Review of King Kong (1933) by Cameron J — 09 Mar 2012

More than a sweeping study on the horrible consequences of the human desire to interfere with dangerous things that we do not understand, this film is an awesome testament to how blasted old major critics are, because this thing is supposed to be one of the greatest "horror" films of all time. I know when I think of a horror film, I think of a giant gorilla puppet claiming female sacrifices and ripping through New York. ...Actually, that does sound pretty hardcore, though not as much as it could have been, even back during the overly escapist, Depression era 1930s, let alone by today's standards. I guess that's why they made "King Kong Lives"; because they wanted to make up for the dated horror aspects, and no matter what time you live in, little is as horrifying as that film. Hey, if you keep a really good series going long enough, you're bound to make at least one misstep, and make no mistake, this is a really good series, and one with quite the start. Now, granted, I don't know if I would call it one of the greatest horror films of all time, partially because it would have to be horrifying "to all times", yet this is still quite the product. Of course, the horror aspects aren't the only thing that don't do a terribly good job of standing the test of time.

Now, I've complained a lot about the editing limitations of the '30s, but really, I don't know if this film is all that excusable from an editing standpoint. Okay, it was a 1933, cut-and-paste edited film, so I suppse it is excusable, but that doesn't make the loose editing any less of a flaw, as many moments of dialogue and exposition go on way too long the point of losing steam. Of course, it's not just whole scenes that are loosely edited, as there are a deal of quick cuts that are far from quick, rendering many should-be snapper or quick-thriller to feel awkward and empty. Well, I don't know if it's so much the editing that leaves those moments to feel a bit stiff, or the acting, because although there are some notable performances here and there, a deal of the performances in this - from some awkward tertiary characters to, yes, even the blank-faced Fay Wray - are so '30s, in that they're so flashy and supplementary to the style, rather than the substance. From this film spawned many improvable sequels and spin-offs, and considering the flaws that fall upon it, this film should be no different, and yet, it transcends its missteps. Sure, the 1930s limiations land a heavy blow to this film and render it often limp. Still, what's always there to pull you right back in is, if nothing else, the things that are immortally impressive.

The production, for its time and even now, to some degree, is highly respectable, consisting of sets that are lively and broad in scope, yet not overbearing, fitting into this world organically and making it come to life, regarless of the more dated aspects. Of course, what's most mind-blowing and effective about the production is, of course, it's main even, every man's main monkey, Mr. King Kong, an effect that hasn't aged spotlessly, yet is still awe-inspiring, both for its time and even now, as you look at this puppet turn into a massive, lively monstrosity that fits so relatively seamlessly, that you'll found yourself wondering how in the world they could even conceive doing something like that at the time. To top that thing off and make things all the more sweet, that effect is not only pumped with style, but substance that leaves you truly believing the beast as though it were right there, owning the screen with thrilling presence and a powerful aura that was unparalleled at the time, and remains rather effective to this day. For that, let's give it up the late directors, Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, both of whom don't pump this film with so much oompth that, to this day, it fulfills all of its purposes as a hardcore thriller, yet they still make it undeniably compelling, giving every location an intimate, yet rather broad scope, and every character some level of weight that may not blow you away, partially because some of the acting has failed the test of time miserably, but still keeps you invested. If nothing else, the characters will charm you, being conventional concept, yet rather unique and believable in execution, particularly the Carl Denham character, who's performer, the late, great Robert Armstrong, steals the show with charm and presence as the dangerously unconventional dedicated filmmaker. I'd also like to give a shoutout to the late Bruce Cabot, all but alone, sells the chemistry with Fay Wray (Which is especially impressive when you take into consideration that their relationship is so forced in) and stands, almost with Kong himself, as the key factor that gives you a sense of consequence and intrigue with the Ann Darrow subplot, because you know Cabot's Jack Driscoll character has too much to lose with the damsel in distress. I agree with Mr. Roger Ebert's complaints, yet disagree with him that the film is ageless, because there's plenty that doesn't work today, if they even worked terribly well in the first place, yet no matter how much this film ages, it will always be respectable as both a groundbreaker and an undeniably compelling, very enjoyable film, even to this day.

In the end, the editing is as loose as a toddler's tooth, and it really lands a blow on the steam of the film, yet doesn't do it without the help of some weak peformances by some tertiaries and even lead Fay Wray, yet the film will always make up for its dated aspects with its timeless accomplishments, from stellar special effects to a very unique and smooth marriage of thrills and charm, ultimately leaving the classic thriller "King Kong" to stand as a thoroughly enjoyable, consistently compelling thrill ride that transcends the test of time more often than not.

3/5 - Good.