Queen Kong

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.

What happens when a big-shot film producer like Dino De Laurentiis orders to take a low-budget production like "Queen Kong" out of circulation, supposedly because it discredits his own remake of the classic 1933 film? That's right, "Queen Kong" immediately became an immense cult-hit and probably a lot more popular than it ever would have been if De Laurentiis had simply ignored it! This is one of the most deranged comedies ever, only you laugh at how ridiculous it is and not so much at the script-jokes or parody situations. "Queen Kong" looks fresh & funny for about 10 minutes; during the opening sequences in which you unexpectedly witness that women are the strong gender here and men are all just redundant and insignificant wimps. The humor stops right after the "Libertine Lady" song which, I admit, has some of the coolest lyrics ever ("Burn your bra...Burn your panties...Call your mum...Call your aunties") and the rest of the film is amateurish nonsense and actually quite boring. Copying the original "King Kong" bit by bit, the story revolves on a female film crew that sets foot on a tropical island where the (once again female) natives idolize a humongous (oh yes...female) ape, named Queen Kong". She immediately fancies the male love interest of the film crew (character name: Ray Fay – ha ha!). Watching this film is only amusing in case you're severely drunk or under the influence of soft drugs, as it is a series of absurd gags that you simply can't appreciate in a sober condition. The special effects are lousy and the monsters even look faker than the ones in the absolute cheapest Japanese Godzilla rip-offs. It's a real shame that several of the cast members agreed to star in this garbage. They all previously starred in good, solid Brit-horror films. The gorgeous Valerie Léon was in "Blood From the Mummy's Tomb" and Linda Hayden (luckily, she only has a cameo) was in "Blood on Satan's Claw" and "Madhouse". The male lead Robin Askwith played in "Horror Hospital" and the regretfully underrated "Tower of Evil".

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!...

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.