I've been a fan of 1933's 'King Kong' from the time I was a young kid, and my appreciation for it has only grown over the past many years; as far as I'm concerned it's an essential classic that continues to hold up marvelously. I've been long overdue to check out this remake of 43 years later. While not possessing especial foreknowledge, I was fully aware that much would be changed and updated. What I was not prepared for was just how different this flick would be, including with regards to its quality. It's hardly that 1976's 'Kong' is specifically, abjectly bad, and I do not regret watching. It's a very mixed bag, however, and the entertainment herein comes at least as much from our criticism as from the film itself.
There is a lot to like here. The updated premise is swell, and timely, as an expedition sets out for Skull Island in pursuit of rumored oil deposits; broadly speaking Lorenzo Semple Jr.'s story is solid and engaging in reimagining the prior work of Ruth Rose, Merian C. Cooper, and Edgar Wallace. Two chief characters, Jack (Jeff Bridges) and Wilson (Charles Grodin), are unexpectedly well written; Grodin in particular gives a swell performance, making this title's version of Carl Denham extra slimy, and all in all the cast do a fine job. In general the costume design is splendid, particularly the dresses, and the production design and art direction at large are terrific; the sets are fantastic. Stunts, and the practical effects, broadly, are excellent. Composer extraordinaire John Barry gives us a lovely score, very much reminding of his famous work with Eon Productions' James Bond franchise; the music may not be super memorable, but it's a nice touch all the same. And among some very good ideas in the writing, I think the aspect of this 'King Kong' that's most admirable is its accentuation of the themes that Rose, Cooper, and Wallace first explored a few decades before. Semple selectively but poignantly zeroes in on the exploitation and destruction that the characters have wrought on Skull Island, and the culpability they have in the tragic tale of Kong. As Jack and especially Dwan (Jessica Lange) come to understand the terrible thing of which they have been a part, through to the extra bleak ending (nearly invoking Billy Wilder) the feature is rife with both an ugliness and a sorrow in the calamitous disruption to the natural order, to life on Skull Island overall, and most of all to Kong's life.
All this is welcome and commendable, and representative of what strength the movie could claim. Yet this is also troubled with significant problems that heavily diminish the lasting value. While Semper leans into the most dour facets of the narrative, others are shortchanged (the romance, that here is less than completely convincing, and the drama generally) or even omitted: the invigorating sense of adventure that characterized much of the 1933 progenitor, chiefly with events on Skull Island and its other gargantuan wildlife, has effectively been excised, let alone the tinges of horror that came along with it. From Kong's journey with his bride, to the rescue effort of Jack and the ship's crew, there are only two fragments ported across the span of four decades, and they are not treated well (watch for Kong's abrupt appearance as the expedition crosses the jungle). While Semper's approach to the themes is strong, the remake nevertheless feels a little flat for lack of thrills or energy. This dovetails into other weaknesses in the screenplay, including some highly questionable scene writing (e.g., watch for three soldiers inexplicably showing up at the climax) and dialogue. Just as much to the point, while much of the previous flick boasted many tremendous, iconic moments, nothing in these 130 minutes makes a major impression. And still other choices throughout raise a skeptical eyebrow, including the manner in which Barry's love theme is employed, not least with tonal disparity at the end, and a coat that is given to Dwan at one point in the back end.
There are two other big issues that burden the 70s 'King Kong,' though, and they are far more prominent and prevalent. The first of these to come to our attention is Dwan, the sole named female character and a main character in the plot, played by Lange. With rare exception the writing surrounding Dwan is just awful. I understand that Semper and famed producer Dino De Laurentiis intended for this film to bear a lighter tone, yet even with scattered bits and pieces of levity that intent does not meaningfully come across here, least of all given the somber ideas predominant in the plot. Dwan, on the other hand, pretty much is a joke unto herself, with flummoxing if not laughably bad dialogue, and a flimsy and seemingly uncertain characterization overall, like Semper couldn't figure her out. Meanwhile, I don't know how much of Lange's performance is her struggling with lousy material, how much is a lack of skill, and how much is dubious guidance from the director John Guillermin, but for every scene in which Lange does well, there is another that leaves us actively doubting. On paper and in execution, the female lead was poorly considered.
The second big issue, to be very frank, is Kong. The primary attraction. Seen fleetingly, the gorilla suit looks fine, and perhaps even more so the giant mechanical hand in which Lange is often seen. The more we see of the suit up close, however, the less believable it is - and worst of all is when Kong's face is manipulated with the purpose of expressing some emotion, or performing an action, other than "angry grimace." I'm not sure if I spent more time groaning in pain or laughing uproariously as the picture tries to make the ape suit carry human expressions. And as if this weren't sorry enough, this time around Kong is perfectly bipedal. There is no effort to even approximate our simian cousins' perambulation, and the storytelling illusion is all but totally dispelled as we see not a titanic gorilla, but a man wearing a gorilla suit. I'm taken aback that this feature was celebrated for its special effects, for I find them to be wanting and undeserving. Wherever footage of an actor is spliced together with a projected background the application here is more transparent than with similar examples in much older fare: I think of 'Vertigo' with a scene of a person falling, I think of titles I've seen from the 40s and even 30s, and I think the most glaring failure of the use here might be at the climax, with Kong himself. The special effects, and Kong, continue to hold up better in the 1933 movie than they do in this one of 1976.
Part of me likes this, and I see what it does well. Part of me loathes it, and is aghast at where it goes wrong. One way or another, I'm a person who will watch just about anything, so I'm glad I took the time to do so. Yet for all those works that have been produced in the past ninety years, adopting one of cinema's most legendary beasts for different ends, it remains true that none match a piece recognized for its stop-motion animation and black and white presentation. For where the '76 rendition succeeds, above all with its themes, I want to like it more than I do; as I reflect once more on its faults, I wonder if I'm not being too generous in my assessment. I suppose I'm glad for those who get more out of this 'King Kong' than I do, and you're welcome to it; having now watched it, once is enough, and I'll stick to the original.
There is a lot to like here. The updated premise is swell, and timely, as an expedition sets out for Skull Island in pursuit of rumored oil deposits; broadly speaking Lorenzo Semple Jr.'s story is solid and engaging in reimagining the prior work of Ruth Rose, Merian C. Cooper, and Edgar Wallace. Two chief characters, Jack (Jeff Bridges) and Wilson (Charles Grodin), are unexpectedly well written; Grodin in particular gives a swell performance, making this title's version of Carl Denham extra slimy, and all in all the cast do a fine job. In general the costume design is splendid, particularly the dresses, and the production design and art direction at large are terrific; the sets are fantastic. Stunts, and the practical effects, broadly, are excellent. Composer extraordinaire John Barry gives us a lovely score, very much reminding of his famous work with Eon Productions' James Bond franchise; the music may not be super memorable, but it's a nice touch all the same. And among some very good ideas in the writing, I think the aspect of this 'King Kong' that's most admirable is its accentuation of the themes that Rose, Cooper, and Wallace first explored a few decades before. Semple selectively but poignantly zeroes in on the exploitation and destruction that the characters have wrought on Skull Island, and the culpability they have in the tragic tale of Kong. As Jack and especially Dwan (Jessica Lange) come to understand the terrible thing of which they have been a part, through to the extra bleak ending (nearly invoking Billy Wilder) the feature is rife with both an ugliness and a sorrow in the calamitous disruption to the natural order, to life on Skull Island overall, and most of all to Kong's life.
All this is welcome and commendable, and representative of what strength the movie could claim. Yet this is also troubled with significant problems that heavily diminish the lasting value. While Semper leans into the most dour facets of the narrative, others are shortchanged (the romance, that here is less than completely convincing, and the drama generally) or even omitted: the invigorating sense of adventure that characterized much of the 1933 progenitor, chiefly with events on Skull Island and its other gargantuan wildlife, has effectively been excised, let alone the tinges of horror that came along with it. From Kong's journey with his bride, to the rescue effort of Jack and the ship's crew, there are only two fragments ported across the span of four decades, and they are not treated well (watch for Kong's abrupt appearance as the expedition crosses the jungle). While Semper's approach to the themes is strong, the remake nevertheless feels a little flat for lack of thrills or energy. This dovetails into other weaknesses in the screenplay, including some highly questionable scene writing (e.g., watch for three soldiers inexplicably showing up at the climax) and dialogue. Just as much to the point, while much of the previous flick boasted many tremendous, iconic moments, nothing in these 130 minutes makes a major impression. And still other choices throughout raise a skeptical eyebrow, including the manner in which Barry's love theme is employed, not least with tonal disparity at the end, and a coat that is given to Dwan at one point in the back end.
There are two other big issues that burden the 70s 'King Kong,' though, and they are far more prominent and prevalent. The first of these to come to our attention is Dwan, the sole named female character and a main character in the plot, played by Lange. With rare exception the writing surrounding Dwan is just awful. I understand that Semper and famed producer Dino De Laurentiis intended for this film to bear a lighter tone, yet even with scattered bits and pieces of levity that intent does not meaningfully come across here, least of all given the somber ideas predominant in the plot. Dwan, on the other hand, pretty much is a joke unto herself, with flummoxing if not laughably bad dialogue, and a flimsy and seemingly uncertain characterization overall, like Semper couldn't figure her out. Meanwhile, I don't know how much of Lange's performance is her struggling with lousy material, how much is a lack of skill, and how much is dubious guidance from the director John Guillermin, but for every scene in which Lange does well, there is another that leaves us actively doubting. On paper and in execution, the female lead was poorly considered.
The second big issue, to be very frank, is Kong. The primary attraction. Seen fleetingly, the gorilla suit looks fine, and perhaps even more so the giant mechanical hand in which Lange is often seen. The more we see of the suit up close, however, the less believable it is - and worst of all is when Kong's face is manipulated with the purpose of expressing some emotion, or performing an action, other than "angry grimace." I'm not sure if I spent more time groaning in pain or laughing uproariously as the picture tries to make the ape suit carry human expressions. And as if this weren't sorry enough, this time around Kong is perfectly bipedal. There is no effort to even approximate our simian cousins' perambulation, and the storytelling illusion is all but totally dispelled as we see not a titanic gorilla, but a man wearing a gorilla suit. I'm taken aback that this feature was celebrated for its special effects, for I find them to be wanting and undeserving. Wherever footage of an actor is spliced together with a projected background the application here is more transparent than with similar examples in much older fare: I think of 'Vertigo' with a scene of a person falling, I think of titles I've seen from the 40s and even 30s, and I think the most glaring failure of the use here might be at the climax, with Kong himself. The special effects, and Kong, continue to hold up better in the 1933 movie than they do in this one of 1976.
Part of me likes this, and I see what it does well. Part of me loathes it, and is aghast at where it goes wrong. One way or another, I'm a person who will watch just about anything, so I'm glad I took the time to do so. Yet for all those works that have been produced in the past ninety years, adopting one of cinema's most legendary beasts for different ends, it remains true that none match a piece recognized for its stop-motion animation and black and white presentation. For where the '76 rendition succeeds, above all with its themes, I want to like it more than I do; as I reflect once more on its faults, I wonder if I'm not being too generous in my assessment. I suppose I'm glad for those who get more out of this 'King Kong' than I do, and you're welcome to it; having now watched it, once is enough, and I'll stick to the original.