Review of King Kong (1933) by Daniel K — 08 Dec 2010

4: There isn't really a whole lot to say here. It's a classic pure and simple. I have to think anyone viewing this film finds it a bit hard to believe it was released in 1933. The effects are simply amazing.

Comparing to anything else around at the time seems pretty pointless, because there is no comparison. It must have been ridiculously exciting to see it in a theater for the first time, which is where my Grandma saw it.

I'd say its quite possible it has never, or at least very rarely, looked better than it currently does on Blu-Ray. Everything about the film simply oozes timelessness. The only thing that really surprised me this time around was that Kong and his damsel didn't have as close of a relationship as I thought I recalled.

This is undoubtedly due to the effects Peter Jackson's most recent incarnation has had on my memory. I couldn't help but compare it scene for scene over the course of the picture. Jackson's is certainly more polished and far more grand.

Not to detract from the original films brilliance, but its incredible how unsophisticated it is compared to Jackson's version. Filmmaking has come a very long way indeed, although this hasn't always made it more entertaining or effective of course.

I wonder how many people are alive today that haven't heard of King Kong. It seems ingrained in the cultural consciousness to me, but I'm sure this isn't the case the world over. I love that one can compare the use of the sets to The Most Dangerous Game, which was filmed on the same lot during the same time period.

Efficiency. The studio system was certainly a mechanism to both admire and deride, depending on your perspective. I for one admire it, just as I admire many aspects of modern day China. This was of course both of the system and apart from it, as it was certainly a bit of a passion project.