King Kong (1976)

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin, Jessica Lange, John Randolph, Rene Auberjonois, Julius Harris, Jack O'Halbran, Ed Lauter, Peter Cullen (voice)(uncredited)
Directed by: John Guillermin
Rating: PG
Genre: Adventure, Horror
1976

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: A group exploring untapped petroleum reservoirs soon discover the uncharted island is home to a monstrous creature.

Review:

Tim: 43 years after the legendary masterpiece, 1933's King Kong we get a fancy remake. The technology has advanced significantly, but the ability to tell a compelling story floundered. John Guillermin's film was nominated for two Academy Awards and won a Special Achievement award, but it's a disappointing movie. Sure, it's decent and it has its moments, but it's a far drop from the original film.

The story is a solid one. I liked some of the adjustments made- mainly, that this time, the explorers are looking for petroleum deposits. That felt like a very 1970s-inspired shift. It gave this film a different flavor than a film crew out looking for excitement. The rest of the story unfolds more or less as the original did, but another big shift is having Kong climb the World Trade Center towers, instead of the Empire State Building. That was another modern shift for the film, and one that felt different in the post-9/11 world in which I'm living. Besides those big changes, the story follows the expected path.

The visual effects are definitely updated since 1933, but still felt somewhat constrained. The man in the monkey suit was never totally believable, but some of the camerawork to put him on screen with the scaled down actors was impressive. The use of a giant mechanical hand was really cool. While it becomes obvious where and how it was used, it still adds a nice sense of scale to the film. The film does increase the blood quite a bit- there's a few somewhat glory scenes (nothing too outlandish, but more vivid red blood than you might expect). The movie did win an Academy Award for Special Achievement in Visual Effects, so the overall work put in the visuals certainly paid off. The film was also nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Sound, although it didn't win either. The movie is technically well made- I'll give John Guillermin credit for that. I didn't have many complaints in that department.

My issues came more from the script and the human side of the story. It just never felt all that believable. Much of the cast is hamming it up, showing a lack of restraint. The characters often say stupid things and do stupid things and it just felt unnecessary. I cringed at multiple points throughout the film. Jeff Bridges probably comes out of it best- his character is a bit dull, but he makes a solid protagonist. At times, he looks baffled by what he has to say and what the other actors are doing around him. Charles Grodin embraced his scenery chewing role. Grodin needed to reel it in a bit- he overacts at times. However, there's something fun in the energy he brings to the role. His character is ridiculous and too one-dimensional, but I also had fun watching his over-the-top performance. It was fascinating to see Jessica Lange make her debut here. She brings a ton of energy to the role, but feels consistently too extreme. It's a memorable performance, but not exactly a great one. She also suffers from the film trying to hypersexualize her character. Dwan (I rolled my eyes) is a bit of a mess, less a realistic portrayal of a woman and more of a caricature. She says and does things purely for the sake of the camera, things people wouldn't do in real life. I thought this whole aspect of the script was bizarre- the playing up of her sexuality, the insistence of Kong falling in love with her. I know those themes were present in the 1933 film, but they existed more as subtext. In this film, when Grodin's character talks about Kong wanting to "rape" her, you just kind of scratch your head. Why go there with this film? It felt unnecessary. Perhaps it was another "modern" update, but this one doesn't work. Lange ends up with an impossible task and while admiringly throws herself fully into the role, you can't help but cringe at her performance at various points. Rene Auberjonois was likewise too over-the-top at various points in his performance. He has good moments and a bunch of cringeworthy ones. The rest of the cast is fine.

I went into this film feeling quite excited. I like the story of King Kong and I was interested in seeing what 40+ years of technological advancements could do for this remake. Unfortunately, the technology got better, but the storytelling deteriorated. 1976's King Kong is a decent film, but it's one whose technical aspects far outweigh the narrative and character development. I left this movie impressed by some of it, but mostly wishing it was a better film.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 6.5



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: King Kong (1933), Death on the Nile