[icon ] blenderdumbass . org [icon star] Reviews

The Eight Wonder of Cinema is King Kong 1933

June 03, 2026

👁 2

https://blenderdumbass.org/do_edit : 👁 1

#KingKong #MerianCCooper #FayWray #RobertArmstrong #BruceCabot #MaxSteiner #film #review #movies #cinemastodon

License:
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

[avatar]by Troler

Free Software fundamentally misses the point. It fails on a practical, ideological, economic, and political level. Let’s examine precisely how (in a slightly different order for the purposes of presentation).


2 Minute Read



There is no such monster of cinema as iconic as King Kong. The giant gorilla has crossed over into various other worlds, be it that of Godzilla or Steven Spielberg fanfiction. I do not exactly know what captivates people so much? The sight of a giant creature, one so familiar but alien, is so human. Is it why the Cthulhu myth still lives on. There are still movies being made about that monster of the deep. In a way, I'm reminded by the idea of monumentality. ↩ Reply

The 1933 film itself is not too special. For its time, there's a lot to laud. Comparing what Peter Jackson would do later, there's night and day. I do not mean the special effects, which are exceptional. What else could be expected from Peter Jackson, the founder of Wētā digital? The problem lies within the quite limited character development in the 1933 original. Which didn't really matter since it drew in audiences by promising stunning special effects. An adaptation that continues the lineage of leading forward the special effects is to be expected. ↩ Reply

Peter Jackson used the extra hour of runtime to fill in the gaps of the character and world-building. For him it was not enough to just portray the great ape as an animal obsessed with the kindred-souled Ann Darrow (Fay Wray). There is this intimacy and sense of understanding between each, while in the original there isn't that much of that. That's not to say King Kong is shown as a baddie terrorizing the jungle. c:0 ↩ Reply

The amount of terror is debatable. Comparing the original to the 2005 remake once again, 'tis hard to express how much more emotional vigour there is in the Peter Jackson version. In the original the men fall into a ravine. There is King Kong putting his hand into it and searching for a person like a bear getting honey from a beehive. Peter Jackson had giant bugs storming the people. It was an actual horror inducing scene. ↩ Reply

The lighter tone does not make the movie less enjoyable. Well, it does, but watching it with the mentality that this isn't some enormous Hollywood picture is going to ensure most enjoyment. Nor is it worthwhile to expect a tear squeezing plot. c:1 ↩ Reply

The biggest pitfall is that there isn't any corruption of the audience. Walking out of the cinema in 1930s would not really thinking something else about the world, let alone be convinced to think otherwise. Same cannot be said about 1931 Frankenstein and especially not about the 2005 remake. c:2 ↩ Reply

In a way, the dichotomy between the original and remake teaches that great cinemaking is not just about the spectacle, there's a necessity for tension. ↩ Reply

Fin. ↩ Reply

[icon unlike] 0
[icon right]
[icon terminal]
[icon markdown]

Find this post on Mastodon

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass c:0 June 03, 2026


kindred-souled Ann Darrow
⤴ View

In 1933 the ape is just a perv. But that might be true about the Peter Jackson version.

[icon reply]
[avatar]  Blender Dumbass c:1 June 03, 2026


The lighter tone
⤴ View

Everything is relative. Think about it. "Psycho" by Hitchcock ( in the 50s ) shocked the audiences by simply showing them a closeup of a toilet. How dared he? TOILET!!! Today it looks boring in comparison to the kind of stuff you can see in cinema.

[icon reply]
[avatar]  Blender Dumbass c:2 June 03, 2026


there isn't any corruption of the audience.
⤴ View

Let's think.

Peter Jackson made the ape, a misunderstood good guy. So corruption is self-evident.

The original? The original had the ape catchers the good guys. They captured this poor animal and tortured him, and later killed him, and they are still heroes. Corruption!?!?!?!

[icon reply]
[icon question]











[icon reviews]F1 is suprisingly relatable

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 16



As you probably figured out, the movie is about racing. It is kind of similar to Ford v Ferrari where you have an underdog team trying to compete on a race with Ferrari to win the race. In this case though, Ferrari was not the fastest car on the track. The fastest one was from Red Bull. And not just from Red Bull. It was Lewis Hamilton who is an actual real F1 driver, who also played himself in the film and who was one of the producers on the film.


#F1 #racing #movie #film #review #movies #cinemastodon #BradPitt #JavierBardem #JosephKosinski #formula1


[icon reviews]Piranha II 1982 taught James Cameron how not to make sequels

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 27 💬 1



We all know that James Cameron is a master when it comes to making sequels. His films like Terminator 2, Avatar 2 and Aliens are extremely good examples of how to make a sequel right. Unlike Steven Spielberg that avoids sequels. Steven avoided doing the second Jaws movie. James Cameron goes for it and wins. Speaking of Steven Spielberg's Jaws, not only sequels from that film were produced. Rip-offs, like the 1978 Piranha by Joe Dante also were produced. Those were parody material B-movie exploitation films. And so writer / director James Cameron decided to take the project of making a sequel to that Jaws rip-off, with his 1982 Piranha II: The Spawning.


#Piranha2 #JamesCameron #horror #movies #review #film #cinemastodon


[icon codeberg] Powered with BDServer [icon python] Plugins [icon theme] Themes [icon analytics] Analytics [icon email] Contact [icon mastodon] Mastodon
[icon unlock]