King Kong Lives

Critics Consensus

No consensus yet.



Total Count: 10


Audience Score

User Ratings: 11,946
User image

King Kong Lives Photos

Movie Info

In Dino DeLaurentiis' sequel to his 1976 remake, Kong meets his ideal mate--a giant female gorilla. There's trouble in paradise, however, when the Army plots to exterminate both creatures.


Brian Kerwin
as Hank Mitchell
Linda Hamilton
as Amy Franklin
George Yiasumi
as Lady Kong
John Ashton
as Lt. Col. R.T. Nevitt
Peter Elliott
as King Kong
George Yiasoumi
as Lady Kong
Frank Maraden
as Dr. Benson Hughes
Alan Sader
as Faculty Doctor
Lou Criscuolo
as Faculty Doctor
Marc Clement
as Crew Chief
Peter Michael Goetz
as Dr. Andrew Ingersoll
Larry Souder
as Reporter
Ted Prichard
as Reporter
Debbie McLeod
as Reporter
Mac Pirkle
as Surgeon
Larry Sprinkle
as Journalist
Rod Davis
as TV Reporter
David Devries
as Technician
Bonnie Johnson
as Technician
Robin Cahall
as Mazlansky
Don Law
as Security Chief
Jack Maloney
as 1st Wrangler
Jimmie Ray Weeks
as Major Peete
Jeff Benninghofen
as 1st Radioman
Jim Grimshaw
as Sergeant
Jimmy Wiggins
as Boyfriend
Mary Swafford
as Girlfriend
Leon Rippy
as Hunter
Hope Nunnery
as Lady in Phone Booth
Margaret Freeman
as Native Woman
Winston Hemingway
as Staff Sergeant
Tom Parkhill
as Radioman
Buck Ford
as Guard Sergeant
Gary Kaikaka
as Boat Skipper
Duke Ernsberger
as Cell Guard
Mike Starr
as Cell Guard
Shannon Rowell
as Woman in Crowd
View All

News & Interviews for King Kong Lives

Critic Reviews for King Kong Lives

All Critics (10) | Top Critics (2)

Audience Reviews for King Kong Lives

  • May 24, 2014
    The King lives in this trumped up sequel to the 1976 remake of King Kong. After being kept on life support for ten years scientists resurrect Kong with a blood transfusion from a second giant ape, who he then breaks out of captivity and runs off with. The script is ridiculously bad and is full of cliches. Linda Hamilton leads the cast, but the performances are all terrible. There are however, some fun action scenes as Kong wrecks shop. A poorly made B-horror film, King Kong Lives is an atrocious mess that's unworthy of the King.
    Dann M Super Reviewer
  • Sep 23, 2010
    King Kong probably should have stayed dead. I find that title hilariously ironic, seeing as this actually all but killed King Kong, or at least his franchise. How many times can pop out these underwhelming one-liners before you guys figure out that I can't think of a good opening joke? I don't know, but what I do know is that it's rather hard to blame me, considering that the joke is already on the screen. Man, if you thought that the first film from '76 was bad... I can see that, but forget you, I still liked it. This film, on the other hand, is to '76 "King Kong" what "I'll Be There For You" was to Bon Jovi: Everything bad about it, and none of the good. Well, actually, I wouldn't say that, because as bad as this film is, it's kept from being an insufferable train wreck by some undeniable strengths. It's easy to poke at the special effects in '76 "King Kong", because they were so dated, and here, that's no different. Still, even though this film is ten years younger than that version of "Kong", relative to its time, the effects were still pretty awesome, and to this day, they still have essence and effectiveness in them. The Kong effects do their job as both fun, stylistic dazzlers and supplements to the substance - such as it is -, leaving the film, if nothing else, as technically impressive as its predecessor. Outside of that... um... I kind of like the score, I guess. No, but seriously though, I must admit that I was, not simply enjoying, but all-out digging on the electric charm of Brian Kerwin, who brings consistent charisma when he's not inexplicably layered. Don't get me wrong, it's not like the Hank Mitchell character is a mysterious, deeply case of much depth and no predictability, but you pick up things along the way as Kerwin unravels his character in a very human, very charming fashion that, well, I must say does not fit the film's lack of effort. Actually, come to think of it, the worst thing about this film is the things that it does, in fact, "try" on, because what damaged the predecessor was pretense, and here, that pretense is back and more relentless than ever, with the film having such pride in itself for its excellent concepts that go so sadly unrealized, and not just because of the film's being overly self-righteous to the point of being mean-spirited at point, but because, unlike '76's "Kong", this film does not have the quality to back up those pretenses. As I said earlier, this film boasts everything that was wrong with its predecessor, yet what I neglected to mention is that all of those flaws are more intense and unrelenting this time around, such as the borderline-propaganda level of unsubtle message conveying. There were spots in the original where the message took over, and here, the spot where the message took over is the whole film, which wears its overbearing, yet still rather underexplored message on its sleeve. Of course, that's not the only convention that the film falls into, because this film is so consistently generic and painfully predictable in its writing, and as if that wasn't miserable enough, the icing on top of the bad-writing-cake is plenty of cheese, with many lines that are sappy, melodramatic or just plain humiliating, and it adds further insult to the injury of genericism and unsubtlety. Linda Hamilton makes matters worse by being absolutely awful, and I know that's a flaw that's certainly damaging to the film, though not likely terribly so, yet Hamilton goes through this film as "lead", infecting the atmosphere with even more pretense and cheese that slows down the film so much, eating at it, exacerbating it and making it even more ugly and hollow. Now, I've been rambling on, going not much more than just "listing off" the flaws, rather than discussing them, so, for all extents and purposes, these missteps couldn't possibly be intense enough to destroy the film. Well, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the day, it is, in fact, the simplicity in the film's missteps that make it so frustrating, as that's almost all it has, because this is such a bone dry, unengaging bore of a film with very limited bright spots and countless spots of dirt that amalgamate into one, filthy pile of incompetence so bombarded with relentless missteps that rather than taking one, discomforting blow that leaves most films of this type mediocre - due to them not even having the guts to be bad -, you're so overwhelmed by the countless errors that this film falls into so easily to the point of finding yourself frustrated with the film's incompetence. There's no charm in its simplicity; only self-righteousness that it does not deserve, as it is pumped with even more of the amateur mistakes made in the predecessor and almost none of what was competent about it, resulting in an ugly offense to not simply the 1976 incarnation of "King Kong", but the entire franchise, as a whole. When it's all said and done, there's no denying the reasonably effective and enjoyable technical value, nor the powerful charm of co-lead Brian Kerwin, yet neither of those two aspects come even close to being great enough to pull this film out of the mess it was shoved into by conventional writing, a poor performance from co-lead Linda Hamilton, as well as unsubtle, overbearing messages and, worst of all, self-righteousness that sprinkles salt in the wounds opened by the dry emptiness that ultimately makes "King Kong Lives" a deeply dissatisfying, thoroughly incompetent mess of an ugly stain on the legendary franchise. 1.5/5 - Bad
    Cameron J Super Reviewer
  • Dec 05, 2009
    I want to say that it's a worse film than the '76 remake, but at least this is so horrible that it's funny. The idea to have a love interest for King Kong has got to be one of the most moronic thoughts. The effects are completely horrible and all it has is one notable star, Linda Hamilton. Aside from it being a giant disaster, it is just hilarious to watch.
    Conner R Super Reviewer
  • Aug 03, 2008
    This is the stupid idea I ever heard and it's realized, make a sequel for King Kong! The story itself just get true at the ending of every King Kong movie, Kong gets killed by the beauty... But this movie, which is a sequel for 1976 King Kong, just get everything wrong.... The title itself just sound weird, King Kong Lives, it just make some stupid question about it like 'What movie is this?' or 'What? A sequel for King Kong?' and another question maybe... This movie made because they think they can make money again by resurrecting a death giant monkey, but that's all false... And shows up another Kong, the female one, then they have a baby, it just ridiculous... They didn't give a clue for the time, and amazingly the Kong have a baby! It really nonsense, it just that they really end up for ideas... The monkey itself stills looks like a toy, but still scary... Just this time, when Kong start eating human, it just makes me sick... Just a really wrong turn this time for Kong, one of the movie that should be never made...
    Sanjaya & Super Reviewer

King Kong Lives Quotes

There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.

News & Features