 "A Classic In It's Own Right..." | 2010-02-08 |
| - Reviewed By Anime Lover from Mass |
| I have watched all three versions of King Kong and though the first version is and always will be a classic, my favorite of all is this version with Jeff Bridges, Charles Groudin and introducing Jessica Lange in what I think is a wonderful portral of a dizzy blond aspiring actress. I know she got a lot of flack for her portral but she is, "Acting" after all which is what she is supposed to be doing, correct? This movie for me was one of the hightlights of a year when I'd moved to a new state and at the age of 16 was a real downer, but seeing this with my parents is one of my fondest memories. I loved Kong and his many expressions which was another selling point for me. I especially love the waterfall scene where he is cleaning up Jessica Langes character. I thought it a little eroctic even for a Kong movie but it was the first time you acutlaly get to see Kong smile...LOL..go figure!!! The other eye catcher for me was the location of the shoot, the Hawaiian scenery in this picture only endeared me to wanting to some day visit one of the most beautiful places on God's earth. All in all, I would recommend this movie for all these reasons and just for the plan fact that it is a fun watch from my past. Check it out, you won't regret it. |
| |
| "This is a very good version" | 2010-01-01 |
| - Reviewed By Joker from Michigan |
The remake of King Kong (1976) was a huge success back in 1976. It grossed countless $ millions at the box office and was a smash hit. I remember seeing it in the theater as a 6-year old kid. Rated PG, it's an outstanding remake of the 1933 classic original. Whereas the 1933 movie takes place in, well, 1933, this 1976 movie takes place in, well, 1976.
Some changes were made that make it a little bit different than the original. First of all, Kong walks completely upright, whereas in the 1933 movie he walks on all fours like an ape or gorilla. Secondly, Kong is made more human-like with his emotions. The 1933 Kong was just straight angry almost all the time. The 1976 Kong is angry as well, but he does show a lot of emotion frequently and his facial expressions are a reflection of this. Thirdly, Kong climbs to the top of the World Trade Center instead of the Empire State Building. The Twin Towers, to Kong, resemble a geological structure in his native habitat on Skull Island. And fourthly, Kong only battles a giant snake in this movie, whereas in the 1933 movie he battles Tyrannosaurus Rex, a giant snake, and a raptor. There are no dinosaurs whatsoever in the 1976 movie. The 1933 movie had Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Brontosaurus, a giant snake, and a raptor.
The acting in this movie is very good. Jeff Bridges does a good job, as does Charles Grodin. Some 33-34 years after this movie came out I now watch this movie for one reason and one reason alone - flaming hot JESSICA LANGE! I remember liking her a lot as a 6-year old, but years later I got the full magnitude of her. On the serious side, I think her acting was very good. Some people complain about her acting ability in this movie. I think it's very good. I like Jessica Lange just as much as Fay Wray in the 1933 movie.
The highly effective musical score by John Barry is one of the high points of this movie. The special effects? They are great and believable. This movie still holds up very well today, in this day and age of computer generated images. I'm not a fan of modern CGI effects. A lot of movie makers get carried away with this technology and overdo it. As George Lucas says, a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing. A lot of movie makers just want to show off their special effects while at the same time, the story is weak. King Kong 1976 has a strong story and strong special effects. They certainly were top notch special effects for 1976.
All in all, a great movie. I highly recommend it over the 2005 Peter Jackson remake which uses tons of CGI effects. In my opinion, King Kong 1976 comes in a close second to the original 1933 movie. |
| |
 "It IS good, end of story." | 2009-12-01 |
| - Reviewed By JadeRain from Juneau, AK United States |
| Wow, this Marshall Fine, or whatever the hell his name is, what a guy, what a review, he MUST be a genius. I'm sure he says that the new Kong is the most brilliant film of all time right? He says it almost killed J. Lange's career, hey buddy, did you watch this? She is ACTING in it!! So is Bridges, so is Grodin, they are ACTING!! Ok, the original Kong will always be best, and the new one does an ok job of showing us Kong's personality, but, this 70's version does a very good job with the story, I don't see how anyone who likes Kong can argue against that. Ok, so maybe you have to suspend your critical eye on some of the special effects, are you telling me that you can't do that when you watch the 1930's version? of course not. Lange is excellent as the ditzy blond star wanna be. Bridges is great, and Grodin does a great job as well, much better than Nacho Black and his way-too-tired-overused-shtick. Having Kong climb the Trade Towers (RIP) because they remind him of mountains from home is totally believable. Finally, when Kong meets his end, don't tell me that seeing Kong ripped to shreds by the gattling guns on the helicopters dosen't get to you and make you feel for him. So, to sum up, if you are a fan of Kong, the original is the one. Then the 70's version is the next best, and finally, the last SUPER SPECIAL EFFECTS BLOW YOUR MIND (AND EARDRUMS) THROW WHATEVER EFFECT WE CAN IN THE MOVIE JUST BECAUSE WE CAN version comes in at a distant turd, uh, I mean thurd, uh third. cheers. |
| |
 "King Kong Blu-ray on US DVD players & picture quality" | 2009-11-07 |
| - Reviewed By KC in Houston from Houston, TX |
I can't wait for the US Blu-ray release of this title. This disc is marked as being made in Australasia. Its package says "All features may not play on every Blu-ray device. Check with your manufacturer for firmware updates to maximize playability."
The movie plays fine; but even after checking my Panasonic DMP-BD80 for firmware updates, I could not view the video of any of the EXTRAS; I could only hear the audio.
The Blu-ray exhibits all of the grain from the original film stock. The advantage of the Blu-ray over the plain DVD is that you don't see any of the pixelation that a DVD shows when played on a Blu-ray player. The grainy picture is clear and crisp, if that makes any sense.
Something else very odd occurred during the transfer to Blu-ray on this Australasia edition by Studio Canal Distributors. Much of the film, as most viewers and fans of the film know, are shot against blue/green screen. On the DVD versions, to avoid the tell-tail edging of Kong or the actors in front of the blue screen, the effects people processed the overlay image to eliminate the edging. Unfortunately, it also made the overlay semi-transparent in the process--meaning, you could see the background through Kong.
An example of this is obvious when Kong takes Dwan to get washed off in the waterfall. As Kong carries Dwan over to the pool, we see him walking against a backdrop of mountains teeming with waterfall. As he passes across the screen, we can see the background mountains and flowing waterfalls right through his body.
I did not notice this glaring problem in the Pioneer 12" laser disc that came out a long time ago. But it's present in both the original DVD King Kong (1976) and in the more recent DVD release King Kong.
The Blu-ray expounds on this problem. Whoever readied the print for Blu-ray release was evidently aware of the transparent Kong issue. They made Kong and the actors more solid, but that resulted in the original problem of edging. In fact, the edging is so terrible in some scenes, things like Dwan's hair turn into static and snow, looking like poor TV reception.
My rating reflects the workmanship that went into the making of the Blu-ray disc. The extras would be awesome, if I could view them on my most up-to-date Blu-ray player. But this is a foreign disc being played on a U.S. player. I expected some problems.
Here are the extras:
The Making of
Deleted Scenes
Trailer
Video: 1080p High-Definition 2.25:1 (picture ration)
Audio: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1; French DTS Hi-Resolution; Spanish DTS 2.0
Subtitles: French, Castilian Spanish; Dutch, Portuguese, Japanese |
| |
| ""My Favorite Kong Film"" | 2009-07-01 |
| - Reviewed By Terry Richard from Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada |
Many people would argue by saying this is a terrible film based on the "King Kong' franchise, but I have to say I have always enjoyed and loved this version. Maybe it's because it's one of the first films I saw when I was a little boy, but after viewing the film again on DVD the movie still holds up. The story is strong, the special effects are impeccable, and Paramount wasted no money on its 24 million dollar budget. I just believe many expected the film to be up to par with the Fay Wray original, but like many remakes this film has always struggled to gain acceptance among "King Kong" enthusiasts.
As many know the movie is about an ape that is taken from its habitat from a South Pacific island to New York City where all hell takes place when the giant ape breaks free. I always felt the movie really dramatizes how hard it is for someone, in this case an animal, to be taken away from its home, only to be placed in a strange part of the world with unfamiliar surroundings and people. This is something we all can relate to.
"King Kong" was also Jesscia Lange's first film role and she pulls it off remarkably. This version, contrary to popular belief, was a boxoffice smash raking over 80 million dollars in ticket sales. "Kong" also won an Oscar for Best Special Effects.
In 1978 NBC paid nearly 20 million dollars to broadcast "King Kong" on its network, the largest amount of money paid by a broadcaster for a theatrical film at that time.
The DVD comes in beautiful widescreen format and the movie is cleaned from the original print. The theatrical trailer is included along with english subtitles. The sound is dolby digital with french mono. |
| |
 "Dumb Blonde, Dumb Movie" | 2009-06-16 |
| - Reviewed By gork57 from Aurora, CO USA |
I'm watching the 1976 remake of "King Kong" on AMC as I write this review. I'm not one of those who believe this film is "artistic", as some other reviewers have opined. Yes, it does have satire, humor, and even possesses a bit of a green message before people knew what "green" meant. In the end analysis, DeLaurentiis' film is just bad; there are many poorly done scenes, and the effects are mediocre. There is simply no getting around the fact that any remake of Kong is going be compared to Merian C. Cooper's 1933 masterpiece. Here is a list of things I base my opinions on regarding this film:
1. First of all, many people do not understand the difference between "monkeys" and "apes". This includes the makers of this film, who include many instances of calling Kong a "monkey". There are many differences between monkeys and apes, among them the fact that monkeys are far smaller than apes, and monkeys have tails-apes do not. Kong was a gorilla, NOT a monkey.
2. The film depicts Kong as walking upright, as humans do. This is a fallacy; gorillas travel on all fours, using the knuckles of their hands to support the front part of their body. Makeup effects maestro Rick Baker (who was inside the Kong suit in this film) has stated that looking back he made major errors in his work on this film. Look closely at Kong's back and flaws in the gorilla suit are plain to see.
3. At the time "Kong" was made, a great deal of press was put out about the giant robotic version of the central character. The robot Kong came out so badly that it was only actually used in two brief shots during the infamous "gas pump" escape scene. However, Kong's mechanical hands came out fairly well in closeups with Jessica Lange. The vast majority of Kong shots were done with Rick Baker in a gorilla suit, with animatronics for facial movements in closeups.
4. Composite sfx shots in this film are done very badly (Academy voters disagreed; Kong won an Oscar for best visuals). An prime example is the "log/chasm" scene, where Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges) hides in a cave while Kong rocks the log, hurling men into the canyon. The composite shot of Bridges clearly does not match the set background, and looks very amateurish. This is but one of many scenes that look equally bad. Cooper's 1933 original was done more than 40 years earlier, but looks much more convincing than this one.
5. The acting is absolutely awful in this film. While some have stated that Jessica Lange did a bang up job in her portrayal of the brainless Dwan, that doesn't say much for the overall quality of the film. Jeff Bridges gives it the old college try, but he is lost in a lousy movie. In my opinion, the best performance in the film belongs to Charles Grodin, who goes way over the top as oil company hack Fred Wilson. Baker's facial animatronics do succeed in gaining sympathy from the audience for Kong, in spite of the aforementioned anatomical errors.
6. The story is lifted pretty much lock stock and barrel from the 1933 original, with a few tweaks to update the plot for a fuel-starved U.S. population in the 1970s. The original screenplay was a masterpiece to begin with, so DeLaurentiis would have been nuts to change it too much.
In the end analysis, the 1976 remake comes up far short of the 1933 original. Merian C. Cooper broke new ground by using stop-motion animation to create the original Kong. DeLaurentiis decided to stay away from this approach, apparently not wanting his film to be labeled a copy of the earlier one. The man-in-a-gorilla-suit approach came out little better than a low budget 1950s film. Merian C. Cooper and Willis O'Brien need not have worried that their legendary film might be eclipsed by this turkey. |
| |
Expedited Available
