Sentinel X
optical illusion
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,347
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
As you can see in my previous post, I agree. It has a lot of charm since it is literally a piece of cinematic history. However, if I have to judge the film on objective standards it is in no way a great movie.That's my reaction when people make the ridiculous claim that Kong 33 still holds up as a masterpiece.
Kong 33 is one of those awful, dated pieces of crap that people are supposed to feel obligated to say is great because it was seen as great by very dated standards.
Filmmaking that bad on every level would be laughed off the screen in this day and age.
People act shocked whenever someone is willing to simply state the blatantly obvious about it.
It is a technical spectacle...and THATS ALL (I dare someone to prove otherwise). There is nothing really going by for it besides its stop motion animation which was groundbreaking at the time. But by the same token, Jackson's Kong ALSO had groundbreaking technical achievements for it's time as well as better developed characters that ultimately enriched the story. I have my qualms about Jackson's Kong too, its by no means perfect but its a pretty decent film. I'm not processing how anyone can say the 1933 version is better without letting go of the nostalgia or saying so because its the "popular" opinion and critics say so. Idk...that's just me though.