Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974) Novelization

Written by Joe Millard
1974 Award Books paperback edition.

Based on the 1974 film THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT, written and directed by Michael Cimino. It starred Clint Eastwood, Jeff Bridges, George Kennedy and Geoffrey Lewis.

THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT is something of an outlier to the films that Clint Eastwood made in the 1970's. True, it is a 'caper' film and enjoyable enough, but it hits differently than your typical Eastwood movie for a couple of reasons. First, screenwriter and director Michael Cimino brings elements not usually found in the Eastwood films of this era, such as a visual style that shows flashes of what he would bring to his next two films, THE DEER HUNTER and HEAVEN'S GATE. The landscapes of the Southwest are a major part of this film's overall character. Second, the acting is way above average. Jeff Bridges is outstanding in his role, and the chemistry between him and Eastwood is engaging, believable and affecting. George Kennedy is just as good.

The novelization tells the story but lacks the character details that emerged during filming--the screenplay had a fair amount of humor in it that the actors enhanced either through improvisation or at the direction of Cimino on the set. The book does fill in more of the backstory of the characters. 

Somebody Killed Her Husband (1978) Novelization

Written by Clyde Phillips.  Based on the 1978 film written by Reginald Rose and directed by Lamont Johnson. It starred Jeff Bridges, Farrah Fawcett-Majors, John Wood and John Glover.

It wasn't until I looked into this film that I found out that Fawcett was originally cast in FOUL PLAY (1978), but due to contract issues with Aaron Spelling over Charlie's Angels, she was not able to do it. Goldie Hawn got the role instead. That is a shame because Fawcett would have been good in that film, which while not a great movie nevertheless was successful, which is more than can be said of Fawcett's first couple of big-screen starring roles. Her first three films were SOMEBODY KILLED HER HUSBAND (1978), SUNBURN (1979) and SATURN THREE (1980), which all flopped. SUNBURN is a bad movie and Fawcett is not particularly good in it. She is much better in SATURN THREE, but it is SOMEBODY KILLED HER HUSBAND that really showed her promise. She is luminous in the film and one can't help but think that if she had better material her career would have turned out differently.

This is not to say that SOMEBODY is a good movie. It has a plot that requires a balance between playfulness and seriousness to truly work. The movie is all over the place tone-wise, playing it much too broad when it needed to be more subtle, and too subtle when it needed to be broad. It also has an inappropriate music score that throws off the tone. Bridges and Fawcett are quite good and show an easy chemistry that is ultimately squandered, and the whole thing ends up being fairly ridiculous.

The novelization does a much better job of maintaining a tone which gives the material more of a chance to work, and for the most part it does. Whereas you grow irritated with the illogical actions of the characters in the film, I was able to go along with it in the book, which is full of additional detail and character insight.

Excerpt:

Although hundreds of kids and parents swarmed all over the floor like bugs conquering a picnic, Jerry caught the slightest glimpse of one particular woman through the crowd and, for the first time that morning, stopped talking to himself. It was her hair. The first thing he could see clearly as he raised up on his toes was her hair. She was on the other side of the department and a sea of bobbing heads separated them, but Jerry's eyes locked on her and could not be averted. The natural flow of the crowd was carrying her toward him.

The hair. Full, blonde, with a few delicate hints of a darker beige suggested throughout, swirling in healthy, vital waves to her shoulders. As she worked her way closer, Jerry was able to get a better look at the woman beneath the exquisite hair. The glimpse gave way to an out-and-out stare as he stood in reverent appreciation of a truly singular beauty.

Her face was classically drawn. High, proud cheekbones, flawless skin and a tiny, aristocratic nose. Soft lips and perfect teeth that seemed to be illuminated from within. A proper beauty; the girl of any man's dreams. Jerry felt divinely privileged just to be allowed to look for a while and remember this moment forever.

As she wandered through the shoppers, Jerry noticed that, for all her exquisite appearance and posture, she was dressed rather simply. Washed-out jeans, a pink T-shirt under a blue workshirt tied at the waist. White tennis shoes and no belt. Her only concession to fashion was a navy blue Anne Klein scarf tied loosely around her neck, almost as an afterthought.

When she finally emerged from the milling people, Jerry saw that she was not alone and he sighed. It figured. Not that he had the slightest chance of ever getting to know someone like her, but the ten-second fantasy that had just raced through his mind would have lasted him a couple of months.

THE LAST PICTURE SHOW

Original Review from 1998:

1972, 125 minutes, B&W
CAV, Digital Mono, 3 discs
1:85:1, Unrated
The Criterion Collection, $125
Manufactured by DADC USA.


THE LAST PICTURE SHOW starts out as a sort of goofy coming-of-age film, but somewhere along the way it changes into a film about the loss of innocence, and the pain of "growing up". The story is constructed so that you could also make a case that it is also about the loss of innocence for America as well. The young characters we meet represent innocence in the same way that the small town represents traditional ways of life in America. This old-fashioned way of life is itself changing, and is only now reaching the town. The film was directed by Peter Bogdanovich and stars Timothy Bottoms, Jeff Bridges, Cybil Shepherd, Cloris Leachman, Randy Quaid, and Ben Johnson. Leachman and Johnson won Academy Awards, but the film is uncommonly well-acted by all involved. This laserdisc features a commentary track that includes Bogdanovich, Shepherd, Quaid, and Leachman.

From a stylistic viewpoint, the film owes much to the work of Orson Welles, for like CITIZEN KANE, the film is photographed with a deep depth of field, and like THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, there are numerous long dialogue scenes that are presented in one take. In fact, the emotional starkness of LAST PICTURE SHOW most closely mirrors the penultimate scene in AMBERSONS involving Agnes Moorehead talking about the boarding house. PICTURE SHOW is a sad film, but it works on such a high level of artistry that it transcends being merely depressing and is, ultimately, heartbreaking.

This is a new version of the film as prepared by director Peter Bogdanovich in 1990. This cut restores seven minutes that were edited out of the original theatrical release at the distributor's insistence. All of the scenes restored provide more insight into the main characters and are a welcome addition. A rough chronological listing of restored/altered footage follows:

• A scene of Sonny, Jaycee and Duane singing their school song in a car on the way to the drive. It follows the last scene at school and bridges the scene of them at the drive-in eating french fries. It is an important scene because it establishes the three leads as being close friends.
• A brief snippet of dialogue has been restored to the drive-in scene that identifies the man coming out of the building as Abilene. This was done to make it clearer that he is the man that Jaycee's mother is having the affair with. In the theatrical version, this point is considerably more obscure.
• A brief scene between Ruth and Sonny as he drives her home from the doctor's office. It makes clear that she is not seriously ill, but does not elaborate on her illness specifically.
• According to Bogdanovich, the nude pool scene has been altered, though he does not say how and I was unable to determine a difference.
• The scene where Billy is sent to the town whore has been altered. Several instances of the word "fuck" have been looped out. Bogdanovich claims that he did this because the profanity was excessive.
• After the boys return Billy to Sam's place, and Sam bans them from his businesses, a short scene showing that Duane has snuck out of being in trouble has been restored.
• After Sonny leaves Ruth he drives through the town looking at all the places he can no longer go to. He then parks on the outskirts of town and sits looking sad. The drive-by scenes are all restored, and makes it clearer that Sonny is sad because of his situation with Sam rather than with Ruth.
• A short scene of Sonny and Duane in the diner, complaining about how unhappy they are, has been restored. It comes directly before their trip to Mexico and shows that they are going because they are so unhappy.
• After the funeral, a sequence showing the class trip has been restored. As they drive past the water hole Sonny starts to cry as he remembers Sam. In the originally released film the funeral cut directly to Duane and Jaycee at the Motel. This sequence makes it clear that this is happening on the school trip, which explains why Jaycee's friends are there. A small snippet of the beginning of the motel scene has been restored, showing that it is the girls who got the motel room, and not the boys.
• Although Bogdanovich does not note it, he deleted a quick shot of Shepherd's breasts in the motel scene.
• A scene showing the consummation of Jaycee and Abilene's affair has been restored. The sound for the scene was lost, so Shepherd relooped it while filming TEXASVILLE. The scene shows that Jaycee enjoyed the experience and became distraught only when Abilene was mean to her as he dropped her off.
• Three shots have been added to the scene where the sheriff is told about the possible molestation. The shots simply show everyone leaving the pool hall.
• The scene where Sonny leaves Ruth for Jaycee has been reedited. The order of the scenes has been reshuffled so that we see Ruth getting ready for her date with Sonny as he is getting picked up by Jaycee. By the end of the scene, after Jaycee has seduced Sonny, the sequence returns to Ruth alone at her house.
• One shot has been replaced at the final football scene, giving us a better shot of the football players.

This new version of the film is greatly improved over the original theatrical release, as it leaves less unexplained and flows more smoothly from scene to scene. Bogdanovich explains in the commentary that the distributor insisted the film be a certain length, which is the only reason it was cut in the first place. This new version only enhances what was there to begin and makes no drastic changes. One might quibble about the deletion of some profanity and nudity, but the film isn't really harmed by these deletions.

Bogdanovich does most of the talking in the commentary, and his remarks are informative and very specific. He gives the listener a clear picture of what it was like to make it and of his methods of direction. The actors are spliced in whenever the film focuses on them; Quaid has little of note to say, but both Leachman and Shepherd are quite enthusiastic about the film and their experience working on it. Original and re-release trailers are also provided. The rest of the extras are limited in scope (and appeal), consisting of location scouting film, lobby cards, and some screen tests, mostly of people that did not make the cast. The most pointless supplemental features are script excerpts for both this film and its sequel, TEXASVILLE. Only a few pages are presented from each, even though there is plenty of room for the complete scripts.

The movie was filmed in black and white by Robert Surtees and as mentioned above, utilizes deep focus throughout. This enhanced clarity highlights the characters' desolation, as the landscapes take on a barren look that constantly frames them. This Criterion disc replicates the film perfectly, letterboxed to about 1.85:1, with a sharp image and deep, pure blacks. While the letterboxing simply mattes off the top and bottom the framing is nevertheless highly effective. I have not seen the Columbia/Tri-Star version, but since it is not letterboxed, this is the disc to have. I am not sure that the film needed to be in CAV, but I am not complaining. The side breaks are not intrusive. The sound is clear and full of old country songs. Surprisingly, this is a DADC America pressing, proving at least to me that they can put out good product.

***

2024 Update:

The film was released on DVD by Columbia Home Video in the early 1990s. Criterion released the film on Blu-Ray in 2010 (as part of the America Lost and Found collection) and finally UHD in 2023. In between the film was also released on UHD by Sony Pictures in the Columbia Classics Collection: Volume 3 in 2022. The Blu-ray edition was a substantial upgrade over the DVD version, which itself was a substantial upgrade over the laser disc.

The Sony UHD release includes the original theatrical version and the revised director's cut. To date, this is the only way to get the theatrical version aside from going back to the Columbia Home Video DVD (I think). The Criterion UHD release also includes the sequel Texasville in HD and a special black and white version.

Having the original theatrical version makes the Sony version worthwhile, although to be honest the director's revised version is the better film.

THE FISHER KING

CRITERION TOP TEN

Just for fun.  I included discs from all formats I've collected over the years and have included sentimental choices even though the quality may have been subsequently surpassed.  

10.  THE FISHER KING (1991) - Laserdisc

THE FISHER KING
Directed by Terry Gilliam.  Written by Richard LaGravanese
Starring Jeff Bridges, Robin Williams, Mercedes Ruehl, Amanda Plummer
1993, 137 minutes, Color, Rated R, 1.85:1

Terry Gilliam collaborated with Criterion for a number of special edition laserdisc and DVD releases for many of his films in the 1990's.  He almost made my list three times, which for a top-ten would have been pretty sweet for him.  In the end, however, I decided to limit him to just one film in the top ten.  While the other two films--BRAZIL and THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN--were actually more impressive Criterion special editions, FISHER KING was more meaningful to me as a collector.  Since this is all really about me anyway, I went with this one over those two.  For the record, Criterion also released special editions of THE TIME BANDITS, FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, as well as special editions of MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, and MONTY PYTHON AND THE LIFE OF BRIAN.

THE FISHER KING was one of the few current movies I ever bought from Criterion.   Meaning, it wasn't a critical rescue of a forgotten classic but was a full-blown special edition of a movie that had not long before played first run in a theater.  The Criterion Collection began on laserdisc in 1984 to celebrate "classic" films. Their first two releases were KING KONG and CITIZEN KANE. Subsequent years saw releases like THE 39 STEPS, HIGH NOON, and THE SEVENTH SEAL. Criterion pioneered the concept of special features for home video releases--they were the first to include a commentary which appeared on their KING KONG disc.  So when they started releasing current films and adding special features to them it was news.  Criterion ultimately released a number of current releases--films that were more POPULAR than CLASSIC--and it also almost always engendered the same response from certain folks.  Responses like,   "ARMAGEDDON is a classic? Really?"  Still, they also put out films like SHINE, BOOGIE NIGHTS, THE GAME, CHASING AMY, CRASH, SLING BLADE, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, EVITA, TRAINSPOTTING, DEAD PRESIDENTS, DAMAGE, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, THE PLAYER, BOYZ N THE HOOD. While some of these films never interested me, I appreciated the fact that they were out there.

At the start of the movie, Bridges is a DJ in the mode of Howard Stern who makes a living by putting people down and saying outlandish things.  He makes an offhand comment to a caller that yuppies should be killed and the caller takes him seriously.  One of the people he kills is Robin Williams' wife, and seeing her killed in front of him snaps him.  Later when Bridges,  disgraced and drunk, is saved by Williams who now lives on the street drifting in and out of reality, he finds a path to redemption.  He at first tries to help Williams' character as a way of trying to make himself feel better but grows to like him.  A quest for the holy grail figures into the plot, as does a "red knight", both parts of Williams' elaborate alternate reality.  The red Knight is more or less a depiction of the reality of his wife's death, and every time Williams sees it he runs away in terror.  Oh, and did I mention it's also a love story?

THE FISHER KING was, at the time, an anomaly in Gilliam's filmography for two reasons.  First, all of his previous films had originated with him meaning he had co-written everything he had filmed up to that the point this film was made.  After the Sturm und Drang of MUNCHAUSEN--that film had a fascinating and depressing production history that I won't get into here--he was handed a script so good that he couldn't turn it down.  The way Gilliam tells it, he was given two scripts--one was a big surefire hit, the other was THE FISHER KING.  He says he gave up on the first script and started reading KING fully expected to give up on that as well.  Two hours later he knew he had to make the movie. Whether this is really how it happened I don't know, but regardless is sounds good.  Gilliam brings considerable exuberance to the making of this film that makes it a joy to watch.  True, on paper KING sounds like an immense downer, and perhaps in lesser hands it may have turned out that way. In Gilliam's hands, the depressing aspects give the story dramatic weight that helps elevate it rather than weigh it down.

This leads us to the second anomaly that THE FISHER KING represents in the Gilliam filmography:  it is much more emotionally realistic than many if not most of his other films.  True, it has an   exaggeration of style typical of Gilliam films, employing wide angles, cluttered production design, and a childlike sense of wonder in certain scenes.  It also has Robin Williams riffing like only he can while still playing the "serious" moments very well.  We have grief, anguish, cross dressing singers, mythical (imaginary) knights and true love co-mingling very successfully.  In many ways, THE FISHER KING is unlike any other movie I have seen, and I mean that in a good way.

The acting in this film is way above average, a testament perhaps to the way above average script. Jeff Bridges gives a great performance--one of a series of great performances he gave in the early 90's*.Robin Williams gives a deeply rendered performance that is not diminished in any way by his subsequent fate.  It is a performance of gentle playfulness and full-on heart-rending despair. Rounding out the cast is Mercedes Ruehl and Amanda Plummer.  All shine brightly, in part because of the wonderful writing, but also from what they bring to it.

I don't think this was ever re-issued on Criterion DVD and for a while was only available in the U.S. on a bare-bones Blu-Ray.  Criterion has subsequently released the film on Blu-Ray, but I have not seen it.  At the time the laserdisc was released it was still reasonably new and director Terry Gilliam was excited to talk about it so his commentary was quite good.  Also included were some deleted scenes, some costume tests, and some still frame galleries.  Criterion spent some time in the 1990's helping affirm Gilliam's status as a serious filmmaker by producing great editions of his films.  Note, these screen captures are not from the laserdisc.

* AMERICAN HEART, THE VANISHING and FEARLESS if you are wondering.

CUTTER'S WAY

Directed by Ivan Passer.  Written by Jeffrey Alan Fiskin. 
Starring Jeff Bridges, John Heard and Lisa Eichhorn.
1981, 105 minutes, Color, Rated R.

While there is a murder in this and the bulk of the plot is spent trying to solve who did it, it's not really a murder mystery.  Based on the novel Cutter and Bone by Newton Thornburg, the main three characters (Jeff Bridges, John Heard and Lisa Eichorn) are pretty unlikable, but very believably drawn.  Well, perhaps not Jeff Bridges, who seems a bit uneasy in his role but Eichorn and Heard are very good.  Bridges is on his way to being the leading man of AGAINST ALL ODDS, but can't quite pull off the confidence needed here.  In hindsight, however, you can see that it's coming for him.

The title character "Cutter" is an ANGRY one-armed Vietnam vet who takes to the mystery as a potential source of personal redemption.  The movie is ultimately about lost dreams and something of a downer.  This doesn't mean it isn't well made.

It was one of the last United Artists films, too.  It was made a little after HEAVEN'S GATE.  Czech director Ivan Passer had made the underrated SILVER BEARS (1978) previously to this film, was an odd choice for this film.  Well worth seeking out.

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 genre film overviews, which perhaps explains 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 seem pretty silly.

Peter Jackson's 2005 remake was clearly influenced by the 1976 version — it more closely mirrors the action of the 1933 version but places greater emphasis on the relationship between Kong and the girl.


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 rather than an optical one.

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. The 2010 novel Fragment by Warren Fahy deals with an undiscovered island and the author has to go through hoops to explain how it remained so. When Peter Jackson remade the film in 2005, it is telling that he set it in 1935 — it is simply too hard to update the story to modern times without drastically altering the setup. 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 so it is obviously not intended to be taken as realistic.  The 76 version of Kong tells the classic tale, however, set in the mid-seventies and in a reasonably believable fashion.

Note, however, that this update addresses 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 from fans of the original, 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 prompts 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 surprisingly 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.  

Jessica Lange's performance is frequently the source of much criticism. No, that's not entirely true--the character she portrays 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.  This can also be read differently, of course.  Bridges could also represent the environmental movement, and the way the film treats him could be read as a comment on what their chances were when faced with a) big business and b) nature itself.

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?   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, its 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?  It’s never touched on.   

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, which is a love story so it devotes its time to building that up.  It should also be noted that KONG 33 didn't attempt to answer these questions seriously 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 is that an existing ecosystem is totally and utterly destroyed by human 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 European 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).  Note that you can see the waterfall through Kong's head.

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

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

Matte painting with a live element at the bottom of the screen.

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 about 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 matche 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 as if the 1933 film's special effects are exactly seamless, but few 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 its foot, and the 1976 does not. Subsequently, you are more apt to notice things like mismatched opticals.

The Larger Picture 

This film faced a publicity backlash upon its release. 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-preservation.  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 rise 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, after which 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 in smaller films and role.  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 only available 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 provided a high bitrate for the film during 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 was stunning and rendered the previous standard def versions of the film obsolete. There is a fair amount of grain in the image, but it also contains 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 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 and the same 5.1 track featured on earlier releases.  Also included are a variety of extras, which I will cover below.  To date, this release has the best audio of any release, and this includes the two UHD releases.

I should note that while all of the 1080p versions above are, without a doubt, miles better than earlier 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 detailed, it's also a bit faded.  It also has a vaguely 'video' look, or, to put it another way, it doesn't 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 days of standard-resolution 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.  The UHD features Dolby Vision. 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 so far, almost to the point of being washed out.  Notice how more mysterious the night scenes on the island now play.

In 2024 Paramount released their own UHD version.  It uses the Studio Canal restoration but tweaks the colors to be less yellow.  However, the encoding is noticeably less impressive than the Studio Canal version.  It looks pretty good in Dolby Vision, but is shockingly bad at times.  In this next section, the first image is from the Studio Canal version, the second is from the Paramount version.

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.    

  

1999 Paramount DVD Front (First Widescreen?)

1999 Paramount DVD Back

1999 Paramount DVD Insert Front

1999 Paramount DVD Insert Back

2009 French Blu-Ray Front

2009 French Blu-Ray Back

2017 German Blu-Ray Front

2017 German Blu-Ray Back

Scream Factory Front (2021)

Scream Factory Alternate Front (2021)

Scream Factory Back (2021)

Studio Canal UK UHD Front (2023)

Studio Canal UK UHD Back (2023)

Paramount UHD Steelbook Front (2024)

Paramount UHD Steelbook Front w/overlay (2024)

Paramount UHD Steelbook Back (2024)

Paramount UHD Steelbook Back (2024)