King Kong Lives (1986)

Title: King Kong Lives (1986)

Director:  John Guillermin

Cast: Linda Hamilton, Brian Kerwin

Review:

After seeing King Kong Lives and giving it a good reassessment, I can safely say that in the pantheon of really stupid movies, King Kong Lives is a contender for the top spot. I did a couple of articles a while back on Worst Movies Ever Made and I completely forgot about this one on there, in fact, I think I’ll edit the articles to include it. Yeah, its stupidity cannot be ignored. Wowzers this movie was bad! Let’s see, where do I begin? Well, let’s start at the beginning; King Kong Lives is the direct sequel to John Guillermin’s King Kong (1976), the one that starred Jessica Lange, Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin. That film in turn was a remake of King Kong (1933), the film that started it all. Guillermin’s 1976 remake wasn’t bad at all, it retold the story with modern effects, it was campy, fun, it even had some romance in the mix. The only problem with watching it today is that the effects look really out dated; the filmmakers did what they could with the effects that were available at the time. When it was released, it was a marvel to behold; legendary make up effects artists Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi joined forces to create the beast for that movie, the results while not at all convincing (Rick Baker wasn’t entirely pleased with the final results) won the filmmakers an Academy Award for Best Special Effects. Guillermin’s remake was one of the most successful films of 1977 (ranking fifth) and when aired on television, it was also a ratings success; so of course, a sequel was a no brainer. Unfortunately it took the producers ten years to get going with it. So, literally ten years after the success of the first film, King Kong Lives roared its ways into theaters.

The biggest problem with this movie is all the stupidity you have to accept in order to follow the story. I know, watching a film about a giant gorilla stomping New York City already requires huge amounts of suspension of disbelief, but damn, this movie asked for more suspension of disbelief than humanly possible. The first idea we’re supposed to swallow is that Kong didn’t die at the ending of the previous film. Now this is virtually impossible since the giant ape was shot down by machine guns! He fell from the top of the World Trade Center! We heard his heart stop beating! I mean, everything pointed to Kong dying, same way he died in the original film. But no, the filmmakers behind this film (who by the way are the same ones who made the 1976 remake, right down to its director) ask us to believe that some way, somehow, Kong has been in some sort of a coma for more than 10 years!? Okay, fine, I’ll take that jagged little pill, but then we’re supposed to believe that Kong is getting a heart transplant! Okay, maybe I can believe that, but then after the operation the guy doesn’t even have the freaking scar he is supposed to have on his chest! The inconsistencies escalade that way all throughout the movie.

So anyhow, then there’s a Lady Kong that suddenly appears in the Congo and some Indiana Jones wannabe who goes by the name of Hank Mitchell finds this Lady Kong and sells her to the same university that is trying to give Kong a heart transplant. Now, here’s my big question: why would they want to bring Kong back to life? After all the death and destruction he brought to the city? Don’t they figure he can do much, much worse if he wakes up again? I mean, it’s like trying to wake up freaking Godzilla! Nobody wants that! Not only this, but then they actually consider bringing in a female, so they can give Kong the chance to multiply and bring forth little baby Kong’s that can probably wreck havoc on the city just as well! These must be the stupidest scientists this side of Howard the Duck! Not only that, but they don’t have the proper facilities to contain a beast like Kong. The funniest part of the whole thing is this; they struggle to give Kong a new heart so the beast can come back to life and we get the impression that somebody actually cares for Kong. But then after he wakes up, they drug him and put him right back to sleep! So what’s the deal? Did they want to bring him back to life or not? The characters in this film are playing games with poor Kong, leave the damn beast alone! Make up your minds about what you want to do with him, but this thing about resuscitating, drugging, resuscitating and drugging is just abusive! Especially with a creature who has a heart condition like Kong. 

But yeah, this movie is all about Kong’s heart beating faster every time he gets a whiff of Lady Kong,  who’s being held captive in a hangar, right next to Kong’s. It’s kind of funny seeing Kong fall in love and yes my friends, this is what you are going to see, Kong falling in love! Kong hitting on a girl, slowly working his way up to the big event, the only difference this time around is that he’s sticking to his species. In the first film he falls for a human, but on this one he’s found one of his own to do the dirty deed with. Here’s this rampaging beast that suddenly gets all sweet on us! You have to see Kong’s face when he sees his female counterpart for the first time! It’s quite funny! So get ready to see Kong actually grab Lady Kong’s ass!, I’m not kidding, this happens on this movie! Lady Kong’s reaction is priceless! See Kong share a meal with his lady! See Kong getting some! Yes my friends, not only does Kong get it on in this movie, he also takes that big step and becomes a dad. There’s this thing they tried to do which was show parallels between humans and animals, so while Kong is getting it on with Lady Kong, the Indiana Jones type gets it on with the scientist who takes care of Kong’s heart, who by the way is played by Linda Hamilton. Her reply to getting it on in the woods with the adventurer is “we are primates too”.

Linda Hamilton, behind the scenes on King Kong Lives

One of the biggest downsides to this movie are the special effects. This movie was made in 1986, but they decided to make this movie like it was still 1976. The 1976 version of King Kong updated things from an effects stand point. They decided not to use stop motion effects and instead decided having men in suits act like giant gorillas. They even went and built a gigantic robotic version of Kong that cost more then a million bucks! Here's a funny little bit of info from that 1976 version of King Kong, they spent a bunch of money creating that giant version of Kong, and it only appears on the film for like five seconds! Talk about a waste of money, but anyways, King Kong Lives though made ten years after the 1976 version made absolutely zero advancements in effects techniques. For all intents and purposes, this movie might as well have been in the 70's. Men in suits and miniatures galore.  

"What do you mean you don't you have protection?"

But then, after Kong plants his seed, the army takes Lady Kong away and it turns into a film about Kong trying to find his Lady friend. On his way he stumbles upon a couple of rednecks who want to make fun of him and they get what’s coming to them. There’s a chunk of the film which simply has Kong going around destroying little towns and smashing Lamborghinis, then the army decides they can take Kong on, apparently they never learn. Same thing happens in Japan, the army there doesn’t quite get it yet that their little tanks and guns are no good against Godzilla! Here it’s the same; they seem to think that bullets and tanks make them invincible against a giant gorilla! Now here’s where this movie gets even freaking stupider…the whole process of impregnation and birth for Lady Kong seems to happen in a matter of days! Ha! Before you know it, Lady Kong is pregnant and giving birth to Baby Kong! This movie is nuts, it’s the kind of movie that makes you wonder what the producers and director where thinking of when they made it. Still, I’ll let you be the judge of it because after all, a bad movie like this is good for a laugh, which is the only thing I can recommend this movie for. A laugh! And making me laugh ain’t a bad thing, a lot of people have a soft spot for this movie, warts and all. I gotta say, Kong kind of grows on you after a while. This film was the last nail on director John Guillermin’s coffin, after two blockbuster failures Sheena (1984) and King Kong Lives; he never made another film again. I wonder why? I guess it just proves one thing: one two many failures in a row will get you a free pass out of Hollywood. 

Rating:  2 out of 5 

Sheena (1984)

Title: Sheena (1984)

Director: John Guillermin

Cast: Tanya Roberts, Ted Wass

Review:

Sheena comes to us from director John Guillermin, the mastermind behind King Kong (1976) which by the way is an excellent King Kong movie, yeah it’s got one or two effects that are a bit outdated, but overall, King Kong is a pretty good remake in my book. Unfortunately Guillermin also directed King Kong Lives (1986), the sequel, which is a total joke. It’s the Conan the Destroyer (1984) of King Kong movies, the sequel that is a joke when compared to its original. Not that that’s a bad thing, Conan the Destroyer and King Kong Lives are still fun movies to watch, but because they are ‘bad’, and you know how that goes with me, I love me some cheese. So anyhows, believe it or not, Sheena is a film based on a comic book and an important one at that. Sheena was the first female character to have her own comic book series. She's kind of like the female version of Tarzan, both characters having lots of similarities in background and story. She was created by comic book legend Will Eisner and Samuer Maxwell Iger. The first issue of Sheena was printed as far back as 1937! Producers had been meaning to make this film for a while, and when it finally got green lit with John Guillermin at the helm, cameras were ready to roll. Was Sheena going to be another  ‘so bad its good’ movie from director John Guillermin? 

First issue of Sheena: Queen of the Jungle

Sheena tells the tale of a little American girl who gets stranded in Africa when her parents die in an earthquake while studying a type of earth that can apparently heal deceases! The baby girl is picked up by an African tribe, and a tribe woman called Shaman, raises Sheena as her own daughter. Shaman  eventually teaches Sheena the ability to communicate with all types of animals telepathically. As Sheena grows into a warrior of the tribe, so do her powers. Her abilities are put to the test when Shaman, the woman who raised Sheena,  is framed for the murder of a political leader. Can Sheena save Shaman from the clutches of the despotic political leader?

Tanya Roberts was on a roll for a while there during the 80’s. She’d done her part on the Charlies Angels television show replacing Shelley Hack and also did The Beastmaster (1982) for director Don Coscarelli, a film in which she plays a slave girl, a side kick of sorts to Dar, the titular Beastmaster. On that one she had gratuitous nude scenes, wore very little clothes and falls in love with Dar, who had the ability to communicate with animals. Well, Sheena has a few similarities with The Beastmaster, but at the same time, it’s a very different kind of film. Sheena can be seen as a female version of The Beastmaster because both films are about scantily clad heroes who lose their homes at the hands of a villainous leader. Both characters have control over animals, but here’s where the differences step in: while The Beastmaster is a fantasy film filled with swords and magic, Sheena is a bit more rooted in reality, mind you I said “a bit”. After all, Sheena does talk to animals telepathically! But that’s really as close as it gets to a fantasy film. The story has a bit of political intrigue going for it which involves an assassination plot to kill a political leader.

Now here’s where the funny comes in; the worst thing about this movie is the best thing about this movie. I of course speak of the beautiful Tanya Roberts, she’s candy to my eyes, unfortunately her acting isn’t all that great. Her lines are spoken robotically, as if she has trouble speaking the English language because she was brought up by an African tribe, but the fake accent is just terrible. The lines in this movie will have you hollering! It’s not a bad movie to make fun off actually. There’s this moment in which Sheena becomes the leader of her tribe and gives one of these speeches that’s supposed to sound rousing and uplifting, but begins and ends with a whimper, Tanya just couldn’t pull that intense scene off convincingly. She was nominated for the “worst actress” award at The Razzies that year for her performance on Sheena, and deservedly so. She was again nominated for worst actress at The Razzies a couple of years after that for her performance in A View to a Kill (1986). I guess she was the Megan Fox of her day, a beauty with no acting abilities whatsoever.

But no matter how bad of an actress she is, no one can take Tanya Robert’s beauty away from her! Speaking bluntly, Mrs. Robert’s is one ultra hot cookie and I say “is” because I did a search, just to see what she’s looking like today and she’s still looking great! In Sheena, director John Gillermin exploits Tanya Robert’s sexuality every chance he gets, and apparently Mrs. Roberts had no problems with that whatsoever, after all, she had done a nude pictorial for the October 1982 issue of Playboy magazine to promote The Beastmaster, so she’s a lady who has no problems with showing her physical attributes. Sheena has moments that will make the words “gratuitous nudity scene” flash on and off in your mind. There’s this scene in which Sheena is scaling a tree and the camera is looking up… holy moly, if that isn’t gratuitous I don’t know what is! And the scene just goes on and on and on! Tanya Roberts astounding beauty makes me wonder why her career didn’t take off in a bigger way, I mean, worst actresses have made it further on good looks alone. By the way, you haven’t lived until you’ve seen Tanya Roberts riding a zebra down the African tundra! So yeah, this film exploited Mrs. Robert’s sensuality and status as 80’s sex symbol.  

One of the finer aspects of the film is that it was entirely shot in Africa; which of course helps a medium budget film like this one a lot. I have to hand it to director John Guillermin for taking advantage of the beautiful African locations! The movie might be filled to the brim with bad dialog, but damn those shots of the African landscape are awesome. I also liked how they brought in so many animals for the film, you really do see Sheena interacting with a lot of animals, hypos, giraffes, lions, tigers, rhinos, snakes…there’s all matter of animals on this one, I was surprised to see how close some of these actors got to the lions! Director John Gillermin had previously filmed other films that took place in Africa like Shaft in Africa (1973), which by the way was shot partially in Africa and he’d also shot a couple of Tarzan films entitled Tarzan’s Greatest Adventure (1959) and Tarzan Goes to India (1962) . So all this experience with Africa and animals and heroic characters swinging from vines helped him when the time came to travel to Africa and shoot Sheena. Unfortunately, the script was beyond terrible, the surrounding scenery might have been awe inspiring, but the dialog is pure cheese. The script kept getting re-written and re-written and bouncing from studio to studio before it got green lit, what perplexes me is how the script still ended up being terrible even though it went through so many writers! This proves once again that the rule of thumb for screenplays in Hollywood is, the more writers on any given project, the worse the screenplay is going to be.    

Weird thing is that no matter how bad the movie turned out to be, I still ended up watching it to the very end. I wanted to see just how funny things were going to get, the apex of the whole thing for me was when Sheena is swinging from vines like Tarzan and we can clearly see it’s a mannequin that’s doing the swinging! Ha ha ha, that had me cracking up! You can even see strings attached to the dummy! But again, the movie has many good things going for it, it’s got action and adventure, and even a bit of soap opera romance in it. Not as bad as some might have you believe, it’s actually a fun movie. Director John Guillermin’s cinematic career was over after his double knock out of Sheena and King Kong Lives. Sheena was seen as the stinker of the year! Strange how I find both films alluring none the less, I guess it’s that high quotient of 80’s cheese that I love.

Rating: 3 out of 5