|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 28, 2018 15:08:54 GMT
KING KONG (1976) 2/5.
An underwhelming American monster film, that was written by Lorenzo Semple Jr, produced by Dino De Laurentiis and directed by John Guillermin. It’s an updated remake of KING KONG (1933), by James Creelman, Ruth Rose, Merian C Cooper and Edgar Wallace.
It features the special effects work of Carlo Rambaldi and Rick Baker, but although the film won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, it somehow manages to look less impressive than the original film, which is approximately 43 years older.
It stars Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin, René Auberjonois, Ed Lauter, Jessica Lange in her first film role and Rick Baker as King Kong. For me personally, the most impressive aspect of this film is its musical soundtrack by John Barry. However, on a more positive note, at least it didn’t take as long to watch as the interminable Peter Jackson version did in 2005.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2018 18:49:14 GMT
I like this movie, it's always been a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. Shame about the Kong suit, though - made forty or so years after the original, and it has an inferior Kong? What sense does that make?
Also found it a bit weird watching Bridges cheering with joy as Kong barbecues a bunch of US soldiers on top of the WTC. I know that in general in Kong films, we're supposed to be on Kong's side even though his rampage certainly kills many innocent people. But it's one thing to be sympathetic to Kong in spite of his killing innocent people, it's another to actively cheer on his burning people to death.
Anyway, still like the movie.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 28, 2018 18:56:24 GMT
I saw it the theater and liked it, especially Jessica Lange and the scene where Kong hides from the NYPD.
Watched it again once or twice since them.
But take out the first hour of the 2005 version, and it is spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 28, 2018 19:55:33 GMT
I like it better than the 2005 version--but its a terrible Kong remake.
It's 1970s counterculture sensibilities (like Bridges cheering Kong's destruction and the ending with her swamped by media-as she wanted-while he stands off watching) is part of its charm.
Charles Grodin is good too-especially when Rene Auberjonois is telling him about the oil.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 28, 2018 20:01:13 GMT
I actually was down by the Twin Towers when they shot Kong's dead body surrounded by people.
There was an ad in the papers the day before asking for extras. I went there after work, but it was too late. There were already thoudands of people there.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 28, 2018 21:35:18 GMT
I like this movie, it's always been a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. Shame about the Kong suit, though - made forty or so years after the original, and it has an inferior Kong? What sense does that make? Also found it a bit weird watching Bridges cheering with joy as Kong barbecues a bunch of US soldiers on top of the WTC. I know that in general in Kong films, we're supposed to be on Kong's side even though his rampage certainly kills many innocent people. But it's one thing to be sympathetic to Kong in spite of his killing innocent people, it's another to actively cheer on his burning people to death. Anyway, still like the movie. Sorry, mate, but it's just an underwhelming effort at a monster film for me. I know it features the 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...
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 28, 2018 21:37:52 GMT
I saw it the theater and liked it, especially Jessica Lange and the scene where Kong hides from the NYPD. Watched it again once or twice since them. But take out the first hour of the 2005 version, and it is spectacular. Jessica Lange...?
My god that woman was 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 fuck’s 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.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 28, 2018 21:39:37 GMT
I like it better than the 2005 version--but its a terrible Kong remake. It's 1970s counterculture sensibilities (like Bridges cheering Kong's destruction and the ending with her swamped by media-as she wanted-while he stands off watching) is part of its charm. Charles Grodin is good too-especially when Rene Auberjonois is telling him about the oil. For me, 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.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Oct 28, 2018 21:43:24 GMT
Love it.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Oct 28, 2018 21:45:28 GMT
I saw it the theater and liked it, especially Jessica Lange and the scene where Kong hides from the NYPD. Watched it again once or twice since them. But take out the first hour of the 2005 version, and it is spectacular. Jessica Lange...?
My god that woman was 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 fuck’s 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.
I thought she was great
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 28, 2018 21:50:22 GMT
Jessica Lange...?
My god that woman was 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 fuck’s 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.
I thought she was great Each to their own, mate.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 29, 2018 18:02:19 GMT
Ugh, I used to hate this but instead I just find it mediocre. Much preferred the Peter Jackson version.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 29, 2018 18:19:01 GMT
Ugh, I used to hate this but instead I just find it mediocre. Much preferred the Peter Jackson version. I still prefer the 1933 version.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 30, 2018 0:14:36 GMT
For me, 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.
I think Lange added a bit of class to the film, but I may be a bit biased here, because I love her as an actress and I think she is a US national treasure.
The score is excellent and I actually like the build up to Kong, but once the poor effects and mayhem come into play, the film pales in comparison to the 1933 classic, which is superior in pretty much every way.
Yes, PJ's version was poorly cast to my tastes—Watts was fine—and it wasn't necessary to make an over-indulgent 3hr film. Not surprised it didn't fare that well at the box office. I don't think I would ever care to watch it again and I really don't think he made a wise choice with casting Adrien Brody and Jack Black. I am not a fan of either and Brody has no appeal or charisma for me on the screen and always comes across a smug and full of himself. The film also lacked the sexual nuance that the 33' version conveyed so well.
Actually, I can't remember ever seeing her in something I liked...
And if Peter Jackson had produced a two hour film, which avoided the darker and nastier aspects of his final production, it probably would have been much more successful.
That dinosaur stampede was just plain stupid and those giant worms and insects were just plain nasty. There are several other annoyances that spring to mind, but they're the main two.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Oct 30, 2018 0:28:36 GMT
Actually, I can't remember ever seeing her in something I liked...
And if Peter Jackson had produced a two hour film, which avoided the darker and nastier aspects of his final production, it probably would have been much more successful.
That dinosaur stampede was just plain stupid and those giant worms and insects were just plain nasty. There are several other annoyances that spring to mind, but they're the main two.
I didn't mind the worms and insects, that added a nice horrific element to the film, but the dinosaur stampede was ridiculous and over-done and it really wasn't that much of a novelty seeing cgi dinosaurs anymore. They aren't original creatures and have been done to death.
The latest Jurassic Park films have also proven that this is becoming boring and old hat now, no matter how well they are done.
Jackson needed to speed up the arrival to Skull Island and not waste so much money on monster visual effects that weren't necessary and slowed the film down. He only made the film because he could by then and because he had a fondness for the original. It was an ego trip only. I think it would've been better served with a more adventurous spirit and a less horrific element.
And as you said, a quicker pace.
The build-up in a film shouldn't bore the audience to death.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 12, 2018 6:28:13 GMT
3/10 - Pretty lame remake. I was never that big on the original but I much prefer that over this.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Nov 12, 2018 12:58:18 GMT
Yeah, it's a bit of a shocker.
|
|