4 Stars
John Guillermin's "King Kong" is a 1976 remake of the 1933 original about the giant ape. It's very of it's time, but that's why I think it's so appealing.
Petrox is an oil company, eager to strike oil in the Pacific Ocean off Indonesia. Thanks to some stolen satellite pictures, they discover an uncharted island, shrouded in an unlifting fog. Petrox's representative Fred Wilson (Charles Grodin) believes this fog is a byproduct of the oil, but stowaway Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges) believes the fog is a high concentration of carbon dioxide, created by the breathing of some sort of giant animal. Prescott studies primates, and through his research has discovered this fog bank has a history of encounters with such a beast. Fred isn't convinced, though he does hire Jack as the official photographer, and together with some crew, and the sole survivor of an explosion on a yacht, the pretty Dwan (Jessica Lange), they break through the fog to discover a tribe of people fascinated with apes, conducting a marriage ceremony with no groom. They seem interested in Dwan, very interested...
King Kong in this film is basically a man in a suit, a giant arm, and composite shots of the man in a suit and a giant arm. Still, I thought it was an interesting enough effect. The facial expressions this Kong pulls are bizarre at times, and so is some of his behavior (like what he gets up to before fighting the giant snake). The idea of the explorers being an desperate oil company was a topical touch, I thought, and blended well with all the 1970s dialogue, boat paint and hairstyles. It goes for a little over two hours, but it doesn't exactly feel that long. I love the shots over the water and on the beach, you can tell that the director and crew had a lot of fun on location. It's a great location too, I thought, full of forests, beach, plains and rushing streams.
It's not a perfect film, but it's watchable enough.