King Kong Lives (1986)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Tim S

  
  Quite possibly the worst film ever made with "King Kong' in the title. I can't say that for sure as I haven't all of the unofficial sequels and spin-offs. I'm trying to come up with something positive to say about the film and I just can't. I guess the… More
  Quite possibly the worst film ever made with "King Kong' in the title. I can't say that for sure as I haven't all of the unofficial sequels and spin-offs. I'm trying to come up with something positive to say about the film and I just can't. I guess the star is for the presence of Linda Hamilton and John Ashton - neither of whom do any sort of good work here. Well, maybe John Ashton, who's real good at being a completely heartless asshole. Anyways, trust me, avoid at all costs. The 1976 remake wasn't a gold mine of greatness by any means, but the sequel makes it looks like Gone With the Wind.

• Conner R

  
  I want to say that it's a worse film than the '76 remake, but at least this is so horrible that it's funny. The idea to have a love interest for King Kong has got to be one of the most moronic thoughts. The effects are completely horrible and all it has is one notable… More
  I want to say that it's a worse film than the '76 remake, but at least this is so horrible that it's funny. The idea to have a love interest for King Kong has got to be one of the most moronic thoughts. The effects are completely horrible and all it has is one notable star, Linda Hamilton. Aside from it being a giant disaster, it is just hilarious to watch.

• Sanjaya &

  
  This is the stupid idea I ever heard and it's realized, make a sequel for King Kong! The story itself just get true at the ending of every King Kong movie, Kong gets killed by the beauty... But this movie, which is a sequel for 1976 King Kong, just get everything wrong.... The… More
  This is the stupid idea I ever heard and it's realized, make a sequel for King Kong! The story itself just get true at the ending of every King Kong movie, Kong gets killed by the beauty... But this movie, which is a sequel for 1976 King Kong, just get everything wrong.... The title itself just sound weird, King Kong Lives, it just make some stupid question about it like 'What movie is this?' or 'What? A sequel for King Kong?' and another question maybe... This movie made because they think they can make money again by resurrecting a death giant monkey, but that's all false... And shows up another Kong, the female one, then they have a baby, it just ridiculous... They didn't give a clue for the time, and amazingly the Kong have a baby! It really nonsense, it just that they really end up for ideas... The monkey itself stills looks like a toy, but still scary... Just this time, when Kong start eating human, it just makes me sick... Just a really wrong turn this time for Kong, one of the movie that should be never made...

• Jason S

  
  I liked it. It is a sequel to the remake done in the 80's and I think the story is good enough that you shouldn't push this one aside. It is simple and fun and there are some decent fx.

• Cameron J

  
  King Kong probably should have stayed dead. I find that title hilariously ironic, seeing as this actually all but killed King Kong, or at least his franchise. How many times can pop out these underwhelming one-liners before you guys figure out that I can't think of a good opening… More
  King Kong probably should have stayed dead. I find that title hilariously ironic, seeing as this actually all but killed King Kong, or at least his franchise. How many times can pop out these underwhelming one-liners before you guys figure out that I can't think of a good opening joke? I don't know, but what I do know is that it's rather hard to blame me, considering that the joke is already on the screen. Man, if you thought that the first film from '76 was bad... I can see that, but forget you, I still liked it. This film, on the other hand, is to '76 "King Kong" what "I'll Be There For You" was to Bon Jovi: Everything bad about it, and none of the good. Well, actually, I wouldn't say that, because as bad as this film is, it's kept from being an insufferable train wreck by some undeniable strengths. It's easy to poke at the special effects in '76 "King Kong", because they were so dated, and here, that's no different. Still, even though this film is ten years younger than that version of "Kong", relative to its time, the effects were still pretty awesome, and to this day, they still have essence and effectiveness in them. The Kong effects do their job as both fun, stylistic dazzlers and supplements to the substance - such as it is -, leaving the film, if nothing else, as technically impressive as its predecessor. Outside of that... um... I kind of like the score, I guess. No, but seriously though, I must admit that I was, not simply enjoying, but all-out digging on the electric charm of Brian Kerwin, who brings consistent charisma when he's not inexplicably layered. Don't get me wrong, it's not like the Hank Mitchell character is a mysterious, deeply case of much depth and no predictability, but you pick up things along the way as Kerwin unravels his character in a very human, very charming fashion that, well, I must say does not fit the film's lack of effort. Actually, come to think of it, the worst thing about this film is the things that it does, in fact, "try" on, because what damaged the predecessor was pretense, and here, that pretense is back and more relentless than ever, with the film having such pride in itself for its excellent concepts that go so sadly unrealized, and not just because of the film's being overly self-righteous to the point of being mean-spirited at point, but because, unlike '76's "Kong", this film does not have the quality to back up those pretenses. As I said earlier, this film boasts everything that was wrong with its predecessor, yet what I neglected to mention is that all of those flaws are more intense and unrelenting this time around, such as the borderline-propaganda level of unsubtle message conveying. There were spots in the original where the message took over, and here, the spot where the message took over is the whole film, which wears its overbearing, yet still rather underexplored message on its sleeve. Of course, that's not the only convention that the film falls into, because this film is so consistently generic and painfully predictable in its writing, and as if that wasn't miserable enough, the icing on top of the bad-writing-cake is plenty of cheese, with many lines that are sappy, melodramatic or just plain humiliating, and it adds further insult to the injury of genericism and unsubtlety. Linda Hamilton makes matters worse by being absolutely awful, and I know that's a flaw that's certainly damaging to the film, though not likely terribly so, yet Hamilton goes through this film as "lead", infecting the atmosphere with even more pretense and cheese that slows down the film so much, eating at it, exacerbating it and making it even more ugly and hollow. Now, I've been rambling on, going not much more than just "listing off" the flaws, rather than discussing them, so, for all extents and purposes, these missteps couldn't possibly be intense enough to destroy the film. Well, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day, it is, in fact, the simplicity in the film's missteps that make it so frustrating, as that's almost all it has, because this is such a bone dry, unengaging bore of a film with very limited bright spots and countless spots of dirt that amalgamate into one, filthy pile of incompetence so bombarded with relentless missteps that rather than taking one, discomforting blow that leaves most films of this type mediocre - due to them not even having the guts to be bad -, you're so overwhelmed by the countless errors that this film falls into so easily to the point of finding yourself frustrated with the film's incompetence. There's no charm in its simplicity; only self-righteousness that it does not deserve, as it is pumped with even more of the amateur mistakes made in the predecessor and almost none of what was competent about it, resulting in an ugly offense to not simply the 1976 incarnation of "King Kong", but the entire franchise, as a whole. When it's all said and done, there's no denying the reasonably effective and enjoyable technical value, nor the powerful charm of co-lead Brian Kerwin, yet neither of those two aspects come even close to being great enough to pull this film out of the mess it was shoved into by conventional writing, a poor performance from co-lead Linda Hamilton, as well as unsubtle, overbearing messages and, worst of all, self-righteousness that sprinkles salt in the wounds opened by the dry emptiness that ultimately makes "King Kong Lives" a deeply dissatisfying, thoroughly incompetent mess of an ugly stain on the legendary franchise. 1.5/5 - Bad