King Kong (1933)
Who wouldn't love that face? That big hairy creature made its debut to a screaming audience in 1933. It was groundbreaking in special effects and is as legendary as its primate lead.
What Rocked
I was really impressed with this film. Going in I expected to be laughing my ass off at the cheesy acting and cheesier special effects. I'll admit, every close up of Kong's face made me chuckle, but the fight scenes were not half bad. And they were long fight scenes! That is something I really don't understand in big action flicks today-- they spend all this money on CGI and explosions so that the audience can enjoy 4 seconds of hardcore monster v. monster battle. But the '33 audience got to see Kong wrestle T-rex, Little Foot, and a flippin' pterodactyl--not to mention his assault on the unsuspecting train car-- for a good portion of the movie.
Kong may have looked like a silly ape, but they took great care to make him natural. His behaviors were very gorilla-like. And watch the scene on the Empire State Building at the end carefully and you can see even see his hair being blown by the wind. It showed great attention to detail.
I thought the pace of the film was very good; it jumped right into the action. And I really loved Fay Wray. She was the perfect blend of bravery and sweetness and played the damsel in the distress exquisitely. If only they didn't make her scream quite so often...
What Blew
I won't waste my time criticizing the overture, even though for a modern audience it is just torture (thank God for fast forwarding). Nor will I spend too much time talking about the incredible amount of sexism in the beginning of the film-- "all women are a nuisance." The girl was a sweet, penny-less dear who didn't ask for anything and they still all gave her a hard time. Such crap. And her romance...love the development on that one. Anyone who complains about Edward and Bella falling in love too fast need to watch this couple. One second he hates all women the next he's laying down his best lines on her-- "Uh...yeah...well...I guess I love you." Swear to God that is near verbatim. I think the monkey did a better job wooing her.
My GOD were the deaths in this thing brutal! It was so unexpected. IMDB puts the body count at 40, and they did not go easy. Granted it is nothing compared to the slasher films of today, but still watching 10 men fall into a deep crevasse and hit the bottom--ouch. Apparently I was spared the worst of it though, as a violent scene was cut after the Production Code was enforced in 1934 :
Yeah, I think the film was good giant-spider-free.
What Others Thought
What Else You Should Know
There have been multiple attempts at Kong films. In 1976 there was a remake starring Jeff Bridges and introducing Jessica Lange. Because of time constraints I decided to skip this one and jump right into Peter Jackson's version. But the '76 one looks decent. The trailer shows they changed the story a bit and Kong looks...well a little better than the first one...but I can't wait to see what Jackson was able to do in his film.
I was really impressed with this film. Going in I expected to be laughing my ass off at the cheesy acting and cheesier special effects. I'll admit, every close up of Kong's face made me chuckle, but the fight scenes were not half bad. And they were long fight scenes! That is something I really don't understand in big action flicks today-- they spend all this money on CGI and explosions so that the audience can enjoy 4 seconds of hardcore monster v. monster battle. But the '33 audience got to see Kong wrestle T-rex, Little Foot, and a flippin' pterodactyl--not to mention his assault on the unsuspecting train car-- for a good portion of the movie.
Kong may have looked like a silly ape, but they took great care to make him natural. His behaviors were very gorilla-like. And watch the scene on the Empire State Building at the end carefully and you can see even see his hair being blown by the wind. It showed great attention to detail.
I thought the pace of the film was very good; it jumped right into the action. And I really loved Fay Wray. She was the perfect blend of bravery and sweetness and played the damsel in the distress exquisitely. If only they didn't make her scream quite so often...
What Blew
I won't waste my time criticizing the overture, even though for a modern audience it is just torture (thank God for fast forwarding). Nor will I spend too much time talking about the incredible amount of sexism in the beginning of the film-- "all women are a nuisance." The girl was a sweet, penny-less dear who didn't ask for anything and they still all gave her a hard time. Such crap. And her romance...love the development on that one. Anyone who complains about Edward and Bella falling in love too fast need to watch this couple. One second he hates all women the next he's laying down his best lines on her-- "Uh...yeah...well...I guess I love you." Swear to God that is near verbatim. I think the monkey did a better job wooing her.
My GOD were the deaths in this thing brutal! It was so unexpected. IMDB puts the body count at 40, and they did not go easy. Granted it is nothing compared to the slasher films of today, but still watching 10 men fall into a deep crevasse and hit the bottom--ouch. Apparently I was spared the worst of it though, as a violent scene was cut after the Production Code was enforced in 1934 :
"It was a graphic scene following Kong shaking four sailors off the log bridge, causing them to fall into a ravine where they were eaten alive by giant spiders. At the preview screening, audience members screamed and either left the theatre or talked about the grisly sequence throughout the subsequent scenes, disrupting the film. Said the film's producer, Meriam C. Cooper, 'It stopped the picture cold, so the next day back at the studio, I took it out myself.'"
Yeah, I think the film was good giant-spider-free.
What Others Thought
- How Kong didn't win any Oscars...I don't know. But it has won a couple other lesser awards.
- Holy crap. I didn't know RottenTomatoes gave out 100% ratings. They must have really loved it: "King Kong explores the soul of a monster -- making audiences scream and cry throughout the film -- in large part due to Kong's breakthrough special effects." Well I didn't cry, but I do respect those special effects.
- Newsweek named it the 47th greatest movie all time.
- King of Critics (Ebert) conveyed of Kong: "Even allowing for its slow start, wooden acting and wall-to-wall screaming, there is something ageless and primeval about King Kong that still somehow works." He didn't agree with my belief that the film had good pace, but didn't completely bash it.
- Though James Berardinelli feels that today's technology dwarfs the original, he still has plenty of praise: "Still, in watching these old black-and-white images which were assembled with craftsmanship and care long before computers made this stuff easy, it's impossible not to feel some sense of awe at what was accomplished those many years ago. In many ways, Kong is still king." Amen to that.
What Else You Should Know
There have been multiple attempts at Kong films. In 1976 there was a remake starring Jeff Bridges and introducing Jessica Lange. Because of time constraints I decided to skip this one and jump right into Peter Jackson's version. But the '76 one looks decent. The trailer shows they changed the story a bit and Kong looks...well a little better than the first one...but I can't wait to see what Jackson was able to do in his film.
No comments:
Post a Comment