BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

davidlamb4 As a 17-year-old student at the local college I saw this film at our small-town cinema. I was fairly uncritical and to me this seemed pretty good as a 'big event' film of the day. But I saw it at a matinée, and my abiding memory is of the climax in which Kong is shot to pieces, in glorious technicolor. Small children, their faces wet with tears and breaking their hearts, were carried out by their mums, having presumably gone to the cinema as a Christmas treat. Clearly the film's certification was incorrect.

crakatoot Now its impossible to talk about this movie without talking the other ones. The original 1933 film, is of course a classic. A seminal film. But at its heart it is just trying to be a fun adventure movie. And that's what this film is trying to recapture, that adventurous spirit. But in a modern context. Well modern for the 70's anyway. And this film did that beautifully. The buildup, the stories about the island. That big ass wall. Of course we know what's behind the wall but it's still good build up. And come on seeing Kong climb the Twin Towers. That was pretty cool. Especially when he jumped from one to the other. And of all the Kong films, this one had the most brutal ending. Kong's death was surprisingly graphic. The 2005 King Kong, for all its melodrama was totally bloodless. Not this film though, it really drove home the tragedy. Still, this film kept a light tone. Again one of the biggest problems with the 2005 film was how heavy handed and maudlin the whole thing was. King Kong is a silly idea and the 70's film acknowledged that and had fun with it. Did it go a little to goofy at moments "You Goddamn chauvinist pig ape!" oh yeah. And yes the Dwan character is supposed to be an air head. But come on, every character in every movie can't be a strong tough bad ass And I do think this film handled the Kong, girl relationship best. With Fay, she was just terrified of Kong. With Naomi they went way over board with their connection, Christ they went ice skating. But here, they had a good balance. Dwan was clearly scared of Kong but still she didn't want to see him get hurt. The film is not flawless of course, again some of it is a little too goofy. And of all the Kong films, this one does the least with Skull Island. We do get to see Kong fight a giant snake but that's about it. Don't listen to the critics though. This a terrific remake and a great 70's era disaster film. It has some good commentary about environmentalism. And Jessica Lange looked damn good. Especially in her short shorts.

talisencrw I had first seen the outstanding original of 'King Kong', still transcendent and captivating in its then-prescient use of special effects wizardry, then Sir Peter Jackson's recent remake, which was still extremely impressive. I had only heard horrible things about the 70's version, but I have come to admire Guillermin's films that I had watched, and look at that cast, so when I found the blu used, for a good price, I took a chance. It's definitely the runt of the litter, but is by no means a disaster. It's intriguing that they had originally wanted Joseph Sargent to direct with Peter Falk starring, and that Meryl Streep was considered for the role that eventually went to Jessica Lange. The changes they made to update Kong for the seventies were intriguing (as they wanted the script to be completely different from the Cooper/Schoedsack masterpiece), and I'm left curious, had Sir Peter Jackson chosen to make Kong a 21st-century schizoid apeman instead of doing a period piece, how that would have transpired. Even being Canadian, seeing the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center made me wistfully nostalgic. The only part of the film that was excruciating to watch was when Kong is made to perform for the American Bicentennial festivities, and at the ending, I was curious how Lange got down from the rooftop of one of the towers so fast. The answer probably lies on the cutting room floor, and the editing was probably rushed for release date, so no one must have noticed...

Scott LeBrun 1970s style re-imagining of the legendary cinema beauty-and-the-beast story stars Jeff Bridges as Jack Prescott, a hippie-ish paleontology professor who hitches a ride with an oil company's vessel. Their fearless leader, Fred Wilson (a shamelessly hammy Charles Grodin), is convinced that somewhere in the ocean near Surabaya is an island that's just rich with potential. Of course, we all know the story: what the adventurers find instead is an enormous ape, revered by the people of the island. Wilson attempts to salvage something out of the trip by transporting Kong back to NYC and putting him on display, but we know nothing good can come of this.This Dino De Laurentiis production is really not that terrible as its reputation would suggest. It just suffers some from a bit of overlength, an inadvisable campy approach, and its silly, silly characters & dialogue. The special effects (overseen by Carlo Rambaldi, later to create E.T.) are variable - sometimes they work well, sometimes not so well. The treat is watching makeup effects legend Rick Baker don a gorilla costume for some scenes. Although this remake is done in colour and widescreen, it just doesn't quite have the atmosphere of the 1933 film. It might have been nice to see a few more wonders on the island; as it is, we only get to see Kong do battle with a giant snake. The fact that in this instance Kong climbs not The Empire State Building but The Twin Towers may affect how some people respond to the film in this day and age. One obvious asset is the majestic music score by John Barry.Bridges is likable, but there are times when his character might infuriate some people. Grodin performs as if the filmmakers told him to "act more like Robert Armstrong" (Carl Denham in the 1933 production), and the character is so obnoxious and sleazy that you can't help but cheer when he inevitably gets his. Many viewers thought that Jessica Langes' debut film performance was highly inauspicious, but her appeal and beauty are undeniable. There's a very strong supporting cast: John Randolph, Rene Auberjonois, Julius Harris, Jack O'Halloran, Dennis Fimple, and Ed Lauter. It's nice to see 50s sci-fi star John Agar in a cameo as a lying weasel of a city official; John Lone, Corbin Bernsen, and Joe Piscopo have bits.In the end, the love that Kong lavishes upon Dwan (Lange) is still pretty poignant, and you can't help but feel very bad for Kong.Followed by a sequel (!) 10 years later, incredibly enough."King Kong" '76 misses its potential for true greatness, but it's still pretty decent entertainment.Seven out of 10.