Box office Despite its marketing campaign,
King Kong Lives was a
box office flop in the United States and Canada, grossing $4,711,220 during its theatrical run. According to one account, "Besides the fact that audiences have noses for a stinker,
King Kong Lives lacked an effective advertising campaign that sold its premise (Kong finds a mate), and the movie was sold as if it was just another B-movie retread. Which it was, but on an A budget." Overseas, the film was a success in the
Soviet Union, where it sold tickets in 1988, becoming the top-grossing foreign film of the year and one of the top 15
highest-grossing foreign films of all time. At an average 1980s Soviet ticket price of , the film's ticket sales are equivalent to an estimated
gross revenue of approximately Rbls (). The film sold a total of 54,831,200 tickets worldwide, including 1,231,200 tickets in North America.
Critical response King Kong Lives was panned by critics.
Rotten Tomatoes reports an 8% approval rating based on 13 reviews, with an average rating of 2.6/10. On
Metacritic, the film has a
weighted average score of 32 out of 100 based on 9 critic reviews, indicating "generally unfavorable" reviews. Audiences polled by
CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "D+" on an A+ to F scale.
Roger Ebert gave the film only one out of four stars and stated, "The problem with everyone in
King Kong Lives is that they're in a boring movie, and they know they're in a boring movie, and they just can't stir themselves to make an effort."
DEG sent a notice to Ebert and
Gene Siskel notifying the two critics that they were allowed to show snippets of the film
on TV in their native
Chicago, but were forbidden to show the same snippets on their nationally broadcast series
At the Movies unless they promised to give positive reviews, which the pair refused to agree to. Siskel remarked, "Obviously, they were scared [...] If you don't believe me or Roger, believe the film company, that, think about it, couldn't find a single scene that it wanted you to see." In fact, Ebert playfully noted that the children in the audience were so bored with the film, they found playing with one of the auditorium's doors a more diverting activity.
Patrick Goldstein of the
Los Angeles Times opined that "this sequel, directed by John Guillermin (who was also at the helm of the 1976 version) is in good hands as long as Kong is on screen. (Designer
Carlo Rambaldi has done a masterful job of sculpting his mighty ape's features, giving him heft, surprising agility and, perhaps to age him a bit, a receding hairline.) But the film makers haven't been able to improve on the original story. It's still Kong vs. Civilization, with a lot of high-firepower action and wackily implausible plot twists thrown in to keep the Big Guy busy." Rambaldi's work was also lauded by
Janet Maslin of
The New York Times, but she nonetheless remarked that "
King Kong Lives, which was directed by John Guillerman, has a dull cast and a plot that's even duller." Staff members of
Variety remarked that "in portraying an
Indiana Jones-type figure, [Brian] Kerwin strains for plausibility and [the] film swiftly begins to lose some early credibility." The film was nominated for a
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Visual Effects at the
7th Golden Raspberry Awards. Actor
Peter Goetz received a residual check of three cents from the film and decided to frame it as a tribute, never cashing it. The film is listed in Golden Raspberry Award founder
John Wilson's book
The Official Razzie Movie Guide as one of The 100 Most Enjoyably Bad Movies Ever Made.
FilmInk called the movie "awful. There's no sense of adventure or danger: the bulk of the film takes place in the USA, and the rampage of Kong is played for laughs (being whacked on the head by a golf ball, etc). The leads, Linda Hamilton and Brian Kerwin, could have been cut out of the film entirely. Who wants to see a King Kong movie where the apes are in love with each other and not a human?" ==Other media==