mlariosc-00551 Obviously the original will be one of the best films of all time but this reboot is an interesting point of view of the classic story. But, why does so many people hate this film? maybe because in most of the descriptions of this film say its a "remake" instead of a re imagine.

crakatoot Now its impossible to talk about this movie without talking the other ones. The original 1933 film, is of course a classic. A seminal film. But at its heart it is just trying to be a fun adventure movie. And that's what this film is trying to recapture, that adventurous spirit. But in a modern context. Well modern for the 70's anyway. And this film did that beautifully. The buildup, the stories about the island. That big ass wall. Of course we know what's behind the wall but it's still good build up. And come on seeing Kong climb the Twin Towers. That was pretty cool. Especially when he jumped from one to the other. And of all the Kong films, this one had the most brutal ending. Kong's death was surprisingly graphic. The 2005 King Kong, for all its melodrama was totally bloodless. Not this film though, it really drove home the tragedy. Still, this film kept a light tone. Again one of the biggest problems with the 2005 film was how heavy handed and maudlin the whole thing was. King Kong is a silly idea and the 70's film acknowledged that and had fun with it. Did it go a little to goofy at moments "You Goddamn chauvinist pig ape!" oh yeah. And yes the Dwan character is supposed to be an air head. But come on, every character in every movie can't be a strong tough bad ass And I do think this film handled the Kong, girl relationship best. With Fay, she was just terrified of Kong. With Naomi they went way over board with their connection, Christ they went ice skating. But here, they had a good balance. Dwan was clearly scared of Kong but still she didn't want to see him get hurt. The film is not flawless of course, again some of it is a little too goofy. And of all the Kong films, this one does the least with Skull Island. We do get to see Kong fight a giant snake but that's about it. Don't listen to the critics though. This a terrific remake and a great 70's era disaster film. It has some good commentary about environmentalism. And Jessica Lange looked damn good. Especially in her short shorts.

Hitchcoc We so fondly remember the classic 1931 film with Robert Armstrong and Fay Wray. This is pretty much the same movie, in color, with different motivations, using modern iconic structures (the World Trade Centers). But it all gets down to the invasion of an island by outsiders where a primitive tribe continues to sacrifice young women to a god (King Kong). Unfortunately, the gorgeous young Jessica Lange, who has been picked up on the open sea (certainly one of the great cinematic contrivances), is captured and about to become a snack for the big monkey. Along the way, Kong falls in love with her. Maybe he saw the original movie and Fay was a bit long in the tooth. Lange is rescued and the big gorillas strapped to an empty oil tanker and brought to New York where he is going to be exhibited for big bucks. Well, hope many horror stories have you seen. I'm not going to spoil the fun, but nature takes its course. It's not a bad movie. It just doesn't have any surprises.

Scott LeBrun 1970s style re-imagining of the legendary cinema beauty-and-the-beast story stars Jeff Bridges as Jack Prescott, a hippie-ish paleontology professor who hitches a ride with an oil company's vessel. Their fearless leader, Fred Wilson (a shamelessly hammy Charles Grodin), is convinced that somewhere in the ocean near Surabaya is an island that's just rich with potential. Of course, we all know the story: what the adventurers find instead is an enormous ape, revered by the people of the island. Wilson attempts to salvage something out of the trip by transporting Kong back to NYC and putting him on display, but we know nothing good can come of this.This Dino De Laurentiis production is really not that terrible as its reputation would suggest. It just suffers some from a bit of overlength, an inadvisable campy approach, and its silly, silly characters & dialogue. The special effects (overseen by Carlo Rambaldi, later to create E.T.) are variable - sometimes they work well, sometimes not so well. The treat is watching makeup effects legend Rick Baker don a gorilla costume for some scenes. Although this remake is done in colour and widescreen, it just doesn't quite have the atmosphere of the 1933 film. It might have been nice to see a few more wonders on the island; as it is, we only get to see Kong do battle with a giant snake. The fact that in this instance Kong climbs not The Empire State Building but The Twin Towers may affect how some people respond to the film in this day and age. One obvious asset is the majestic music score by John Barry.Bridges is likable, but there are times when his character might infuriate some people. Grodin performs as if the filmmakers told him to "act more like Robert Armstrong" (Carl Denham in the 1933 production), and the character is so obnoxious and sleazy that you can't help but cheer when he inevitably gets his. Many viewers thought that Jessica Langes' debut film performance was highly inauspicious, but her appeal and beauty are undeniable. There's a very strong supporting cast: John Randolph, Rene Auberjonois, Julius Harris, Jack O'Halloran, Dennis Fimple, and Ed Lauter. It's nice to see 50s sci-fi star John Agar in a cameo as a lying weasel of a city official; John Lone, Corbin Bernsen, and Joe Piscopo have bits.In the end, the love that Kong lavishes upon Dwan (Lange) is still pretty poignant, and you can't help but feel very bad for Kong.Followed by a sequel (!) 10 years later, incredibly enough."King Kong" '76 misses its potential for true greatness, but it's still pretty decent entertainment.Seven out of 10.