It really does! A 7 or so!
-
motter25420-153-699254 — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 01:01 PM)
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. -
Aggelos_Kreouzis — 10 years ago(September 03, 2015 02:02 AM)
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?
-
dlynch843 — 10 years ago(October 27, 2015 06:47 AM)
Yes, agreedthe best of the 3. Charles Grodin does his pompous sleaze act to perfection; great supporting castJohn 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 okgood relationship between Kong & Naomi Watts; but the special effects were just over-kill. -
daughterofolaf — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 05:05 PM)
So you cannot like a movie Hitler also liked? That's one of the silliest and most childish things I've ever heardand 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!" -
edenney01 — 10 years ago(October 03, 2015 11:52 AM)
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.
-
tyrexden — 9 years ago(November 17, 2016 05:25 PM)
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.
-
T-eschberger — 9 years ago(November 19, 2016 06:57 PM)
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.