King Kong (1933) Reviews
- Starring:
- Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, (more)
- Director(s):
- Ernest B. Schoedsack, Merian C. Cooper, (more
- Theatrical MPAA Rating:
- NR
- Category:
- Action / Adventure
Member Rating
My RatingAverage Ratings
Member Reviews
- 1
- |
- 2
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful I loved this movie. The special efects are though fake throughout the whole movie. The new one is just way way to long. But this one had a fair time of 83 minuits. If I were to chose wich one I ... Read More I loved this movie. The special efects are though fake throughout the whole movie. The new one is just way way to long. But this one had a fair time of 83 minuits. If I were to chose wich one I like best, I would chose the 1933 movie. It's really worth the rent. Close this Review WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL? Yes | No | ||
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful Peter Jackson's remake is great, but this one is the true classic. This movie may not have the nice special effects of modern movies, but it has stood the test of time like only a handful of movies ... Read More Peter Jackson's remake is great, but this one is the true classic. This movie may not have the nice special effects of modern movies, but it has stood the test of time like only a handful of movies ever have been able too. This is validated by the fact that there have been so many remakes, spin-offs, and knock-offs of King Kong. Close this Review WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL? Yes | No | ||
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful This movie is tops for character development, plot, and special effects. Fay Wray is gorgeous!!! This film was light years ahead of its time when it was filmed. Peter Jackson's attempt comes ... Read More This movie is tops for character development, plot, and special effects. Fay Wray is gorgeous!!! This film was light years ahead of its time when it was filmed. Peter Jackson's attempt comes closer to the original than the others, but there isn't anything like Fay and the original King Kong (and probably will never be) Close this Review WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL? Yes | No | ||
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful If ever a movie deserved (and could stand up to) a shot-for-shot remake, this is the one. Don't get me wrong, I loved the 2005 version as much as the next guy, but I was still hoping for this movie ... Read More If ever a movie deserved (and could stand up to) a shot-for-shot remake, this is the one. Don't get me wrong, I loved the 2005 version as much as the next guy, but I was still hoping for this movie shot in a contemporary way.
Who knows, maybe PJ will re-cut it and include a "short version" on the special edition DVD. Close this Review WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL? Yes | No | ||
0 out of 0 people found this review helpful I don't care what the diehard fans think of me, but this is not the best movie in the world. True, the special effects were innovative and the premise is intriguing, but that's as far as it goes for ... Read More I don't care what the diehard fans think of me, but this is not the best movie in the world. True, the special effects were innovative and the premise is intriguing, but that's as far as it goes for me. The acting by the live performers was dull and sounded like they were reading a dictionary (when they actually had lines are were not screaming through half the movie), and the plot was little more than one-dimensional. Peter Jackson's remake remedied both these issues, although both films suffer from action sequences that are much longer than they need to be. I would recommend the new version over the old, even though I may be hunted down for giving a mediocre review. Close this Review WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL? Yes | No | ||
0 out of 0 people found this review helpful The main reason this movie has such a high rating is the quality of the movie for its time. The plot itself is ok but the movie has awesome timeless lines despite Fay Wray's incessant screaming. ... Read More The main reason this movie has such a high rating is the quality of the movie for its time. The plot itself is ok but the movie has awesome timeless lines despite Fay Wray's incessant screaming. Yet, the quality is off the charts. For Kong to move the way he did! And the fact that he actually had facial expressions just blows you away. Of course, to see him smiling as he eats people is either funny or horrific depending on your point of view. For me, this movie is one that would get better with age because what was all action and drama back in 1933 also now has some comedy connotations with the man eating brontosaurus and other little things like that. Finally, what really makes this movie deserve four stars is that at least with the action, it is almost all about Kong! Close this Review WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL? Yes | No | ||
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful why is the poor beast always dying for the beauty. Why can't the poor beast be left alone. Why did king Kong have to die because the beautiful woman was always the one the huge ape had to struggle ... Read More why is the poor beast always dying for the beauty. Why can't the poor beast be left alone. Why did king Kong have to die because the beautiful woman was always the one the huge ape had to struggle to obtain and then finally got her and had to die for her survival. Why couldn't the Ape be tranquilized and sent by big machinery back to his jungle and then the woman could of been sent free. This movie only shows that the "beautiful" reality object isn't even worth obtaining because after you obtain it you die over idiosity, but that "society" expects you to do just that in life's so called "reality". Darned if you do, and darned if you don't sort of speak. Close this Review WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL? Yes | No | ||
- 1
- |
- 2
Other Ways to Watch*
* Not all titles are available for download to rent or buy.
