King Kong (1933)
10/10
A classic that every person who considers themselves to be a movie buff must see.
18 July 2010
I never got around to reviewing "King Kong" because it already has a bazillion reviews and is ranked in IMDb's Top 250. In other words, what could I possibly add to the other excellent reviews? Well, not much, probably! However, I am at least unique in that I saw the film in the theater as well as tonight on Turner Classic Movies. No, I did NOT see it back in 1933 (I'm not THAT old) but when it was re-released in 1971. At the time, I loved the film and thought it brilliant entertainment. So, tonight with my youngest (who is a huge classic horror fan), I watched the film once again and had a ball. I also marveled at the wonderful special effects for 1933. Sure, some of it may look quaint today (especially the stop-motion Kong), but considering that there had been nothing like it before, you can't help but admire it. However, one aspect of the project really stands up superbly today--and is every bit as nice as the newer versions--that's the cinematography. The wonderful scenes in the jungle are marvelous works of black & white art--almost like Ansel Adams' work if he'd used a movie camera. I loved the misty backgrounds, exquisite use of matte paintings and mostly seamless integration of props, people and backgrounds. This truly is one of the most important and ground-breaking films in history and must be seen in its context to be appreciated.

By the way, the same year RKO released this film they rushed "Son of Kong" into theaters to cash in on the public's reaction to the first movie. Unfortunately, while it's watchable and clever at the beginning, the film degenerates to a sappy kids' movie later on and is an easy film to skip. Too bad....I wanted to love the sequel as much as the original.
28 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed