The original. The best.
Added 11/5/2009
The original King Kong (1933) is very impressive considering it came out in 1933. This is a black and white movie with very impressive special effects. It stars Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot, and scream queen Fay Wray as Kong's female obsession. This movie has it all - a giant ape, a good looking damsel in distress, a lost isle with dinosaurs and native inhabitants, and New York City.
I like the 1976 remake, but nothing beats the original. Haven't seen the 2005 Peter Jackson remake. Some of the things I noticed about the 1933 movie is that Tyrannosaurus Rex walks completely upright. This is the old school way of thinking. In recent decades it has been suggested that T Rex probably walked hunched over, with its back pretty much parallel to the ground. This shows how old this movie is, but at the same time it's fascinating to see this. At times Kong appears two dimensional, but this is completely acceptable because this was 1933 technology. Kong fights and kills several dinosaurs, including T Rex, a raptor, and a serpent-like creature. The battle between Kong and T Rex is epic and goes on for quite some time. You'll also see a Stegosaurus, although Kong does not battle it. When Kong is brought to New York City, he escapes captivity and goes on a rampage. The finale to the movie where Kong climbs to the top of the Empire State Building and battles biplanes that are shooting at him is classic.
Compared to Jessica Lange in the 1976 version, Fay Wray is pretty much terrified of Kong for the whole movie, whereas Jessica Lange warmed up to him quite a bit.
Special features of this DVD include audio commentary by Ray Harryhausen and Ken Ralston (visual effects) and interpolated interview excerpts of producer and director Merian C. Cooper and Fay Wray. This movie has been restored and digitally mastered for a clear picture and sound.
If you want to watch a classic monster/horror movie that is still well respected three quarters of a century after its release, then see the original King Kong. I first saw it on TV when I was probably five years old and I still think its great. So will you.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
"Why'd you think I brought all those gas bombs?"
Added 10/7/2009
To be perfectly honest, I always have mixed reactions about all three King Kong films: the original 1933 version, the 1976 remake, and the 2005 remake. I love 2005's special effects and the perfected image of the giant ape, but having it set in '33 again didn't make it all very special. I found Grodin's performance in 1976 very over-the-top, but the chemistry between girl and ape really improved. Now with 1933, it's also a mixed bag. Yes, it's am absolute classic and it brought an entire galaxy of upcoming monster movies. Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, and Bruce Cabot gave terrific performances. The music is authentically primitive. The special effects are still spectacular and revolutionary, even if they do look very outdated in our modern time. But why did I give this movie four stars instead of five? Well, it's because, since it was still a very early time, King Kong and Ann Darrow are both very . . . two-dimensional. Here, Kong is just a monstrous ape, and we see him only as a plain antagonist. At least 1976 and 2005 gave him a slightly better personality: he's a beast who finds himself someone that he has fully cherished for the first time. Ann Darrow does nothing but scream whenever she's with Kong, and since it was way back in 1933, she's really a typical damsel in distress, and she finds nothing fascinating about Kong.
So yes, I have mixed feelings for all three Kong films. I do like them all for very specific reasons, but I don't consider any of them as a favorite of mine.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
One `monster' of a classic...
Added 9/24/2009
I guaranty you that when `King Kong' was released way back in 1933 that no one, and I mean NO ONE, even entertained the notion that it would turn into a classic to redefine classics. Sure, they probably thought it would rake in the big money and that the special effects (which are quite unbelievable even today) would be the start of something wonderful, but to become a cinematic staple; I highly doubt that idea was even considered. But, regardless of their initial thoughts, `King Kong' has become as legendary as the title character, and for good reason.
Now, I will let you know this right off the bat; I have seen both this film and Peter Jackson's 2005 remake and I firmly believe that Jackson's film is superior. Know that, because, while I am going to praise this '33 classic I am also going to try and point out the reasons why Jackson's is the better film.
Please, devoted fans, don't click the `unhelpful' button just yet.
Most everyone knows the premise of `King Kong', but here is a quick rundown. Carl Denham is a movie director who wants to give the public something they've never seen, and so he gets a large crew to travel to a distant island no white man has ever seen (well, except the one that gave him the map) to film a moving picture with the mythical beast known as Kong. When they arrive his leading starlet, Ann Darrow, is taken hostage by the natives and offered to Kong, who falls in love with her.
What this '33 version does extremely well is take the standard `movie monster' formula and perfect it, with state of the art effects that are still mind blowing today. Don't get me wrong, there is no way that these effects can technically hold a candle to those of today, but they are still impressive. I couldn't believe that these came out of 1933, they are truly remarkable. Most of the older films suffered from the lack of reality in their special effects, but nothing is taken away from this film at all. The action sequences are all superb, and there are a lot of them; each one as exciting as the last and completely engrossing. The acting is also quite good for a film of this nature. One has to remember that you have to understand the genre before you can critique a film. Monster movies are made much differently than dramas or comedies or epics and so you have to judge accordingly. For a monster film, the acting is spot on. Fay Wray is totally believable as the wide eyed damsel in distress and Robert Armstrong is fabulous as the greedy in-over-his-head director; and macho man Bruce Cabot makes good use of his character to create a hunky (and even realistic) hero.
So, for a monster film this one is top, top notch.
But, and here is that dreaded `but', this is just that; a monster film. Now, I admit to having seen Jackson's film first (how did THAT happen?) and so I was expecting something else from this version, but regardless of what I was expecting or what I saw first I feel my opinion would still be the same. What is so glorious about Jackson's reinterpretation is that he takes the genre and adds so much warmth and depth. Devoted fans of the original have attacked the '05 film rabidly, but I feel that is unfair.
IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENJOY BOTH FILMS PEOPLE!
Yes, Jackson's film is three hours long but what he does with those three hours is phenomenal. I don't understand the complaints about the beginning, for Jackson actually establishes these characters as real people and makes us like or dislike them depending on their depictions. We get to know who they are, which helps us to follow their storylines later in the film; and his reinterpretations of Skull Island are impeccable (those graphics are TO DIE FOR), and the pacing is flawless, that final Empire State Building scene is flawless (and one of the best scenes in cinema this decade) and the fact that he actually gets a deep rooted emotional response from the audience based on the love blossoming from a woman and an oversized monkey is just remarkable.
So, I don't want to review Jackson's film (I'll do that later) but I just wanted to point out that they are two separate films. In the 30's you just didn't make relatable monster films. The point for `King Kong' was not to reach out emotions but to excite and thrill us, and it did just that, but as Jackson (and many other modern filmmakers) has proven, today you don't have to make a conventional anything anymore. It is possible to blur the lines between genres and offer us something that excites all of our senses, giving us something funny, scary, moving and all around engaging without slacking in your delivery.
Yes, the original `King Kong' is a classic, and deservedly so; but Jackson's `Kong' is a much more complete `film' in every sense of the word.
And `YAY ME' on review #1,000!!!
3 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
Incredibly Dated? Sure, But That's Part Of IT's Charm
Added 6/30/2009
King Kong was groundbreaking on all counts, but one would probably realize that this movie may not be a movie that has held up. I digress on that one. The special effects may be incredibly dated, but unlike some bad effects, the obviously slow and stop motion look gives it an incredible charm. Besides, I have always loved stop motion (really made famous by The Lost World, which by the way is another film worth watching), so King Kong actually benefits from stop motion.
Another thing that makes it great to watch is the plot actually holds up. Like Gary F Taylor said (on a different version of King Kong), it's got a good story to see why this movie is entertaining. Sure, it's a rip-off of the corny and boring beauty and the beast fable, but that's not a real big deal. It's still great to see a Monkey (portayed as a monster) to actually show a bit of compassion (come on, I know that word and I have it, even if it doesn't seem like it). And there's plenty of action scenes, as watching a stop motion dinosaur attack a crew going down the will never lose it's charms. Never.
Still, King Kong is not without it's weak points. The stop motion isn't a big deal, it's just some of the scenes that are utterly mundane and boring. When the monstrous ape isn't even on screen, the scenes tend to drag a bit, and, such as the beginning or whenever they are on the ship, the movie turns into a borefest. The wooden dialogue (not in part of the actors, the script) are about as interesting as watching paint dry. Sure, it's supposed to move the story, but at that time, I was hurrying up the story. Thankfully, there aren't a whole lot of this, but it's still boring as _____.
I'll admit I admire the film more than I enjoy it (to think this kind of movie was made in the Great Depression!), and my high rating comes from that (which kind of makes it obsolete for it to climb anywhere in a personal list of my favorites). King Kong is still an important film, and still is quite entertaining. I was intially skeptical about watching this, considering it was mostly for historical facts and nothing else beyond that, but it's not that. Besides, I was actually quite surprised how much I enjoyed watching King Kong come to life. Certainly a lot better than watching him come alilve in CGI, I think (not to knock Peter Jackson, but still).
*B+
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
THE GREATEST GIANT MONSTER FILM OF ALL TIME!
Added 6/3/2009
I am a huge fan of stop motion effects and what better example of this process than King Kong! Harryhausen would take over as king of Stop Motion, but without Kong, there would be no Harryhausen!
This is one of my favorite movies of all time and the DVD is nothing short of spectacular! Not being old enough to have seen this iconic film in a theater, I was finally able to watch it in my home theater on a 10 foot screen! As the movie began I was amazed how clear the print was and I noticed little things I had never seen before. This is pretty amazing considering I've seen this film over 100 times. The sound is mono, but it's very clear and would be hard to really improve on this. The film holds up amazingly well and is the definitive giant monster movie!
King Kong is the ultimate adventure film and I doubt it will ever be surpassed. One of the most intriguing things about this film is that Kong is a rampaging monster and never steps out of character, but in the end when he's being attacked on top the Empire State building, you can't help but feel sorry for him! Never has an eighteen inch puppet ever evoked so much sympathy! It truly is a masterpiece and I can't even imagine never seeing this film!?
The second disc in loaded with wonderful bonus features including two long and interesting documentaries. I bought the box set which includes the original Mighty Joe Young and Son of Kong on separate discs, which are sold separately for those who only want certain films in this set.
All three films are great examples of Stop Motion, so it's an essential set for fans of the genre. The set includes the same 2 disc special edition of King Kong and two other classic stop motion films! All the films have been re-mastered and look better than ever!
I know that many were disappointed that the original "spider" sequence was not included on the Kong set, but the footage has yet to be unearthed! They did the next best thing and it is interesting to see the re-constructed scene.
I had reviewed this film several years ago, but somehow it disappeared!?
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
king kongOne of all time great films
Added 9/4/2009
One of the all time great films and it is a terrific package with all the extras and at a great price. Love it......
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
King Kong (1933)
Added 6/20/2007
Warner Home Entertainment has surpassed itself with this painstaking restoration of the 1933 adventure/horror classic. The movie has not looked this good in my lifetime, which only reinforces how well "Kong" stands up as entertainment after over seventy years. The groundbreaking stop-motion effects work of Willis O'Brien are on full display, and while the acting style is decidedly pre-Method, the story enthralls, and the picture moves briskly along to that immortal climax atop the Empire State Building. An early sound masterpiece from directors Merian C. Cooper (who also helped originate the story) and Ernest B. Schoedsack. This still outshines both re-makes.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST...
Added 12/21/2006
As a young child in the nineteen fifties, I used to watch this film whenever it appeared on TV on "Million Dollar Movie". I loved it then. I love it now. Time has not diminished the capacity of this film to mesmerize and hold the viewer in its thrall.
The story line is basic. Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), a filmmaker and entrepreneur, leads an expedition to Skull Island where he discovers its deep, dark secret. It is a land where time has stood still, and prehistoric monsters still hold sway over the island and its inhabitants. There, the natives pay homage to the one whom they revere as "Kong", and who is, indeed, king of the island.
Denham, together with his beautiful, budding starlet, Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), as well as with the crew of the ship that brought him to Skull Island, investigates the strange ritual being performed on the island by its native population. Before she knows it, Ann finds herself captured by the natives. She is to become the bride of the mysterious "Kong".
When Ann discovers who the mysterious "Kong" is, she starts screaming and doesn't stop. The ship's first mate, Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot), who happens to be in love with Ann, manages to rescue her from the clutches of "Kong". Notwithstanding the fact that "Kong" has taken a shine to her, Ann is relieved to have been rescued by the man whom she loves.
Denham then arranges to capture the creature, whom he calls "King Kong" and takes him back to New York with them on the ship that brought them to Skull Island. There, King Kong makes his debut, one that movie lovers will long remember.
The special effects of this film were superlative for its time and still pass muster today. The relationship between the beauty and the beast still makes the viewer sit up and take notice. This is an attention grabbing film that is as exciting today, as when it was first released over seventy years ago. It is a truly timeless, cinema classic. Bravo!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
