Where the 1976 “King Kong” failed to inherit any of the notable qualities of the 1933 original, this film, “King Kong Lives”, does a most excellent job of inheriting qualities of the original King Kong sequel, “The Son of Kong”. Indeed, it too is a needless, uninspired, clunky, dull, cash-grab mess of a film.
Linda Hamilton, like Jeff Bridges in the 1976 remake this is a sequel to, is nice to see in the cast, but it’s a pretty flat character she’s given to play. It’s refreshing seeing characters that aren’t inferior remakes of those from the original though. That goes for the film in general, really – it’s not good, but it’s different than the original at least, so it’s better in that sense. The premise of the film completely invalidates the story of the first (I admire how the original Kong sequel, “The Son of Kong”. didn’t invalidate the story of the original, that was one thing it had going for it) , but hey, the 1976 remake was terrible anyway, so I wasn’t particularly bothered.
It’s not a good film, and I didn’t really enjoy watching it, but I didn’t find it as offensively terrible as the remake it serves as sequel to. I give it one and a half vials of giant ape blood, and a tricky transfusion.