|
King Kong Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
I'm not a big fan of King Kong, but I have seen all three films: 1933, 1976, and 2005. The original 1933 film is a classic in its own right. The 2005 remake could've been better, but it had its moments. And right in the middle, the first 1976 remake is a love-or-hate motion picture. There are no dinosaurs, no chewing on natives, and no famous T-rex fight, which makes it a bit less exciting. Unlike the others, which are set in 1933, this one is set in the 70's. It's filled with politics, environmental issues, industrial strife, etc. And it has more of that than it has action.
But I don't mind the 70's politics. I like this film for what it is. Jeff Bridges gives an adequate performance, while Charles Grodin does seem to overact sometimes. Jessica Lange is a bit irritating with her sterotypical blondegirl attitude. But then her chemistry with the giant ape goes a much deeper than the original 1933 (Fay Wray just screams, while Jessica Lange, along with Naomi Watts, try to humor the fella). Speaking of ape, this ape looks realistic. Instead of stop-motion animation, this one is a guy (Rick Baker) in an ape suit. It can look cheesy at times, but his emotions have a far better effect than 1933.
The action sequences lack suspense, which both 2005 and 1933 have. The big snake (which is the only thing that Kong fights) is one laughable prop. The music is quite good and bombastic, and intentinoal humor found in this film are spot-on. I seem to like 2005 and 1976 more than 1933, because he feel much more for the ape and the woman he has a crush on. But 1933 is still a classic, and nothing would ever beat it in terms of revolutionary special effects.
P.S. I wonder what it would be like if King Kong was set in 2008.
Rating: -
Lots of people have their opinions about this motion picture, and quite frankly, it has been reviewed based on its cinematic arts quite enough. But since the film is really a tart political statement, I offer a political review:
When it comes right down to it, this film is about a black guy who's in love with a gorgeous white woman. He just wants to live with her in peace, away from the interference of others. The uptight society of 1933 and 1976 couldn't put up with these kinds of shenanigans, so they stop at nothing to break the couple apart. They hunt him, trap him, cuff him by his wrists and ankles, incarcerate him without a trial and eventually decide it's best to just execute the guy by firing squad. Anything to prevent race-mixing.
It must be said that Kong has superb taste in women. He was also years or decades ahead of his time. Kudos, big dude. However, his flair for romance makes him public enemy number one, so they send airplanes and helicopters to destroy tall, dark and handsome when he takes a stroll to visit the World Trade Center. Surely this is how to treat out of town tourists.
The woman (Jessica Lange) prefers the hairy black guy (Kong) over the hairy white guy (Jeff Bridges). Speaking as a hairy white guy myself that would love to end up with such a gal, it brought tears to my eyes. Still, I don't think this tender misunderstood love merits the death penalty. I'm just not the racist that some others are. I know, it's one of my failings. I'm a flawed human being.
There are clear life lessons here: even when the white girl loves a man who refuses to get a shave and a haircut, people won't let them live and let live. Putting on a monkey suit is no guarantee of success in this world. You have to get rid of the excessive body hair in order to survive, even in New York City. Forcing long-haired freaks like Kong and myself to conform to arbitrary standards is un-American and uncivilized. Look in your mirror and ask yourself who the real animals are.
I do prefer the 1933 (masterpiece) version, but this one rocks in its own right. Dino De Larentis has made a great film. I remember the model for this flick residing on the Universal Studios Tour for years afterwards, becoming a slickly-promoted side show freak like the mechanical shark from Jaws. I have no idea whether he's still there.
This film is about the peace movement, tourism, greedy oil companies, animal rights, police brutality, racism, hairism and the death and destruction that come when you monkey around with someone's natural environment. Jessica Lange is very easy on the eyes and Kong literally fills the screen, while Jeff Bridges, the white, long-haired, peace-loving liberal tries to save the day.
In the end, we must ask ourselves: if someone the size of Kong isn't safe on the streets of New York, then who is?
Rating:  -
Not the greatest when viewing it now. I purchased it because I now have all three versions; the original, the 70's version and the newest CGI version. It brings back a lot of fun memories on earlier acting techniques and I can remember when the special effects of this movie were considered great. I won't leave out the great performance of Charles Grodin in this version. Not Jeff Bridges greatest acting nor the new Jessica Lange but it has sentimental value.
Rating:  -
This movie sucks! The other versons of King Kong are great and classic. But for King Kong (1976) & King Kong Lives, the producers were obviously not thinking straight. I mean King Kong climbs up the National Trade Center rather than the Empire State Building. Jack Driscoll looks like Jesus Crist. Ann's name is Dwan? Carl Denhem dies by getting squshed by King Kong. So no "The Beauty killed the beast" unless it was said by someone else!!! So don't give this one a chance but go see the other ones. It's with it :)
Rating:  -
King Kong '76 was one of my favorite movies as a child, when I saw it for the first time I tought it was phenomenal. Now as an adult I can see the movie has many flaws, mainly Jessica Lange's acting, but to be qualified as utter trash as Mr. Marshall describes it, it is just plainly unfair, this movie has many qualities: great cinematography, great music score, natural sets, an atmosphere that only 70's movies possesed and the monster itself while not great, is better than any CGI garbage. I prefer this movie a 1000 times than Peter Jackson's fiasco, he is one of the most overrated movie directors ever, that movie has bad acting all over and doesn't look real to me (I'm not a big fan of CGI). I think movie critics are biased most of the times and not objective, I think this movie deserves a chance to be seen.
|
