|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Nov 12, 2020 3:34:54 GMT
Is there a following for those? I do at least remember back in the day that people were debating whether or not the 1976 film was better than the Peter Jackson one, but does anyone still care for it? The most noteworthy thing I can say about it is that it just screams the 1970s. It doesn’t have the sense of wonder or adventure that the original film has, nor is it “epic” like the Peter Jackson version. It’s frankly more boring than it ought to be.
The sequel is great for a laugh, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Nov 12, 2020 3:39:48 GMT
It has Jessica Lange in her prime, which is more than enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 12, 2020 3:39:59 GMT
The 1976 film has one of the best movie posters ever. The movie itself is pretty mediocre. It is on Amazon Prime so maybe I’ll revisit it. As for King Kong Lives, it’s... not good. At all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 12, 2020 4:23:59 GMT
Liked the first better than the Jackson version but still prefer the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bad Snorkasaurus on Nov 12, 2020 4:43:47 GMT
There is a pretty good following and demand for it, mostly out of nostalgia.
Its consistently mentioned as a title movie collectors hope will be released on bluray by Scream Factory or Paramount themselves in their new Paramount Presents line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurdy Gurdy Man on Nov 12, 2020 11:40:57 GMT
At its time, the 1976 film was an EVENT. It was hyped up to incredible proportions.
I think the film is halfway watchable... but only until Kong shows up. Then it's a relentlessly hard-packed rubbish train. Yes, the main reason why anyone saw the film in the first place and that itself turns out to be the film's undoing. The first few scenes on the island are nicely done and the score is quite good at places. The projector-room exposition sequence on the ship is watchable too.
But once the guy in a Kong suit takes Dwan away, the film flushes itself down into the toilet. There is just one monster fight, which involves a dime-store rubber snake. The rest of the time, Kong leches at Dwan - it's just super creepy, not exciting or remotely interesting from any angle.
Now I think of it, it doesn't make any sense to set the film in the 1970s. They shoehorn in the whole oil crisis angle - which ultimately dates it woefully - but abducting a 50 foot tall ape and then using him as a commercial mascot is something no government would rightfully allow in the 70s. The animal rights lobby was too powerful then to allow this sort of cheap exploitation.
As for the sequel, it is just... dull. The 1976 film is at least memorable for how misguided it is at every turn. The sequel isn't remotely memorable. Yes, we get to see a flash of Linda Hamilton's boob but that's it. If we wanted to see that, then we would just rewatch the director's cut of The Terminator, won't we?
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Nov 12, 2020 13:16:26 GMT
A violent bloodbath on the World Trade Centers...
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 12, 2020 14:38:07 GMT
Never saw the sequel but I pretty much feel the same about the’76 movie. Not sure why they decided to go with the camp approach. But I’d be more forgiving if it was enjoyable or if they at least had dinosaurs for Kong to fight. The music isn’t bad from what I remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Nov 12, 2020 18:53:06 GMT
Good music and a young, gorgeous Jessica Lange getting her top pulled off by Kong. Otherwise, a dreadful movie.
|
|