[.ca] King Kong (Widescreen) (ISBN 6305495181)

From Amazon.com:
Before John Hughes claimed the mantle of Hollywood's antichrist, that title was firmly held by producer Dino De Laurentiis, whose middle name may have been "hubris." He vowed that this remake of the 1933 horror classic would be a bigger hit than Jaws and that his Kong would be more sympathetic than the shark. But for all the money he spent on trying to make this monkey look real, the biggest special effect was making Jeff Bridges look like a monkey--and nearly destroying Jessica Lange's acting career before it started. The film was noteworthy mostly for how cheesy the ape looks, though this was one of the first films to be shot at the then-new World Trade Center. Even Charles Grodin, as the villainous promoter, can't get laughs in this idiotic film. --Marshall Fine

STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL!!:
The thinking behind this remake escapes me. Why redo a nearly perfect movie, and leave out the dinosaurs? There is one encounter with a giant snake that's not bad, but that's it. The first half of this movie is an acceptable adventure story, but after Kong is captured, it goes downhill, becoming a politically correct monster movie(ie, Jeff Bridges cheers Kong as he defeats the military). Just stick with the 1933 movie, perfect in every way, almost, and keep hoping they find the lost footage of the spiders at the bottom of that ravine!!

less faithful to the original,but more entertaining than the recently released version (3.5/5):
i feel that this version of King Kong was very unfairly ravaged by critics when it premiered in 1976.i have no idea why.yes it had some problems,and it also had some strong points.first,the problems.the ape walked upright instead of on its knuckles(this was less of a problem with me than with most of the critics).purists were very upset with this.next,a glaring problem.in many scenes,you can clearly see that miniature models of certain structure were used.i found this so obvious it is laughable.also.i think the filmmakers veered away somewhat from the original version leaving out some pivotal scenes.the strong points:good performances from all the main characters.the ape looked fairly realistic for its time.the movie was well paced.there were no humorous bits,no filler.it was not a grand spectacle,like the recently release version.the scenes between the ape and the woman were more heartfelt.i found it more entertaining than the latest version,much more exciting.i give this film 3.5/5.

Pales beside the '33 original:
Like most remakes, the film exhibits good intentions and even starts off well. However, its fundamental production quality and even its special effects (!) are dwarfed by those of the 1933 original. The acting in the 1933 film is also much more convincing, in my opinion. I formerly owned the LaserDisc issue of the 1933 King Kong, and that edition was terrific, featuring the movie in its _unedited_ version as well as a director's commentary pertaining to the detailed aspects of the making of this great film. I suggest that you _skip_ this mediocre remake and save your hard-earned bucks to purchase the upcoming DVD version of the original King Kong. If it is anything like the LaserDisc version (it actually should be more, regarding "extras"), you won't go wrong!

King Kong:
This is a movie that is a sit down family movie, all will enjoy. I remember watching as a young teenager and now have purchased it to watch with my young teenagers. After visiting Universal Studios and doing the backlot tour and seeing King Kong again it made me think about how to get hold of this wonderful movie. I rate it high on family enjoyment also prepare for the tissue boxes on the sad scene's. Hooray I have it

A really weird remake, but it's worth seeing:
This is one of the first movies I ever remember seeing in a theatre - the only thing I remember about the experience, though, is the fact that the film broke; I'm not sure we ever even got to see the end of the thing. Had I been a little older, I no doubt would have remembered much more about Dino De Laurentiis' infamous remake of the 1933 classic: the oftentimes horrible special effects, the weirdness of several aspects of the story, and the effectively sad ending (had I been a good bit older, I'm sure I also would have remembered how hot that new girl on the block, Jessica Lange, was). This film has some of the worst projection screen shots I've ever seen; every single shot of Jessica in the hopelessly artificial gorilla's hand, to take just one example, is ridiculously fake. The special effects of this film are among the cheesiest I've ever seen (which is in contrast to those of the 1933 original King Kong, which still amaze me). Then there's the script itself, which does find its way into some pretty weird areas. And Jeff Bridges may be even hairier than the ape. Fortunately, though, the film does succeed (thanks largely to the close-up shots of Kong's dramatic performance) in generating loads of sympathy for the ape and thus pulling off the ending as the great tragedy that it was and is. King Kong, in both its 1933 and 1976 incarnations, is a very sad film. Forget about making a movie on Skull Island. In this version of the film, it is the prospect of huge oil reserves that first draws outsiders to the island - a team of Petrox oil company people led by Fred Wilson (Charles Groden). Jack Prescott (Jeff Bridges), a scientist, stows away onboard because he wants to study the animal life on the island. As for the blonde bombshell that will be the Beauty for Kong's Beast, Dwan (Jessica Lange) is found floating aboard an empty raft in the middle of the ocean. Everyone is surprised to find a group of natives living on the island, but Jack must have some kind of extrasensory perception because he figures out much too easily that the natives worship a gigantic living ape god and sacrifice maidens to it for their own protection. The natives kidnap Dwan from the ship, hand her over to Kong, and you pretty much know what happens from there. It is unfortunate, of course, that the climax of the film takes place at the World Trade Center rather than the Empire State Building, but the Twin Towers were new at the time and offered a stunning backdrop for the final confrontation between Kong and man. I suppose we're all clear on the fact that King Kong is not the monster in the story; he's a victim - a victim of extreme exploitation in this 1976 version. Wilson only wants to use Kong to make himself rich, and he actually reveals him to the world from behind a gigantic gas pump (one of several incredibly strange images in this film). Thankfully, Kong makes this guy pay this time around. It's painful to see the big guy brought so low in the end, though. Kong is easy to sympathize with - he's just another poor sap destroyed by love. He's a lonely guy doing his own thing back home, and then this gorgeous blonde shows up right in front of his eyes. It's love at first sight, and he does everything he can think of to impress the girl, yet she just keeps running away. He keeps chasing her until he winds up humiliated and helpless, with thousands of eyes staring at him in his moment of defeat. Still, after moping around and feeling sorry for himself for awhile, he rises again and makes another bold attempt to win the girl back, but that only ends in total disaster. And, of course, the girl then figures out that she sort of loves the guy after all, but it's too late to do him a lick of good. I don't know about you, but that sounds kind of familiar to me. This film is not in the same league as the 1933 original (it's not even close), but it is worth seeing. Kong is a unique monster character whose story always manages to touch the heart, even in an overblown, frankly weird adaptation such as this one. Plus, it's unintentionally amusing - especially in terms of the not so special effects.