Who saw this in theatres?
-
SpookyDuke — 15 years ago(April 12, 2010 08:10 AM)
You are a 15-year old troll (no offense for norwegian Trolls or LOTR ones) who isn't aware at all of the great 1970's cinematic decade and the joy, awe, suspense and drama it brought, not only with masterpieces like Godfather or Deer Hunter or Jaws or Star Wars, but also with highly appreaciated fruits of blooming and quality catastrophy genre like Towering inferno or least but not last King Kong.
The ultimate fun of the 70's and 80's was extraordinary, colourful and original and only little of that fact can be found in the last 20 years. -
Rockstarkong — 15 years ago(May 09, 2010 07:22 AM)
This film has a lot of fans, and grossed the modern-day equivalent of about $400 million worldwide in 1976.
Remakes were not in fashion when the 1976 Kong was released, so it was actually a brave attempt to remake a classic in a time when the art of film was at its peak (unlike these days). The movie received good to great reviews and even made NY Times' legendary movie critic Pauline Kale's top 10 list for 1976. The film's special effects won an Oscar for achievement in 1977 and Jessica Lange won a Golden Globe for best introductory performance. The press (who grew up as kids watching the great 1933 Kong and obviously have a bias) have trashed Kong 76 over the years as a flop - mainly because Paramount-Gulf Western's CEO stated that he was disappointed the film did not out gross 1975's classic JAWS.
For more accurate information about the movie and its release check out a book called "King Kong: History of a movie icon" - you can find it on AMAZON. Some of the movie's detractors on this board may be familiar with AMAZON as they also have video games and toys.
1976 King Kong has the best score, best babe (how can you argue with that!?) and the most interesting incarnation of Kong. It also has a great somber tone that add more to the story of Kong. It's an Epic.
I personally like all the versions of Kong, but the 2005 film is my least favorite, largely due to casting. And while I am not a fan of CGI, Jackson's Kong does have impressive computer effects; however practical effects like in Kong 76 are more interesting (even with their occasional flaws) because these were the days when "movie magic" was truly "movie magic" and not just some guy with a mouse on a computer.
Read the book I recommended even if you still hate 76 Kong. -
stanwoodcraig — 16 years ago(November 18, 2009 12:11 PM)
To be honest I dont really care who liked this movie or not. I just wanted to know who saw this in theatres. I appreciate everyone's opinions, but if me liking this movie makes up this upsetummmmmgrow up. Really.
-
raincoatriver — 16 years ago(November 19, 2009 11:13 AM)
I saw this on the big screen in '76 and around the same time, the original was re-released to theaters. The '33 was the full length version that we see on DVD today and one of the greatest experiences I've ever had in a movie theater. Both films amounted to very big deals at that time. '33 on the big screen is a jaw-dropper.
"gonna throw, my raincoat in the rivergonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"Sammy Turner. -
jrs-8 — 16 years ago(November 20, 2009 08:55 PM)
stan - I saw this film opening day. My parents picked me up from school and took me to what was the second show. The theater wasn't overly crowded as dinner hour shows usually weren't but I can remember when we came out the theater lobby was packed and the line extended well outside and down the length of the building. Incidentally I was and still am a fan of this film. It's not great and it is no classic but I find it enjoyable - much like my reaction to Peter Jackson's version. It's fun and entertaining but nothing more. This was the film that made me a fan of Jeff Bridges and to this day he is still my favorite actor.
-
jrs-8 — 16 years ago(November 21, 2009 08:47 PM)
Not sure what you mean TAM. Shocked that I liked both movies? I never said one was better than the other. I take it you are not a fan of the 76 version but a big fan of Jackson's? Fair enough. The 76 version is camp all the way and I liked it for what it is. Obviously Jackson's version is all over this film in the way of its special effects but Jackson's version, IMO, has its problems. I thought both Adrien Brody and, especially, Jack Black were miscast. I also thought Jackson's version was WAY too long. A good 30 minutes could have been cut without hurting the movie. Again just my opinion but at least qualify your remark with explanation. The 76 version means a lot to me as I was just a kid whose love for movies was still being nurtured. That's why I call it a guilty pleasure. I see the film for all its problems but it brings back good memories personally so I can always watch it and enjoy it. Jackson's version is a good one and obviously better made but it's by no means a classic.
-
jrs-8 — 16 years ago(November 23, 2009 09:11 AM)
I think the film is "camp" because it never takes itself too seriously. I don't think I will explain myself too well here but the film always seems to have its tongue firmly in its cheek. It certainly has a lighter tone than either the 33 or 05 version and that adds a "camp" air to it. Certain lines such as Dwan referring to her life being saved by "Deep Throat" and things like that. I think the filmmakers also realized that the audience was going to be savvy enough to figure out the ape was nothing more than a man in a gorilla suit and they went with it. I like the movie but I just don't take it too seriously.
-
namaGemo — 14 years ago(August 19, 2011 11:44 AM)
It certainly has a lighter tone than either the 33 or 05 version
I think this is completely off base. I think this film of the three created the most emotion when it came to Kong's death. No one cared that the 33 Kong was killed. The characters saw Kong as a monster, and most of the cast in the 05 saw him the same way. The 76 Kong gave Kong a personality and pathos that made him a victim of his situation, and you routed for him when he faught back at the end of the film.