Review of King Kong (1933) by Liana R — 23 Apr 2011
Jaw-dropping in its entirety. In the 30s, monsters in Hollywood were supposed to represent mankind's deepest fears in a maximized scale: Dracula represented the elegant and classy side of the macabre; Frankenstein stood for man's violent and brutal impulses; the Invisible Man showed the ambitious need of man to be omniscient and unperceived. King Kong may acquire the sexual interpretations you may wish (man's domination over mankind and, specially, over women), but in this era, special effects and technical innovations (editing, sound) served a solid purpose. King Kong is the best monster movie, surprisingly better than the silent rarity The Lost World (1925).
99/100.
This review of King Kong (1933) was written by Liana R on 23 Apr 2011.
King Kong has generally received very positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
