User reviews

I remember watching the 2005 King Kong movie in the theater and not thinking much of it because it wasn't anything too special. However, watching the original makes me appreciate the idea of King Kong. Not only were the effects revolutionary, but the story and characters to go along with it were stellar. It takes the classic idea of a misunderstood monster and puts a more emotional twist on it. You feel for both the damsel in distress and the monster alike.

With the recent DVD release of this film, and the latest version on the big screen being released two days from this writing, I hope more people take the opportunity to check this movie out, the original King Kong, if they've never seen it.

This movie must have been astounding to the people watching it over 70 years ago. I doubt they'd ever seen anything like this, action-wise, and monster-wise. It is still fascinating today, even with the great advancements in special effects.

Most action films from the classic years, from 1920 to the late 1960s had corny mostly unrealistic special effects but this film still holds up, extraordinarily so considering its age. The film also had a tremendous amount of action. Young people today are usually bored watching old black-and-white movies but they wouldn't be bored with this one. Once the "girl," Fay Wray gets captured by King Kong, the rest of the movie is one long action scene.

Kong was not the only beast in the movie, either, which surprised me the first time I ever saw this. Protecting Wray, Kong battles a dinosaur, a giant snake, a giant bird and then human beings firing bullets and bombs at him.

Wray also was fun to watch, but I''m a male so a pretty woman like her - shockingly exposing her breasts in one scene, too - makes it easier to enjoy the film. Her screaming, however, can get on your nerves. She must have been hoarse for a month after filming this movie.

Robert Armstrong, as the film director, and Bruce Cabot, as the ship crewman and Wray''s rescuer, also are interesting to watch and hear. As I said, once the action kicks in, the his a very entertaining movie and impossible to put down.

Considered to be the fifth greatest horror movie of all time, 1933's King Kong lives up to its reputation. Although it's special effects are primitive compared to today's standards it's utilization of stop motion, giving Kong the ability to appear to be moving on his own, is second to none for a 1930s horror film.

First, the 1933 version of KING KONG, is for me, the greatest fantasy film ever made. Sure, there are fantasy films with far better special effects (THE MATRIX, JURASSIC PARK) better acting (the acting here is of the period!) but KING KONG is a film of tremendous excitement. The suspense, pacing, sensuality, violence all adds up to a blood pumping experience. We all read about the film's history, being made, released, censored, restored, and how it's been picked to itsy-bits by every arm-chair film "expert".

What very few film-makers have focused on is the film-making itself in KING KONG. It has superb build-up. We are wondering what is on the island as we approach it. Then we wonder what is behind the wall on the island. Then we wonder what gigantic beast is sharing that frightening jungle with the rescuers, trying to save Fay Wray. The film is faultlessly edited. Many scenes begin or end with people running for their lives. Unneeded scenes just don't exsist (we go from Kong knocked out on Skull Island to his Broadway debut. We don't need to see what happens inbetween!) then there's Max Steiner's perfect music score. Before KONG, most music scores were borrowed snippets of classical or popular themes, but Steiner's score follows the action to an inch! Also, he does a great number of abstract musical strokes (I.e the clash of drums when Kong beats the giant snake to it's death. The lovely string piece that jumps to pulsating chase music in a milli-second.) When I hear of a friend say they never saw this film, it's like hearing a child say they never had ice cream. Long Live Kong!

It's a shame that young people these days, don't know how to enjoy a black & white movie! I'm 14, and I love black & white movies. We saw this movie at school, and everyone hated it. They said it sucked, because it was in black & white, and the effects were hilariously bad!

I disagreed!

This movie is nearly 80 years old, and it's still a hit!

The cinematography is incredibly beautiful. One of the greatest shots of all time is when Kong is on the top of the building!

The acting is fine.

The story is great, but my friends found it stupid. They thought it was unrealistic because there were dinosaurs and a giant gorilla on the island etc.

This movie is entertaining throughout the whole movie! Most black & whites movies got a lot of dialog and long scenes with no editing, but not in this one! There are plenty of scenes in this movie where there are no dialog, but great editing and entertainment!

The effects are so fantastic! Young people may find Kong hilarious when they see a close-up picture of him. But I was absolutely blown away! Imagine that you're in 1933. You go to the movies and you've never seen something like this before!

King Kong is a one small step for man. One giant leap for film making!

10/10

I first saw this in a theatre in the early 80s when it rereleased.

Then again many times on vhs.

Revisited it recently with my 7 year old nephew since he is on monster verse marathon. Revisited the restored version which is basically 104 mins of which 4 mins is an overture.

Everything has already been said about this great film n there seems to be little left to say but lemme contribute a lil more by praising how good this film is.

Willis O'Brien's stop-motion effects are the best part about this film.

Its sad that the pit scene is lost forever.

Peter Jackson gave homage to O'Brien by creating the pit scene which is available on YouTube.

The fight between Kong n Tyrannosaurus is amazeballs. It looked as if two fellas are having a wrestling match. Even the way Kong checks his opponent's heads after defeating them to make sure they are dead is superbly done.

The film is action packed n filled with lottuva creatures.

Kong battles a Tyrannosaurus, an Elasmosaurus (which looked like a giant anaconda), a Pteranodon and lots of bullets and bombs.

We also have a Brontosaurus n a Stegosaurus wreaking havoc on humans.

My respect goes to Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack n O'Brien.

Special effects may have improved..... But this is still the best version. It stands alone. And hard to believe in a couple of years-this film will be 90 years old! (writing this in 2019). Fay Wray still the best screamer. I have enjoyed this film since I first saw it in the 1960's. A true classic.

I watched this from beginning to end last night (after having seen only portions of the film before), and while I was entertained and found the film had a quaint sort of charm and beauty in the jungle scenes especially, I couldn't help thinking that if ever a classic film deserved a remake with greater special effects, this was it. Modern audiences have since been treated to the wonders of JURASSIC PARK and other amazing epics which make the effects in KONG seem totally primitive from beginning to end.

The screenplay is full of clichés and some of the dialog is absolutely laughable. (Bruce Cabot, awkwardly admitting to Fay Wray, "Er...I think I love you.") And the story is a strictly comic book adventure into which the producers put an awful lot of hard work and detail to bring the story to life. And they do bring it to life because once the camera crew lands at Skull Island, the events flow smoothly and the most entertaining part of the tale begins.

FAY WRAY is the ultimate damsel in distress with a scream that forced me to turn the sound down every once in awhile lest neighbors think I was murdering someone. She is very fetching to look at and it's understandable why she became a golden trophy for Kong. Her acting, by 1930s standards, is acceptable too when she isn't screaming.

BRUCE CABOT, by contrast, comes off rather poorly in the acting department. He became a much stronger film presence later on in the '30s, usually as the heel who makes things difficult for the leading man. His acting, as the hero who falls for Wray, is stiff and a bit uncomfortable to watch.

ROBERT ARMSTRONG is enthusiastic as the filmmaker who wants to make the greatest epic ever and takes his adventurous crew to a remote island where he's heard the legend of Kong. There is the stamp of authority in his take on the role but also a bit of the ham.

The effects for Kong are surprisingly good, considering when this film was made no computer animation was possible. All of his movements are well animated (if a bit jerky), and his antics provide much of the excitement for the viewers.

I had to remind myself that I was watching a film made more than seventy years ago--and with that in mind, one can understand why this was such an achievement at the time of release. Taken in that context, it's still quite an enjoyable experience. The log rolling sequence, the train disaster, the flight through the jungle and the many "victim" scenes, are worth watching and waiting for.

However, today's technology can make the Kong story much more compelling and I'm eager to see what Peter Jackson has done with the new Kong.

About the score:

Max Steiner's famous score is not one of my favorites. Perhaps at fault is the primitive sound recording of his music which doesn't do justice to the full orchestral treatments which sound tinny at times. The melodic content featured in most of his scores is scarce here. However, it's worthy noting that this is one of those rare films from the '30s where much of the movie is actually accompanied by music. As such, this was an important step forward in the history of film music.

This movie is pure entertainment from opening to finish. I have seen this movie probably more than any other in my 57 years. Every time it's on I find myself just thinking I'll watch for a few minutes, then find myself absolutely mesmerized. I have never had the desire to be an actress but I can't help but think that Fay Wray must have had an absolute blast playing this part and I would have chosen this role over any other. Special effects are still amazing after all these years. The emotion you feel for Kong is real and poignant. A must see for everyone.

Warning: I admit. This is a terribly biased review as I hate CG animations and I'm a huge fan of the original 1933 KING KONG. Read on if you dare...

Storyline: The disreputable Carl Denham (Jack Black) and his film crew travel to the unexplored Skull Island to shoot a movie starring the beautiful Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) as leading lady. On the island the film crew encounter first a tribe of primitive cannibals and the giant ape Kong who falls in love with Ann Darrow. They use Ann Darrow as bait to catch Kong and transport him back to New York. But all hell breaks lose in New York when Kong escapes from a presentation show to seek out his beloved Ann Darrow...

Since I first heard Peter Jackson was remaking KING KONG I had been anxious to see what the New Zealandish director of infamous low budget/no budget horror movies such as BAD TASTE and BRAINDEAD, the funny mockumentary FORGOTTEN SILVER, and the overrated LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy had done with the perhaps biggest monster icon in the history of cinema. Remaking such huge cinematic milestones is always near-impossible. Many people have nostalgic memories of the giant ape, and therefore everybody will have opinions.

Surprise, surprise - the movie was actually good! And much better than the 1976 and 1986 versions. Most impressive are the CG special effects. For example: the fast-paced "Kong vs. dinosaur(s)" scenes or the small details on Kong's body. His hair. His eyes. And his realistic movements. Andrew Lesnie's cinematography looks stunning, and the movie is generally full of stunning backgrounds and set designs. Secondly Jack Black nails the Carl Denham character by never overdoing the sentimentality or comedy, unlike fellow comedic actors Robbin Williams and Jim Carrey. Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody, along with the rest of the person gallery, struggle to give their cliché cardboard characters life, but that doesn't matter too much, because in reality this movie is all about Kong. Thematically it deals with impossible relationship among uneven sizes.

But, aside from being an hour too long, I have another more fundamental, yet highly subjective, problem with Peter Jackson's KING KONG. This is where the inevitable subjective and nostalgic criticism comes in: I want stop motion animations and not CG animations! Although Kong looks better than ever CG is just too slick and, in lack of a better word, "undemanding" for me. Admittedly the 1933 KING KONG looks laughable compared to today's standards, but one can only imagine the impact the stop motion technique must have had on its audience in the early 30's. To me stop motion just has a certain unique visual quality that CG will never be to deliver. Nowadays CG easily handles anything, while in 'dem good ol' days it had to be done manually. And the result just came out more cinematic. I enjoy looking at Kong 2005, but when the initial wow-effect has worn off I find Kong 1933 more exciting to look at. As with all good film elements it's hard to pinpoint the exact quality of stop motion, but it has something to do with visual poetry (to use German director Werner Herzog's expression). The CG is so overdone and slick that it gives you all the answers, and doesn't leave room for the imagination. Stop motion looks more strange, terrible, mysterious, funny, and... poetic!

I welcome CG animations to the world of cinema, but only when used rightfully. Hollywood shouldn't forgot to reflect on what qualities they neglect by always taking the easy route. If you want a modern Hollywood action popcorn blockbuster then Peter Jackson's KING KONG is a fine choice, but I highly recommend that you seek out the 1933 version to see what they accomplished back then. Judge for yourself which one is superior. Remember to get the original black/white version, and not the colorized version. 7/10

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.

How many films can truly be said to be definitive? The answer is probably "not many", but the original 1933 version of King Kong is certainly one of them. For its time, every aspect is innovative. First-of-their-kind special effects, first-of-its-kind plot, famous performances and a final sequence that remains unequalled as an eye-popping cinematic experience. The quality of cinematography and visual trickery has progressed a long way since 1933 - so the special effects obviously look rather primitive to 21st Century eyes - but anyone with a shred of common sense will still be astounded by what they see. This is movie history in the making. Had this never been made, the whole history of films may have taken a different course.

Ace film director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) hires an unemployed, attractive New York woman Ann Darrow (Fay Wray) to star in his new picture. He takes her by boat to remote Skull Island where, according to legend, there lives an awesome god-like beast named Kong. Denham's plan is to shoot a variation of the Beauty and the Beast story, using Ann as his beauty and Kong as his beast. Everyone involved gets more than they bargained for when Ann is kidnapped by the island natives and offered as a sacrifice to Kong. She is kidnapped by a gigantic prehistoric ape and saved only by the courage of ship's mate Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot). But Denham has one more trick up his sleeve when he captures Kong and takes the beast back to New York. You don't really think those chains will hold him, do you?

Virtually every monster movie ever made owes something to King Kong - even colossal modern hits like Jurassic Park, The Lost World and Godzilla (not to mention thousands of small scale homages such as The Land Unknown and Gorgo). It is arguably the most influential film of all-time. I genuinely envy people who were lucky enough to experience this film during its 1933 opening week - what must they have thought? Did they realize they were witnessing something utterly extraordinary? I could go on all day giving reasons why you should see it, but it would be pointless. It can all be summed up in one sentence: if you have even the slightest interest in movies SEE THIS FILM!

As a guy whose pushing 52, I'm proud to say that this movie has been a profound influence on my life and is largely instrumental into launching me into a career as an art director. I've seen this movie perhaps over 1,000 times. Before the advent of VHS, I would catch it anywhere in L.A. where there was a revival house. Saw it countless times before the "lost" footage was restored (which puts a competely different spin on the complex character of Kong). I have a rare tape recording of the original Steiner "prologue Music" lasting over ten minutes (dubbed for me by a collector friend) which I don't think has made it onto the excellent Turner/Rhino CD soundtrack. And still I see something new upon each screening. I first saw Kong in 1956 on the local "Million Dollar Movie" show, a weekly feature of KHJ TV-9 - an RKO-General station. I remember the scenes of Kong throwing the "wrong" woman to her death as still intact...as well as a few feet of film where a New York fire engine flips-over after going around the corner (I've never seen that bit since). I was in a film class being taught by Rudy Behlmer at Art Center in 1971 when he matter-of-factly screened the "lost" footage in class (he had gotten access to it). I've seen nitrate prints screened at the L.A. County Museum of Art, UCLA and MOMA. I have seen this film with Fay Wray in attendance. I don't think I've ever missed a screening anywhere locally to the best of my knowledge. What bothers me is that today's audiences may not be able to project themselves back into time and try to relive the thrilling film-going experience circa 1933. They cannot grasp or accept the dialogue or style of acting at face-value; many consider it corny...or over-the-top. Yet a comparison between Kong and say Jurassic Park III finds the latter's dialogue so stiltedly puerile and instantly forgettable that it cannot stand the test of time even in the present, let alone seventy years. In Kong, Bruce Cabot portrays a "natural" mug who plays his part beautifully as an uncouth mate aboard ship suddenly sharing his space with one of the prettiest women of all time (Fay Wray's looks are timeless, and she is still a "hottie" even by today's standards) . Is there any wonder that similarities between Cabot and Harrison Ford as "Indiana Jones" are not coincidental? If Cabot were alive today, he'd be the one earning millions. Robert Armstrong is perfect playing an impresario so full of energy he bursts at the seams. This is the way show people talked during the third decade of the Twentieth Century...full of what they used to call ballyhoo (check out Jimmy Cagney in "Footlight Parade made in the same year for the same kind of high-voltage enthusiasm). Frank Reicher is totally believable as the captain, lending an even greater amount of quasi-realism to the fable. Never discussed is fact that this movie is shot almost documentary-style...it has a mythical "preserved-in-amber" feel about it. It's as if what you are seeing is truly real...folklore-become-fact...and that the scenes unfolding actually happened once upon a time in 1933. Who cannot visit New York City today and NOT think of King Kong on the rampage close to 70 years ago? I urge anyone who has not seen "King Kong" on the big screen to do so. When you hear the any of the remarkable sound effects as you view the film, you will become a convert; for example, just listen to the all-too-real crunching of the Allosaurus' jawbone just before Kong ends its life (a death made all-the-more poignant by the way the carnivore is introduced to the audience-by innocently and realistically SCRATCHING ITS HEAD WITH ITS CLAW as it enters frame before the fight). Absolute Perfection in a movie made up of absolute perfections. I could yammer on and on. But I won't. All I can tell you is that for these and countless other reasons this film will always rate a 10-out-of-10. It is still the Greatest Adventure Movie Of All Time.

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.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY KING KONG! This month marks the 70th anniversary of the release of the classic 1933 movie King Kong. Produced by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, King Kong is a tragic tale of a giant ape that is taken from his jungle home and put on display in the big city of New York. He escapes while pursuing a girl he has become enamored with and dies a tragic death at the hands of a squadron of Biplanes. Who among us can forget the classic ending line `It was Beauty that killed the beast'. King Kong played to record numbers during its East Coast release in the first week in March 1933(It was released in April on the West Coast). In two theaters in New York the film grossed $89,931 smashing all records. Keep in mind this was during the depression! Many film makers have drawn inspiration from King Kong's tragic tale. Craftsman such as Godzilla director, Ishiro Honda , Ray Harryhausen,( who worked with King Kong effects artist Willis O'Brien on his film MIGHTY JOE YOUNG for which O'Brien won the very first special effects Oscar) and

Peter Jackson have claimed to be inspired by Kong's dynamic presence.

Willis O'Brien who created the incredible stop motion effects in King Kong tried to create interest in an idea he had been working on that had King Kong battling a creature like Frankenstein only larger. He hoped to make the film by using his stop-motion process to animate both Kong and the Frankenstein monster. He was unable to interest any of the U.S. Studios in his idea so he approached a Japanese studio, Toho, with his concept. The project fell through and Willis O'Brien passed away in 1962 his dream unfulfilled. Shortly after his death, Toho released King Kong vs. Godzilla which featured a story line almost identical to his King Kong vs. Frankenstein script except that the Frankenstein monster was replaced by Godzilla.

Little did Cooper and Shoedsack realize what an impact their film would have on the American culture. After the events of 9/11, the internet was bombarded by images of King Kong perched atop the twin towers defending them from the terrorists airplanes. Kong can be found in just about every New York souvenir shop on everything from pens to T -shirts. Todd McFarlane released his own more sinister version of King Kong in his Movie Maniacs line of action figures. Even now Peter Jackson is planning to remake this classic film. King Kong was voted as one of the top 100 Classic American films of all time by the American Film Institute (AFI) and TV Guide named King Kong atop the Empire State Building the Fourth Greatest Movie Moment.

Even 70 years later, King Kong continues to enthrall millions of new fans due to the extensive showings on television and video. King Kong has been shown on television more than almost any other film. Surprisingly, King Kong has never been released on DVD in the United States although a brand new DVD is planned for release in 2004 including never before seen footage and enhanced video and audio.

Merian C. Cooper said it best-"'Kong' was never intended to be anything but the best damned adventure film ever made, which it is; and that's all it is." Happy Birthday King Kong and thank you keeping the child in all of alive.

KING KONG, the mother of all monster movies, is truly a masterpiece of cinema. Sure, it's dated, shot in black and white and featuring a monster made of plasticine who's a lot less believable than the CGI creation in the Peter Jackson 2005 remake, and yet this 1933 original is by far the better film. Why? The reason is that it has everything you could want from cinema: a love story, plenty of adventure, horror, excitement and tragedy. Literally nothing is missed out here, and despite his best efforts Jackson doesn't even come close.

In my mind, KING KONG is the first of the blockbuster movies that later became a Hollywood mainstay. The story is truly larger than life and the whiff of the exotic runs through it from beginning to end. Even without Kong, it's a great film, with decent actors giving decent performances and bringing their characters to life. Fay Wray headlines, of course, in the process becoming the most famous scream queen of all time.

Kong is inevitably the main attraction and he's a delight. Willis O'Brien's stop-motion is well ahead of its time, and he fills his creation with real character and emotion - not bad when you're working with a lump of clay. The dinosaur fights are great fun, but the real brilliance comes during the city-wide chaos at the climax, which ended up inspiring a whole global genre of destructive monster-fuelled mayhem. And I'm not ashamed to say I still shed a tear during that ending. It's fair to say that both remakes are entirely redundant and pale in comparison to this masterful original.

After 76 years and 3 remakes this movie is still my favorite of the King Kong films. I enjoyed Peter Jackson's remake (not so much the 70's one), but this one has the advantage of being the original, plus having loads of charm contained within the brilliant special effects of Willis H. O'Brien. The plot is universally known, so to explain it here would simply be redundant. The pacing of the movie is tighter than Jackson's film as well, and the acting is of the appropriate nature for a film of this type. King Kong spawned a whole genre of imitators, some of which I enjoy better than Kong itself, however none of them can claim the classic status of this film. Highly recommended to any fan of adventure films or fantasy films.

This movie inspired thousands of people. There are hundreds of movie out there today, because of King Kong. They were easily 40 years ahead of their time making this movie. Cant say a bad thing about this movie. Nearly 90 years later, they're still making movies of Kong. No question, 10/10.

I'm really glad I saw this movie, I was stunned by every minute of it. From the incredible musical score, to the special effects, this was so well put together that no wonder it caused all this noise. The story wouldn't pass as a B movie today; the way Kong is treated, the presence of all the dinosaurs and Mesozoic animals and the depiction of the aborigines and the Chinese cook really show that this wasn't really trying to be accurate or even to pass a message (beauty killed the beast doesn't count), but just to be plainly an adventure movie, filled with thrills and awes from the effects. This is very hard to achieve today, because audiences aren't easily impressed anymore with effects, but surprisingly I was tense and amazed all of the time. Even when the ridiculous giant face of Kong appeared (the operated one, that bites entire people in close-ups), it didn't take away the mood. I found myself jumping from the chair from everything that happened, from deaths to battles between Kong and the other beasts. My only complain was from the depiction of some characters, and the apparent utter lack of remorse from imprisoning Kong, however this is totally understandable considering the time this movie was made. This is an amazing movie that deserves its status.

Rating: 7/10 (I round ratings down)

So much has been written about this movie, which has been analyzed more than all but a few films, it's difficult to come up with anything new to say about it but to say that it's magnificently made, and dated as it is in certain respects, it plays as well as anything from seventy years ago, and has a dream logic of its own, which, if one submits to it, still works its charms.

A few points:

i.) There are no wholly sympathetic characters in the movie. While some people are more likable than others, there's really no one to identify with. Fantastic as the subject matter is, it's filmed almost like a documentary about an adventurer who captures a giant ape, takes it to New York, where it escapes, wreaks havoc in the city, takes down the el as if it were toy, and stomps on a lot of innocent people.

ii.) I've never heard more screaming in a movie than in this one. Men, women, children, natives, sailors, white people, dark people, you name it, they scream, often and loudly. Fay Wray is the chief screamer here, but there are plenty of others, such as the man chased up a tree by a dinosaur, and the sailors shaken off the log by Kong, as they fall to a horrifying death in the ravine. When Kong attacks the village there's screaming galore, then more screaming in old Manhattan, when the big guy breaks out of the theater. For his part, Kong does not scream. He roars. The great ape is angry, not terrified, while the people are only afraid.

iii.) As one of the chief characters is a documentary film-maker, it's impossible (for me anyway) to avoid making associations between what is going on in the film and the film-making process itself, as I wonder to what extent this entered into the minds of them men who made the movie, Merian Cooper and Ernest Shoedsack. To put it another way, film-maker Carl Denham wants to film the beast to show movie audiences something weird and exotic, so as to tickle their fancy. What he finds is so fantastic that he scraps the idea of making a movie and brings the creature back to civilization and puts it on display. But the beast has fallen in love with a woman, and when he thinks press photographers are hurting her, breaks free from his chains and goes on a rampage through Manhattan. Real life, which was supposed to make a "swell movie", proved so astonishing that it had to be brought back alive, to be shown to people as something that actually exists (i.e. not a thing made up by movie men), but in the process something went wrong, and the great creature went berserk. King Kong is in other words about a movie that didn't get made because life interfered, and proved more fantastic than the film that was abandoned. As such one might call it a cautionary tale (movie men, stick to your job). Or is it about the movies themselves? How, in their attempt to bottle life and sell it back to moviegoers as entertainment, like Kong, they have a way of breaking free and becoming real all over again.

The famous king Kong movie starts here in the 1930's. There have been numerous recreations however, none can compare to the original. From the unbeatable sound track that ties to movie together to the dramatic acting from each individual character this movie is a classic. The very idea of a horror-type movie was just emerging during this time period. This movie had a bit of every genre that would allow all different types of movie-goers to enjoy. Director Merian Cooper definitely had a wonderful vision when coming up with the scenes for this movie. The different dynamics for each part of the movie, whether it be the actors/actresses, the sounds, the camera angles, the costumes, even the amazing (for it's time) special effects, all make this movie an unforgettable one. Although most people would prefer the newer versions of this timeless movie, watching the original is well worth it.

I am about commit heresy. Whenever this movie shows up on television, it is given a 4-star rating, and the commentator just gushes about how great it is.

I beg to differ. The truly great works of literature, stage, and screen have a timeless quality. For example, the 1968 movie version of "Romeo and Juliet" was done with Shakespeare's dialog and period costumes. Yet the teenagers of that time (including me) flocked to the theaters. They could STILL identify with the story and characters.

"King Kong" (1933) may have been considered a great film at its original release, but it has not held its ground over time. The gestures, the dialog, the direction and the acting look ridiculous today's standards. I admit that I was frequently convulsed with laughter, and so were my fellow movie patrons. The animation was superb. Too bad not much else about this movie was.