It was 80 years ago. Of course, no CGI, they used stop-motion. But,the plot is pretty good..the story is same with King Kong (2005). So according the movie, King Kong is from Nias , Indonesia. But native Nias in this film dressed like Asmat of Papua. Because it was made in 1933, so this cultural incorrectness is forgivable. No Google.com or Wikipedia at that time.
jackson butchered this movie in his remake. like most people my age, i saw the remake first. now, watching the original, i can see how it went downhill. the kong in the remake doesnt have the character of the original, and the entire remake is based around action scenes and the people fighting against the monsters. one thing the remake did get right is all the scenes with the natives. think about it, if you were black, and some white guys came to your island uninvited and started filming you and insulting your god, you wouldnt want to talk, you would want to fight. in the original, why dont we see the sailors fighting the natives. it would have been much more interesting than the longwinded part where the natives try to negotiate swapping women.
This film like most ever made has its flaws, but its brilliant, i shed a tear at the end. It was absolutely groundbreaking for its time and it touched on a taboo subject. Some complain that the island scene was too long, but that was the main act of the film, it was what the punters went to see, it was the place that they could get away for an hour or so. We may have all seen jurassic park, but they hadn't. You cannot look at old films with todays critical eye, Its like taking a model t ford and saying that it doesn't handle very well and gets terrible milage, its just not the same thing. Appreciate it for what it is. (having finally seen this i can see what peter jackson was trying to achieve, but this is better than jacksons version!)
1933's King Kong is a revelation. I wasn't expecting to see claymation so well integrated into live action. I guess it's mostly done through rear projection, but still, the level of planning and innovation is just spectacular. The effects are frankly better than a lot of films made more than 50 years later, and I sometimes wonder how they were even achieved. The animation is expressive and detailed, and the film is surprisingly violent and even sexy from what I imagined of the era (perhaps it's the reinstatement of the "censored scenes". A true classic.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 22
george4mon
kunggi: i agree with you it was alright definitely good for its time! but nothing compared to the 2005 remake!!tommy_leazaq
It wasnt aeroplanes.. It was beauty killed the beast..!! One of the best dialouges ever... :-)EnggarB
It was 80 years ago. Of course, no CGI, they used stop-motion. But,the plot is pretty good..the story is same with King Kong (2005). So according the movie, King Kong is from Nias , Indonesia. But native Nias in this film dressed like Asmat of Papua. Because it was made in 1933, so this cultural incorrectness is forgivable. No Google.com or Wikipedia at that time.Deus
overrated fulish storyWoliver
Da beauty killed the beast, biatch!mittens
jackson butchered this movie in his remake. like most people my age, i saw the remake first. now, watching the original, i can see how it went downhill. the kong in the remake doesnt have the character of the original, and the entire remake is based around action scenes and the people fighting against the monsters. one thing the remake did get right is all the scenes with the natives. think about it, if you were black, and some white guys came to your island uninvited and started filming you and insulting your god, you wouldnt want to talk, you would want to fight. in the original, why dont we see the sailors fighting the natives. it would have been much more interesting than the longwinded part where the natives try to negotiate swapping women.Scratch47
Amazing effects, short and sharp, great fun. But I actually prefer Jacksons' more melodramatic, bloated, glorious remake. :Dtylerdurden
I agree. Great speciall effects for its time. But also subpar acting and screenplayonedarkdog
This film like most ever made has its flaws, but its brilliant, i shed a tear at the end. It was absolutely groundbreaking for its time and it touched on a taboo subject. Some complain that the island scene was too long, but that was the main act of the film, it was what the punters went to see, it was the place that they could get away for an hour or so. We may have all seen jurassic park, but they hadn't. You cannot look at old films with todays critical eye, Its like taking a model t ford and saying that it doesn't handle very well and gets terrible milage, its just not the same thing. Appreciate it for what it is. (having finally seen this i can see what peter jackson was trying to achieve, but this is better than jacksons version!)sushantv10
liked it more than i expected.......chunkylefunga
Great film, much better than the Peter Jackson remake.Dieguito
Thousand times better than the new one.George Bailey
Fantastic effects! Was totally blown away! 10/10KatForsyth
I liked it more than Peter Jackson's show-off one with no heart and boring, overlong action sequences!Siskoid
1933's King Kong is a revelation. I wasn't expecting to see claymation so well integrated into live action. I guess it's mostly done through rear projection, but still, the level of planning and innovation is just spectacular. The effects are frankly better than a lot of films made more than 50 years later, and I sometimes wonder how they were even achieved. The animation is expressive and detailed, and the film is surprisingly violent and even sexy from what I imagined of the era (perhaps it's the reinstatement of the "censored scenes". A true classic.Showing items 1 – 15 of 22