King Kong (1976)

Featured Audience Ratings

• jay n

  
  Okay this is junk but it has it's moments. Certainly more entertaining than the wretched 2005 redo this cheesefest has some decent (and some terrible) special effects and talented actors, although all would probably admit this wasn't their best work. That Jessica Lange went… More
  Okay this is junk but it has it's moments. Certainly more entertaining than the wretched 2005 redo this cheesefest has some decent (and some terrible) special effects and talented actors, although all would probably admit this wasn't their best work. That Jessica Lange went on from this flea bitten claptrap to win two Oscars is a testament to her skill. The same goes for Jeff.

• Ken S

  
  Campy 70's madness that's still totally entertaining.

• James A

  
  He climbs the World Trade Center instead of the Empire State Building. That makes this worthy of the 1 star.

• KJ P

  
  This was a piece of sh**! I would say more, but I can't!

• Conner R

  
  I have no idea what they were thinking when they attempted to remake a classic with a sub par bit of film making. The effects look even worse than the original, but it looks 100x worse in the context of the 70s. The plot is a complete bastardization of the original story and takes all… More
  I have no idea what they were thinking when they attempted to remake a classic with a sub par bit of film making. The effects look even worse than the original, but it looks 100x worse in the context of the 70s. The plot is a complete bastardization of the original story and takes all the fun out of it. Not even its big stars could save this disaster.

• Sanjaya &

  
  A very great movie about King Kong... It was a brilliant movie... Even the King Kong itself looks like a toy, but it still scary... And forgot about the other non-logical thing in this movie because this movie had a good answer for how they brought Kong to New York with a very big… More
  A very great movie about King Kong... It was a brilliant movie... Even the King Kong itself looks like a toy, but it still scary... And forgot about the other non-logical thing in this movie because this movie had a good answer for how they brought Kong to New York with a very big ship... And the ending, it's very very scary... How Kong been shoot until he's hurt and bleeding, it is very very not humanity behavior even he's just a big ugly giant monkey... And Jessica Lange gave a great and sexy performance... She's really really pretty and beautiful enough to defeat the wildness of Kong.. Another great Beauty killed the Beast story... Even Peter Jackson's version stills my favorite, but this version was great too... They great in how they take Kong to New York or how Kong been killed... Great classic movie!!!

• Tsubaki S

  
  Jackson's remake annoyed me, this one just bores me. It did have Jessica Lange when she was looking very do-able. But not even that, or "the dude", can't save this one.

• Tim S

  
  Nice effects but hardly any of the magic that the original holds. On the bright side, Jessica Lange is a goddess in this.

• Dan S

  
  What an insult to a classic. Why the heck was Kong climbing up the Twin Towers at the end of the movie? Anyone? Anyone? The freaking Empire State building is where the climatic battle happens!

• William S

  
  urgh! Horrible horrible HORRIBLE!

• Lafe F

  
  Ah, if only King Kong '76 was as impressive as its poster artwork showed. The movie reeked of '70s Hollywood pre-Star-Wars cheapness. The huge ape took them a long time to construct, but it didn't look good. It's like the Universal Studios Tour with a big synthetic… More
  Ah, if only King Kong '76 was as impressive as its poster artwork showed. The movie reeked of '70s Hollywood pre-Star-Wars cheapness. The huge ape took them a long time to construct, but it didn't look good. It's like the Universal Studios Tour with a big synthetic King Kong hand trying to grab the tram! The original was a classic. This was a stinky mess best forgotten. I remain loyal to the 1933 original.

• Dean !

  
  A great action/adventure film for the time when it was made. Has ok SFX for the time, the story is just as good and sad.

• xGary X

  
  Amusingly bad 70s remake of the ape related classic. Worth a watch just to laugh at it!

• danny d

  
  great stuff, peter jacksons version was good but he should have followed a bit of the formula of this one, its great

• Dean M

  
  A fine remake of the 1933 classic, but bit exciting with adventures.

• Aaron N

  
  The first remake of King Kong. Starts off with making the mistake of setting it in the present times of when the movie was made. It loses the epic qualities and a lot of the fun factors that made the original work. The Kong in this film sucks. He just looks cheesy. The highlight of… More
  The first remake of King Kong. Starts off with making the mistake of setting it in the present times of when the movie was made. It loses the epic qualities and a lot of the fun factors that made the original work. The Kong in this film sucks. He just looks cheesy. The highlight of the movie though, is seeing Kong jump from one world trade center building to the other.

• Michael G

  
  Ehhh. The weakest of the three versions.

• Cameron J

  
  It's a re-imagining of a classic film about a giant ape and stars the guy from "Tron", with the aforementioned giant ape being voiced by Optimus Prime and the producer being the guy who produced "Dune". Okay, now that's just too much sci-fi, even though… More
  It's a re-imagining of a classic film about a giant ape and stars the guy from "Tron", with the aforementioned giant ape being voiced by Optimus Prime and the producer being the guy who produced "Dune". Okay, now that's just too much sci-fi, even though "Dune" came out years after this film, in 1984, and "Tron" was two years before that, in '82, around the time Jeff Bridges thought of giving handsome a try. It's never too hard to tell its him, and yet Jeff Bridges has still got to be one of the most transformative faces out there, because now-a-days, he's looking pretty rough, and yet before he was handsome, he looked even messier. Seriously, for a while there, I thought Peter Cullen was voicing him, and it doesn't help that Jeff Bridges would prove formidable against Cullen in a "Deep-Voice-Off". Come to think of it, I would love to hear Peter Cullen, Jeff Bridges and Michael Clark Duncan to all talk at the same time and create some kind of bizarre, low-pitch "Brrrrrrr", because with those many deep voices fusing, words aren't likely to make it out alive. Oh man, that moment would be so amazingly awkward, though probably not quite as awkward as looking at this film today and seeing how they moved the climactic final battle - which involves explosions and crashing flying vehicles - from the Empire State Building to the World Trade Center. I love how this is supposed to be a relatively newer retelling of the classic tale, and yet it's all but more outdated than ever, and not just when it comes to portraying places that really did end up having to deal with hairy, destructive maniacs that couldn't have a woman. Something uncomfortably dated about this film is its message, and not in its subject matter, but its portrayal, because there's only so much subtlety in this film's deconstruction of the disruptive of the environment. As if their changing the adventurers from a filmmaking crew to a crew for an oil company, as well as their tacking on Jeff Bridges as a borderline hippy of an environmental scientist isn't blatant enough, the Charles Grodin character is so exaggerated as this Forget-the-Environment-I-Want-Mine type of bad guy. It's unsubtle approaches like those that telegraph this film's message to the point of making it seem like propaganda, which isn't to say that these aren't messages worth spreading, but there are times where the message takes over the film, and yet, the essence and details of the message are less explored than the broad, blatant fact. The film's portrayals of its message have grown dated over the years, as have other should-be subtleties in this film, and yet, the dated aspects are the least of the film's problems. Even for its time, the story is conventional, and I'm most certainly not just saying that because this is a "remake", seeing as this film is, in fact, a re-imaginging that really changes a lot of things in the original classic, yet those changes aren't terribly refreshing, even in the '70s. Characters and storylines are familiar, and that slows down the momentum of the film enough without the help of the loose editing, slow spots and, yes, even a palpable level of pretense as this film tries to remain faithful to the classic, yet, in some aspects, better. Well, ladies and gentlemen, as much as it agonizes me to say this, although this film isn't as respectable as the classic, I think that it might be more enjoyable; to a certain degree, of course, because even though this film isn't nearly as fresh as its source material, there's still much entertainment and - dare I say it - more depth in some area, regardless of the limits in subtlety, which isn't to say that the film is enjoyable from a technical standpoint. Speaking of dated aspects, the special effects are so outdated, it's absurd, yet they still have their charm about them, particularly the Kong effect. Rick Baker is a legend in the makeup department; emphasis on legend, because this Kong suit is so old it's just barely buyable by today's standards, yet Baker still puts plenty of emotion, not just as designer of the suit, but as operator of the suit, making you believe in the character as the monstrosity that it is, with a little bit of help from Peter Cullen, even if it is a bit chuckle worthy that they paid an undoubtedly large sum of money for everyone's favorite trailer/robot voice just for him to screech, roar and grunt to the point of coughing up blood. Of course, what's refreshing about this film is how it plants more genuineness in Kong; maybe not to the extent Peter Jackson did later on in 2005 - even though this not-too-convincing Kong looks like the human that it all but became in Jackson's version -, but enough for you to find the emotional resonance that was absent in the original, and it really pumps this film was additional compellingness. What further supplements this film's enjoyability is, of course, the broader scope and looser story that may get a little too loose, to the point of being a bit slow, yet, on the whole, things are bigger and leaner enough for us to have more mediation on the scenario, creating a strong sensation of consequence and drama that was far from absent in the original, but seems more intense here. The story becomes more and more of an epic with each incarnation, and while this isn't the sweeping, massive thrill ride that Pete Jackson introduced, there's more life, scale and overall entertainment value in this film, making it, from a substance standpoint, more enjoyable, even if this is substance that we're all familiar with. There's more intrigue, and it's further carried by our two leads, Jeff Bridges and then-newcomer Jessica Lange, neither of whom are knocking out of the park, yet they still have chemistry with both each other and the rest of the cast - including Kong himself -, and it's chemistry that is, if nothing else, charming. However, when more drama and intensity comes into play, our leads' presence is right up there with the writing and dazzling technical value as one of the key elements that keep you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end, and help in making this film an undeniably enjoyable epic. At the end of the day, the film's dated, unsubtle and sometimes overbearing portrayal of its sometimes message is the least of its problems, being more than beat out by conventions, slow spots and even pretense, which isn't to say that this film doesn't have to right to pat itself on the back, for although its style is also a bit dated, it remains effective as both impressive technical value and supported to the broader, livlier storyline that is further supplemented by charismatic leads and depth in almost all the right places of story, leaving John Guillermin's and Dino De Laurentiis's re-imagining of "King Kong" to stand as an ultimately rewarding and thoroughly entertaining thrill ride. 3/5 - Good

• Matthew Y

  
  Proof that the original was more than just special effects. This version has the advantage of 40 years technology improvement and basically the same screenplay. So why isn't it as good or better than the original? Because the original King Kong was so much more than a movie… More
  Proof that the original was more than just special effects. This version has the advantage of 40 years technology improvement and basically the same screenplay. So why isn't it as good or better than the original? Because the original King Kong was so much more than a movie about a big monkey. The switch from Empire State Building to Twin Towers was unnecessary and silly. The films a complete bore and is upstaged by the original and Jackson's 2005 version.

• Doctor S

  
  My god this was a horrible movie. The poster is easily the best thing about it, although there are some cheap laughs to be had watching a perpetually greasy Jeff Bridges and animatronic monkey hands that look like they have Parkinson's.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings