It's not that bad!
Yeah, this movie has its faults, but overall I quite enjoyed it. Anyone with me?
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > King Kong Lives (1986) Discussion > It's not that bad!
I was embarrassed to be a fan of King Kong movies when I saw it. This was worse than King Kong Escapes.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I saw the latter half of this film on one of the Showtime channels on the afternoon of 1/21/2004. I hadn't seen it for years, and I remembered that it was bad, and it was worse than I remembered! I believe it is possible to enjoy this movie, but only if you can acclimate yourself to its absolutely abysmally amateurish level of filmmaking. In all honesty I could never recommend this movie to anyone, except someone who was convinced that the 1976 King Kong was a good film. As a diehard bad-movie fan, even I had difficulty sticking with it to the end. The only parts I liked were Kong's battles with the army, which are so childishly done that they reminded me of those times in my childhood when I played with a toy gorilla and some plastic tanks. There's something seriously wrong with a PG-13 movie that's pitched at an eight-year-old's maturity level. That's all I have to say.
share[deleted]
i dont know what do most people have against the sequels, i find this movie very nice, and with a tender plot, full action, very good music, and the effects are ok, so i really dont understand some people, they like trash like matrix reloaded or revolutions, and cant be able to give a decent critic to a classic like this.
king kong lives is excellent, you please never become a film critic, or so many good movies like this would be harrassed and misjudged
Yeah, I thought this was just a really fun giant monster film, with an unexpected emotional element woven into it. Everyone seems so quick to dump on this and compare it (and the 1976 KONG) with the original. You pretty much have to take them on their own terms. I would say a lot of the hype over the 1976 KONG by producer Dino De Laurentis hurt these films more than anything, especially when he tried to convince audiences the bulk of the 1976 film used the giant mechanical ape that he spent millions on. The giant mechanical monster was so embarassingly bad that it was onscreen for only a few seconds, when Kong first escapes his bonds in New York. Rick Baker was so incredibly short-changed by De Laurentis for all his work...yet even the average kid in the audience knew what the real deal was.
shareI quite liked King Kong Lives (giant surgery scene, eating rednecks, Linda Hamilton always looks hot) and King Kong Escapes (Dr. Who and Mecha-Kong).
I loved it! Especially when the guy gets ripped in half! But I was only about 5 when I saw it.
shareAlthough I too enjoyed King Kong Lives, I disagree with your claim that it's not that bad. It is, in fact, wretched. The same people who made one of the most despised movie remakes in history are back at it. Instead of learning from their mistakes and nearly 10 years of bad press, they proceed to amplify those mistakes to the point of out-and-out unintentional comedy. King Kong Lives is atrocious on nearly every level. That being said, I love King Kong Lives. It has given me years of laughter and is still a favorite "so bad it's good" movie.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although I too enjoyed King Kong Lives, I disagree with your claim that it's not that bad. It is, in fact, wretched. The same people who made one of the most despised movie remakes in history are back at it. Instead of learning from their mistakes and nearly 10 years of bad press, they proceed to amplify those mistakes to the point of out-and-out unintentional comedy. King Kong Lives is atrocious on nearly every level. That being said, I love King Kong Lives. It has given me years of laughter and is still a favorite "so bad it's good" movie.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yeah the original had bad press. So what? The movie was an undeniable success. That's why it made a lot of money. That's why they filmed a sequel. That's why they created major theme park attractions based on that film. Accept it.
I don't think a lot of mistakes were made with the original at all. Are filmmakers just supposed to listen to critics and Internet geeks, or do they listen to the mass audiences and their own creative instincts? A lot of popular films are hated by certain groups, and a lot of bad films are loved by certain groups.
King Kong Lives had it's own problems.
Apes were making a comeback in the mid 80s, it was probably made for that reason.
From what I've seen/remember, the sequel is probably closer to some of the other filmed versions of Kong than to the 76 movie. It's a much more by-the-book monster movie. It does have some thrilling monster action though.
Even though the same producer and director returned, so many of the things that made the original an A film, were not repeated this time.
Guillermin never directed a motion picture after this and another director is credited so I don't know what happened. Were there reshoots?
There is just really no way to get beyond the mechanical heart revival plot though. The original worked because there was some real believability to the whole story. It takes a lot of work to not make stories like this seem silly. Ronald Shusett (Alien, Total Recall) co-wrote the story; I am shocked that he would have any part of such a bad idea, but maybe the artificial heart thing wasn't his. I mean, those things didn't even work in people!
Linda Hamilton was good as Sarah Conner but she is no Jessica Lange.
It is good if people can enjoy it as a B movie though. It's still better than every Peter Jackson movie except Frighteners.
All in all, it is probably worth another look.
It's a great film.
"I was just a kid when I killed your parents..." - The Joker