Editing King Kong (1933 film) (section)

==Reception==

=== Contemporary ===
''King Kong'' received generally positive reviews upon its release. Meehan of ''Motion Picture Herald'' predicted it would be "one of the sensational pictures of the year", opining that "no more thrilling climax ever was filmed".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Meehan |date=February 18, 1933 |title=King Kong |url=https://archive.org/details/motionpictureher110unse/page/n627 |journal=Motion Picture Herald |volume=110 |issue=8 |page=27 |via=Internet Archive}}</ref> A reviewer for ''The Hollywood Reporter'' claimed the film "bears all the earmarks of a winner", predicting it would make "plenty of money".<ref>{{Cite journal |date=February 15, 1933 |title='King Kong' a Winner: Radio Production Should Be Answer to Exhibitor Prayers – Exploitation Value Limitless |url=https://archive.org/details/hollywoodreporte1215wilk/page/n273 |journal=The Hollywood Reporter |volume=XIII |issue=23 |pages=1, 6 |via=Internet Archive}}</ref> Another review in the same periodical declared it was "superbly produced-acted", a "great piece of imagination, hatched in the brain of a showman for showmen".<ref>{{Cite journal |date=February 15, 1933 |title='King Kong' Excellent Pix Superbly Produced-Acted: Fay Wray Shines; Rest of Cast Good |url=https://archive.org/details/hollywoodreporte1215wilk/page/n275 |journal=The Hollywood Reporter |volume=XIII |issue=23 |pages=3 |via=Internet Archive}}</ref> A ''Motion Picture Herald'' review by McCarthy called ''King Kong'' "imagination-stunning" and praised the "buildup of suspense", dubbing it "a showman's picture".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McCarthy |date=February 25, 1933 |title=King Kong |url=https://archive.org/details/motionpictureher110unse/page/n705 |journal=Motion Picture Herald |volume=110 |issue=9 |pages=37, 40 |via=Internet Archive}}</ref> The ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' called it "one of the most original, thrilling and mammoth novelties to emerge from a movie studio."<ref>{{cite news |date=April 23, 1933 |title=Monster Ape Packs Thrills in New Talkie |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |location=Chicago |page=Part 7, p. 8}}</ref> [[The New York Times]] gave readers an enthusiastic account of the plot and thought the film a fascinating adventure.<ref>Hall</ref> The ''[[New York World-Telegram]]'' said it was "one of the very best of all the screen thrillers, done with all the cinema's slickest camera tricks."<ref>{{cite magazine |date=March 7, 1933 |title=New York Reviews |magazine=[[The Hollywood Reporter]] |location=Los Angeles |page=2}}</ref> 

''The Film Daily'' wrote, "The picture has plenty of shocker stuff, and the terror is heightened by [Fay Wray's screaming], while the film's musical score adds its blare to keep the audience in a state of turmoil." The reviewer cautioned that "some women and children" might dislike the film's intensity.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=February 25, 1933 |title=King Kong |url=https://archive.org/details/filmdailyvolume66162newy/page/304 |journal=The Film Daily |volume=LXI |issue=46 |pages=4 |via=Internet Archive}}</ref>  [[John Mosher (writer)|John Mosher]] of ''[[The New Yorker]]'' called it "ridiculous," but wrote that there were "many scenes in this picture that are certainly diverting."<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Mosher |first=John |author-link=John Mosher (writer) |date=March 11, 1933 |title=The Current Cinema |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |location=New York |publisher=F-R Publishing Corporation |page= 56 }}</ref> Joe Bigelow of [[Variety (magazine)|''Variety'']] thought the film held "power" once a viewer got used to the "phoney atmosphere". He remarked that "a few details were too strong to swallow the picture" and the technical innovations overshadowed the plot and acting. The film's "many flaws", he added, were "overcome by the general results".<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Bigelow |first=Joe |date=1933-03-06 |title=King Kong |url=https://www.variety.com/review/VE1117792322 |access-date=February 20, 2010 |magazine=Variety}}</ref> ''Newsweek'' wrote that Cooper and Schoedsack were no longer "scientists" because the film was "exaggerated in its faked views of wild life".{{Sfn|Erb|2009|p=48}}

''The Hollywood Reporter'' included a multi-page booklet in its March issue, featuring production stills and concept sketches alongside critical praise for the film.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=March 6, 1933 |title=King Kong |url=https://archive.org/details/hollywoodreporte1215wilk/page/n431 |journal=The Hollywood Reporter |volume=XIII |issue=39 |via=Internet Archive}}</ref> The booklet was the program for the film's Los Angeles premiere.{{sfn|Erb|2009|p=32}}  [[File:King Kong Booklet Ad front.png|left|thumb|Front cover of ''King Kong's'' Los Angeles premiere program included in the 1933 edition of ''Hollywood Reporter''.]]

=== Recent ===
Ed Symkus of ''[[USA Today]]'' claims the film "stands tall as a groundbreaking piece of jaw-dropping, eye-widening entertainment".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Symkus |first=Ed |title=Here's why the original 'King Kong' is still one of the greatest films of all time |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/03/15/why-original-1933-king-kong-still-best-by-far/5052762002/ |access-date=2025-02-05 |website=USA Today  |language=en-US}}</ref> The [[Washington City Paper]] called it "a movie upon whose foundation we’ve built a sizable section of contemporary pop culture".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lennon |first=Will |title=King Kong (1933) |url=https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/listings/items/king-kong-1933/ |access-date=2025-02-06 |website=Washington City Paper |language=en-US}}</ref> Film historian Michael Price calls the film "the product of a remarkable group of daredevils, artists, and craftsmen."<ref name=":7" /> Brian Eggert claims that "''King Kong's'' greatness remains in part because it demonstrates a compendium of Classic Hollywood production strategies." He additionally praises the music as "guid[ing] every emotion".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Eggert |first=Brian |date=2020-04-27 |title=King Kong |url=https://www.deepfocusreview.com/definitives/king-kong/ |access-date=2025-02-05 |website=Deep Focus Review |language=en-US}}</ref> Almar Haflidason of [[BBC]] praises the "fantastic atmosphere" of the score and the "richness of Kong's character." Haflidason adds that the animation is “technically brilliant [and] highly imaginative in terms of cinematic action”.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Haflidason |first=Almar |title=BBC – Films – review – King Kong |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/01/30/king_kong_1933_review.shtml |access-date=2025-02-06 |website=www.bbc.co.uk}}</ref>  [[Roger Ebert]] included ''King Kong'' in his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list, writing that "in the very artificiality of some of the special effects, there is a creepiness that isn't there in today's slick, flawless, computer-aided images... Even allowing for its slow start, wooden acting, and wall-to-wall screaming, there is something ageless and primeval about ''King Kong'' that still somehow works."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ebert |first=Roger |date=February 3, 2002 |title=King Kong movie review & film summary (1933) |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-king-kong-1933 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130417055656/http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-king-kong-1933 |archive-date=April 17, 2013 |access-date=December 13, 2020 |website=[[RogerEbert.com]] |language=en}}</ref> 

[[James Berardinelli]] writes that "advances in technology and acting have dated aspects of the production". He also adds that the acting is weak and that he feels "some sense of awe" in consideration of the special effects.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Berardinelli |first=James |title=King Kong |url=https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/king-kong_172 |access-date=2025-02-05 |website=Reelviews Movie Reviews |language=en}}</ref> ''[[The Guardian]]'' pointed out Kong's perceptible size changes, and remarked that compared to today's filmmaking techniques, ''King Kong'' "has ceased to be the thriller...and has become of the best comedies seen for years".<ref>{{Cite news |last=RH |date=2023-04-12 |title=King Kong: 'the film caters for all tastes' – archive, 1933 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/12/king-kong-review-film-caters-for-all-tastes-1933 |access-date=2025-02-05 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> In its review ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' wrote that Kong "sometimes doubled in size".<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Latson |first=Jennifer |date=2015-03-02 |title=How 'King Kong' Gripped Audiences, Despite Ham-Handed Effects |url=https://time.com/3720513/king-kong-history/ |access-date=2025-02-05 |magazine=Time |language=en}}</ref>  [[Toronto International Film Festival|TIFF]] wrote that it is "reductive in its portrayal of humans, especially the Indigenous people".<ref>{{Cite web |title=King Kong – 90th Anniversary |url=https://tiff.net/events/king-kong |access-date=2025-02-06 |website=TIFF |language=en}}</ref> 

On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film holds an approval rating of 97% based on {{nowrap|116 reviews}}, with an average rating of 9/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "''King Kong'' explores the soul of a monster – making audiences scream and cry throughout the film – in large part due to Kong's breakthrough special effects."<ref>{{cite web |title=King Kong |url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1011615_king_kong |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091230104912/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1011615-king_kong/ |archive-date=December 30, 2009 |access-date=November 19, 2022 |website=Rotten Tomatoes |language=en}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]] the film has a weighted average score of 92 out of 100, based on 12 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".<ref name="metacriticfilm">{{cite web |title=King Kong (1933) Reviews –Metacritic |url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/king-kong-1933?ftag=MCD-06-10aaa1c |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180729172556/http://www.metacritic.com/movie/king-kong-1933?ftag=MCD-06-10aaa1c |archive-date=July 29, 2018 |access-date=June 21, 2018 |website=Metacritic.com |publisher=Metacritic}}</ref>