King Kong (1933)
10/10
A masterpiece
21 March 2014
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.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed