Queen Kong

This gender bent spoof of King Kong was hard to see until the advent of DVD. Thats a shame because its better than the film that producers of the remake of King Kong unleashed on the unsuspecting world. Having not pretense at being anything other than a send up this film lets it all go in what is mostly a good but really dumb comedy. The problem with the film is that even at a running time of around 80 minutes this movie is way too long. There is only enough material to sustain a 20 minute short and its stretched to fill a feature. The lack of material leaves many dead spots and allows for some really bad material to creep in. Had this been shorter it would have been better (say as a sketch on SNL), but as it stands now its a very interesting side note to the debacle that was the 1976 King Kong remake.

Movie director, Luce Habit (Rula Lenzka) needs a leading man for her latest epic. She discovers Ray Fay (Robin Askwith), drugs him (!), and whisks him away from London to Lazanga. With her all-female crew, Luce is all set for filming.

Native troubles, the entrance of the titular beast, and general idiocy ensue.

QUEEN KONG is -obviously- a British parody of its male counterpart. For a comedy, it suffers from a dire lack of any real humor. It's peppered with antiquated, anything-but-funny "jokes" that couldn't possibly have elicited laughs, even in 1976! It's sort of like a really long, completely awful episode of The Benny Hill Show.

Yes, there are bikini-clad dancing girls.

This could possibly be the most inane, eye-gouging-ly dull movie to ever come out of the UK!

In addition to the "monster" of the title we also get a woman-eating rose bush, and a man in a cardboard dinosaur costume.

For his part, Askwith seems to be having a blast, like he does in all of his movies. His Mick Jagger / Brian Jones-hybrid look and goofy persona are always likeable. It's just not enough to salvage this saggy saga.

Good luck with this bowl of rotten bananas!...

When I saw Konga from 1961, I thought it was the worst King Kong parody ever made. I had no idea how wrong I was before watching this. Even for a comedy/parody, it was atrocious and depressing to watch.

This movie was meant to capitalize on the 1976 remake of King Kong and make it a comedy, but thanks to the shoestring budget of $632,000 and total incompetence of the cast and crew, this film is so shamelessly campy and cheap, it was a jaw dropping failure. And worst of all, all of the jokes fall flat on their faces.

The sets for the village and wall were incredibly cheap and the miniature city Queen Kong rampages through doesn't look very good either. Even by budget 70s movie standards, the creature effects were God-awful. The Queen Kong suit looked inferior to Konga with only her eyes being functional. The T-Rex and Pteranodon suits were even worse being loose fitting, rubber outfits that looked less impressive than a child's home-made Halloween costume. You can even see the monsters moving among normal sized plants and trees because there wasn't enough money for a miniature forest set.

I know this is a parody, but they could have at least tried to improvise more or rework the humor. Just so you know, Monty Python and the Holy Grail only cost about half as much as this and was a smash hit. Maybe if the crew handled things a little differently with their meager budget, they could have made a somewhat better film, but that never happened.

The camera footage often looked fogged up or messy and haphazardly jumps from one sloppy shot to the next. Half the time he spends being carried by Queen Kong, Askwith is obviously in front of a projector screen with a background so blurry, you can't even make it out.

The God-awful 70's rock song in the opening credits had some of the most hilariously bad and cringeworthy lyrics I've ever heard. "Queenie for my weenie?" Oh brother... "Liberated Lady" was only slightly more bearable to listen to. There's even this cheesy disco music playing as Queen Kong chases the group through the jungle that made it feel like a Scooby-Doo skit.

The cast gave an unsurprisingly corny and lazy performance. Lenska looks and sounds absolutely miserable throughout the whole movie and Askwith was either boring or irritating to watch. Both of them were humiliated to have starred in this mess, and who can blame them?

I can't even describe this as so bad, it's good. More like, it's so bad, it's horrible and almost unwatchable so don't waste your time.

Never has a film contained so much embarrassment. Not only on the part of the directors, producers, writers and actors, but on the person who has accidentally been duped into watching it. Perhaps the first thing I should say is that I watch bad movies - BAD movies - all the time. They don't phase me, I can sometimes see things in bad films that others can't. Maybe those things aren't there. Either way, bad movies get a lot of bad rep.

Farouk (Frank) Agrama's 1976 atrocity, Queen Kong, is almost certainly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than Plan 9. Worse than Raiders of the Living Dead. Worse than Bride of the Monster. It is about 750 billion times worse than the Dino DeLaurentiis remake of King Kong and about 984 billion times worse than Peter Jackson's over-long take on the story.

Frankly, this film was doomed from the start. It was produced by Harmony Gold, a typically useless independent company (though they managed to drag themselves out of the gutter in the 80's and are now quite reputable). The writers/producers Ronald Dobrin (Robin Dobria) and Farouk Agrama (Frank Agrama) have assembled one of the worst casts, constructed THE worst ape suit and hired the least skilled effects technicians. The result is, as you can imagine, not pretty.

Much of the film takes place in Lazanga (where they do the Konga...apparently) though you would be forgiven for mistaking it for the English countryside. Combined with the bottom rate acting of Robin Askwith (better know for "Confessions of a Window Cleaner" which is hardly Citizen Kane) and the obviously embarrassed Rula Lenska, this is indeed a depressing affair. The utterly ridiculous ape suit is beyond laughable - much like the film itself - it is just depressing.

As the location moves to London (which recreates the theater scene from the 1933 King Kong in a cheaply designed open air setup) the script descends even further and the production values crash and burn. Surprisingly, it isn't the first time London has been ravaged by a giant ape (see 1961's KONGA) but it IS the first time the ape has looked so unconvincing. Cue cut scenes of postcard London landmarks and a dire-straits intimate moment between Queen Kong and Ray Fay (like Fay Wray - geddit?). Before you know it the film is over and you have lost 90 minutes of you life.

If you want to see a bad film, watch Agrama's 1980 effort (Dawn Of The Mummy) and avoid this one. It is beyond being simple 'bad', it is a crime against cinema (it seems that Paramount Pictures agreed, they attempted to sue Harmony Gold in 1976). This film is also guilty of theft. It WILL steal 90 minutes from you which you WON'T get back. Go ahead, call the police, they won't be interested! Do yourself a favour. Don't. Just don't.

What is most profoundly remarkable about 'Queen Kong' is that as it begins, the movie demonstrates genuine promise. Over the top as everything immediately is, my reaction wavered between delight and dismay - before I had time to process one passing moment, the mood flipped with the next. Yet overall my initial response was laughing with the picture, more heartily than I have in a little while. There were some great ideas to start, and my hopes were raised.

Unfortunately, that positive first impression is not maintained after about the first ten minutes. The entertainment only ever diminishes, and watching becomes a bit of a chore well before the end credits roll.

This is unquestionably a parody, so unserious in that angle as to occasionally include humor referential or non sequitur, and break the fourth wall. More than that, of course - for whatever jokes and absurdities are included along the way, 'Queen Kong' is above all an obvious direct send-up of the 1933 classic 'King Kong,' lampooning each and every story beat for comedic effect. By all means, there's nothing inherently wrong with this; spoofs can be very funny and enjoyable.

It's hard to describe what went wrong with this particular film, but what it comes down to is that the attempts at comedy mostly just aren't funny as meager cleverness quickly gives way to tired mediocrity. It doesn't help that the writing and direction is pointedly gauche and careless. I can appreciate that for some viewers idiosyncrasies such as featuring a flubbed line in the final cut, or disregarding internal consistency and continuity, may be endearing, and part of the fun. For me, it disrupts suspension of disbelief, and so thoroughly befuddles as a film-making peculiarity as to at best distract from whatever transpires next. And then there scenes that serve no purpose whatsoever - if 'Queen Kong' were made in 2021, Linda Hayden's involvement may be chalked up to a crowdfunding stretch goal that was surpassed, and so an unnecessary moment is forced in as wish fulfillment to cast a noteworthy star. The course of events that led to her addition in 1976 are mysterious to me: Favor for a friend? Contractual obligation? Who knows.

The movie tries to ham-handedly include themes including sexism, and feminism, comparing the plight of Queen Kong to the treatment of women in contemporary society. Were the screenplay strong enough to support the argument, I could even back the thesis that the lead character of Luce Habit, in her ambition and ego, is in part a reflection of how all too often "breaking the glass ceiling" really means nothing more than writing female-coded figures in the same way that male-coded figures would be. However, these notions are not approached with any real effort, or especial sincerity - and are further undercut by writing and camerawork that illustrates the male gaze. Does 'Queen Kong' actually want to explore these themes, and just fails to do so? Does it want to cheekily play off these themes, and just isn't funny enough to show it? It's impossible to say for sure, just as it's impossible to tell the intent or awareness behind passing dialogue or moments that toe the line with racism, or homophobia.

I was genuinely excited when I first started watching, because the earliest scenes defied the poor reception this film had otherwise seemed to elicit. But disappointment soon took over, turning increasingly to a sense of embarrassment. I don't doubt for one instant that there are folks who love the sort of movie 'Queen Kong' is, and find this specific picture an absolute charm. I am glad for them. What I see, however, is a feature with varying and uncertain levels of labor, diligence, earnestness, and discretion - but a level of humor and amusement that is dependably very low, or absent.

Oh well.