King Kong (1933)

Approval Rate: 72%

72%Approval ratio

Reviews 16

Sort by:
  • by


    Mon Aug 09 2010

    Incredible! Thats all i can say about this movie. I bet it was mind blowing back in 1933.

  • by


    Thu Aug 23 2007

    It is truly amazing they could make such a movie in 1933.  Talkies were still brand new!  There weren't any big name players in this movie except possibly Fay Wray and the whole cast does a fine job. My nephews absolutely loved this movie when they were little and wanted to watch it everytime they came to visit.

  • by


    Fri Mar 02 2007

    Today is March 2, and on this date in history, in 1933, King Kong premiered.  Talk about a film that his had an impact, this is it.  Its offspring are almost legion, and the special effects weren't that bad for 1933.

  • by


    Fri Jan 20 2006

    Still the King of Kongs and about fifty bazillion times better than the one that is currently playing at a theater near you. Jackson's film is certainly a lot better than the piece of crap that came out in the late seventies but transparent computerized special effects and a hundred extra minutes of story add nothing to this one-of-a-kind spectacular film. Don't let the acting performances or the thirties style dialogue sway your opinion, (they actually add greatly to the allure of the original) the special effects, featuring stop-action footage, are vastly superior than the souless art that we now let machines create for us. Oh yeah, and Faye Wray looked ten times better than the chick in the new flick.

  • by


    Mon Jan 31 2005

    Classic movie and scary when I was young, well made for the era......

  • by


    Mon Sep 13 2004

    Baby, you'll have the tallest, darkest leading man in Hollywood! -- Meriam C. Cooper to Fay Wray....The new Peter Jackson remake will no doubt be expensive and impressive and spectacular, and all that stuff-- but it won't be half as good or as scary. Some films-- like Kong and Casablanca-- simply should not be remade, since there is a kind of perfection about the originals.

  • by


    Thu Apr 08 2004

    Released in 1933, the original King Kong is an epic and magical examination of the unknown mysteries of nature and what happens when these forces are unleashed in our closed, manmade environment. For those living under a rock somewhere, the story involves director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) looking to shoot a picture on Skull Island with his handpicked heroine Ann Darrow (Fay Wray). Along for muscle is Jack Driscoll (Bruce Cabot). After the production crew land on the island, the natives capture Darrow as an offering to the giant ape King Kong. Instead of devouring her, Kong takes her to his lair; however, the crew rescue her after fighting dinosaurs and other hazards on the island. They also capture Kong, and Denham decides to scrap the picture in favor of showing the giant ape as a freak show in New York City. Of course Kong escapes to find Darrow until things are decided on top of the Empire State Building. Though this film was directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. S... Read more

  • by


    Mon Jun 23 2003

    There's a lot going on in this movie with the whole fascination with Africa. The special effects were great - they still capture my attention. Kong never scared me, but he did touch me when he was killed. The movie seemed to be speaking to racism, since the 20s & 30s had a lot of discussion about the black influence upon American society, and jazz had everyone fascinated. I think that subtext plays a big part in why the movie has such impact. Tell me that doesn't pop in your mind when you see the scenes between Kong and Faye Wray.

  • by


    Fri May 30 2003

    Technically advanced film for its time. Willis O'Brien really conveyed a personality on The Big Ape, much better job than the bogus, sterile special effects of these days. A perverse love story, a tale of sexual frustration, a metaphor for the Black experience in America. Of course, it's dated and creaky, but it's also 70 years old. One of the typically idiotic posters slighted this film because it's in black and white. Well, color processes hadn't been developed for features in 1933, and b/w does have a visual vocabulary, an aesthetic of its own that doesn't necessarily make it inferior to color. Shows you how lacking in imagination most people are these days, spoiled rotten by gimmicks and novelty.

  • by


    Fri May 24 2002

    "King Kong" is the film from which the action/adventure epic was born. From it's dazzling special effects, (for there time, although they do hold up quite well today) to the ambitious-ness of it's story, "Kong" was (and is) entertainment at its best, particularly in a time when the world was in dire need of it. DEFINATELY one of my all-time favorites!

  • by


    Tue Mar 12 2002

    This movie has stood the test of time because it is fascinating. Though the special effects seem outdated, notice how they hold our attention. In some ways the special effects are still stunning. A remake was done in the 70s and it flopped. Why? Because it just wasn't the same. Scenes in the original, such as Kong reaching into the window to grab the lady out of her room are.... unrealistic? More like unforgettable. This is just a great movie!

  • by


    Thu May 17 2001

    When I was an (immature!) teenager the three things which particularly attracted me to this film were : 1) How gorgeous Fay Wray looked in the palm of the ape! 2) How hilarious was the huge close-up of King Kong's face and 3) a morbid fascination with the fate of the unfortunate villagers when Kong broke into their settlement. With the benefit of a few more years of experience I find my feelings have remained - er - exactly the same! A hugely enjoyable and strangely moving film.

  • by


    Wed May 09 2001

    Excellent adventure story! This is the film that started it all for giant monster movies. Very few of it's predecessors have surpassed it (Godzilla, in it's original form is probably the only movie). O'Brien & Cooper were masterminds!

  • by


    Thu Apr 05 2001

    King Kong can be good if you appreciate the hard work that went into making it, even though they kind of failed at doing it. It was visually badly made, and there's not much of a script to be found, but it's at least watchable.

  • by


    Wed Mar 21 2001

    The first mith coming directly from the films without a literature origin and in its first version it was the most human carachter in an animation protagonist.

  • by


    Mon Oct 23 2000

    I gave King Kong a 4 because although it's a classic, it's still in black and white.