All member reviews for King Kong (1976)

Common Sense Media says

Bad script and acting ruin a classic story.

Users say

(out of 12 reviews)
age 9+
Review this title!
Kid, 10 years old March 20, 2011

Not Bad at all.

It wasn't that bad, in fact, I thought it was better than the 1933 classic. The only thing bad was all the blood coming out of Kong on the World Trade Center.
What other families should know
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Great role models
Teen, 14 years old Written byParkerSmykle July 5, 2015
Adult Written bywhovian85 April 9, 2008

the hidious middle child

This is one of the most pathetic remakes ever. Unlike the original or the most recent remake there are no exciting dinosaur battles except Kong wrestling with what amounts to a glorified garden hose. Also the hero's were some of the biggest morons ever.
Teen, 14 years old Written byCSM Screen Name... April 9, 2008


This movie has nudity in it!
Kid, 10 years old September 15, 2015


This movies blood looks like Monty Python blood(watery ketchup), the script has some major problems, and bad acting. The affects are bad and I will say is it is a disgrace to king Kong films. To parents: blood is fake violence is lame, and their is know action. The trailer said non-stop action and a spectacular remake. Lie!
What other families should know
Too much violence
Too much sex
Too much swearing
Too much drinking/drugs/smoking
Adult Written byrobertmcmillan February 25, 2015

70s critique on petro-power

My daughter was horrified by the 1933 version, which features people being eaten, thrown and squished by the monster. To say that this 1970s movie's script ruins a classic is really unfair. Here's the plot from the 1933 version: group sails to an island, they fight a monster, they fight another monster, they get tossed off a log by Kong, he fights a monster, he fights another monster, he fights a flying monster, carnage, new york, carnage, the end. It's a fun movie but a terrible script. The 1970s version has much less carnage and monster fights, but it holds up pretty well, although its heavy handed critique of petro-rapaciousness may not be for everyone. Cool shots of the World Trade Center.
Teen, 16 years old Written byhomealonefan123 November 17, 2012

slightly better than the 1933 version but has it's boring moments

better than the 1933 version, but still has it's boring moments
Kid, 9 years old January 13, 2011
characters are thrown wrestled and shot but no one is killed
What other families should know
Too much violence
Too much swearing
Teen, 14 years old Written byyugiohsux June 20, 2009


this movie ruined the 1933 classic IMO but then again, most remakes suck :(
Kid, 12 years old April 9, 2008

What the...

It was a good movie but every second it had fighting and it was under rated. You wouldn't want to take a little kid there. It still was a good movie! -----------------
Kid, 12 years old April 9, 2008

a disgrace to all king kong films

this movie should not be confused with the 1933 film or 2005 film whitch are "good"
Teen, 13 years old Written bynovablast101 April 9, 2008

I lost six brain cells watching this!

This is the worst movie ever. there are no dinosaurs or even anything remotely action in it except the snake fight and the World Trade Center fight (which is a bit graphic, blood spurting everywhere!). There is some brief nudity in it and in the scene were kong and that blonde girl are by the waterfall, it seems like kong is molesting her, he's ripping off her clothes and smiling. I did not like this movie one bit. Do not watch however old you are.