It really deserves a better rating! - King Kong (1976) Discussion

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

I'd give it a 6/10 to 6.5 out of 10 myself so I agree it should be a bit higher. I guess the dated FX lets it down to the modern crowd.

King Kong 1933 should be higher than it is as well. It barely scrapes an 8/10.

reply

[–] wallacesawyer 13 years ago

I guess the dated FX lets it down to the modern crowd.

Funny how the fuel shortage theme is still relevant. Or whatever you call it.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

[–] rogun-35750 9 years ago

Yea, I agree and the dated FX is what I like about it. I liked it when it came out and still do today, because the most recent version was overdone in that department.

reply

[–] Buddy-Love63 10 years ago

If people didn't think their opinions were more important than others then there would never be any debates.

reply

[–] clocksnmirrors-932-761321 10 years ago

That doesn't answer my question: "Why?"

reply

[–] Buddy-Love63 10 years ago

Because THAT is humanity.

reply

[–] clocksnmirrors-932-761321 10 years ago

Then you agree this movie doesn't deserve a better rating.

reply

[–] Buddy-Love63 10 years ago

I give it about a 6/10 or so, which is close to the score it has.

It is very good in some places but the overall disappointment of the Kong effects probably keeps it from being a 7/10.

Its about the same as I'd give Kong 2005.

reply

[–] waynewass427 9 years ago

Given the fact that it was made in 1975-76, before CGI, and that they were working with a limited budget, the effects really weren't all that bad. I really believe that the acting was quite good, especially the "Big Three" of Grodin / Bridges / Lange.

Not that this has anything to do with the rating, but the Director was John Guillerman, who happened to co-direct The Towering Inferno two years earlier. He directed the drama sequences, while Irwin Allen directed all of the action sequences.

I feel Guillerman did a decent job, especially given the limitations he had to work with.

reply

[–] motter25420-153-699254 8 years ago

Huh? I agree the effects were good, and while the people who played the 3 leads are good actors, their lines were just dreadful. Grodin's character was OK, but the other two were annoying as hell.

reply

[–] motter25420-153-699254 8 years ago

You obviously weren't around in the 70's, or 80's for that matter if you think these effects are disappointing.

I say this Kong looks far better than that CGI one, and really the only thing that keeps me from giving this film a 10 is the dialogue of the 2 main leads. It's like a 10yr old wrote their lines.

reply

[–] Kompressor_Fan 8 years ago

The effects are fine. I saw this when it came out. Funny, people are saying it should be rated higher. Well, compared to the awful reception this movie got from critics and audiences alike at the time, this film's "rating" has gone up over the years.

I saw it as a teen when it came out. I liked it....thought it was fun. Watching it today, there is the extra camp effect that here you have an actress that, all these years later, is considered to be on a par with actresses like Meryl Streep. Well....when this came out, Lange got mercilessly scathing reviews. She said years later that she was so humiliated by the reception she got in her first real screen role, that she didn't want to work in film ever again, until Bob Fosse called and asked her to play the Angel of Death in the movie All That Jazz. The rest is history....she surely got the last laugh against her original critics, that's for sure.

A strange combo of a great cast, terrible script and direction, and high quality special effects. Overall, a fun popcorn movie.

reply

[–] motter25420-153-699254 8 years ago

The meme about this film being a failure is completely false. The critics did pan this film, but the audiences loved it. It was in the theater for months. It made a profit and then some.

The actors in of of themselves were good, but their characters were just dreadful and the dialogue was cringeworthy. It's all about Kong to me, and I thought he was great.

reply

[–] Kompressor_Fan 8 years ago

It's always been referred to in the press as a flop. I just looked up the numbers.....$24 million to make, $52 million at the box office. Since (even then) you needed about twice your budget to get in the black, the movie fell somewhere between breaking even, and maybe having a very modest profit. Not exactly a flop, but didn't set the world on fire, either.

Strong opening box office, according to IMDB. This fits with my memory, being as I remember sitting in a crowded theater to see this, because I just HAD to see this the first weekend when it came out. If they had just re-written the script and replaced the director, while keeping the effects and the great cast, I think this movie would have had a chance at becoming a classic. But, as it is, it's just a fun and campy movie, even after all the years. I wonder if Jessica Lange's feelings about this film have mellowed over the years?

reply

[–] motter25420-153-699254 8 years ago

That's just domestic, it actually made $90mill overall, adjusted for inflation that would be about $377mill, with a budget of about $106mill

King Kong was commercially successful, earning Paramount Pictures back over triple its budget. The film ended up at #5 on Variety's chart of the top domestic (U.S.) moneymakers of 1977. (The film was released in December 1976 and therefore earned the majority of its money during the early part of 1977.) The film made just over $90 million worldwide on a $24 million budget.

reply

[–] Aggelos_Kreouzis 9 years ago

This is the curse of remakes. If they are bad, they are considered trash, if they are good, they are considered non original and impossible to give genuine thrills.

I think it is the most underrated remake.

The studios did such an amazing job! Consider:

- Production design
- Music and score (!!!)
- Robotic equipment (in the 70s)
- An honest contemporary alternative approach (energy, oil, environment)
- Filming Locations
- Amazing scale matching when editing Kong and the rest of the footage.

I really liked the original and gave it a 9.

I gave this version a 9 as well, by NOT thinking of the original :)

--------------------------------------------------------
- I'm Baron Munchausen!
- That sounds nasty! Is it contagious?

reply

[–] jharmon64 9 years ago

8/10 from me

33: 6/10
05: 4/10

so easily the best of the bunch

great cast, good fun

reply

[–] dlynch843 9 years ago

Yes, agreed--the best of the 3. Charles Grodin does his pompous sleaze act to perfection; great supporting cast--John Randolph, Ed Lauter, John Agar, Rene Auberjonois.
-Lange calling Kong a male chauvinist-- the humor is there. And then there's Kong's final fall. The first Kong was fine, but it was Hitler's favorite movie. The 2005 version was ok--good relationship between Kong & Naomi Watts; but the special effects were just over-kill.

reply

[–] daughterofolaf 8 years ago

So you cannot like a movie Hitler also liked? That's one of the silliest and most childish things I've ever heard--and we are on IMDb so it must be pretty silly. If you use that rationale to judge movies then you probably shouldn't like ANY movie because I guarantee you that every movie you love is also loved somewhere by some sick evil bastard or otherwise detestable person. Just because you don't know said detestable person doesn't mean it isn't happening.

"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"

reply

[–] dlynch843 8 years ago

Calm down, Eva.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

They have a point though.

reply

[–] edenney01 9 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm watching it again right now and came to IMDB to look up a piece of information about it, and I was completely shocked to see the rating was so low when I got to the page. I can only imagine that anyone that gave it anything less than a 6, had to have been born after 1985-1990 and grew up in a post-Jurassic Park special effects era. The 1930s King Kong is a classic and has its rightful place in cinematic history, but this is definitely my favorite telling of the story, and I personally think the effects were GREAT considering the time in which it was made. Millennials can't even fathom the effort and skill it took to make physical special effects look even remotely real, in an age when there were no computer generated effects. I'd watch this all week long and twice on Sunday before I'd watch that ridiculous piece of garbage starring Jack Black that they made several years ago, which just goes to show (yet again) that modern special effects alone do NOT make a movie better. That doesn't seem to stop Hollywood from cranking out one garbage remake after another using modern computer generated graphics and effects. This movie is worth watching just to see a young, smoking hot Jessica Lange, in her first role. I'd give it at least a solid 7.5.

reply

[–] motter25420-153-699254 8 years ago

I think many people who are disciples of the original also hate it, probably the best audience for this would be people who were born somewhere between the late 60's - early 80's.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tyrexden 8 years ago

The film kinda has an epic feel... that is until actually, Kong appears, which you'd feel the opposite. It seems like maybe they were taking their time, shooting it the right way, but then started to lose their budget, and the last 2/3 of the film becomes rushed and cheesey.

reply

[–] T-eschberger 8 years ago

No, it really doesn't.

The film is drab, boring and lacking fun, excitement or escapism. Boring characters, boring adventure. Boring everything. I mean for crying out loud, Skull Island doesn't even have any other creatures on it but that lame giant snake that Kong slowly and lazily wrestles with.

reply