Product Description

The Big Apple is again besieged by the monstrous King Kong. Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange star in this ambitious remake of the 1933 original, which adds a great deal of camp and good fun to the story, Again, the gargantuan ape battles attacking aircraft high above the streets of New York, this time plunging from the top of the World Trade Center to his death amidst thousands of horrified onlookers. King Kong won an Oscar for special effects, and the horror and the thrills are brought anew to another generation in this classy production.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #26205 in DVD
• Brand: Paramount
• Released on: 2005-11-22
• Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Aspect ratio: 1.78:1
• Formats: Color, Dolby, DVD, Widescreen, NTSC
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 134 minutes

Amazon.com
Before John Hughes claimed the mantle of Hollywood's antichrist, that title was firmly held by producer Dino De Laurentiis, whose middle name may have been "hubris." He vowed that this remake of the 1933 horror classic would be a bigger hit than Jaws and that his Kong would be more sympathetic than the shark. But for all the money he spent on trying to make this monkey look real, the biggest special effect was making Jeff Bridges look like a monkey--and nearly destroying Jessica Lange's acting career before it started. The film was noteworthy mostly for how cheesy the ape looks, though this was one of the first films to be shot at the then-new World Trade Center. Even Charles Grodin, as the villainous promoter, can't get laughs in this idiotic film. --Marshall Fine

Customer Reviews

A Great, Misunderstood Pop Classic
Firstly, I'd like to dispel a misconception that many "reviewers" here onsite are promoting: that the 1976 verison of "King Kong" was a notorious financial flop. This is simply not the case.

King Kong (1976)was a huge hit back in the seventies--I know because I was there, I saw the frenzy, I remember the crowded theaters. It cost $24 million and made $60 in 1977 dollars, only a little less than the highly regarded blockbuster "Jaws" made a couple of years earlier. Calling the film a commercial "flop" is not just inaccurate--it is a statement that borders on stupid.

Now, admittedly, it also had a huge pr campaign, which undoubtedly helped it garner a lot of that dough, but there was a lot more to the flick than just the hype.

While the commercial success of the film is a matter of indisputible record, its artistic success is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to think this is one of the best pop films of the Seventies--and there are a lot more folks out there who agree with me than you think.

Many people rag on the film for not being reverential to the original, ignoring that fact that "being reverential" was the antitheseis of what the 70s were about. Kong 76 could have probably been an even bigger hit than it was if the filmmakers had played it safe and hadn't gone out of their way to make a film so stubbornly odd. I mean this thing stomps over a gigantic swath of styles: panoramic spectacle, high adventure, pathos, romance, social commentary, absurdist comedy, thrills, and occasionally outright goofiness--all comprised in a slyly satiric package designed to tweak the noses of Kong purists. Lorenzo Semple Jr.'s ("Papillon ") screenplay is all over the place when it comes to style and tone, borrowing from whatever and whenever, almost as though it had been patched together from several different treatments--yet it still remains incredibly tight in terms of interesting, well-drawn, consistent characters, witty dialog, exploration of theme, and the forward momentum of the plot. King Kong 76 is a great example of anarchic postmodernism being perfectly wed to the staunch formalism of good storytelling. A contemporary example of this approach would be Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill films.

The direction by veteran John Guillermin was absolutely fearless, pushing each of Semple's concepts to its limit, even at the risk of seeming silly. And he had a great cast to work with, especially young Jessica Lange in her first film role. Unfortunately, Jessica played the role of the vivacious, childlike, kinda dimwitted bubblehead blonde Dwan so incredibly well that most people wrote her off, assuming she was just a dumb blonde playing herself. But in actuality it is a bravura performance, one of the best in her career, and certainly a more individual, more fully-realized character performance than we get in most movies these days.

As big a hit as the disco era Kong was, however, there were a lot of people who were put off because they weren't expecting anything as freewheeling and insane as what they were given. They weren't expecting weirdness and satire. They weren't expecting to see Kong blowing a hot, wet blonde dry after a dip in a lake (metaphors anyone?), a scene simultaneously erotic and ridiculous. They weren't expecting to see the captured Kong turned in to a corporate shill--is there any scene in mainstream 70s cinema more surrealistically satiric than that of Kong being presented to the masses encased in a thirty story replica of a gasoline pump? They also were not expecting to see a big budget adventure film with a downer ending--the romantic leads ending up emotionally separated by their experiences instead of united. And they didn't expect to feel bad when the monster died.

So I put it to you all that not only was the 1976 Kong a financial success, it was also an artistic success. But you can't watch it as a remake of a classic film. It is no more a remake of the 1933 King Kong than Quentin's Kill Bill is a remake of Sonny Chiba's Streetfighter's Revenge. Watch the film for what it is, not what you think it should have been, or what you wanted it to be, and you will be better able to appreciate its cracked brilliance.

not great by any means, but worthless? nope...
This was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid (I was 2 when it came out), and I was a little scared to watch it again, thanks to its reputation as a disaster.

However, I found the movie to be fairly good. I can certainly see why I loved it as a pre-teen. The decision to have Kong be so obviously infatuated with Jessica Lange is a strange one, for sure, and leads to a lot of scenes that involve Kong glaring at Lange and widening his eyes like the world's biggest pervert (literally, one supposes). He even tries to remove her top at one point, and while that may seem like a natural enough desire given the inescapable fact that Jessica Lange was, in 1976, hotter than broiled charcoal, I'm not sure it is believable from a ten-story-tall gorilla.

I always like seeing Jeff Bridges, and he's pretty good in this movie. Charles Grodin is pretty good, also, playing an oil prospector who will do anything to salvage his professional reputation. The music by John Barry is just what you'd expect from late-'70s Barry; that is, it sounds like James Bond music. Since I really like Barry Bond music (no baseball or steroid jokes, please), this is fine by me.

The special effects aren't too special by today's standards, but I've got to think that they were pretty fine in 1976. Keep in mind that this was before both "Star Wars" (which revolutionized effects in general) and "Superman" (which revolutionized blue screen effects specifically), and I think the blue screen and matte painting work looks good, considering. The gigantic Kong robot at the end is a piece a crap, though, and is wisely held to about half a second of screen time. The frequently employed huge robotic arm is better, although it moves very slowly, whereas the actor playing Kong moves with precisely the fluidity and grace that one would expect from a gorilla; hence, when the film cuts to the robot arm, it is extremely obvious.

Best of all, I was surprised to discover that the movie was actually about something. It works on two levels at once: (1) Kong as a metaphor for the environment, with his death as a metaphor for how industrial society was/is literally killing nature; and (2) Kong as a metaphor for post-'60s promiscuity.

That last one needs some explaining. Lange's character, Dwan (she changed it from Dawn to sound more distinctive; it sounds like she's getting called Juan for most of the movie, which makes me chuckle), is apparently a good-hearted but naive girl who runs about as wild as it's possible for a woman to run. She is shipwrecked at sea on her way to star in a movie in Hong Kong; the implication is that it's an, um, adult film. Dwan doesn't want anything to do with this, but the implication is that she's a wild enough girl that someone could justifiably THINK she would want to be in that sort of movie. I'm inferring a lot here, but I think the inferrances work.

Dwan's dilemma is choosing between "stardom" and Jack (Jeff Bridges); I see this as a choice between promiscuity and monogamy. Ultimately, she chooses stardom over Jack. Kong functions, then, as a stand-in for Dwan's libido, or instincts, or desires, or id, or whatever. At the end, when Kong meets his inevitable demise, Dwan all of a sudden wants very badly to be consoled by Jack, but standing between them is a sea of photgraphers, snapping away merrily at the hugest corpse on record while Dwan shouts Jack's name into the rising tide of voices.

The end of the film, unsurprisingly, is brutally sad, and in that sense, it is totally in keeping with the era in which it was made. Interestingly, the finale is similar to the finale of 1976's Oscar-winning "Rocky," in which Rocky is shouting for Adrian across a sea of photographers. The future is rosier for those two than it appears to be for Jack and Dwan, and that picture is more upbeat (and far better) than this one, but it's interesting to note, nonetheless.

The focus on Dwan's morality makes me wonder if the movie can be seen as anti-feminist. Since Jack isn't putting a great deal of pressure on Dwan to change - simply letting her know that they have a future if she DOES change - maybe it isn't. I'm no expert on the subject, but I know enough to be able to say that it's worth consideration. Either way, the movie serves nicely as a transition point between the promiscuity of the '60s and '70s and the more conservative (in image, at least) '80s.

This may all be giving too much credit to a movie that is not by any means a masterpiece. But I don't think it's a crapsterpiece, either. I'd happily buy a special edition if they ever issue one.

By the way, the picture and sound on this DVD are fairly good for a bare-bones release of a thirty-year-old movie.

King Kong 1976 - Stands taller with age.
I'll admit this film holds extra appeal for me. That's because it made a King-sized impression when I first saw it in a darkened theatre in Massapequa Park, Long Island at seven years of age. I still remember the anticipation leading up to the first big "reveal" of Kong: The sounds of heavy foot-falls and the downing of trees as the giant gorilla approaches the primitive altar where Jessica Lange stands tethered with vines as the sacrificial bride. The score grows louder as torch-holding natives chant atop heavily fortressed walls ("Kong!, Kong!..."). Finally, he emerges in full view and beats his chest as the ominous score goes suddenly, eerily quiet. Lange looks up from her drug-induced stupor, her swimmy eyes now focusing, sobering with fear...and screams!

This is one of the great cinematic sequences of my personal memory bank.

------------

September 11, 2001 came in all its horror and loss. Some days later, I found myself thinking of this movie, which features the World Trade Center prominently. This was perhaps the only movie to cast the Towers in such a prominent role. They represented our greatness as Americans, and provided a scale grand enough to fuel our imaginations for the task at hand - bringing Kong to life. During that September, I ordered the DVD so I could see the towers once again as they were meant to be seen, at a time when they stood tall with promise - over-sized symbols of over-sized American optimism.

------------

Sure the movie has its flaws, and many of the effects aren't effective anymore, but if you enter in as a willing participant, many charms await. The film features the talents of Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange, and Charles Grodin. The cinematography is rich with vast hawaiian vistas. Rick Baker, the make-up wunderkind behind Gorillas in the Mist and Planet of the Apes ('01), added a sympathetic dimension to Kong in his performance (he was the guy in the suit). The movie gives sufficient emphasis to character, while patiently building anticipation for the final act. And the soundtrack! It features a John Barry score that is dark, grand, and memorable. Today, on DVD, it makes for a terrific home theatre experience.

If you, too, were one of the kids who were awed by Kong's cinematic advent thirty years ago, you'll get a nostalgic thrill from this disc. Enjoy.