by jellydonut25 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:38 am
With iconic movies, it can be very difficult to find new things to say, especially if the movie is over 80 years old, and invented a genre, but it sometimes still bears repeating how incredible the movie is, and King Kong is no exception. The variety of techniques used to bring Kong to life, and the craftsmanship of the film are unparalleled, especially in their time, and the film's excellent pacing and likable (even if a bit one-dimensional) characters keep things moving along enough even for modern viewers.
I'd bet this has been said before, but in an effort to say something "new," I'll mention that the early dialogue between Denham, Englehorn, and Driscoll, about bringing a woman along on the voyage, while definitely laced with standard 1930s-era sexism, still rings true in a way today. Denham laments that his films, though quality efforts (as stated by pretty much everyone in the movie), don't make enough money because there's no love story and no pretty face to sell tickets, and he's being squeezed by studios and audiences to include a good looking woman. This is a practice that STILL happens today and evidence of it can be seen in films as recent as Dr. Strange, where Rachel McAdams was shoe-horned in to have the requisite love interest and hit the four quadrants, despite having no real role in the story. At least Denham, when pressured to put a woman in a movie of his, planned to make his the star of his film. Does that counteract the notion that all dames are just distractions and not good for much? I don't care. There should be some kind of law that states a movie can either be important, or great, but not both, because it's unfair to the other movies.
This movie is perfect.