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: It's good fun
Summary: 4 Stars
I'm not a big fan of King Kong, but I have seen all three films: 1933, 1976, and 2005. The original 1933 film is a classic in its own right. The 2005 remake could've been better, but it had its moments. And right in the middle, the first 1976 remake is a love-or-hate motion picture. There are no dinosaurs, no chewing on natives, and no famous T-rex fight, which makes it a bit less exciting. Unlike the others, which are set in 1933, this one is set in the 70's. It's filled with politics, environmental issues, industrial strife, etc. And it has more of that than it has action.
But I don't mind the 70's politics. I like this film for what it is. Jeff Bridges gives an adequate performance, while Charles Grodin does seem to overact sometimes. Jessica Lange is a bit irritating with her sterotypical blondegirl attitude. But then her chemistry with the giant ape goes a much deeper than the original 1933 (Fay Wray just screams, while Jessica Lange, along with Naomi Watts, try to humor the fella). Speaking of ape, this ape looks realistic. Instead of stop-motion animation, this one is a guy (Rick Baker) in an ape suit. It can look cheesy at times, but his emotions have a far better effect than 1933.
The action sequences lack suspense, which both 2005 and 1933 have. The big snake (which is the only thing that Kong fights) is one laughable prop. The music is quite good and bombastic, and intentinoal humor found in this film are spot-on. I seem to like 2005 and 1976 more than 1933, because he feel much more for the ape and the woman he has a crush on. But 1933 is still a classic, and nothing would ever beat it in terms of revolutionary special effects.
P.S. I wonder what it would be like if King Kong was set in 2008.
Movie Review: We love you Jessica Lange!!!!
Summary: 4 Stars
The negative reviews about this movie are way too harsh. Sure, this 1976 remake did not need the sexual undertones that it had. And yes, the beard that Jeff Bridges was sporting was pretty nasty (ick). But this movie really was GREAT for it's time. Remember all the sweet moments between Jessica Lange and Kong? How about when Kong took her to the waterfall to rinse her off? Or how about when Kong was causing a ruckus in the oil tank and she felt compelled to go to him and when she did she said..."Hey Kong, remember me, your blind date?". And how about at the end when she was screaming to Kong... DON'T PUT ME DOWN!!! DON'T PUT ME DOWN!!! They'll kill you!!!". That will bring tears to anyone's eyes! This was a great movie for 1976. I think Peter Jackson may have fibbed just a bit. He claims that his phenomenal remake is solely based on the 1933 classic with Fay Wray. Really? Well, if you recall, Fay Wray was terrified of Kong from the moment she was sacrificed to Kong until the moment he was killed. It was Jessica Lange that started the caring for Kong thing in this remake of King Kong. Jessica Lange did a wonderful job! Especially since it was her very first movie ever! I absolutely LOVE the latest King Kong remake with Naomi Watts! Then again, Hollywood has come a long way since 1933 and 1976. So please, cut this version some slack. It was a wonderful movie for it's time and still makes my eyes fill up to this day. And after seeing all three incarnations of King Kong, I think it's safe to say that Peter Jackson got some inspiration from this version and Jessica Lange.Movie Review: It IS good, end of story.
Summary: 4 Stars
Wow, this Marshall Fine, or whatever the hell his name is, what a guy, what a review, he MUST be a genius. I'm sure he says that the new Kong is the most brilliant film of all time right? He says it almost killed J. Lange's career, hey buddy, did you watch this? She is ACTING in it!! So is Bridges, so is Grodin, they are ACTING!! Ok, the original Kong will always be best, and the new one does an ok job of showing us Kong's personality, but, this 70's version does a very good job with the story, I don't see how anyone who likes Kong can argue against that. Ok, so maybe you have to suspend your critical eye on some of the special effects, are you telling me that you can't do that when you watch the 1930's version? of course not. Lange is excellent as the ditzy blond star wanna be. Bridges is great, and Grodin does a great job as well, much better than Nacho Black and his way-too-tired-overused-shtick. Having Kong climb the Trade Towers (RIP) because they remind him of mountains from home is totally believable. Finally, when Kong meets his end, don't tell me that seeing Kong ripped to shreds by the gattling guns on the helicopters dosen't get to you and make you feel for him. So, to sum up, if you are a fan of Kong, the original is the one. Then the 70's version is the next best, and finally, the last SUPER SPECIAL EFFECTS BLOW YOUR MIND (AND EARDRUMS) THROW WHATEVER EFFECT WE CAN IN THE MOVIE JUST BECAUSE WE CAN version comes in at a distant turd, uh, I mean thurd, uh third. cheers.Movie Review: Respect Kong '76
Summary: 4 Stars
This is a great movie that seems to be typically considered a sub-par remake of the original 1933 movie. The Amazon.com reviews tend to be favorable but it is only getting a 5.5 (out of 10) at IMDB (Internet Movie Database). That's a little low.
Yes, it is a remake, but it's different enough from the original that we can stop debating over which one is better and move on. This is the King Kong I grew up on. I saw this one (many times I might add) way before I saw the original, and I am happy I get to enjoy it in all its widescreen glory on DVD.
This King Kong is a well put-together movie. Jeff Bridges is great as always, as is Jessica Lange in her first role (pity she wasn't discovered earlier). Charles Grodin plays the greedy oil tyrant so well that he actually becomes the comic relief in the movie. Together, these three actors have great chemistry, and that always helps a movie.
The special effects and Kong himself are somewhat painful to watch compared to today's standards, but c'mon it was 1976! The ape is able to pull off a dynamic performance as both loving/caring one minute and really pissed off the next (who doesn't like to see Kong pissed off?). The cinematography is quite good as well.
One complaint: there are no dinosaurs in this one (although there is a big ass snake that Kong has to take care of to protect his girl).
Movie Review: Kong '76 No Loser By Comparison
Summary: 4 Stars
There are numerous arguments concerning the artistic/entertainment status of Kong 76. Pretty much everything has been said. I enjoy this movie every time I watch it. Great? No, but thoroughly entertaining when taken for what it is. My issue is with the notion that this version is somehow not on par with the other versions. Having seen all three American films, each has it's problems. The '33 classic suffers from two dimensional characters, over acting, leaps in narrative, inconsistencies in the special effects, a cringe inducing final line, and Fay Wray does little more than scream then pass out for much of this movie. Jackson's 2005 effort, while visually spectacular, has its own share of problems, gaps in narrative, leaps in logic, and miscasting among other things. By and large, most of what Kong 76 is maligned for occurs in the others. However, this movie shores up some of the narrative weaknesses, while adding a little contemporary social commentary. And there's no beating that John Barry score!