THUNDERBALL

Directed by Terrence Young.  Written by Richard Maibaum and John Hopkins.
Starring Sean Connery,Claudine Auger, Adolfi Celi, Rick Van Nutter, Molly Peters, Martine Beswick
1965, 130 minutes, Color, Rated PG, Panavision 2.35:1

The major television networks in America don't really show movies anymore, which is a shame.  Granted, there is the occasional showing during holidays, but for the most part the cable movie channels have removed the specialness of watching movies on network television.  For that matter, TV channels used to fill airtime by showing movies but now mostly fill their off-hour airtime with infomercials.  With cable movie channels running movies 24 hours a day without commercials, perhaps the day of networks showing movies is justifiably past.  But I still kind of miss it.   Mind you, I would never watch a movie on network television at this point. Aside from the commercial interruptions I wouldn't be able to handle the content editing, or even the aspect ratio fudging for 2.35:1 films.

Still, back in the day when TV ruled home entertainment networks made an effort to make broadcasting a movie seem like an event, something that is just a distant memory now in this age of having hundreds of channels to choose from. Consider the Channel 9 (WOR-TV) "Million Dollar Movie" with its montage of New York City set to the theme from GONE WITH THE WIND.  It was  regal and set up whatever came on after it beautifully.  I can't tell you how many Saturday afternoons I spent watching Channel 9.   Or consider Channel 48's (WKBS-TV) "Creature Double Feature" with that great hand that comes out of the grave.   How could you not love whatever came on after seeing that intro?   EQUINOX, THE WORLD, THE FLESH AND THE DEVIL, THE BLOB, BEWARE THE BLOB, THE CRAZIES--I saw all of these at too young an age on channel 48.  Best of all was the Channel 5 Movie Club that showed on WNEW-TV in New York (before it became a Fox channel).  It came on at 11:00 pm Saturday nights and they showed "good" movies with fewer commercials and more uncut than usual.  I saw STRAW DOGS and MISTER ROBERTS for the first time on the movie club, and STRAW DOGS had all of its topless nudity intact.  I wish I could remember more of the movies I saw for the first time on that channel.

Right up there, for me anyway, is the ABC Sunday Night Movie.   When ABC showed the Bond films, everything about it screamed EVENT.  We had the promo commercials leading up to it during the week, the thrilling opening sequence, and best of all a warning that viewer discretion was advised.

The first two Bond movies, DR. NO (1962) and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963) were solid successes--both had small budgets and both grossed impressive numbers worldwide.  GOLDFINGER (1964) had a larger budget but grossed much more than the previous two.  It became a worldwide sensation and kicked off a flood of super agent films, television shows, and books.  The next Bond film was given a much larger budget and tried to prove to the world that the original was best of all.  The film spanned several countries and featured a large international cast, large-scale action scenes, and not one but TWO beautiful leading women.  Like GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL was also a huge hit and to a large degree shaped all of the Bond films that came after it, both stylistically overall and specifically with establishing certain things that HAD to be part of every subsequent Bond film.  The title sequence by Maurice Binder especially set the pattern for literally every title sequence to come after it in the series.

The plot is fairly complicated for a Bond film, with SPECTRE stealing some nuclear bombs and demanding a ransom from the U.N.  Bond is assigned to investigating a lead in Jamaica and stumbles on the bad guys in the process.  It's the second appearance of Blofeld in the series, though his face wouldn't be shown until the next Bond film, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.  The story was originally co-written by Bond creator Ian Fleming and others for producer Kevin McClory who had wanted to make his own Bond film prior to Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman buying the rights to DR. NO, but when the movie never materialized Fleming adapted the story as a book.  The problem is that Fleming didn't own the rights to the story, and this led to a lawsuit between McClory and the makers of the Bond films.  The next Bond film had previously been announced as ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, but McClory was threatening to make his own Bond film.  Rather than allow that to happen--McClory had a valid claim to the THUNDERBALL story as a movie--Broccoli and Saltzman settled with McClory and agreed to make THUNDERBALL instead.  Thus, the world was robbed of seeing Sean Connery in probably the best Bond story of all. In 1964 Connery was still invested enough in the role to have made MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE very interesting, to say the least.

THUNDERBALL is probably the yardstick by which I measure all other Bond films.  It's not a perfect movie by any means but in my view does a lot more right than it does wrong.  The film shows several signs of being a rushed production, with numerous continuity errors and obvious pickup shots.   The worst continuity error is a character that disappears at the end of the film.  Note in the first capture below that Bond, the girl and another man jump from the ship right before it hits the reef and explodes.  Yet when we cut back to the water after the explosion the man is missing and his absence is not commented on.  As Bond and the girl are clearly in a studio tank in the closeups one can only guess that the actor was unavailable several months later when the close-ups were shot.

At one point Bond is talking to Domino on a beach, the majority of which takes place on an actual beach.  An insert shot of them just as obviously on a soundstage sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Bond character occasionally gets lost in the shuffle as the filmmakers try to cover all of the action; he never actively does anything to propel the story forward.  He instead floats along reacting to events he has no control over.  Heck, he doesn't even kill the villain.  This was perhaps not the intent of the makers but was a byproduct of the dramatically larger scope of the film. The underwater scenes involving the downing of the plane, and the big fight at the end consume a huge amount of screen time. The need for the plane sequence can be debated.  Does the film need it to tell the story?  Perhaps not, but it's undeniable that it adds to the impact of the film.   The underwater fight sequence at the end is sometimes referred to as "indeterminable" by those who have no patience for it, and I can sympathize to a degree.  It does go on for a hell of a long time, but again, for putting spectacle up on the screen it works just fine.

Given all of that, THUNDERBALL remains my favorite Bond film for several reasons.  It was the first Connery Bond film I "got" as a youngster.  I had seen a few of the films on TV previously--notably THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER--and weaned as I was on Roger Moore's interpretation of Bond, THUNDERBALL was a revelation the first time I saw it.  For the first time I understood why people were saying that Connery was the best Bond, for in his prime he was truly something to behold.  Brawn and intelligence have rarely combined so seamlessly onscreen, and from a purely physical standpoint Connery was never better as Bond than he was in this movie.  He moves like a caged animal, full of confidence and style, and he is still thin enough to look good with his shirt off.

Though to be fair, he doesn't look tip-top in ALL of the film.  It looks to me like Connery showed up in one type of shape at the beginning of shooting and ended up in different shape by the end.  I think the location filming was done earliest as he looks best in these scenes.  When filming moved to the soundstages later on, he had put on more weight and is beginning ever so slightly to take on the paunchy look that would define his look for the next 10-15 years.  In fact, if I were to guess which scenes were filmed absolutely last I would say the fight aboard the Disco Volante was filmed last of all, for he looks the heaviest there.  Then again, maybe it's just angles.

 

Connery started complaining in the press during THUNDERBALL about how much time and energy making the Bond films took, and if one looks closely you can see a slightly diminished dedication to the performance from Connery.   Compare his reaction to the death of Paula in THUNDERBALL to the death of Tilly Masterson in GOLDFINGER, which was just one film prior.  In that earlier film he is genuinely moved by her death, but when confronted by a death of a colleague he barely reacts at all.  There are any number of ways to justify his reaction in THUNDERBALL:  Paula was an agent of her Majesty and so knew the dangers involved, for instance.  Possibly.  However, I think it more likely that the production was moving so quickly at the point of filming that sequence that it was just rushed through.

THUNDERBALL was the first widescreen Bond film and Terrence Young's stylistic sensibilities set the bar for all future Bond films.  The wider frame is used expressively and for effect--characters are consistently spread out across the screen, and the landscapes are appropriately framed to maximize screen real estate.  It is the first Bond film to FEEL like a Bond film.  Compared to GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL is a work of art visually and set the tone for just about every Bond film to follow.  It was an expensive movie and every effort was made to put the money up on the screen, and to a large degree the filmmakers were successful in this for THUNDERBALL has an immense scope to it.

Aiding immeasurably to this sense of "scope" are the wonderful sets by Ken Adam.  Whether it be massive indoor spaces or regular sized rooms, Adams' work on the film is impressive, albeit not always practical.  I can go along with the massive meeting room in the MI5 building, but I'm not sure why SPECTRE would need such a large space in downtown Paris.  I particularly like the sea shanty used by Q later in the film, and all of the hotel rooms.

The cast of THUNDERBALL is top notch.  The women are voluptuous, with Claudine Auger as Domino a particular standout.  She may not have been able to speak English well, but her initial appearance in the film features a swimsuit that remains a favorite for its peekaboo nature.  Luciana Paluzzi is impressive as an almost impossibly voluptuous agent of SPECTRE, but Adolfo Celi is almost the prototypical Bond villain.  He even sports an eye patch.  The main difference between THUNDERBALL and almost every Bond film that came after it is that the main villain is not a major character.  "Number 1", or Blofeld, is seen to be the man in charge on the bad side but the villains that Bond deals with are underlings that report to him.  Beginning with YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, the main villain would never again be shunted the background, with a possible exception for CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

I have strong memories of seeing some of them on ABC around 1979-1980, especially THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and THUNDERBALL.  When ABC showed the movies back then, they didn't (couldn't?) censor the main titles, and there are one or two very clear shot of naked breasts in the title sequence of SPY.  Likewise, there are also naked breasts in the title sequence of THUNDERBALL.  I was 10 or 11 at the time of seeing these films for the first time, do I really need to explain why they appealed to me?  This was the second Bond film that Maurice Binder did the titles for.  The first was DR. NO, and while the titles for that film were interesting it is really here that the title sequence pattern for all subsequent Bond films was set.

THUNDERBALL has been released on home video many times.  The first time I owned it was on laserdisc, and the first widescreen edition came in a gate-fold with only so-so graphics.  It was later reissued in a box set that featured a MUCH better cover and Criterion Collection-level supplements.  Every home video version subsequent to the box set has used parts of it.  The box set was in CAV, featured a soundtrack mixed into surround for the first time, an audio commentary, multiple featurettes and a decent array of still-frame content.  It was, at the time I got it, my all time favorite laser disc.  I never bought THUNDERBALL on DVD until the Ultimate Editions were released in 2006.  It featured a new 5.1 surround mix, more featurettes and an additional commentary.  Visually, it looked good for standard definition.

The Blu-Ray version of THUNDERBALL is easily the best it has ever looked or sounded.  Complaints can be found online about excessive digital scrubbing of the image, but for my tastes it looks great.  I see what the complainers are talking about, it just doesn't bother me that much because when it's all said and done the movie has never looked better.  The film was cobbled together using several different sources, and to a large degree you can't tell unless you are looking closely.

The new 5.1 surround track is NOT the version that was on the Ultimate Edition DVD.  It instead seems to be the track used for the laserdisc way back when.  I no longer have the ability to play a laserdisc but I think it sounds fabulous and really adds to the effectiveness of the film.

King Kong (1976)

Directed by John Guilerman. Written by Lorenzo Semple.
Starring Jessica Lange, Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin.
1976, 134 minutes, Color, Rated PG.

Critical Overview 

NOTE: This review contains spoilers throughout.

The 1976 version of KING KONG is generally not given much love. In The Phantom's Ultimate Video Guide (Dell, 1989) it is referred to as "the useless KING KONG remake". In John Stanley's Revenge of the Creature Features Movie Guide (John Stanley, Creatures At Large Press, 1988) says that it "unfortunately calls on some of the TV BATMAN traditions of high camp and emerges a mishmash of satire, thrills, fantasy, and spectacle", and concludes "Boy, what a bomb!". The Great science Fiction Pictures II (James Robert Parish and Michael R. Pitts, Scarecrow Press, 1990) calls it "one of the greatest disappointments in the history of motion pictures", and claims that it is "no better in quality than the economical Japanese Toho productions of KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962) and KING KONG ESCAPES (1967)". Richard Meyers, in The Great Science Fiction Films (Richard Meyers, Citadel Press, 1990) attacks the film's special effects and concludes that it "was disappointing in almost every respect". Finally, for a more mainstream perspective, Leonard Maltin gives it one and a half stars (out of four) in his 1998 Movie and Video Guide (Leonard Maltin, Signet Reference, 1998) and calls it "addle-brained" with "idiotic characters and [a] campy approach".

But is it truly as awful as all that? Pauline Kael, for one, didn't think so. In her review for The New Yorker (January 3, 1977, reprinted in For Keeps: 30 Years At The Movies (Pauline Kael, Plume / Penguin, 1996) she appreciates the film's romantic approach and extols that the "story is paced majestically" and concludes that "I don't think I've ever seen...a comic-strip great romance in the way this one is--it's a joke that can make you cry." More recently, John Kenneth Muir tried to objectively look at the film in his Horror Films of the 1970s (John Kenneth Muir, McFarland Press, 2002) and concludes that aside from poor special effects it "is an interesting and valuable remake because it attempts to expand and re-imagine Kong's universe rather than merely rehash what came before".

Note that almost all of the above quotes come from overviews of genre films, and this perhaps illustrates why the film has been blasted so often over the years. I don't think the 1976 version is a horror movie, much less a science fiction movie. It is fantasy, true, but the heart of the story is a love story pure and simple. Considering that it was a remake of one of the most beloved fantasy action films of all time, a large amount of the genre viewing population were perhaps predisposed to not liking such an approach.  Especially since the makers opted to forgo stop motion animation and use a man in a suit for Kong.  This man in a suit approach no doubt turned off a percentage of the viewing audience as well—if you can’t just roll with it the film no doubt would pretty silly.

Peter Jackson's 2005 remake was decidedly influenced by the 1976 version--it more closely mirrors the action of the 1933 version but uses the elevated emphasis on the relationship between Kong and the girl from the 1976 version.


The Good Stuff

I think the 1976 version of KING KONG is a good movie with occasional flashes of both greatness and mediocrity. The first hour of the film, which covers everything up to Kong's first appearance, does just about everything right. From Richard H. Kline's opulent widescreen photography to John Barry's evocative score, the movie is a perfect blend of mystery, menace and grandeur.  It just works. That things subsequently being to fall apart after that first hour should not diminish the achievement of what came before.

Scope

The wide shots of the fog-enshrouded island are among the film's most striking visual moments and are all the more impressive because the fog is a practical effect and not an optical special effect.

Kong's introduction is also a thing of beauty, and I'll discuss it more below.

Humor

The film is funny. Intentionally funny.  Some critics felt the humor undermined the film and mistakenly categorized it as camp. Not so. The humor is organic to the situations, intelligent and consistent.   The film never treats Kong as a joke and neither do the characters. Indeed, the characters in this film are afraid of Kong and this works wonders, especially when it is just a man in an ape suit on the screen.  Charles Grodin’s performance as Fred Wilson is deserving of note.  He creates a thoroughly despicable character who remains likable throughout most of the film.  Dwan's relationship with Kong is believable and touching, and it's a testament to the film's effectiveness that Kong's death is truly affecting.

Updating the Story

Semple's approach to updating the story for the 1970's is ingenious. In 1976 it was still conceivable--barely--that there could be the proverbial "undiscovered" island. Technological advances in satellite mapping would soon make that a hard sell. A recent novel illustrates the problems with the so-called "undiscovered" island. The 2010 novel Fragment by Warren Fahy deals with an undiscovered island and the author has to go through hoops--basically the island is hidden inside the cone of what looks like a volcano--to explain how it could have remained undiscovered for so long. When Peter Jackson remade the film in 2005, it is telling that he set it in 1935--it is simply too hard to try and update the story to modern times. KONG: SKULL ISLAND (2017), which was intended to set the stage for a new film franchise involving the big guy, also tellingly set the action in the early 70’s.   GODZILLA VS. KONG (2021) sets the action in the present, but a present in which the existence of large creatures that roam the Earth (and seas) is a given.  The 76 version of Kong told the classic tale, however, set in the mid-seventies in a reasonably believable fashion.

Note, however, that this updating accounts for one of the biggest knocks against the film.  I'm talking about the dinosaurs, of course.  Or rather, the absence of dinosaurs.  In what was partially a budget-saving measure there are no dinosaurs on the island.  This alone accounts for much of the ire the film has faced over the years, and when comparing the 1976 film to the 1933 film it's a noticeable omission.  Still, as mentioned above the 76 KONG is more of a love story than a rousing action film.  Just from that standpoint alone the omission of the dinosaurs can be excused, but I think the real reason the dinosaurs were omitted were that they didn't fit in with the more realistic tone that this version strives for.  Granted we have a 40-foot tall ape, but the story--and characters--treat Kong as realistically as was feasible given the inherent unrealistic nature of the story.

Characters

In the 1976 version of KONG there are only two characters that affect the actions of the film.  Fred Wilson (Grodin) and Kong.  Every one else is just along for the ride.  Wilson instigates the trip to the island to find oil, when the oil is not forthcoming he sets his sights on Kong as a promotional gimmick.   The fear of Kong prompt the natives to kidnap Dwan.  Kong takes Dwan.  Jack (Bridges)  goes after Dwan.  Kong comes after her when she is taken back by Jack.  Wilson gets the idea of capturing Kong and taking him to New York.   In New York, Kong escapes, takes Dwan and high tails it the World Trade Center.

Truly, it's like a love triangle between Kong, Wilson and Dwan, only Wilson never understands that he's competing with Kong.  Bridges' character contributes very little to the story.  He's supposed to the be voice of environmental sanity, but it's underdeveloped and gets lost in the crowd.  He spends the climax of the film off to one side, relegated to being a bystander.  This can also be read differently, which we will get to a little later.

Jessica Lange's performance is frequently the source of much criticism. No, that's not entirely true--her CHARACTER is frequently the source of much criticism. Indeed, some critics say her performance is awful. I ask, what film were they watching? Lange is superb in the role, which is humorous in an admittedly idiosyncratic manner. But it works and she's playing the role as it was written.

Charles Grodin is likewise terrific in a villainous role where his villainy is masked by humor.  There is a shifty deviousness to just about everything he does, like a little boy throwing rocks at a hornets nest just for fun.  He is so exuberant early on that it effectively masks his darker nature, though this eventually comes out.

Jeff Bridges is generally good as the male lead.  He takes an underwritten role and does the most with it that he can, but there's no getting around that there is nothing for him to do once they are off the island.  He is sadly relegated by the film's climax to watching from the sidelines, unable to affect the outcome in any meaningful way.

So how does Kong fare as a character?  In this re-imagining, he's thoroughly sympathetic.  True, the characters in the film fear him but the audience never does, as he is by far the most relatable character they have to deal with.  Who hasn't gotten a little worked up when the attention of their love spurns them?   Heck, I know I have.  He has a bit of a temper?  Lots of people do.  He occasionally steps on people?  Who hasn't wanted to do that at least once in their life?

What did Kong do wrong?  Nothing.  He's a victim and his ultimate fate is a sad one.  This 1976 version of the story doesn't get into the mythical aspects of the Kong.  There is no time given to the island, it's inhabitants, or how Kong got there.  One assumes that Kong must have had parents but the film simply does not get into it.  How long have the natives worshiped Kong?  On one hand it is irritating that the film never even tries to answer these questions, but this goes back to what kind of film KONG 76 really is.  See, KONG 76 is a love story so it devotes its time to building that up.  It should also be noted that KONG 33 didn't try to answer these questions either.

We can't really talk about Kong the character without talking about the masterful job that Rick Baker did playing him.  Rick Baker is the man behind the mask for the majority of Kong shots, and in my opinion is solely responsible for the audience liking Kong.  Simply by using his contact lens covered eyes and body language, he conveys a depth of emotion that is impressive and affecting.  There are several shots with someone else playing Kong and it's a testament to Baker's performance that it is instantly noticeable.  With the other guy in the suit, it looks like just that:  a guy in an ape suit.

Environmental Allegory?
The KING KONG story be taken as an allegory for man's impact on the environment.  The basic premise contains the notion of a existing ecosystem totally and utterly destroyed by man's intervention.  This is of course not unlike countless other stories from history, notably with what happened with native Americans in the United States, or how the Mayans were seriously harmed by smallpox brought over by explorers.  The 1933 version seems to be more a story of that kind of impact and is not overtly environmental.  The same cannot be said of the 1976 version.

In this reading, Kong is the environment and big oil (Wilson) comes in and does its thing at the expense of the environment.  Let's suppose for a second he had found oil ready to be extracted.  What kind of impact would this have had on the natives and island?  Would Kong have survived in any event if the island became needed to pump billions of dollars of oil out of the ground?  The fact that Kong dies in New York city is besides the point.  He was dead as soon as Wilson set his sights on the island.

Special Effects

Kong's first appearance is flat out great and is just about worth the price of admission. Here is an abbreviated version of it:

Impressive shot:  full scale wall set with many extras.

Dwan hears something coming...

Kong is initially only seen in brief glimpses.

Kong arrives, she looks up...

Blue screen optical composite of Kong suit (background) and actor (foreground).

Optical composite of Kong suit and full scale wall set.

Full scale mechanical arm.

Blue screen composite of Kong suit (background) and actor (foreground).

Blue screen composite of actor in giant hand (foreground) and full size set (background)

Good stuff, and from the screen caps above we see that in theory the idea of using a man in an ape suit is not necessarily an unworkable one.  The concept of many of the effects shots are imaginatively designed, with at times ingenious marrying of foreground and background elements.  That they are not always successfully executed does not diminish the creativeness of the shots--blue screen shots often feature mismatched colors, and there are several instances of blue fringing.  All this said, the shots show that the filmmakers were trying and the end result is engaging fantasy storytelling.

Man in suit (foreground) and location work (background)

Actor (foreground) and man in suit (background)

Actor in giant hand (foreground) and man in suit (background)

Actors on log (forground) and man in suit (background)

Man in suit holding doll (foreground) and location shot (background)

Man on stage (foreground) and man in suit on set (background)

Actor on ladder (foreground) and man in suit on set (background)

Matte painting.

Matte painting.

The Bad Stuff

Special Effects

Effects-wise, the film's low point is a ridiculous fight between Kong and a giant rubber snake. In fact, aside from two or three butchered blue-screen shots, all of the special effects work with miniatures can be considered failures.

Shot from the television version.

Man in suit on set

Full size Kong

Man in suit

Full size Kong

The Island

This brings up another frequent complaint of the 76 version of Kong--no Skull Island.  It is true, the island in the 76 version of Kong is just that, an island.  Whereas the 33 version of Kong featured dinosaurs, impossibly deep jungle vistas and some serious mojo, the 76 version of Kong just features an island.  True, it is at times much prettier than the 33 version island, but that does not exactly work in its favor.  The location work doesn't quite matches the studio sets of the island, which are always overcast and lacks foliage.  It probably doesn't help that all of Kong's scenes occur at night.

(Anti) Climax

Unfortunately, the climatic battle atop the World Trade Center tower is marred by poor blue screen work AND poor miniature work.  

Are these special effects deficiencies enough to kill the experience? Well, obviously I think not. It's not like the 1933 film's special effects are exactly seamless either, but not many people complain about them. Why? Because while the movie is playing you are involved enough in the action to suspend disbelief. The 1933 film moves like a cat with a bag on it's foot, and the 1976 does not. Subsequently, you are more apt to notice things like mismatched opticals.

The Larger Picture 

This film experienced a publicity backlash when it was released. This was due in part to how much the film cost to make--reportedly $24 million dollars, or just under $100,000,000 in 2009-adjusted dollars. It received an enormous amount of press coverage leading up to the film's release, so when it finally was released there was a backlash against the film.

Universal had also announced a remake of KONG in 1975, but because this version was rushed into production they canceled their film, which was a period remake and would have reportedly followed the original much more closely.

The 1976 version of KING KONG has some interesting priorities in that it is a love story first, a cautionary environmental tale second and an adventure story third.  The love story and adventure story aspects should be self evident, but the environmental angle is a bit subtler, and perhaps a bit prescient.  Who is the villain of the piece?  Ostensibly it is Wilson, but he represents a large gas company.  Like it or not, he typifies the public perception that the "big" companies are only concerned with profits, the environment be damned.  Kong is nothing if not a part of the environment and what happens to him is akin to an oil/mining/logging company ripping up the land side for drilling purposes.   Wilson's actions are driven first by dreams of grandeur, then by self-presevation.  Whereas Denham in the 1933 version wanted to land the big one to sell tickets, Wilson's dream of landing the big one means selling gas, presumably because it will help him get higher in the company.  When the oil evaporates, he turns to Kong as a possible advertising tool.  Does he care about the ecosystem of the island?  Not so much.

After Kong

This was Jeff Bridges first taste of being the lead in a big Hollywood movie, and one gets the impression that he did not particularly enjoy the experience.  He retreated to smaller films after this--the quirky WINTER GAMES was begun in 1976 but not finished until 1979, and SOMEBODY KILLED HER HUSBAND in 1978.  He is good in both of these films, but still had not developed into a true lead.  This would begin in CUTTER'S WAY in 1981, where Bridges exhibits considerable growth in his ability to play serious.  He also flashed a bit of the sexy swagger that would be utilized much more fully in 1984's AGAINST ALL ODDS, he became a legitimate Hollywood leading man. He would hone his craft in such diverse films such as STARMAN, THE FISHER KING, AMERICAN HEART, THE VANNISHING, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, 

Jessica Lange had a bad time with KONG.  She was unprepared for the critical thrashing she received--unjustly--and retreated from the limelight.  She regrouped and started his career again, this time with an eye towards being the serious actor she was.  She was worlds apart from Dwan as Cora in the 1981 remake of THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, showing serious dramatic acting chops.  She was grounded and endearing as Julie in 1982's TOOTSIE, and incendiary as Frances Farmer in 1982's FRANCES.  Never again would her acting ability be questioned.  If anything, the subsequent work she did over the next four decades proved what a great job she did in Kong.  

Charles Grodin continued working after Kong, appearing in a wide range of films both small and large.  He would occasionally break out in a larger role, such as 1978's HEAVEN CAN WAIT, 1980's SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES, and 1988's MIDNIGHT RUN, but mostly he worked consistently.  He also hosted a talk show for a couple of years in the 1990's. 

Home Video

I wanted this film to show up letterboxed on laserdisc back in the 90's (yeah, I'm dating myself), but it never did. It was available only in a pan and scan version, and I never got around to picking it up. It's been released on DVD twice in the U.S., but while it had two different covers it was the same disc featuring the same transfer and features: the film and the trailer. It is a decent transfer for the time period and shows the film to good effect, notably in simply presenting the film in it's proper aspect ratio. The soundtrack options on the DVD are a Dolby 2.0 and Dolby Digital 5.1 mix. Both are fine, though dialogue sounds a bit weak in the 5.1 mix. Detail is good as Paramount afforded a high bitrate to the film in the encoding.

More recently, the film was released on Blu-Ray in France in 2009. The disc is region free and thus playable on any Blu-Ray player worldwide. The special features, however, are encoded in the PAL format and may not be playable on U.S. players. The features include a trailer, a short "making of" feature, a short feature on Rick Baker and about 8 minutes or so of deleted scenes. Most of the deleted scenes are trims to existing scenes, although there is one shot of Kong destroying a car in New York.

The high-def transfer is stunning and renders the standard def versions of the film obsolete. There is a fair amount of grain to the image, but along with the grain is an astonishing amount of detail. Black levels are good and the image is again presented in the proper 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Audio options include a French 5.1 DTS "High Resolution" track, an English 5.1 DTS "Master Audio" track, and a Spanish 2.0 DTS track. The included subtitle tracks are French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Dutch. Subtitles can be turned off.

Even more recently the film has shown up on HD movie channels, in its proper aspect ratio and in 5.1.  The transfer seems a bit cleaner than the French Blu-Ray--meaning less grain--but this may simply be due to the higher compression used on the channels (satellite channels in my case).

A UK Blu-ray was released in 2017 by Studio Canal. It appears to have used the same transfer as the French disk, but with better encoding.  Extras are comparable—some standard definition deleted scenes in 2.35:1.

In 2021, the film made its US debut on a two disk special edition from Scream Factory.  The transfer seems to be the same as the original used for for the French 2009 release, but again with better encoding and what looks like digital clean up and color tweaking.  The release includes a 2.0 “original audio” track as well as the same 5.1 track featured on the earlier releases.  Also included are a variety of extras, which I will cover below.

I should state here that while all of the previous 1080p versions above are without a doubt miles better than any previous versions, there are a couple of nits to pick.  Firstly, until the television version ALL of the Blu-Ray releases have been based on the same Studio Canal transfer that was done back in 2007 or 2008.  Yes, some encodings are better than others but by and large the video transfer is pretty old, at least in home video terms. And while the image quality is sharp and full of detail, it's also a bit faded.  It also has a vauguely 'video' look, or to say it doesn't especially look like film.  The Shout Factory is probably the best iteration of the transfer, which makes sense as it was the most recent.

As stated, this was a title I wanted to see for many years, even before the first US widescreen DVD release.  My idea of the perfect special edition for this release was formed back in the standard resolution days of laserdiscs.  I wanted three things: 1) the film in widescreen, 2) good reproductions of the wonderful pre-release artwork by John Berkey, and 3) the television version included as an extra.  Now, back in the laserdisc days adding the three hour television version would push the overall price of the release into the box set realm.  Box sets were not exactly a thing for Paramount Home Video, so this was always destined to be a dream.  I am happy to report, that the new Scream Factory Collector's Edition checks all three boxes on my wish list.

Just two years after the Scream Factory release, Studio Canal in the U.K. released the film in 4K and remastered Blu-Ray.  Taken from a new scan of the original negative, this new version features much more fine detail and a substantial color shift. I've included some captures from this new transfer to illustrate the differences. While it suffers at time from being too yellow or too teal, much of the time it looks fabulous, and remains my favorite way to view the film at present.  What becomes clear upon direct comparison with older scans is how bright everything has been up to now, almost to the point of being washed out.  Notice how more mysterious the night scenes on the island now play.

Television Version

In the US, NBC purchased the broadcast rights to KING KONG.  The theatrical version runs over two hours so NBC was looking at either editing the film down so that it would fit in a two hour time slot, or adding footage to fill a longer time slot.  They opted to make a four hour version of KONG that could be broadcast over two nights.  They showed it three times, in 1978, 1980 and 1983.  I originally watched it in 1980.  The television version was prepared by using unused footage from the original shoot.  This was usual for most--but not all--television versions*.  Entire new scenes were added back in, as well as extensions to existing scenes.  In many cases, scenes were extended by including multiple takes of the same scene, so action is frequently repeated throughout the film. In some cases, such as Kong attacking Charles Grodin’s character on the wall, it is tripled or quadrupled.

When Studio Canal released this title in Europe, they surprisingly included footage from the television version in the original widescreen 2.35:1aspect ratio.  The French release includes just under 14 minutes of footage from the television version that is completely unique.  The later German release includes about two and a half more minutes of footage.  All things considered with regard to the television, 16 and a half minutes is very close to all of  new footage that consists of action not seen in some form in the theatrical version.  The rest of the additional footage—roughly a half hour—is all extensions and multiple takes.  There is some good stuff in that 16 and a half minutes, and with two exceptions the repeated footage doesn’t really harm things.  The exceptions being Kong attacking the wall, and Kong fighting the snake.  These two sequences go on far too long.  Indeed, the ideal “extended” version of the film is probably the theatrical version with only the 16 and a half minutes edited back in.  I may have to try that.

Curiously, the back cover of the Scream Factory does not list all of the special features found on the two discs.  The release features two audio commentaries on the theatrical version.  One is by author Ray Morton who wrote a fantastic overview of the Kong films called King Kong: The History of a Movie Icon from Fay Wray to Peter Jackson (2005)**.  This book was released as a tie-in to the Peter Jackson remake, but includes what remains the best overview of the making of the 1976 version of the film.  The other commentary features Rick Baker, who co-designed, built, and played Kong.    

  

US DVD Release (1990's)

French Blu-Ray Release (2009)

German Blu-Ray Release (2017)

US Blu-Ray Release (2021)

UK 4K/Blu-Ray Release (2023)