Poll: Rate the 1976 Movie "KING KONG" ?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — King Kong
AnthonyRocks — 3 years ago(May 25, 2022 01:28 PM)
On a Scale from 1 (which is "Terrible") to 10 (which is "Great"), How would you Rate the 1976 Movie "
KING KONG
" in every capacity, manner, way, shape, and form ?
10 - Great
0%
0 votes
9
0%
0 votes
8
0%
0 votes
7
0%
0 votes
6
0%
0 votes
5
0%
0 votes
4
0%
0 votes
3
0%
0 votes
2
0%
0 votes
1 - Terrible
0%
0 votes
I Don't Know
0%
0 votes
I Have Never Seen it
0%
0 votes -
LorqVonRay1999 — 3 years ago(May 25, 2022 02:53 PM)
I can't go any higher than a 6/10. I like the cast, it's well filmed, the settings are nice but the biggest problem I had was with Kong. It was just so clearly a man in a suit and then, to make matters even worse, they built a large King Kong that hardly moved and inserted it into the movie at times. Odd that a movie with stop-motion done in 1933 made Kong so much more believable.
-
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(May 26, 2022 03:30 AM)
8/10. Has everything a monster flick should have like a good cast inc. Jeff Bridges & Jessica Lange and lots of atmosphere & mystery around Kong & the island. Great cinematography and music as well. Basically everything that Peter Jackson's Kong isn't.
-
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(May 26, 2022 04:09 AM)
Well I respect your opinion, watching movies is subjective. I personally think the relationship between the Jackson Kong & Anne is the most overcooked, melodramatic thing I've ever seen in a movie. The 1976 Kong understood one key thing and that is keep it understated.
That's the best thing about the pre-CGI movie era, and that is things tended to be simple and effective. Why? The actors, the writers and directors were of a much higher standard, and more often than not they stuck to that principle. -
BlablaBlackSheep — 3 years ago(May 26, 2022 04:46 AM)
Ehhh, there comes a point where objectivity takes over in art. The relationship between Kong and Anne in ‘76 wasn’t “understated,” it was just plain goofy.
The Kong in the Peter Jackson version actually looked and behaved like a real ape. Andy Serkis brought humanity and personality to the role that the other versions didn’t, which is something to be commended. Tbh I could take or leave Naomi Watts’s performance, you could replace her with any competent blonde actress and the story stays the same. But Kong’s death actually felt brutal and real because of the time we spent getting to know him. An amazing feat of special effects and acting.
I like the ‘76 version as well, but I don’t think anyone really feels that sorry for Kong, especially after he brutally murders all those people, he’s more like a classic movie monster in this. The Kong in ‘05 truly felt like a poor, confused, giant animal with intelligence and emotion. -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(May 26, 2022 05:58 AM)
As I said, it's subjective. Jackson's Kong is overwrought, overblown and up its own ass. Lange is simply light years ahead of Watts. Likewise Bridges over Brody. KK76 is atmospheric and understated. KK05 is a videogame.
-
BlablaBlackSheep — 3 years ago(May 26, 2022 02:38 PM)
I think you’re being a little too biased. Like I said, art isn’t completely subjective. You can look at things from a neutral standpoint. I like both movies, I’m just able to weigh the pros and cons of each. King ‘05 is definitely overblown and larger than life, that’s right, but that’s part of the charm. It’s just a giant homage to the original ‘33 version, of which Jackson was a huge fan. Did he maybe go overboard on the CGI? Probably in some scenes, like the Dino stampede. But I think for the most part it holds up pretty well. To me Jackson didn’t start making video game movies until later with his terrible Hobbit adaptations. I mean, King Kong looks absolutely incredible and as close to a real giant ape as has ever existed in a film before. The suit in the ‘76 version was…. Jeez.
I also wouldn’t say Lange was “light years ahead” of Watts, they both occupy basically the same role, but Lange was definitely more air-headed and bimbo-ey. Bridges is probably the best actor of the cast, but I think Brody was serviceable and did a good job as well. And let’s be honest, is Kong fighting a giant rubber snake or making subway trains explode really that “understated”? lol
I just think the ‘05 version takes the story a little more seriously and is darker too, although Kong’s death is certainly bloodier in the ‘76 one. -
Jim Shortz — 3 years ago(May 26, 2022 09:23 PM)
And let’s be honest, is Kong fighting a giant rubber snake or making subway trains explode really that “understated”? lol
That is understated compared to giant leeches sucking people up and a free for all with the jurassic park dinosaurs that goes on for what feels like 2 hours. Lets not even get into the Kong on Ice scene. Christ.
I also meant understated in the way the overall film was made.
for example, in Jackson's bloated film, you have the annoying woman getting on top of the empire state building and screaming hysterically at the incoming fighters - overblown and stupid and just done for effect like 99% of crap CGI era movies. That's not understated.
Meanwhile in KK76 you have the girl simply being upset at the sight of him being brutally riddled with gunfire. That's understated.
Films that have to scream their message at the audience are not good films. -
Woodyanders — 3 years ago(May 26, 2022 11:50 AM)
7/10. Love John Barry's lush score, there's an excellent cast of character guys like John Randolph, Ed Lauter, and Julius Harris, and this film really starts out well. Moreover, Charles Grodin made for a great slimeball and Jessica Lange is simply radiant. However, I don't care for the campy humor and the special effects are hit or miss throughout.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.
