On the list of terrible crimes people have committed throughout history, in some people's eyes Dino De Laurentis' decision to remake King Kong ranks slightly higher than the Holocaust, 9/11 and slavery. Basically, this movie apparently has no redeeming features whatsoever. De Laurentis' decision to build a 40 foot robot Kong that was virtually unusable; the fact that Kong was mainly played by a man in a suit; the contemporary setting; the absence of dinosaur battles; the climax on top of the World Trade Centre; Jessica Lange's character's stupid name (what in the blue buggery is a Dwan, anyway?); if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Jack the Ripper, Hitler and Satan formed a gang and started burning down orphanages, they wouldn't receive the same level of criticism.
Personally, I have something of a soft spot for this movie, and consider it to be extremely underrated. Much like the 1998 U.S Godzilla, it's not as good as the original, but it's still a decent film. I suppose the reason I like it is because, like Godzilla, I saw the remake before the original, and as such I didn't have any preconceptions about what I should see; I wasn't expecting fights with dinosaurs, and so I wasn't disappointed when I didn't see them.
I suppose what people dislike about this film is that, unlike Peter Jackson's 2005 version, which is a faithful retelling of the 1933 King Kong, Kong 76 bears little resemblance to the original. It's set in 1976 and has a whole new set of characters who, it has to be said, aren't great. Charles Grodin's Fred Wilson is annoying and it's a relief to see him get splattered by Kong at the end. Jeff Bridges does better as Jack Prescott, but he's still fairly forgettable, and Jessica Lange just doesn't engage the viewer like Fay Wray. Fortunately, these three actors emerged unscathed and went on to have successful careers, unlike director John Guillermin, who ended up having to make the unnecessary sequel, King Kong Lives, which was seen by about three people. The contemporary setting just doesn't lend itself to the fantastical story, and having a petrochemical company at the heart of proceedings feels like the producers were trying to hard to be modern. Also, having Kong in a cage wearing a crown with the company logo on it just looks moronic.
The most vociferous criticism has been directed at the film's special effects which, given that they were done by Carlo Rambaldi and Rick Baker, ought to have been something really special, or at least better than those of a movie that even back in 1976 was over forty years old. To be fair, Rick Baker's Kong suit is a lot better than most gorilla suits seen in movies (see King Kong Escapes, APE and The Mighty Gorga for example of how bad these things can be) and at least he tried to make it look like a real gorilla, wearing contact lenses that looked like a gorilla's eyes and basing the muscle structure on real apes. The real problem is Rambaldi's 40 foot robot Kong; while this creation had tremendous publicity value (no one could ever accuse Dino De Laurentis of being understated) when it came time to actually use the thing, it was obvious that having a 40 foot tall robot that needed to be operated by an army of technicians rampaging around New York and climbing the World Trade Centre was ever so slightly unfeasible, and so the robot only appears in a couple of scenes, mainly where Kong is standing still. The only time the thing moves is when it lifts one arm and then it just looks like a big, unconvincing robot.
In spite of these criticisms, King Kong 1976 does have some good points, notably his NYC rampage and the finale still makes you feel sorry for the big ape, particularly the close-ups of machine gun fire hitting him. The scene where Dwan punches Kong on the nose is amusing and may have inspired Naomi Watts' feistier heroine in the 2005 version, and, in a strange way, making Kong look so stupid in that crown and cage actually increases viewer sympathy for him. Basically, this movie is not the Antichrist of cinema, and if you're in the mood for some big gorilla action, it's definitely worthy of your time, provided you don't expect a shot-for-shot reworking of the original.
Personally, I have something of a soft spot for this movie, and consider it to be extremely underrated. Much like the 1998 U.S Godzilla, it's not as good as the original, but it's still a decent film. I suppose the reason I like it is because, like Godzilla, I saw the remake before the original, and as such I didn't have any preconceptions about what I should see; I wasn't expecting fights with dinosaurs, and so I wasn't disappointed when I didn't see them.
I suppose what people dislike about this film is that, unlike Peter Jackson's 2005 version, which is a faithful retelling of the 1933 King Kong, Kong 76 bears little resemblance to the original. It's set in 1976 and has a whole new set of characters who, it has to be said, aren't great. Charles Grodin's Fred Wilson is annoying and it's a relief to see him get splattered by Kong at the end. Jeff Bridges does better as Jack Prescott, but he's still fairly forgettable, and Jessica Lange just doesn't engage the viewer like Fay Wray. Fortunately, these three actors emerged unscathed and went on to have successful careers, unlike director John Guillermin, who ended up having to make the unnecessary sequel, King Kong Lives, which was seen by about three people. The contemporary setting just doesn't lend itself to the fantastical story, and having a petrochemical company at the heart of proceedings feels like the producers were trying to hard to be modern. Also, having Kong in a cage wearing a crown with the company logo on it just looks moronic.
The most vociferous criticism has been directed at the film's special effects which, given that they were done by Carlo Rambaldi and Rick Baker, ought to have been something really special, or at least better than those of a movie that even back in 1976 was over forty years old. To be fair, Rick Baker's Kong suit is a lot better than most gorilla suits seen in movies (see King Kong Escapes, APE and The Mighty Gorga for example of how bad these things can be) and at least he tried to make it look like a real gorilla, wearing contact lenses that looked like a gorilla's eyes and basing the muscle structure on real apes. The real problem is Rambaldi's 40 foot robot Kong; while this creation had tremendous publicity value (no one could ever accuse Dino De Laurentis of being understated) when it came time to actually use the thing, it was obvious that having a 40 foot tall robot that needed to be operated by an army of technicians rampaging around New York and climbing the World Trade Centre was ever so slightly unfeasible, and so the robot only appears in a couple of scenes, mainly where Kong is standing still. The only time the thing moves is when it lifts one arm and then it just looks like a big, unconvincing robot.
In spite of these criticisms, King Kong 1976 does have some good points, notably his NYC rampage and the finale still makes you feel sorry for the big ape, particularly the close-ups of machine gun fire hitting him. The scene where Dwan punches Kong on the nose is amusing and may have inspired Naomi Watts' feistier heroine in the 2005 version, and, in a strange way, making Kong look so stupid in that crown and cage actually increases viewer sympathy for him. Basically, this movie is not the Antichrist of cinema, and if you're in the mood for some big gorilla action, it's definitely worthy of your time, provided you don't expect a shot-for-shot reworking of the original.