User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1275 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. EmilC.
    Jan 19, 2006
    1
    First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The fights are stupid , acting is criminaly bad and I think that Peter Jackson had a fame struck to his had so he directed this bad film.Last sad the old First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The fights are stupid , acting is criminaly bad and I think that Peter Jackson had a fame struck to his had so he directed this bad film.Last sad the old and original King Kong was at least 10000 better and some legendary movies like that one should never be remaked. Expand
  2. Sidiot
    Jan 3, 2006
    0
    A movie only an idiot can love? What was to like? The unoriginal story; the terrible acting, a lame script with more holes than swiss cheese; or the editing that never took place? Peter Jackson is in love with himself as that's obvious. Boring and ludicrous.
  3. MichaelC
    Jan 4, 2006
    3
    The first part of the movie is the strongest. After that your oversized pocorn finds the way to your throat. Every action scene is like the punch in your stomach (not in a good way).
  4. Moose
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    LOL, Weldon. I couldn't have said it better myself. This one's for the kiddies.
  5. DarylS.
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed the beast" (at which point the entire cinema groaned). Script had no bearing on this movie. I went with no expectations, and left wondering what had Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed the beast" (at which point the entire cinema groaned). Script had no bearing on this movie. I went with no expectations, and left wondering what had happened. And I got a sore back to boot, after three hours sitting there wanting wanting wanting it to get better. But it just didn't. CGI is all well and good; but without a script, it's just all bells and whistles. Very disappointing. Expand
  6. ManF.
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them before, thought the dialogue and the love between Kong and Watts was real and incredible because they've never seen a Disney kid's movie Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them before, thought the dialogue and the love between Kong and Watts was real and incredible because they've never seen a Disney kid's movie (which will most likely have dialogue and emotions far realer than anything here), and most of all thought this was worth their time? At Least Armageddon was about half an hour shorter than this. Peter Jackson is a terrible, overrated hack and describing a director as "a child in a man's body" should really stop being considered a compliment. Expand
  7. Zachary
    Jan 5, 2006
    2
    Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent over the plot. The love story isn't believable, and by the end of the movie the audience member is left with too many uncertanties. This movie Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent over the plot. The love story isn't believable, and by the end of the movie the audience member is left with too many uncertanties. This movie is not memeroble, thought provoking or worthwhile, a three hour cinema bore. Expand
  8. TonyMontana
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    If a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negative posters are generally articulate, but the posters who rate it a 10 out of 10 'masterpiece' come across as children or adults of severely limitedIf a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negative posters are generally articulate, but the posters who rate it a 10 out of 10 'masterpiece' come across as children or adults of severely limited cranial activity. I particularly LMAO at the poster who gave it a 10 and called Peter Jackson a 'genious autuere". Says it all really... Expand
  9. Queenie
    Jan 9, 2006
    0
    K = Krapola I = Idiotic N = Nonsensical G = Grating K = Kindergarden O = Obnoxious N = Numbing G = Garbage.
  10. TimC.
    Mar 29, 2006
    3
    much over-rated. Much much too long and its like King Kong on Hollywood steroids. Peter Jackson, fresh of the triumph of the LOTR series, now is sitting in the same couch as George Lucas... the couch whereupon the master looks down on his domain and no-one dares question him. This movie goes on forever, and the FX, whilst marvelous, prevades every single frame of this movie to the point much over-rated. Much much too long and its like King Kong on Hollywood steroids. Peter Jackson, fresh of the triumph of the LOTR series, now is sitting in the same couch as George Lucas... the couch whereupon the master looks down on his domain and no-one dares question him. This movie goes on forever, and the FX, whilst marvelous, prevades every single frame of this movie to the point where I wish green/blue screens were never invented. How refreshing it is to see a "regular" (non CGI) movie after this gross overload. CGI can be done tastefully, but lets just say that King Kong is Jackson's equivalent of Lucas' new Star Wars prequels... a triumph of technology run amok with the director in such a position that no-one dare say that one three letter word; "But..." Expand
  11. DanielS
    Apr 7, 2006
    0
    I don't understand how people liked this movie. It was boring and stupid. Just when you thought it was time for a fight scene to end, it went for another 20 minutes. It was terrible and I like fight scenes.
  12. DeanS.
    Apr 9, 2006
    1
    Stick to Rings . . .not Kings. My wife and I were expecting a decent movie. It was appalling (thank you Simon!). Effects were 'blue screen' corny, the stunt 'rag doll' being thrown around for the blonde was almost comedic. Made our top 10 Worst Ever Movie list!
  13. 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.
  14. Spongeee
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    Crap! Racist Crap!! Horrible film making!
  15. 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, 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
  16. 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 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
  17. 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 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
  18. ElizabethW.
    Dec 15, 2005
    2
    Horrid, boring and longwinded. Talk about being overhped? Wow this was overdone even larger than KONG himself. Very disappointing.
  19. 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 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
  20. 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 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
  21. 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 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
  22. VoiceOfReason
    Dec 16, 2005
    2
    King Kong CGI = 10 Naomi Watts = 10 Jurassic Park Monsters = 10 Jurassic Park Scene = 5 Skull Island Believability = 0 Origninal Screenplay = 0 Jack Black = 0 Adrian Brody = 0 Watts - Brody Chemistry = 0 Cast of Thousands = 0 Intelligent Dialogue = 0 Any Dialogue = 0 Plot Holes = 1,000,000 Director = 0 Length of Movie = Way Too Long. PR Hype = In every way imaginable. Summary = Boring King Kong CGI = 10 Naomi Watts = 10 Jurassic Park Monsters = 10 Jurassic Park Scene = 5 Skull Island Believability = 0 Origninal Screenplay = 0 Jack Black = 0 Adrian Brody = 0 Watts - Brody Chemistry = 0 Cast of Thousands = 0 Intelligent Dialogue = 0 Any Dialogue = 0 Plot Holes = 1,000,000 Director = 0 Length of Movie = Way Too Long. PR Hype = In every way imaginable. Summary = Boring Inept Crapola. Recommendation = Stay Far Away. Expand
  23. AmosnAndy
    Dec 17, 2005
    0
    Alright, it's obvious that this movie was made with a great love of the original King Kong and the 1930's in general. I found it disgusting, then, that Jackson seemed to ignore the fact that racial stereotypes were so prevalent in the films of that time. In this 3 hour (felt like 10) "epic" we witness scenes of primitive brutality at the hands of the Skull Island natives. These Alright, it's obvious that this movie was made with a great love of the original King Kong and the 1930's in general. I found it disgusting, then, that Jackson seemed to ignore the fact that racial stereotypes were so prevalent in the films of that time. In this 3 hour (felt like 10) "epic" we witness scenes of primitive brutality at the hands of the Skull Island natives. These people were obviously using the leftover Ureki makeup from LOTR, so they look impish, filthy and evil. There is no humanizing them; every single last one of them, from the children to the elders, have only two purposes- to first be evil and try and kill our heroes so we hate them, and then to be heroically gunned down by the captain and crew so we cheer. I mean... am I the only one who felt that was at best extremely ignorant and at worst akin to reading "The White Man's Burden"? Jackson even threw in the stereotypical "Chinaman", with a little cap and Fu Manchu who speak like "Me rike fried wice!" and has one line of dialogue and is never once fleshed out into a real character and then dies. Well, no matter... continue giving out 10's. Peter Jackson could direct anything and it'd be seen as a masterpiece by all these stupid critics. This movie's emotions, action and special effects are on par with the 1998 Godzilla movie, but because Jackson and it's 3 hours long it must be BREATHTAKING! ASTONISHING! I WAS N THE EDGE OF MY SEAT! Expand
  24. ScottS.
    Dec 17, 2005
    2
    In a word, overwrought. Of the 187 minutes, seven were beautiful, rarified and touched by magic. As for the rest of the movie, the timeless story is trounced by excess, hubris and inconsistencies, and badly marred by a screenplay apparently written by a third grader. Earlier in his career, Jackson cared about characters, and used special effects to further the story. In Kong, the In a word, overwrought. Of the 187 minutes, seven were beautiful, rarified and touched by magic. As for the rest of the movie, the timeless story is trounced by excess, hubris and inconsistencies, and badly marred by a screenplay apparently written by a third grader. Earlier in his career, Jackson cared about characters, and used special effects to further the story. In Kong, the technology is the story, and the tone-deaf result is a bore. Expand
  25. Rajiv
    Dec 17, 2005
    3
    King Kong the imagery was magnificent. But if this is a blockbuster movie what is Gone With The Wind and Titanic. To even compare this sorry excuse with these two great films is a total joke. The critics had to be paid off.
  26. BillC.
    Dec 18, 2005
    3
    The first 30 minutes is completely useless.The rest of the film is more a tribute to better special effects than better story telling. Not the worst movie ever, but certainly not worthy of the pre release hype. Jack Black and Adrine Brody bring nothing to their roles. Ebert has lost his mind,he should retire.
  27. MarkC.
    Dec 18, 2005
    1
    Did Peter Jackson somehow spike the water of virtually every news organization in the U.S.? He must have - otherwise, I just don't see how this movie could have gotten so many good reviews. It is, simply put, an utter bore. Is this King Kong or Jurassic Park??? By the amount of time spent on Skull Island, you would think it was the former. And was it really necessary to drag out Did Peter Jackson somehow spike the water of virtually every news organization in the U.S.? He must have - otherwise, I just don't see how this movie could have gotten so many good reviews. It is, simply put, an utter bore. Is this King Kong or Jurassic Park??? By the amount of time spent on Skull Island, you would think it was the former. And was it really necessary to drag out those island chase scenes for eternity? There were about 5 good minutes in this movie (which came after sitting on my rear end for almost three hours.) It's no wonder the weekend grosses were disappointed for this supposed, "blockbuster". More like a ballbuster, if you ask me! Expand
  28. StanC.
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    OK, maybe it deserves 2 out of 10, but I had to give it a zero to balance out all of the inexplicable perfect scores. The writing is terrible and the story is a mess. The actors had to cringe when they saw the lines they were supposed to say. The flashy, slow-motion editing was a desperate attempt at trying to make the audience care about the story, as was the manipulative soundtrack. The OK, maybe it deserves 2 out of 10, but I had to give it a zero to balance out all of the inexplicable perfect scores. The writing is terrible and the story is a mess. The actors had to cringe when they saw the lines they were supposed to say. The flashy, slow-motion editing was a desperate attempt at trying to make the audience care about the story, as was the manipulative soundtrack. The King Kong story defiinitely carries a message relevant to today -- too bad P. Jackson created a giant wreck of a film. The best part of the movie was Kong himself, especially the details in his ape behavior. It is scary that people paid to be film critics are giving this movie great reviews. I'm not big on conspiracies, but one has to wonder who is controlling the spin surrounding this film. (Movie messes are often the result when a bigtime director has complete control of a film [see recent films by Scorcese, Spielberg, Lucas]. What happens? Do they get caught up in the details and lose sight of the "big picture"? Does time pressure to finish films force jumbled edits? Are the people working for them all afraid to criticize their bosses in fear of losing their paychecks?) Expand
  29. Harrison
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    Embark on an epic adventure created in collaboration with Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson and based on the Universal Pictures' film. Survive as Jack in a world crawling with predators and live the legend as Kong. Use weapons, traps, and your team wisely to survive in first-person as Jack. Break jaws, slam enemies, and throw massive objects in Kong's colossal Embark on an epic adventure created in collaboration with Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson and based on the Universal Pictures' film. Survive as Jack in a world crawling with predators and live the legend as Kong. Use weapons, traps, and your team wisely to survive in first-person as Jack. Break jaws, slam enemies, and throw massive objects in Kong's colossal third-person battles. [Ubisoft] This is KONG the video game that Peter Jackson released this past November. As for the movie, it's about the same as the game. Both are awful. Terrible self promoting garbage from the new master of disaster. This movie is way too long tedious and boring. Nothing new as it is same old same old. Expand
  30. KingDong
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    The original film is racist and this new version just highlights it. White people in black paint running around the island like crazy people...what is this??? The 50s??? Black Face??? Come on!!! A big ape who submits to a white woman and is saved by a white man...and then turns on the whities who helped him...how dare you ape, turn on the good ol white folks. This is racist and its just a The original film is racist and this new version just highlights it. White people in black paint running around the island like crazy people...what is this??? The 50s??? Black Face??? Come on!!! A big ape who submits to a white woman and is saved by a white man...and then turns on the whities who helped him...how dare you ape, turn on the good ol white folks. This is racist and its just a bad film. CGI sucks, there is no soul, Jack Black is horrible, only thing I like is Ms. Watts...but she cant make up for this crap film that all these racist critics are giving 10s to. Get real people! If you like this movie that much...no wonder Bush is still president. Expand
  31. SethB.
    Dec 19, 2005
    0
    "Is this an adventure story"? "No, It isn't" This dialougue is very telling of the movie and explains the length of this movie. I always respect movies being two in one-one for the popcorn crowd and another for the thinkers. Still this is very difficult to do (think "Signs") and produces a mediocre story, as it has here. Why does Kong want the damsel? Is he stupid? I notice the "Is this an adventure story"? "No, It isn't" This dialougue is very telling of the movie and explains the length of this movie. I always respect movies being two in one-one for the popcorn crowd and another for the thinkers. Still this is very difficult to do (think "Signs") and produces a mediocre story, as it has here. Why does Kong want the damsel? Is he stupid? I notice the island is curiously free of other apes, why? Then Kong would have company and would not need a human. Oh yeah, and none of the natives would do. It had to be a white woman. Go Hollywood! Expand
  32. JackW.
    Dec 19, 2005
    0
    Ten? You are giving this movie a perfect ten? Are you brain dead. There is no originality as this is a remake of a remake. Hello but we all know that CGI is now available in the 21st century. So what was so great about three hours of torture to its audience. Jack Black could act his way out of a paper bag. Adrian Brody had to cringe at the lines he had to deliver. As for plausability Ten? You are giving this movie a perfect ten? Are you brain dead. There is no originality as this is a remake of a remake. Hello but we all know that CGI is now available in the 21st century. So what was so great about three hours of torture to its audience. Jack Black could act his way out of a paper bag. Adrian Brody had to cringe at the lines he had to deliver. As for plausability forget about it as if you wanted to believe any of this ridiculous storyline you had to check your brains in at the door. No wonder this film with all the hype only did sixty million in five days at the box office. Word of mouth will kill this film. I can guarantee that they will never recapture the $210 million they spent to make this in the US. Perhaps overseas but not here. Peter Jackson has now proven that he is a genius on the level of the no talent George Lucas variety and the fading very fast Mr. Spielberg vis-a-vis ridiculous War of The Worlds. This turkey is an absolute bomb. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  33. BrianF.
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    After months of awaiting this monster, I cannot express just how disappointing the final result has become. Nothing of value or innovation has been introduced in this $207 million picture, and that has to be the biggest surprise of all. I've followed the production closely, and it all looked to add up to a complete tale, but turned into a figurehead of excess like the world of cinema After months of awaiting this monster, I cannot express just how disappointing the final result has become. Nothing of value or innovation has been introduced in this $207 million picture, and that has to be the biggest surprise of all. I've followed the production closely, and it all looked to add up to a complete tale, but turned into a figurehead of excess like the world of cinema hasn't seen all year. There are far too many good films coming out now to waste your time with the same-old same-old. Expand
  34. Issac
    Dec 21, 2005
    0
    Moronic. NO one could make a movie this bad? Welcome Peter Jackson to the Steven Speilberg George Lucas over the hill club. This movie is an abomination. Anyone giving this movie over a 3 needs to report to surgery to have a lobotomy. You are definitely brain dead from the neck up.
  35. Rostokov
    Dec 20, 2005
    3
    Unlike some of the other negative reviewers here, I believe that a great film of the Kong story could have been made with today's means, its just that Peter Jackson isn't the man to do it. Has no one noticed that he has little effective control of the medium? He cuts too much, he throws the camera around illogically, and his sense of character is immature. Although Naomi Watts, Unlike some of the other negative reviewers here, I believe that a great film of the Kong story could have been made with today's means, its just that Peter Jackson isn't the man to do it. Has no one noticed that he has little effective control of the medium? He cuts too much, he throws the camera around illogically, and his sense of character is immature. Although Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody and Andy Serkis are fine, the rest of the cast are unconvincing, and are further undermined by banal dialogue and quick-cutting. A few action sequences are moderately entertaining through sheer unrelenting excess, but are poor relatives to Spielberg's work. Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds may have their flaws but they ably demonstrate how to involve and excite the audience with expert shot selection, action choreography and modulation of tempo. Peter Jackson has not achieved such mastery. He has too few tricks and too much money to throw at the screen. Shame, cos he looks like a nice enough bloke. Expand
  36. ScottC.
    Dec 21, 2005
    2
    Simply mundane.
  37. DonM.
    Dec 22, 2005
    0
    Terrible, unoriginal and 2 1/2 hours too long.
  38. WyattEarp
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    The special effects were excellent but then again so is ice cream. What happens to you if you devour a full gallon of ice cream? You get deathly ill that's what. And that is what happend with this remake trash of a movie. The suspense part is totally gone because unless you are in an isolation chamber somewhere everyone knows the tragic story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King The special effects were excellent but then again so is ice cream. What happens to you if you devour a full gallon of ice cream? You get deathly ill that's what. And that is what happend with this remake trash of a movie. The suspense part is totally gone because unless you are in an isolation chamber somewhere everyone knows the tragic story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King Kong. So no suspense. Enter Peter Jackson with his $200 million budget of toys. Peter says I'll show them what I can do. And for the next three hours he first puts us to sleep with irrelevant shots of the depression of 1933 which has nothing to do with King Kong. He gives us actors who can't act with some of the clumsiest writing this side of the 21st century. If that isn't bad enough, after over an hour of crapola he finally takes us Skull Island vis-a-vis a rip off of Jurassic Park. He comes with special effect after specail effect ad nauseam. The story line with these special effects are totally implausable. By this time the audience is actually laughing at his stupidity. And if this wasn't bad enough somehow he manages to skip over getting Kong back on the little boat that could taking him back so that he could destroy NYC in the dead of winter with Ann Darrow in a sheer dress with high heels on top of the Empire State Building. The only thing that could have saved this movie was if when Kong tried to save her, instead she put her finer down her throat and jumped. Now that would have been the fitting ending to this trailer trash of an effort because that is how I and most of the audience felt on the way out of the theater. I actually saw people with bags over their heads not wanting to be identified. Horrible. Expand
  39. AntonioH.
    Dec 23, 2005
    2
    Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all the ominous talk on the ship. Instead, I found myself waiting for the inevitable. And it doesn't help that the audience knows exactly what is Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all the ominous talk on the ship. Instead, I found myself waiting for the inevitable. And it doesn't help that the audience knows exactly what is coming because they have all seen an endless number of previews. It is truly perplexing that Jackson, who does have a creative vision, decided to focus the main action scene on a battle with T-Rexes. Remake King Kong. Don't remake Jurassic Park. Why spend $200 million on something so unoriginal. And, yes, Jack Black is the wry hipster horribly misplaced in a 1930's era film. Expand
  40. Leroy
    Dec 24, 2005
    0
    Only three hours too long otherwise it was great.
  41. LameBrain
    Dec 26, 2005
    0
    Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. The second act is a return to Jurassic Park with some of the stupidest written scenes ever created. A trained monkey could have written a script better Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. The second act is a return to Jurassic Park with some of the stupidest written scenes ever created. A trained monkey could have written a script better than this. By the time they reach NY the movie should have capsized but we are forced to watch a last act without any dialogue. I think I saw Adrian Brody looking at his watch hoping Kong would jump to his death. I think he wishes it could have been him to be associated with such a lame effort. Avoid like the plague. Expand
  42. EveK.
    Dec 26, 2005
    2
    What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and character development matter even in an action fantasy. everything went on way, way too long. An exposition of over an hour and then when the characters are What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and character development matter even in an action fantasy. everything went on way, way too long. An exposition of over an hour and then when the characters are totally forgettable?? And why did the bats all of a sudden attack Kong, when he's obviously been hanging out with them for eons? There were so many things like that which just didn't make any sense. The scene which would have been really interesting -- how the hell did they get Kong on the ship and keep him alive on the voyage back to New York -- wasn't part of the picture. Sorry, a huge disappointment. Some nice touches for sure, thus the 2 rating instead of a 0, but I cringe at the waste of money. Expand
  43. RichardG.
    Dec 27, 2005
    1
    Slow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutes another one jumps into the ring: wow, twice the thrill and suspense. The battle rages on for another five minutes, then -- omigod, can you believe it! --Slow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutes another one jumps into the ring: wow, twice the thrill and suspense. The battle rages on for another five minutes, then -- omigod, can you believe it! -- another T Rex joins the fray and we Expand
  44. Bruno
    Dec 27, 2005
    2
    Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is not even a second of an art, megalomaniac Jackson have definetly lost his brian. Guy that needs $$$$ to make a film and makes 30 minutes scene where Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is not even a second of an art, megalomaniac Jackson have definetly lost his brian. Guy that needs $$$$ to make a film and makes 30 minutes scene where huge dinosaurs fights king kong. No space for character development, dialogs, work with cameras, crafty pictures... all is lost in megalomaniac garbage where 30 feet monster fights another 30 feet monster. Expand
  45. WorstOfAllTime
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special effects are over the top without a story line connected to it that makes any sense. For example do you think the vampire bats would attack Kong or the weak Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special effects are over the top without a story line connected to it that makes any sense. For example do you think the vampire bats would attack Kong or the weak humans who are simply standing there watching? Do you think you could actually catch a ride on a bat and land gently on the water. Do you think one bottle of chloroform put the Big Baby to sleep. And if it did how did they lift him on the small damaged boat that didn't even have a room for Adrian Brody? How did they get him through the door? Why did he not destroy the boat as he did NYC? What did they feed him? If the steel chains did not hold him how did they transport him to the theater without his destroying NYC? How did they rehearse? Why did the natives not try to protect him? Where did they go? This movie had more plot holes than swiss cheese. But you want us to believe that this was a good movie? Why because two-hundred million dollars was spent on bells and whistles with dumbed down special effects? This was eaily the second worst movie of the year behind War of the Worlds. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  46. Jeremy
    Dec 28, 2005
    0
    Hated It. Way toooooooo looong.
  47. AndyH.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and downright laughable. The dialogue is nonexistant. The acting is awful especially Jack Black. Adrian Brody simply in unbelievable as the love interest for Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and downright laughable. The dialogue is nonexistant. The acting is awful especially Jack Black. Adrian Brody simply in unbelievable as the love interest for Ann Darrow. There is no chemistry. As for Skull Island it doesn't compute. The CGI is over the top. The writing is laughable. The native scene is racist pure and simple. They are canibals who worship Kong. Why? How did they build that giant wall without being eaten by all the other monsters that inhabit the Island. Perhaps in the sequel when Peter Jackson tells us what we saw was a dream that this will be explained right? Secondly, if Kong is the true master of all the monsters how come he is the only Ape on the island? Where are the others? How was he born? Where are his parents? His brothers? His sisters? His children? His mate? I guess he was in danger of becoming extinct because of Jack Black types taking him to other major cities to destroy them? Anyway the circus stunts were great with the same reel of the dinasaur stampede repeated three times. Then Kong fights 3 T-Rexs with one hand while holding Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) in the other. Yeah right? And didn't you love how the Captain suddenly became an action hero shooting spiders with one hand while swinging on the vine with the other. I tell you this was something else. Then the damaged boat takes Kong back to NY. How did they get him on the boat? How did they keep him from jumping ship? Where did they keep him? Remember this was a little boat that was damaged on the rocks when it came to Skull Island? He couldn't fit through any doorway? He couldn't fit in one of those cages him being a 4 ton gorilla? What did they feed him? How come he didn't destroy the boat? They had no chains to hold him? Explain it to us? Then he comes to NY and destroys the City on cue. As for Naomi in a flimsy dress and high heels, well, after everything else I saw, why not in in the middle of winter without a coat. The only thing missing was one of those vampire bats flying by the Empire State Building and Kong grabbing hold like Adrian did and being flown back to Skull Island with the natives chanting Kong - Kong - Kong! By the way, the natives that worshipped Kong where did they disappear too when the Big Ape fell asleep? I guess Peter Jackson's budget ran out. And you idiots gave this movie a ten? I only wish Peter Jackson could have been eaten by one of his wormy creatures from the head down? This movie was a disgrace. And finally what does Circa NYC 1933 have to do with the remake of the remake of King Kong? Was it germain to the story of Kong? Absolutely Not! But Jackson decided since the original was shot in 1933 why not spend some more money on some useless trailer trash. This effort was ugly. Expand
  48. Mike
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    I started to like the movie for the first 30 mins, and then it became very very bad. The fighting between king kong and 3 trex was laughable. The acting is also very very bad, and this is very disappointing because in other films these actors are great!!! Can it be becasue of the bad directing? The only great thing about this movie are the special effects. nothing else.
  49. TrainerFred
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    Peter Jackson couldn't train a mouse to eat cheese after watching this garbage. Over three hours long and about three hours should have been left on the cutting room floor. Garbage in is garbage out. Awful.
  50. Trudy
    Jan 13, 2006
    1
    Other than the excellent CGI done without a script to go with it, the movie just falls off a cliff and dies. Simply awful.
  51. ChrisC.
    Jan 16, 2006
    2
    Did I see the same movie? What a bloated, self-indulgent, clumsy pile of...well...you get the idea. Laughable dialog. Shots and plots devices stolen from LOTR and Jurassic Park. The relationship between Watts and the monkey was moving, but lost in three hours of leaden cliche.
  52. Ironik
    Jan 21, 2006
    0
    Disaster. How could Jackson make such a silly film. It is nice that he can play with a computer but that does not make a good movie.
  53. SEvans
    Mar 31, 2006
    3
    I'm giving Kong a 3 for wasting 3 hours of my time. Brutal.
  54. 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 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 Expand
  55. 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 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
  56. 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 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. Collapse
  57. FauxPas
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    I was stunned at how bad this movie was, I'm truly mystified at how all these critics gave it positive ratings. It took an hour to get to the stupid island. Then it thought it was Jurassic Park for 30 minutes; then about 30 minutes of Starship Troopers with big bugs. And where did all the natives go the second time our heroes landed on the island? Oh, and did anyone else notice that I was stunned at how bad this movie was, I'm truly mystified at how all these critics gave it positive ratings. It took an hour to get to the stupid island. Then it thought it was Jurassic Park for 30 minutes; then about 30 minutes of Starship Troopers with big bugs. And where did all the natives go the second time our heroes landed on the island? Oh, and did anyone else notice that Ann was outside with Kong overnight in skimpy dress in the middle of winter? Yes, I know this is a fantasy pic, but let's at least get some basic physical realities right! This movie was horrible. Expand
  58. AlbertSchweitzer
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad. Laughable, dull, trite. Far less convincing than the original in terms of character emotions and especially the logic of its action scenes. Self-serious in the extreme. Jack Black is terrible. On the upside, three excellent action sequences (amounting to ~20 minutes) and good acting (in thankless roles) from the rest of the cast. Not quite Very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad. Laughable, dull, trite. Far less convincing than the original in terms of character emotions and especially the logic of its action scenes. Self-serious in the extreme. Jack Black is terrible. On the upside, three excellent action sequences (amounting to ~20 minutes) and good acting (in thankless roles) from the rest of the cast. Not quite believable but nice-looking mock-ups of Depression-era New York. Expand
  59. MattT.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Peter Jackson's revisit of King Kong was big in imagination and poor in execution. Skull island was a poor mix of Jurassic Park and Lord of the Flies, filled with impossible situations that the main characters kept surviving despite the endless supply of extras that kept appearing to be trampled or eaten. The island scenes dragged on forever. Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts had little Peter Jackson's revisit of King Kong was big in imagination and poor in execution. Skull island was a poor mix of Jurassic Park and Lord of the Flies, filled with impossible situations that the main characters kept surviving despite the endless supply of extras that kept appearing to be trampled or eaten. The island scenes dragged on forever. Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts had little chemistry and poorly written parts. Jack Black was in way over his head. The finale in New York was visually pretty well done although the park scenes were completely out of place and Jack Black's last line was wooden and poorly delivered. This was a total waste of three hours despite the best efforts of the ape. Kong couldn't rescue this turkey Peter Jackson. Expand
  60. SaulR.
    Dec 18, 2005
    2
    WOW! Peter Jackson's done it again! He's fallen on his hands and knees and worshipped at the altar of empty special effects. Don't any of you people who rate this film so highly EVER wish to see something ORIGINAL at the cinema instead of this endless cycle of xerox remakes, sequels and adaptations? Maybe when you're marvelling at the CGI in McDONALDS: THE MOVIE some WOW! Peter Jackson's done it again! He's fallen on his hands and knees and worshipped at the altar of empty special effects. Don't any of you people who rate this film so highly EVER wish to see something ORIGINAL at the cinema instead of this endless cycle of xerox remakes, sequels and adaptations? Maybe when you're marvelling at the CGI in McDONALDS: THE MOVIE some of you might rub your glazed eyes and think "Is THAt all there is?" The original KING KONG was a perfectly paced rollercoaster ride. This remake is like being stuck on a rapidly spinning Ferris Wheel for three hours. As for the guy who said it "surpasses the original in ever way"...yep-in every way except ORIGINALITY...but who cares about fresh ideas for stores when you 've got al that 'magical' CG eye candy to stare at? Sigh... Expand
  61. MichaelJ.
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless than I could have imagined. Is it the fake, laughable "love" story that's causing everyone to freak out about this movie and proclaim it an This is quite possibly the worst time I've had at the theaters all year. I didn't think any movie could drag on for so long and be as pointless as Brothers Grimm, but this one out does it by being longer, dumber, and more pointless than I could have imagined. Is it the fake, laughable "love" story that's causing everyone to freak out about this movie and proclaim it an instant classic? The repetitive, headache inducing "action" scenes? Or the hillarious off target "acting"? Expect this to rack up a lot of Oscars, for it's as bloated and self-serious as Return of the King, and it seems everyone in the movie business has been paid off by Jackson and company. Expand
  62. GeorgeJ
    Dec 18, 2005
    2
    OK, several someones are stuffing the ballot box with 10's.; there's no other explanation. In the first 30 minutes I was looking at my watch and debating what to have for dinner. Jackson has taken up the mantle of Lucas and is prepared to offer us high tech movies with little story or dialogue.
  63. LordLuscious
    Dec 19, 2005
    0
    Well, money doesn't buy everything. Jackson's "labor of love" cost about the amount of money that could feed every starving person in the world several times over. All this money is spent on cheap looking, stupid special effects. It's fun to try and point out all the scenes where the actors are obviously looking at a green screen. "So you mean when this is done it'll Well, money doesn't buy everything. Jackson's "labor of love" cost about the amount of money that could feed every starving person in the world several times over. All this money is spent on cheap looking, stupid special effects. It's fun to try and point out all the scenes where the actors are obviously looking at a green screen. "So you mean when this is done it'll look like I'm pointing at a Brontosaurus!?". The critics are absolutely crazy on this one, as if they've ony been allowed to watch big, stupid summer blockbusters their whole life and because this one shows a glimmer (a faint, faint, fake, cheap glimmer) of emotion behind all the lifeless CGI it must be one of the greatest movies ever. At least Catwoman and Herbie: Fully Loaded didn't take themselves so seriously and take an entire weekend to watch. Expand
  64. TheProfitcy
    Dec 21, 2005
    0
    If you like your action dumb, with all the chest banging, tribal stereotyping and logic destroying fun of the "old time" classics, you'll still find this movie, dumb, ignorant and pukifying. So excuse me, I must go puke just thinking about this piece of trash.
  65. HolidayDoc
    Dec 22, 2005
    0
    Nothing can save this movie. It is so campy and bad that it is truly awful. All you people giving this movie high marks report to the hospital to schedule your lobotomy as you have lost your minds. If this movie is nominated for anything other than special effects it would be a disgrace to the Academy. This is as bad as it gets and three excruciating hours long to boot. Where have you Nothing can save this movie. It is so campy and bad that it is truly awful. All you people giving this movie high marks report to the hospital to schedule your lobotomy as you have lost your minds. If this movie is nominated for anything other than special effects it would be a disgrace to the Academy. This is as bad as it gets and three excruciating hours long to boot. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Expand
  66. RVVen
    Dec 22, 2005
    2
    Worst of the 3 Kong films. Useless reimagning, endless sweeping shots, heavy handed acting, horrible editing, etc...
  67. SeanS.
    Dec 22, 2005
    1
    This movie is the worst movie I have seen since The Titanic was released.
  68. StormIest
    Dec 26, 2005
    0
    Don't be fooled. This movie is terribly written, and when the visuals seem plastic and fake, and they often do, there is absolutely nothing to keep your attention on screen. Peter Jackson has never made a good film. He just doesn't get it.
  69. ArmstrongR.
    Dec 26, 2005
    3
    Mick LaSalle's review of the movie for the San Francisco Chronicle is dead on. Peter Jackson's "Kong" is full of clever ideas, exciting action and touching moments, most of which should have been left on the cutting room floor.
  70. Freakster
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there wasn't any except for some imbosylic yaking by the horrendous Jack Black. This movie is a total disgrace. If you want to watch stupid moronic Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there wasn't any except for some imbosylic yaking by the horrendous Jack Black. This movie is a total disgrace. If you want to watch stupid moronic nonsense watch the video game. This movie is terrible. Expand
  71. Bosko
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. There's not one character that didn't belong in a Hanna Babera cartoon.
  72. KeithL.
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the hype or the critics, the studio paid handsomely for those write ups no doubt because this a brainless farce that drags and lopes with no sense of I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the hype or the critics, the studio paid handsomely for those write ups no doubt because this a brainless farce that drags and lopes with no sense of grounding whatsoever. To make matters worse, it looks hastily prepared. The special effects aren't very special in many spots and, hey now, the story lags too. Bad, bad, bad, and it sucks too. Did I mention that we all hated it? This is as bad as the following: The Mummy, The Hulk, Batman & Robin, Godzilla 1998, and ANY of the Star Wars prequels (admittedly I have not seen Episode III--and don't need or want to). It actually makes Dino DeLaurentis' 1976 version look like pure genius. Peter Jackson, what have you done? Thank god it was $5 night. BTW: Funny story. I left to pee during the excruciating bug attack sequence and there were people in the hallway harassing theatre emplyees for their money back over this. One guy said, "you mean to tell me I have to sit in there for another hour and not get some kind of compensation?" I busted out laughing and expressed my sentiments. If I had to sit through it, WE ALL had to sit through it. Expand
  73. LeslieL.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off during the excruciating long first hour. By the time we get to Skull Island the movie turns into a comedy. Peter Jackson is a joke.
Metascore
81

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.