That was an excellent one.

best movie i've ever seen.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

It's hard for me to hate this movie because there really isn't anything to hate. There isn't anything to love either. This is the first remake of the 1933 classic and it's mostly forgotten as we have the much superior 2005 remake. This film holds a candle to neither, but it's not too bad either. It's basically just King Kong with nothing new put in. There is one part where it actually improves over the 2005 version. That movie didn't even show how King Kong got to New York City. This movie shows him down below on board a giant ship.The worst thing about this movie is the lack of monsters. All we see is just one giant snake and that's it. That's nowhere near as cool as Kong fighting a dinosaur. It was so cool to see all the other inhabitants of the island in both other versions. This was just mostly dull. We do get some pretty good scenes with the woman trying to communicate with Kong. Yes, it's very weird to see Kong climbing the World Trade Center. Would this film be banned from TV now? I mean, I certainly haven't heard of it being on network TV. **1/2

King Kong 1976 is a film I've always avoided up until now due to some bad reports about it since it first came out. It came up on TV recently and I watched it tonight and it really was the most pleasant surprise of a put-down movie I've seen since Waterworld, which I enjoyed equally. Two movies then that are very misjudged. King Kong not only looks great, it looks big in every way, not just the gorilla, but the sets, the scope, the stunning scenery, big in every way. Jessica Lange in her first picture is amazingly good (in fact I just read she won the Golden Globe for best newcomer) and Jeff Bridges is his usual reliable hero, so two strong leads here. I did spot John Agar right at the end who I haven't seen since his 40's heyday so that was a surprise. I know the picture is now 41 years old but it just looked terrific to me so seven stars from me. I love the original and also the Naomi Watt's more recent one but this stands up extremely well against the others which I really didn't expect. Highly recommended if you, like me, have been avoiding it.

Dino de Laurentiis' terrible remake of the 1933 classic that stands as a pretty big turd stain on his reputation. The plot to the original film is mostly the same here, with some minor (unnecessary) changes. This one starts out with an expedition led by Charles Grodin to find oil on an island that remains perpetually shrouded in fog. Along the way stowaway paleontologist Jeff Bridges and rescued castaway Jessica Lange join the expedition. Soon they're on the island and, well, you probably know what happens next.The script is courtesy of Lorenzo Semple, a writer of some respectability who dabbled in camp (he wrote for the '60s Batman TV series and also wrote the screenplays for Flash Gordon, Sheena, and the Raquel Welch "classic" Fathom). So throughout the film there's a not-so-subtle amount of nose-thumbing going on that's kind of insulting to fans of the original movie. To add more insult, the special effects for Kong basically consist of Rick Baker in an ape suit and an overpriced mechanical ape seen briefly here and there. Of the cast, Jeff Bridges comes out best. Which is to say he's the only one who goes through the motions without embarrassing himself. Charles Grodin chews scenery as he almost always does. The worst acting by far comes from Jessica Lange in her film debut. Her ditzy actress character "Dwan" is pretty bad on paper but Lange's breathlessly vapid performance just makes it all that much worse. Every scene with her is cringeworthy. The biggest thing that kills the movie is the sheer lack of wonder and imagination. You shouldn't do a movie about King Kong sarcastically or tongue-in-cheek or any of that stuff. It's a fantastic concept and you have to lose yourself in it or it just won't work like it should. 1933 as well as 2005 got it right, but 1976 shat the bed.