King Kong (1933)
5/10
Not terrible, but extremely dated in effects and execution
2 September 2004
Did I watch the same film as everyone else?

Unlike other old classics, this film has not aged well at all. I am going to go against the critical opinion and say that I don't care for it, whilst recognising that it has ‘survived' the test of time as far as many viewers are concerned.

This is a film that like most modern blockbusters, relies on special effects for it's impact. There is a very thin plot. The film is merely a sequence of situations and set-pieces. There is nothing special about the dialogue and the acting is very cheesy. Unfortunately, the special effects, in this film by Willis O'Brien the stop-motion pioneer, are incredibly dated, far more dated than the work of Ray Harryhausen (which to my way of thinking, still hold up well to today's effects). Harryhausen completely outstripped his mentor and made stop-motion into a complete artform with proper animal movements and characterisation etc. O'Brien seems not to pay attention to proper movement or make any attempt to smooth out the animation, he seems to think that achieving animation is enough. His puppets also only ever look like puppets. What he achieved was fantastic for it's time, no doubt about it but it does not hold up for the modern viewer.

What does that leave us with then? Dated SFX against a background of a thin story, a script that joins the dots, corny acting and a largely offensive, racist view of island natives. It is also too violent and scary for young children. Don't get me wrong, the film has an undeniable charm and a sense of blazing a trail for the cinema of the day but in the final analysis, it is a film of it's time, not for ALL time. One for nostalgists and young children who don't easily scare only.
17 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed