King Kong

This was botched from the start. The entire film was built on the wrong foundation. I'll get to the story aspect of that in just a moment, but first I'll address the most visually apparent problem it has– Kong himself. He has no ape-like characteristics at all in this movie. Nothing about him actually looks like a gorilla. It's obvious that it's a man in a gorilla suit walking upright on a soundstage. Adding insult to injury, it's not even a good looking gorilla suit. Compounding matters is the fact it wasn't a trained actor portraying Kong. It was the guy who designed the gorilla suit wearing it! So not only was it not a good looking gorilla suit, it was worn by a Hollywood prosthetics & make-up artist instead of an actor. Naturally, Kong felt one dimensional throughout. Now, the problem of the story being built on the wrong foundation. The filmmakers didn't understand Kong in the first place. There's no dinosaurs on this island, which is critical to the story because Kong is only celebrated by the natives because he protects them from the dinosaurs. They offer him brides as thanks; out of gratitude for guarding them. That wasn't the case here. So many things were gotten wrong...

A lot of people out there tend to believe that this 1976 version is a remake of the 1933 version. I also used to think that, but further research shows that this is not a remake but a rewrite. Don't get me wrong I loved the 1933 version. And that's why this 1976 version always gets a bad rating.because as long as everybody considers this a remake instead of a rewrite then yes this movie is going to fail. I even saw the 2004 version by Peter Jackson. And he made a lot of mistakes with that movie.

Yeah, they had some cheesy lines, but the overall cast was much better acting.And,true, Jacksons kong eazily more realistic. I would hope so after 30 yrs.