So this is the bar, and this is the reason that people don't like any of the remakes... except the 2005 remake, people don't like that because it stinks. But this shot for the moon. It promised the audience a giant ape, it gave the audience a giant ape... and a sort of love story that was really cute and relatable that brought it all together. It reached for the stars visually, it grabbed one, and it told an amazing story along with it. It was a win on every front. So, now, when people watch King Kong remakes, they look at them and they don't live up to the effort that this movie put into itself. They all look better, but they don't feel as well crafted as the original, because they aren't. They are all a little lazy in comparison because it's easier to do it now. In 11 years its going to be 100 years old and people are still going to marvel at the work put into it.

Shown recently by the BBC and wow, how fantastically this has stood the test of time. I can see why there have been so many remakes of this iconic tale of ambition, power and true love but none that shine a candle to this - even after over 80 years. Robert Armstrong and Fay Wray do their bit as the producer and the starlet, but the true stars are lighting, photography and special effects which are masterful as we visit this ancient island divided by a great wall (how on earth did the natives ever manage to build it?) that keeps the prehistoric monsters at bay. This is adventure cinema at it's absolute best; and even the writing is reasonable. If you don't feel sympathy for Kong at the end then where is your heart?

In watching this movie, and I'm talking about actually scrutinizing it intently, I was shocked at the amount and the extremity of the violence that was in the picture. Natives were being bitten, swallowed and purposely stepped upon by Kong. The sailors were chased, trampled and eaten by the dinosaurs and then we have all the New York City violence on top of it all where Kong tosses a woman to her death and bites on a bystander. Also, for it being an 85+ year old movie, the special effects STILL stand up rather well and STILL look convincingly realistic. In fact, I believe these FX are of a better quality than the 1976 remake and even comes close to the 2005 CGI version. If you've never seen this classic, mostly because "who would want to watch that old-style claymation" or you can't watch anything not "in Living Color," you really need to give this one a try. For those of you that have seen it, let me urge you to rewatch it, possibly with some newly-opened eyes.