User Score
7.1 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1046 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. FrancoN.
    Oct 24, 2007
    3
    Like the big ape himself, this movie was bloated and flabby. They could have at least cut 45 minutes out of it.
    • 4 of 5 users said yes
  2. Aug 14, 2010
    10
    King Kong is one of the most memorable and celebrated stories of all-time. This remake or "re-envisioned" version of the original King Kongs is stunning, heartful, and simply unforgettable. Peter Jackson creates a remarkable and haunting Skull Island. King Kong is arguably the greatest CGI character of all-time. Forget 'Avatar', this is CGI at its best. Kong has emotion, cuts, etc. You can practically believe he or any other creature of Skull Island are real, thanks to the superb visuals. Despite the huge runtime, Kong never falters and does justice to its source material-and then some. I truly believe that this version of Kong is the best ever released. Everything is damn-right perfect, and you can't help but cry at the end, even though you already know what is going to happen to Kong. This movie transcends all of its hype and truly engages us on all levels: visual, intellectual and emotional. A true masterpiece. Go see it-now. Expand
  3. Sep 27, 2011
    7
    "King Kong" is a great summer blockbuster movie that will throw you out of your mind. However, that's as far as the movie can get to you.
  4. MikeG.
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    A big disappointment, especially for a movie that did a great job of ratcheting up the tension in the first hour or so of the movie. Jackson also made 1932 NYC look spectacular, gave motivation to Black, Watts and the rest of the cast. Suddenly, the movie morphed into a B-picture, complete with action movie cliche after action movie cliche that just made the audience squirm and groan. The movie looks great, but it just felt long and ultimately boring. Why make this movie if all you're going to do is modernize the special effects? The story of man's inhumanity to beast is lost somewhere along the way here, resulting in nothing more than a technically spectacular director flexing his muscle. We all know Jackson can make a movie look great. Somehow, after his masterpiece "Return of the King", I was expecting so much more. Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  5. TomP.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    King Kong is truly remarkable in how horrific a production it is. I go to movies with mixed reviews generally with the hope that it may provice different meanings to different people, in other words, it is open to interpretation. No. There was nothing to this movie beyond action that suddenly and inexplicably grinds to a halt time and time again, followed endlessly by another dinosaur, spider, or any number of conveniently-placed CGI-disasters approaching silently and unnoticed from behind. But this movie saddens me the most simply because I have remained earnestly and reasonably unconvinced of the elitist notion that the public was completely diluted and that everyone is essentially an idiot beyond ourselves. Well, congrats, American public, you have lost the faith of yet another in your approval of this film, and thanks Peter Jackson, for making me realize I actualy am smarter and less dim-witted than 90% of movie-goers today. You scammed me good with this one, got my $6.25 and the rest of the good people's in my theater. I feel that the only reason that more viewers didn't walk out of this movie besides me and my best friend was because it is unfortunately slightly embarrassing and, yes, "elitist", to throw up your hands in disgust in the middle of a movie theater and promtly leave. I used to firmly believe that ALL people were more complex that they first seem. Statistical discrimination, I guess, is justified. Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  6. GeorgeR.
    Dec 20, 2005
    2
    It would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was no motivation to make this movie again. kong still moves like the stop-motion animated creature from the 30's (too sharply or too laboriously), naomi watts looks like a bucktoothed flatchested hillbilly, and kong is kong is kong - no new insights. why were all these non-elements worth three hours of my life? if for whatever reason i ever taught a class in editing at an elementary school i would assign students this movie and ask them to make a one hour and 50 minute version. it would undoubtedly take them all of a half hour to do so. what were the filmmaker$ thinking? Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  7. GlennR.
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Many of the special effects looked no different to me than special effects in movies from the 70's -- or even the 30's for that matter -- so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be wowed by them. Many of the scenes were so drawn out and repetitive that I was actually bored. The subplots -- the romance and the coming of age story -- were listless and uninteresting. The only redeeming parts of the movie were the performances by the beautiful and talented Watts, who did a decent job making me think she actually cared about the ape, and by Serkis, who made the ape seem almost human at times. Other than that, I thought it was a complete waste of $9.75 and three hours. The ending is supposed to be sad, but instead I was mostly happy and relieved that it was over. Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  8. Dickie
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Jackson goes wild with his $200M box of crayons and crapola is the result. He miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. His first hour is boring and unncecessary. Then when we get to Jurassic Park the man loses all credibility with laughable writing, lack of editing, and poor directing. Half of this movie should have been omitted and perhaps with someone having some talent we could have had meaningful dialogue? But instead we get a mishmosh with Jackson playing with his CGI to his hearts content in producing a video game that only a ten year old with a lobotomized brain could love? In reading the reviews did some of you juvenile posters actually say this was the best movie ever? The fact that with all the PR Kong dropped from number one at the Box Office in less than 2 weeks says all that has to be said. This is a very poor effort by Jackson on the recent order of George Lucas. The only thing missing from this disaster was casting Tom Cruise. Jack Black and Tom Cruise in War of The Worlds. Two no-talents in blockbusters in the same year. Ugly! Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  9. CongoGongo
    Jan 9, 2006
    0
    If this movie was on the Gong Show it would be booed off the stage. Just a total joke with bad directing by an otherwise overrated in love with himself Peter Jackson. Jack Black needs to find another career. Preposterous.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  10. GoffyA.
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  11. DavidD.
    Feb 20, 2006
    1
    Gorilla animation fine, tho out of scale most of the time,.Way too long and needlessly gory - bad for kids.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  12. Feb 15, 2011
    8
    While the ending wasn't really satisfying, overall, it was a fun ride. And I actually didn't mind the length of the movie, something I criticised Peter Kackson's LOTR trilogy for.
  13. Aug 24, 2011
    5
    Special effects were out of this world awesome, and the storyline was pretty good...BUT...it was about an hour too long! It spends a good 40 minutes of the movie before it even gets to King Kong! then we still have to witness his capture/relationship with Naomi Watts' character, and his tirade in New York City! I have only been able to watch it all the way through in one sitting once. Also, Jack Black just drags the cast down. There are SOO many other great actors in the movie that he sticks out like a sore thumb. Great "try" but I expected better. Expand
  14. ShaneB.
    Jan 12, 2008
    8
    This is my review of King Kong. Pretty much, it's about Ann Darrow, a woman who, after losing her job in 1933, is offered to be in a movie by a rebellious filmmaker, named Carl Denham, who trying to make a movie. They go on a ship and end up at skull island, where Ann is sacrificed to the ape Kong. Now the only reason i wanted to see this movie was because it was directed by Peter Jackson. So, all in all, it was one of the best movies of 2005. the acting was okay, the action was spectacular. Yet the special effects was mixed. Some effects were awesome, like Kong. Yet others were no good at all. So this is a good film to see. I give Kong 2005 an 8/10. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. EricK.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    A disgrace to the original, which is one of the greatest films of all time.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. StephenH.
    Aug 1, 2008
    6
    Generally an ok film, but i lost interest at certain points. I found the boat journey to the island the most enjoyable bit. Some fo the effects were very real, while others needed a bit more imagination and forgiveness, not that i'd ever rate a film on special effects anyway. We have no idea where all the natives disapeared to, i guess they just weren't required for the film. Overall it was enjoyable, but a tad long and in some places defying the laws of physics and chance in a lot of the action sequences to a point even the most openminded of people couldn't forgive. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. JayH.
    Jun 14, 2009
    8
    I lives up to all the hype. This is one hugely entertaining film. Naomi Watts is great and the rest of the cast is fine as well. The special effects are some of the best I have ever seen. It hardly seemed three hours plus because the film was immensely engrossing. Peter Jackson did a great job. The sets, sound and editing are all first rate. The period detail of 1933 is fantastic. This is brilliant film making and has everything a great movie should have. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. Matt
    Dec 8, 2005
    8
    The first hour is so bad, you'll think it's an elaborate joke – terrible dialogue and shonky characterisation, with Jack Black the only saving grace. But once we're on the island, all is forgiven, with some fantastic setpieces, awe-inspiring effects and, of course, Kong, who displays more depth and emotion than all the human cast put together. Which I guess is kind of the point.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. Martin
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Unbelievable!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. JasonG.
    Dec 8, 2005
    10
    Saw the premiere. AMAZING!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. MarcD.
    Dec 8, 2005
    8
    Wow. I just saw the film at Universal's holiday party, and I'm still a little stunned by it a couple hours later. It's a spectacular film. The first 20-30 minutes drag a little in establishing the story, but once you hit Skull Island, the drama grabs you by the throat and doesn't let go until the final frames. Kong is amazing. Not for a second did I pause to think about him as a CGI creation. And if you're at all a fan of Naomi Watts....wow....just see it. The action is intense, it's thick with genuine emotion, and I actually had a tough time not tossing my cookies during the final sequence. Vertigo anyone?? I can't give it a 10 because it's not an original story, but I give Peter Jackson the ultimate respect for doing amazing things with this classic story. It's a must see. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  22. JonR.
    Dec 9, 2005
    10
    Stunning. Jaw-dropping. Emotional. Adrenaline-rushed. Need I go on? Just go and see it. You'll be amazed.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  23. AmberA.
    Dec 9, 2005
    7
    This film did not need to be three hours long. There were many parts that could've been cut and it would've made a much tighter movie. Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park. Also, you may note that the first people to die when they are traipsing around the jungle are the black man and the chinese man. Some editing incontinuties were hard to miss - such as when Ann and Jack fall into the water from a giant bat's leg, and are both shown in the next scene with completely dry hair flowing in the wind. However, the relationship between Ann and King Kong is touching and well-captured. And the Empire State Building Scene is riveting-especially if you're scared of heights. My summary: this is a perfect Blockbuster film: lots of action, amazing special effects, bad dialogue, and almost no character development or depth (except maybe in King Kong) . Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  24. JimP.
    Dec 9, 2005
    8
    Very well done and exciting, with Kong an amazing creation. The Skull Island adventures eventually drag on a bit -- the excitement become a bit dulled by repetition -- and there are are few others infelicitious moments and repetitions, but if you are a moviegoer at all inclined towards this type of movie, you will be quite satisfied by the movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  25. Matty
    Dec 10, 2005
    10
    One of the year's best: intense action, dramatic excellence, nostalgic bits, exceedingly well done....there is no more need for adjectives.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  26. Bobp.
    Dec 11, 2005
    1
    A big monkey fighting dinosaurs plzz ive never seen something so ridiculous like theres still dinosaurs living im a paleontologist and i was shock to see such thing.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  27. williamj.
    Dec 11, 2005
    10
    WOW!!.....what an asstonishing movie. the best special effects i have ever sceene. and the empire state building was truly amazing. i feel that every person should see this movie immediatley. GREAT, GREAT, GREAT film. peter jackson has done it yet again!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  28. KevinP.
    Dec 12, 2005
    8
    Amber A. writes: 'Some scenes on the Island were a little too reminiscent of Jurassic Park.' Um, I hope she understands that Jurassic Park borrowed from King Kong, not the other way around. But I suppose that's a problem when showing one of the most classic films of all time to a new audience, one that is much younger and less informed. The film does not tread much new ground - it's a faithful, and intentionally so, remake of the original (let's not think of the first remake, shall we?). Updated with familiar faces and a stunning marriage of live-action and CGI, this Kong allows for more emotional connections between the audience and the ape. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  29. NCoste
    Dec 12, 2005
    6
    Too looooooooooog in parts, especially on the island. It get tiring after a while and I got very impatient for the plot to move on. It could have been a better movie if they spent $50 mil less on special effects and cut the movie by a half hour. That said it is still worthwhile for the good parts--especially the relationship between Kong and The Beauty.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  30. Jacobp.
    Dec 12, 2005
    10
    The best monster movie since 1933.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  31. MatthewS.
    Dec 12, 2005
    10
    A completely jaw-dropping, stupendous film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  32. DavidEZ
    Dec 13, 2005
    10
    Monumental.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  33. BigG.
    Dec 13, 2005
    8
    To Bob p. When you watch a scifi/fantasy or read one of them book, you aren't suppose to diagnose it for thing that isn't real. It's call suspension of disbelief. It's like Armageddon, if it wasn't for that part where they talk to each other in space, it would have been a movie worth a 8 to 9 rating.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  34. PaulB.
    Dec 13, 2005
    10
    Best Movie I have ever seen Period.....and Bob P youv'e got to be kidding me its only a Movie Duhh.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  35. JohnsonR.
    Dec 13, 2005
    10
    Amazing and awesome! all i can say is that this is the greatest movie ever made.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  36. MatH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Grand, glorious, and spectacular. Peter Jackson continues to take the American blockbuster to artistic heights it has never seen before.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  37. EricW.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Simply wonderful.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  38. Tonydannie
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This Film was amazing! I prepared myself and watched the original 1930's version before The midnight premiere on Dec 13. As I watched this old Black and White Film, With it's jerky special effects, I began to Love it. Although The Film used Stop Motion animation I was amazed not at the effects But the skill they had to resort to at the time to create a sweeping action adventure film. Now over 70 years later. Peter Jackson Uses Computer Technology to bring His retelling of this Classic movie to life. And It works!!! Kong Has a Personality (Andy Serkis actually who not only acts out Kongs Movements, He is also our heroes cook) And much more freedom then the old 1930's Kong. Peter Jackson Once agan delivered an Incredible film.And the reason why this film works for me is that he (Jackson) brought with him the same,if not more, Passion he had when he made the Now famous Lord Of the Rings Trilogy. Here is a man that when you hear him talk about the film he cant help but mention how much he loved the 1930's original. And He remains Loyal to the Original. 3 times loyal actually those who have seen both the original and Jacksons version would know what I mean when i say Three times! And I do not mean the length of the film. People complained It was to long (my wife for example) I say It was not long enough. just a bit longer!! But I loved this film. And I love the Original more due to Jackson's omages to it through out his version. This Film was a great Ride. Now stop reading my ramblings and go see this flick!! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  39. JayJ.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    The best movieyet in this this century.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  40. pushbutton
    Dec 14, 2005
    6
    An exercise for Peter Jackson's ego. The monkey looks good enough, but the film is too long and filled with plot devices and character developments that fail to engage the audience or move the story along.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  41. JeffT
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    I struggle to find faults, yet can find none. Bob p, you are not a paleontologist. I'm a history student, and I'm not freaking out about it.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  42. EddieB.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    King Kong is the best film I've seen all year. Amazing action sequences, a great story with heart, and brilliant special effects make this film a must-see for anyone. I hear the game's not too shabby either--might have to check that out!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  43. MyWhirledView
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Best movie of the year... I wasn't sure how it would go, and fearing the worst... but I wasn't disappointed! Go see it today!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  44. JohnH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    This is just bad. Mr. Jackson has failed us again.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  45. JayB.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This isn't your great grand daddy's Kong! Jackson has swung at his lifelong dream project, and he has clearly hit the game winning grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning of the 7th game of the World Series. Jackson keeps reinventing the cinema. That ape had more personality and emotion than half the fluffy Hollywood actors working today! A couple of things concerned me going in: (A) The 3 hour length, (B) Jack Black as the lead character, and (C) Did this classic REALLY need to be remade once again? Well, all I can say is (A) never has 3 hours moved so swiftly, (B) Jack Black can be successfully directed in a non-comedic role, and (C) not only did it need to be remade, but this is the movie that had everything that was missing in the original: namely, an ape with enough heart, emotion, and character to make grown people cry at his demise, and special effects so dazzling that you'd swear that reality was happening before your very eyes! Enough will be written in the weeks to come about its various shortcomings (and ALL film can be critiqued to death if you stop and think about it!) but what can't be ignored is that this is one helluva masterpiece in design, flow, and character study that will go down as one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. Run, do not walk, to see and revel in this magical fantasy by this genius filmmaker!!! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  46. Kharagh
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    WoW ! An incredible movie experience!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  47. MikeLovesAvrilLavigne
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Spectacular - everyone clapped at the end of the movie - and you NEVER get that in Australia. Absolutely brilliant.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  48. JohnP.
    Dec 14, 2005
    5
    A bloated, miscast, hi-res xerox of a classic that only expands on it's source in length. Jackson is too timid to add anything to the mix but more dino's and CG fx. Is he capable of producing anything else? I doubt it. Unlike Orson Welles, who was felt like a kid in a toy store making CITIZEN KANE, Peter Jackson is a bull in a China shop.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  49. David
    Dec 14, 2005
    3
    Went to a Midnight showing and I think I was out before I had to go to work in the morning. I could have showed up an hour late and probably enjoyed the movie more after all the trailers and 45 minutes of nothing going on! Good action after we actually see Kong.. but by the end I was wishing she would push him off the building herself... so I could go home!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  50. Spongeee
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    Crap! Racist Crap!! Horrible film making!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  51. ChrisT.
    Dec 14, 2005
    7
    There's a really great two-hour movie in there somewhere.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  52. Wongit
    Dec 14, 2005
    9
    Simply astonishing. this movie is amazing. great visual effects great everyhting, i was dazzled by this film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  53. SpanxMcB
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This movie was amazing! It sweeps you away.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  54. IkeE.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Peter Jackson is the best Director ever! This movie is amazing, excellent effects and a great story.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  55. Aaron
    Dec 14, 2005
    9
    Sensational entertainment. Jackson really outdid himself here. I think it's one of the rare times the remake betters the original film, seriously. Yes, the film does have its flaws. A little trimming here and there would have helped immensly, but why quibble when a film is this entertaining. Jackson's love for the original film is quite apparent because of the care he has given his own Kong. Speaking of which, Kong may be the single greatest piece of FX work in film history right now. WETA did an amazing job. Not just with the gorilla, but with all of the FX. There's just one astonishing set piece after another. One complaint that I've been hearing is how slow the first hour is. Not at all. I think that deliberate buildup is cruicial to the film. Maybe some of the scenes on the boat don't quite work, but I like how Jackson slowly builds up the suspense leading to Skull Island. And when they finally do reach the place, the film moves to a whole new level. From that point on, it just rocks. Intense, exciting, and at times quite moving, Jackson's King Kong is the first 'event' film in a long time that acutally lived up. Sure to nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. NOTE: A few scenes may be too intense for very young children. Basically, if you know what your kid can handle, by all means take them. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  56. Ben
    Dec 14, 2005
    3
    I know I have to suspend a lot of disbelief for a movie like King Kong, but this viewer and his partner walked out of this film laughing and shaking our heads in amazement at how bad this movie was. Being a completist is the only thing that kept us watching all 187 minutes of this film. Act 2 (on the island) is just a rehash of Jurassic Park with many of the effects done more poorly than that 12 year old film. Ex: Extraneous chase scenes with humans running between the legs of dinosaurs as they are all being chased by velociraptor type creatures (that also run in between the dinosaur's legs) while the ledge that everyone is running on is crumbling under foot. Not just a few yards, but for 5 minutes! This is just ONE of the numerous inexplicable chase/fight scenes that detract from the core story line. And don’t get me stated on the two T-Rexes fighting Kong as he juggles Naomi Watts while all are tangled in (very strong) vines many feet in the air. The basic story would have plenty for this film since these were the best part of the film, both in CG integration and performances. I am shocked and amazed that Kong has received 17 media reviews with 90 or 100 point scores! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  57. JesseM.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This movie was amazing. The best movie of the YEAR. The first hour was a draaagggggg though. After that it's awesome. It was easily worth the money.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  58. Fantasy
    Dec 14, 2005
    2
    Where to begin? Naomi Watts is lovable and darling. What more can I say? The CGI for King Kong is second to none. He and Naomi were the best actors on the set. As for the movie, the suspense of the story is ruined because we all know the story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King Kong. Been there done that. The movie is three excruciating hours long. The first hour is so slow that you start looking at your watch. When they finally arrive at Skull Island the action is non-stop. The brutality of the natives, which appeared racist, is not suitable for young children or preteens. As for the monsters they are gruesome in nature and there is no way that natives could ever survive or want to survive on this prehistoric island. Jack Black and Adrian Brody are so miscast it is laughable. Black is simply awful as Carl Denim and Adrian Brody as Jack Driscoll the love interest for Naomi, well that is the real Beauty and The Beast. There is no chemistry between the two at all. As for when they return to NY circa 1933, the era is captured perfectly. However, it is a shoot em up kill Kong without any dialogue at all. After 45 minutes I was praying for Naomi to either push the Big Ape off of the Empire State Building or to jump herself to let us go home. This movie is an eternity and the hype far exceeds its worthiness. For some strange reason Spielberg and now Jackson get free passes. The CGI is fantastic but thats all there is. Word of mouth will doom this flick after a blockbuster weekend. I wish my review could be brighter but the truth is the truth. I could never sit through this again even if shown for free on TV. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  59. MozzM.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Absolutely Stunning Filmmaking. The Film will be the classic Kong of the 21st Century, not only does it pay homage to the original, it gives it a heart, it illuminates it, and stands proudly next to it as one of the best movies of all time.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  60. SeanL.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    I feel obligated to post a comment because of one particularly dumb review. In his/her review, "Fantasy" writes: The brutality of the natives, which appeared racist, is not suitable for young children or preteens. Well it's a good thing it appeared racist because that's what King Kong is about: racism! It has long been considered an allegory for the degradation of blacks, so if it came off as racist to you, then Peter Jackson did a good job. I can't say I empathize with the preteens and children either; the movie is rated PG-13 for "frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images." Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  61. MarvinB.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    The first hour of this film is absolutely great, and it just gets better from then on. I don't see anyone not being blown away by this film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  62. GabrielG.
    Dec 14, 2005
    9
    Spectacular and tragic. Scary and thrilling. Jackson's "Kong" is an adrenaline-pumping, eye-popping, heart-tugging spectacle of cinematic magic. In one frantic, dyno-mite scene on Skull Island, the director manages to out-Spielberg Spielberg. Watts is fantastic and the big hairy guy makes you feel something you haven't felt for an animated animal since Bambi lost his mom. And just as mind-scrambling as all the beasty CGI is the recreation of New York in the 1930s: The city didn't even look this good in the original "Kong." Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  63. DanielH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    5
    Overlong, flabby script and poor CGI. The most disappointing film of the year. Also can someone please explain to me why I should have sympathy with a giant ape who goes around kidnapping and murdering women and generally being unpleasant to us humans.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  64. SeanK.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    This was the most entertaining and heart stopping film I can remember seeing since Jurassic Park. It made me feel like a kid all over again. It made me laugh, jump out of my seat, squirm in fear, and even tear up. It's a great technical achievement as well as a great personal achievement for Jackson. In other words it confirms that Jackson is the best big budget filmmaker working Hollywood. I cant wait to see what he does next. This is definitely one of the best films of the year. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  65. TFCG
    Dec 15, 2005
    1
    All I want to know how in God's name did any of these critics give this sorry excuse for a movie a perfect ten? It is sooooooooo long. The first act over an hour long is boring. The second act is a remake of Jurrassic Park but totally ridiculous as far as a story line goes. And the 3rd act has zero dialogue and shows the obligatory shoot the Big Ape down from the Empire State Building. As for the cast Jack Black and Adrian Brody are awful. The computerized King Kong who isn't even an actor has more emotion and acting skills than either of these sad sack actors. As for Peter Jackson he reminds me of a child who steals the camcorder and shoots a family picnic for six hours and you are forced to watch the entire thing. All I can say is after sitting through this I want to puke. Simply awful. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  66. Amberlab
    Dec 15, 2005
    0
    All I want to know is did the professional critics watch what I did last night? They have to be paid under the table to write the reviews they did. It's way too long with terrible wooden acting and young children will be terrified at the unrealistic middle part of the movie featuring a return to Jurrassic Park. That is - if they're still awake after the first hour. This films a total joke. The less said the better. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  67. Squall
    Dec 15, 2005
    3
    Couldn't wait to see this? Couldn't wait to run out of the theater after watching this wretched remake. CGI of Kong outstanding. Length of movie way too long and the dialogue nonexistant. Jack Black sucked and as for Adrian Brody you can't be serious. Naomi Watts is hot hot hot but I think she wanted to jump off the building after being subjected to this drek. This is a movie only Peter Jackson's mother could love. Hated it. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  68. BrookeB.
    Dec 15, 2005
    8
    An amazing ride!! Colossal, frightening, and romantic - all in one. A must-see on a big screen. Well done, Peter Jackson, well done.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  69. Adam
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    Movie magic. It's long and overstuffed, sure, but it swept me along with it as no other CG action movie ever has. Every shot has emotion or sinew or both, in spades. The stampeding brontosaurs were neat, then ridiculous, then pure slapstick genius (made me kind of queasy though).
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  70. CoreyR.
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    Yes, it's too long. Yes, the segue between the 2nd and 3rd acts is too abrupt. But what Jackson accomplishes is nothing short of magical; he gives a special effect the death scene most actors would kill for, and pulls it off with a grace and dignity that no actor could pull off. There is no denying it, Jackson is a genius filmmaker.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  71. JeremyS.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    This movie will appeal to an adult at all of his/her ages through life. It really has it all. The cinematography is stunning and exhilarating.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  72. LukeS.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Overwhelming in every sense of the word. See it NOW!!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  73. ChaseP.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    I loved this movie!!! After the first 30 minutes the movie bagan to pick up speed and nothing slowed it down. This on is a keeper!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  74. JamieP.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Peter Jackson is a brilliant filmmaker. This film may drag a little in the beginning according to the MTV low attention span people but it also stakes an investment in the characters. And I'm all for "that's your opinion" and I could understand not thinking this film is brilliant but if you give this movie under 6 you are an idiot.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  75. Jay
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Amazing movie, suspended belief is required for 99% of movies and it seems some reviewers here haven't quite grasped that concept yet. The first hour is long, but the rest of the movie is well worth the wait and long running time. Kong is amazing and the movie as a whole is inspiring and amazingly well done.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  76. Spartacus
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Why are so many people here racist? You PC idiots, It's a film! With Heart of Darkness as a ref! If you people knew anything about real racism, you'd cry yourself to sleep.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  77. ConorL.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    I was absolutely stunned by this movie. it must surely appeal to every age of human possible from grandma to wee baby boy. when you catch yourself with your legs up infront of your face hiding from the action and half an hour later melting into the sombre eyes of the female lead.... you know this movie ticks all the boxes. film of my year.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  78. PatrickW.
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    I am unable to understand the low scores people must have decided to hate it before seeing it!!!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  79. KevinA.
    Dec 15, 2005
    2
    You guys are all giving 9's and 10's? You kidding me? 3 hours of repetitive nonsensical action. An innumerable amount of holes in the script (Screenwriter A: Uh...we got a 5 ton gorrila, or so, how do we mount that on a ship? Screenwriter B: I know! We skip back to New York and hope the audience doesn't think about it!!), a weak score, poor supporting characters, occasionally misplace cinematography (what was with the "freaky" filming during the native scenes, as if they were supernatural) and an annoying love story. The only entertainment was occasionally from Mr. Kong, but even that was sporadic. Spend 3 hours more usefully - go play Donkey Kong. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  80. Jake
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Kevin, funny how everything you dissed about the film is a matter of opinion....if the film was so long, would you really want to spend even more time getting the monkey on a boat and spending another hour on the return voyage.....and as for Donkey Kong, I'd rather play snake verses monkey, even though Donkey Konga can be somewhat entertaining. P.S. the score was a last minute effort by James Newton Howard after Howard Shore abondoned his score last minute. Pretty damn good considering he was rushed to finish it! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  81. MattC.
    Dec 15, 2005
    1
    To paraphrase the great film NETWORK, the world is insane. How can a creative team and a studio spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a film, and not one atom of intelligence on the STORY? Films tell stories. Period. Tools such as CGI f/x can enhance a film, but at the end of the day a story must make sense. In the hands of hack directors such as Jackson and John Woo who have the world fooled, CGI f/x are meant to shut your brain down so you do not notice the insult to your intelligence that is an incoherent story. To Jackson, f/x are a way of saying, "Look at this, look what I can do, people!" All that anyone involved in King King has done is fail at the art of storytelling. You want to see great computer-generated images? Play a video game. When you go to a film you must expect a good story. Raise your standards, people. Until someone can answer how the characters in this film got a ten ton ape on that boat back to NYC, this movie must be called incoherent. At least for this individual, no amount of dinosaurs or giant spiders can numb my brain to that gaping canyon of a plot hole. If such things do not bother you or fail to be detected, you must be a mindless drone conditioned by the press and hype to sweat this dreck. Nice T-rexes, Peter; for those I give you a 1. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  82. ShaneC
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    Aventurous, magical, romantic, if just a trifle overdone - a masterpiece of modern cinema nonetheless.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  83. Dan
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    I'm very sorry, Matt C....Kong is only four tons, which is well within the carrying capacity of any ship half the size of that ship. And if this constitutes a major plot hole to you, then you must have an a mental age of between three to seven years. And if you want to see a movie with a suck-ass story, watch the Ring "Oooh a killer movie! Be afraid! Be very afraid!" But I digress from my intellectual mauling of Matt C.'s flawed opinions and assumptions. The movie kicked ass people. See it ASAP. Signing off. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  84. JonathanM.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    A joy. I only wish it were longer!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  85. Robere
    Dec 15, 2005
    2
    Ten are you people mad. During the first hour they should sell NO DOZE to keep you awake. Then we go from NO ACTION to RIDICULOUS ACTION end to end that makes no sense. 3 T-REX's couldn't lay a glove on KONG but a little bottle of Chloroform used against a FIVE TON gorilla knocks him out for a long voyage back to Broadway? And KONG who wouldn't let a bat land on him just stayed calm and collected as they put him in chains? Yeah sure, and while you're buying this crapola there is a bridge I would like to sell you. Someone anyone please tell me there was some dialogue in this movie. If so with who? Could anyone believe that Ann Darrow felt anything for Adrian Brody? Adrian Brody action hero? Please give me a break! As for Jack Black the less said the better. He sucks as an actor and was totally miscast. There are more plot holes in this film that Swiss Cheese. The only saving grace was Kong himself who emitted more emotion through CGI than any of the actors. This film is simply horrible. And I love science fiction and the original King Kong. I can forgive many things but you have all been brainwashed as this movie totally sucks. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  86. Laura
    Dec 15, 2005
    7
    Really fabulous looking picture. I thought they did a great job making King Kong expressive. However, the pacing was too slow - the movie didn't start really moving until the middle third and the last act was flabby as well. I'd see it again, but only at home where I could fast forward through the boring bits.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  87. Gooch
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Some wackjobs will try to complain and nitpick..but its not my job to get these losers laid. the movie is great....amaxing...yes, some flaws..but overall, it surpasses the original in every way possible. Matt C...get a hooker.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  88. Don
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    A classic tale of horror and beauty.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  89. MikeT.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    I just want to respond to Matt C, Kevin A, and everyone else that seems to have a problem with the filmaker not showing how they got Kong on the ship & back to New York. What no one has mentioned to these whiners is that the original 1933 version didn't show that either. They showed Kong getting knocked out with gas bombs, and then the next scene jumps to the premiere in New York. The 1976 version did show a scene of Kong on a different ship heading back to New York, but it still didn't show how they got him on there. So before you guys go trashing Jackson and Co., realize that they were just following the source material, which by the way is a classic of American cinema. But based on your comments, I doubt you two would know about such things - you probably haven't even seen the original for that matter. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  90. GeraldB.
    Dec 15, 2005
    4
    KONG 2005 hit all the right notes for a summer blockbuster, not surprising given the enormous budget and crew. What is surprising (and depressing) is the sheer number of users who are rating this a 10. If you rated it 10 out of 10- i'm assuming that the film is absolutely the greatest film you've ever seen in your entire life. Ever. I'd love to see these users 'Top 10 Films of All Time' lists. I can imagine most of consist entirely of Hollywood films made within the past 20 years. Maybe it's time al lyou "10" raters expanded your cinema horizons a bit. Calling KONG 2005 a "masterpeice' is like calling a Big Mac the pinnacle of gourmet, the epicurean peak. KONG's a super-supersize portion of popcorn in a shiny box. Nothing less, certainly nothing more. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  91. Bob
    Dec 15, 2005
    0
    Lets call a spade a spade. If you are so fascinated by special effects there are plenty of video games you could buy that can entertain your ADD. But to give this crapola high marks when the acting is so awful and the story unoriginal is beyond all imagination. Jack Black and Adrian Brody sucked. Its that pure and simple. The movie dragged on forever. There was no dialogue, no chemistry between the two stars; unless of course you mean The Big Ape and the girl. As for Adrian Brody I think she wanted to puke. The story is dated and totally implausable with more holes than Carter has Little Liver Pills. Don't be blindsighted by the Hollywood Left Wing. This movie is awful and I wouldn't watch it again unless you placed bamboo shoots in both of my eyes. Come to think of it I think the racist natives had bamboo shoots coming out of their eyes and every other oraface in their face. Nestle should be very proud that they sponsored a racist scene. Didn't anyone look at how the natives were portrayed? Talk about sterotyping, oh my God. This movie was preposterous and about two hours too long. Avoid at all costs. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  92. LassieH.
    Dec 15, 2005
    1
    Other than the neat special effects this movie was an abomination. It was worse than Ted Mack's amateur hour. It was a three act doozy of a movie with putting the audience to sleep for over the first hour, then suddenly taking us to Jurassic Park but laughable, then finally no speaking of any kind as NY welcome Kong to the Big Apple to machined gun down from the Empire State Building. As for Black and Brody whoever thought they could act? Ugly. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  93. ElizabethW.
    Dec 15, 2005
    2
    Horrid, boring and longwinded. Talk about being overhped? Wow this was overdone even larger than KONG himself. Very disappointing.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  94. SteveN.
    Dec 15, 2005
    1
    Well. I will say the CG was very good. After that the movie has nothing left except large PLOT HOLES. WARNING: THIN STORY LINE REVEALED NEXT! We spend the first hour or so watching Jack Black swindle everyone and no one is smart enough to catch on. Then they finally take a small boat from New York supposedly heading to Singapore! They demonstrate how small the boat is by making Adrien9;s character stay in one of the cages. Plothole #1. Finally they arrive at (Numb)Skull Island and must navigate through the rocks. The boat is seriously damaged and is taking on water. Plothole #2. Jack Black and his crew sneak off the boat and encounter the natives. The natives speak what sounds like Latin. The natives then begin killing some of the crew for no apparent reason. The captain who said he was leaving them to rot shows up to save them for no apparent reason. Plothole #3. Crew frees the boat from the rocks and instantly is back out to sea. Apparently no longer damaged. Plothole #4. One native is able to pole vault through all of the rocks and capture Naomi. Plothole #5. Not only are the natives fluent in Latin they are also certified brick masons as they were able to build the Great Wall of Skull island without being eaten by all of the monsters. Plothole #6. After feeding Naomi to Kong all of the natives magically disappear. Plothole #7. Captain gives Adrien and Jack 24 hours to get the girl and get back. Brontosaurus and Raptor chase scene involving Jack Black and Adrien Brody and a dozen crew who do not know the correct way to run between the legs of Brontosaurus' while being chased by velociraptors over a cliff that is crumbling. Plotholes #8-12. Loving Kong plays with Naomi then has his feelings hurt and lets her go. Butthole#1. Three T-Rex vs. Kong. Large dinosaurs with vicious teeth that do not puncture monkey flesh. Plothole #13. Two T-Rex swinging from fabulously strong vines hanging upside down and they are still trying to eat Naomi! Plothole #14. Kong shakes crew off of tree over ledge. All minor characters do not know the proper way to fall and die on impact. Jack Black and Adrein Brody and two other crew men ride tree most of the way down to battle giant spiders and tube worms. 25 minutes of shooting spiders off Adrien Brody with a machine gun without hitting him. Captain butt-munch swoops in and saves the day agian. Plotholes #15-20. Kong retreats across the island. Adrien manages to catch up with him in 2 minutes. Plothole #21. Killer bats leave Adrien alone and attack Kong. Plothole #22. Adrien and Naomi escape by hang gliding from a killer bat. Plothole #23. Adrien and Naomi are able to make it all the way back across the island without incident in 30 seconds. Plothole #24. Kong is "captured" by the crew using rocks and rope. He is then given 2 bottles of chloroform with no affect. Plotholes #25-26. Jack Black is able to throw one bottle of chloroform exactly right and knock Kong out. Plothole #27. Story skips to NY as they somehow manage to get a Monkey bigger than their boat back! Plothole #28. I left at this point. If you want to watch a mind numbing piece of garbage listen to the critics and waste your money on this. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  95. ShanaH.
    Dec 15, 2005
    8
    Sounds obvious, but this film is ALL about Kong. It really only comes into its own once he's on screen. And then you're literally in the palm of his hand. If you haven't seen yet, my one recommendation would be - bring kleenex! Jack Black - can you get any more one-dimensional?
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  96. Byron"Buster"B.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    After my extensive cartography lessons at a prestigious institution of higher learning, the mere idea of an undiscovered island existing--even in the midst of the Great Depression--are slim to none. If you're looking for a plot whole, here's another one: a ten ton gorilla running rampant on an island where all the critters are at a 8/5 scale of what they should be. In comparison, getting an ape on a boat seems pretty simple! SPOILER: despite what commercials tell you, this is not a documentary. King Kong is a myth! Sorry Matt! Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  97. JudyT.
    Dec 15, 2005
    4
    Too ridiculous for words. A movie for 13 year old boys. I was hoping that Ann would throw herself off the Empire State Building so that she could avoid another cheesy close up. Any body can make aCGI character, look at the Hulk but you have to breathe more than life into it. You have to get the audience into the movie and Pete fails to do that with this story.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  98. JainL
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    This is a truly amazing and heartfelt movie. The connection between our kingkong and naomi watts is beautiful. Everyone should see this and also realize the animal cruelty still going on in the world by the blinded people.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  99. AlanD.
    Dec 15, 2005
    6
    This movie is in the same vein as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy - great special effects but overly long. The story didn't pull me in emotionally and this made some of the corny dialogue even harder to bear. I give it a six just for the Ty Rex vs. Kong battle...
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  100. SeanD.
    Dec 15, 2005
    8
    So...everyone can plainly see my rating for the film and I will explain that shortly. However, I would like to take this time and refute some of the dismissals people place on the film. First, the so-called "racist" content: this complaint is laughable, because of its PC politics igoring the fact that no one in the film refers to the native peoples as "savage" or even derogatorily comments on the society. These are not cannibals but a race of people forced to live in rocky terrain and survive on fish (Jackson carefully places a shot of dried fish within a montage of the village), so yelling "movie foul" on Jackson's portrayal of primitive peoples holds no water. Secondly, users (and even some critics) decry the length of the film: my focus was on the pacing. Analyzing the film, we see an hour allowed for development of characters. Compare to, say a program people with short attention spans enjoy, Leguna Beach. THOSE 2-D characters have to have some kind of personality to warrant an entire season; however, the characters in "King Kong" need only be focused on for three hours. Who then can say that one hour to personalize and humanize Jack, Carl, Ann, Hays, the Captain, and Carl's crew is too much? It is not a huge demand considering the characters will be placed under extreme stresses for the remaining time. I give credit to Jackson for trying to go beyond introducing "fodder characters" and create personalities which will give some empathetic weight to the proceedings. Complaints then are from people not accustomed to quality characters; I mean, it's not excessive to have an hour if "Hamlet" runs over three hours for the sake of one character. The CGI was crafted with emotion (which I cannot say for Lucas' stark universe), but then Jackson was careful to include something real with the fabricated in each shot. Watts was rarely replaced with an animated standin (compared to Spiderman or Star Wars, both look like action figure battles in parts). My only criticism is that the script seemed to lose strength near the end, and in the jungle. Scenes relied too heavily on "moment" shots. It tells me that the filmmaker doesn't trust the view to "get" the point that fast. Over indulging on moments is what makes this film excessive to some viewers. All in all, the film entertained and carried a subtle theme of displacement and human nature. What I liked especially was the Depression montage of the beginning, the poverty of the people linking to the primitive culture and resulting finally in the synthesis of the two worlds, King Kong, having no other option but to die. That may be a bit much, I know, but I think it's worth noting that interpretations for the mythos range the spectrum, and Jackson is all the more responsible by maintaining the original ambiguity. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
Metascore

Universal acclaim - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 39
  2. Negative: 1 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: Devin Gordon
    90
    A surprisingly tender, even heartbreaking, film. Like the original, it's a tragic tale of beauty and the beast.
  2. What a movie! This is how the medium seduced us originally.
  3. One of the wonders of the holiday season.