User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1274 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. 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 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
  2. Jakefreydont-A.
    Dec 16, 2005
    2
    I didn't give it a 0 because I did enjoy the first 45 minutes, you know, the part with the dialog. The rest is just a loud obnoxious video game. There was no reason for this movie to get made, it is so boring, what a waste of $200 mil. and I'm sure peter jackson thinks he's a great director.... sad.
  3. Allen
    Jan 2, 2006
    0
    Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen better special effects on video games. As for the story it is not original as it is a remake of a remake. There was no suspense as everyone knows the Dennis you said anyone who gives this film a rating lower than a 5 is not to be taken seriously? Likewise your rating is preposterous. There was no dialogue in this tedious film. The acting was inept and the directing even worse. I have seen better special effects on video games. As for the story it is not original as it is a remake of a remake. There was no suspense as everyone knows the ending. As for the storyline what Jackson did was a disgrace. He robbed other movies and tried to do one better. The Skull Island scene was preposterous. There were more plot holes than Carter has little liver pills. Basically what you are advocating is checking your brains in at the door. The audience I saw it with was booing and screaming Refund when they were not walking out. This terrible version of Kong was worse than the 1976 remake and I for one did not think that was possible. Jack Black is one dimensional and was awful as well as being miscast. The movie was about 2 hours too long and the boring first hour set up nothing. Can anyone tell us how the Big Ape was transported on the little broken down boat back to NYC. After all he couldn't fit down into the hull, was too big for the cages and how did they keep him locked up without destroying the boat? This is the same Kong who destroyed NY on cue without doing so at the rehersals for the big Broadway spectacular in 1933 Depression NY. By the way then how come everyone had a tuxedo on? And do people go out in the snow without a coat in a spring dress with high heels on? Please this movie is a disaster movie all right but for all the wrong reasons. A perfect 10? You're either dreaming or had a lobotomy? Expand
  4. Jeff
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    Gratuitous, soulless, shallow and stupid. This isn't a movie: it's a video game.
  5. sirgeorge
    May 8, 2006
    0
    I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry him through? what about how did he get to new york? the boat was too small for the crew! what about when kong escaped in new york? it was a thousand I just saw movie on dvd and its by far the worst movie I've ever seen. did Peter look at the movie before he gave it to the studio? did anyone notice when they tried to capture kong the first time the path they would of tried to carry him through? what about how did he get to new york? the boat was too small for the crew! what about when kong escaped in new york? it was a thousand cabs in the street then he sees the girl and everything and everyone dissapears at one time! and to top it off, he plays on the ice in new york city. WOW! PETER, WATCH THE MOVIE BEFORE YOU SEND IT IN! Expand
  6. BrendanD.
    Apr 20, 2007
    0
    The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight of a horrible direction. But Peter Jackson's take on "King Kong" is the worst version of the most overrated story of all time. First of all, The "King Kong" with Faye Wray was a horrible, schlocky story that, quite frankly, demeaned everyone who worked on it, Wray included. The "King Kong" with Jeff Daniels suffered from its own epic delusions, finally crumbling under the weight of a horrible direction. But Peter Jackson's take on "King Kong" is the worst version of the most overrated story of all time. First of all, Jackson tries to approach this version with the same eye that Steven Spielberg used in the first hour or so of "Jurassic Park." At this point, however, you can't do that, because "Jurassic Park" did that awe-inspiring animated-animals moment better than any movie before or since -- it still sends a shiver up my spine when I watch the brontosaur jump up to grab the top leaves on the trees. There is no "wow" moment in Jackson's "King Kong" because Jackson tries to cram "wow" moments in every five or six minutes, completely obliterating their impact. Now, I've heard from both critics and members of my own family that the ape was beautifully animated. I say now what I said to them: WHAT?!? Through the entire damned movie, all I could think was, "Wow, that ape doesn't look real at all; it looks like a character from an XBOX-360 game." The world in which Kong lives is likewise hokey, looking like nothing but lame backdrops excised from "Return of the King" (easily the worst and most pretentious of the "Lord of the Rings" movies). Then there's the writing. The story of "Kong" is bad enough, but humanizing the animal only makes it worse. Let's make one thing clear: Kong is a giant ape who appears to have marked intelligence and emotion. But he is still an ape! A friend once told me that this is a stupid reason to dislike the film, but frankly, I don't know how anyone could put the obvious bestial implications out of his or her mind. To be fair, the movie never even comes close to touching the bestiality subject; but the fact that there's even a hint that Naomi Watts's character might be feeling something for the ape is a little bit nausea-inducing. If there bond between Watts and the ape had been more a mother-son kind of relationship, the film might've worked better; but as it stands, it straddles the love relationship without fully dedicating itself one way or the other whilst hinting at the obviously disturbing prospect of an affair between the two. Meanwhile, the script itself is horrendous. There is not one good piece of dialogue throughout the entire film. I'm not sure if Jackson allowed a herd of rabid, mentally-challenged Venusian cows to write it, or if he got so wrapped up in chase scenes and third-rate "Jurassic Park" tyrannosaur knock-offs that he forgot that what's being said is important, but either way, not even Jack Black can save some of the dumbest lines ever uttered in cinematic history. ...Which brings me to my next point: The acting was atrocious. I have to disagree with those who have been pseudo-apologists for Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Andy Serkis. Each of the three has done brilliant work in the past, but "Kong" is not something they should put on their resumes. Black spends the entire movie looking lost, and Serkis, who deserved a million awards for the Gollum-schizophrenia scene in "The Two Towers," does not make the big ape any more realistic. Even Watts, who at least attempts to bring something to the table, ends up crumbling under the weight of an overwrought, underdeveloped, underwritten script, and her performance suffers precisely because of it. Then there's Peter Jackson. After "The Two Towers," which I still believe was his crowning achievement as a director, I was willing to forgive the tedious final hour of "Return of the King," especially because the final two scenes were so emotionally powerful. "King Kong," however, is a directorial mess. He switches camera angles at all the wrong times, and he doesn't focus on what he should when he should. For example, the penultimate scene, the famous one in which Kong is assaulted by mighty fighter jets, gets lost in its own action; rather than using the beautiful backdrop of New York City as its focal point, it uses Kong, and Watts gets lost. This is no good, especially when the skyline of New York is dolled up to look like something out of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." And here's another problem: the scale of everything changes when Kong gets to New York City. Kong was easily the largest thing on Skull Island; yet he is all-of-a-sudden minuscule when he climbs up the Empire State Building. This scene actually worked in previous incarnations of "Kong" because the ape wasn't meant to look too real, giving the (admittedly dumb) story a kind of fairy-tale feel to it. Here, however, Jackson has made a lot of attempts to show Kong's fur waving in the wind, his eyes twitching and blinking like a human's, his mouth occasionally twisting up into a man-like smile. You can't have it both ways! The ape has more distinct mannerisms than any Kong before it, and yet the Empire State Building looks like it could reach the Cloud City from "The Empire Strikes Back." Finally, as many have pointed out, there's the running time. Yes, about a good hour could've been trimmed off the movie and still gotten Jackson's point across, potentially better. But the first forty-five minutes are a snore, too, even though there's lots of plot happening; likewise, the return to New York City, before Kong shows up, is a snoozer, although it contains the entire setup for the Grand Finale. And that's not even counting the hour and a half (or so) Jackson spends on all the different weirdo Skull Island creatures. The point is, the movie plods along rather than meanders; and the action sequences, far from advancing the plot, make the story come to an absolute stand-still in favor of bang-bang-bang action. Honestly, I cannot fathom what possessed critics (or anyone else) to recommend this film. It is one of the most pretentious, boring, stupid movies ever made, and Jackson ought to issue a bigger apology for this than George Lucas needs to for "The Phantom Menace." We live in a digital age, which could've given Jackson the chance to bring something new to the Kong mythos. Instead, he simply rehashes what's already done (and actually kind of dumbs it down), crafting a movie that might've looked good in 1933, but that now just makes me want to throw popcorn at the screen and sit there for another three hours demanding that Jackson compensate me for the time spent watching this awful mess. Expand
  7. VaibhavD.
    Dec 19, 2005
    1
    I went to watch this despite my rule to avoid $100 million plus extravaganzas. I was seduced by the critics surprisingly gushing response and had to overcome my own tepid feelings for the subject matter of the movie. In retrospect I greatly regretted this experience. The movie is abysmal and does not function at any level that is expected to be deeper than a video game. Apart from writing I went to watch this despite my rule to avoid $100 million plus extravaganzas. I was seduced by the critics surprisingly gushing response and had to overcome my own tepid feelings for the subject matter of the movie. In retrospect I greatly regretted this experience. The movie is abysmal and does not function at any level that is expected to be deeper than a video game. Apart from writing a review of the movie, someone needs to write a critical review of the reviews. How has this film achieved universal acclaim from professional critics? Did Jackson release two prints, one for the critics that was decent and one for the rest of us, that was abysmal? Or for some inexplicable reason, did the critics feel like they had to write the reviews they did. Most great films get better the more one thinks about them. This movie just seems worse and worse when you rewind it in your mind. The ape effects and Sirkis are good but you can see these parts in the free previews on the web. These brief moments simply (and not frequently enough) punctuate vast swathes of tedium and idiocy. I recommend that you avoid this movie at all costs. Expand
  8. Katherine
    Jul 28, 2006
    0
    Why did they make ANOTHER King Kong? I mean it has been made about 8 times, and everyone knows how it ends. Kong dies at the end. So it's not like you changed it so much. It ends the same. So why don't the directors of today just stop taking other peoples ideas and be original.
  9. DiegoF.
    Jan 18, 2007
    1
    I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if they are computer graphics or miniatures. The first hour of the movie is alright but once the monkey appears it's just bullshit! The fight of I'm surprised about the great rating this movie has been given! It's painful to watch it! I couldn't finish the movie because it bored me so much! The only good aspects would be the special effects which you can always tell if they are computer graphics or miniatures. The first hour of the movie is alright but once the monkey appears it's just bullshit! The fight of Kong with the 3 T-rexes is so bad! The director forgot tha humans have bones. Kong kept throwing Ann into the air and grabbing her with his feet or hands. After the first grab a human would probably be dead! Maybe as a remake it's good, I don't know because I never saw the originall. As a movie it stinks! Expand
  10. EricK.
    May 11, 2008
    0
    A disgrace to the original, which is one of the greatest films of all time.
  11. D.S.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    This is simply a bad movie. Maybe the made the video game first, which is why it's all about dinosaurs and giant insects? The plot is jumpy and incoherent, and the characters are not developed at all. The so-called love story with Watts & Brody is a joke. Why are people saying this is a good movie? It's not!
  12. TwoHankies
    Dec 17, 2005
    0
    C'mon this is the best con job since the invention of the pet rock. There was no acting, no originality, and certainly nothing more than an expensive video game. The critics must have had a lobotomy to have liked this crap. Avoid.
  13. MarkR.
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    Absolutely brutal. No special effects can make up for bad acting, terrible directing, no orignality and plot holes you can drive a Mack truck through. And that first hour how boring get you get. As for the rest of it, if I want to be entertained with a video game that doesn't make any sense I can do that for a lot less than what I paid to see this crapola.
  14. MattY.
    Feb 11, 2007
    3
    The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result The most amazing thing about King Kong is its consistency. This film delivers something genuinely idiotic every 10-15 seconds. After 3 hours of horrible dialogue, flat stock characers, and implausible action scenes, my throat was sore from scoffing. Generally, I would not waste my time railing about a Hollywood action movie.. but the amount of MONEY dumped into this movie makes the result more profane than the typical big-budget drivel. Man, you could change the world with $300,000,000... or you could make a few bucks and lower the worlds collective IQ.. Great choice Peter. Expand
  15. BillyD.
    Dec 25, 2005
    2
    I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all involved for making me hate a fight between dinosaurs and a gargatuan ape. I should have been the easiest sell in the world, but instead I watched my shoes for the last hour of the movie. Expand
  16. 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.
  17. 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 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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 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
  21. 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, 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 $6.25 and the rest of the good people's in my theater. I feel that the only reason that more viewers didn't walk out of this movie besides me and my best friend was because it is unfortunately slightly embarrassing and, yes, "elitist", to throw up your hands in disgust in the middle of a movie theater and promtly leave. I used to firmly believe that ALL people were more complex that they first seem. Statistical discrimination, I guess, is justified. Expand
  22. GeorgeR.
    Dec 20, 2005
    2
    It would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was noIt would seem the only two reasons to retell this story would be to show-off improved visual effects (including a better looking fay wray) or to examine the story in a new intellectual light (i.e. kong as islam or some such), but except for the stunning scene atop the empire state building (i've never been more afraid of heights - praise to the background artists), there was no motivation to make this movie again. kong still moves like the stop-motion animated creature from the 30's (too sharply or too laboriously), naomi watts looks like a bucktoothed flatchested hillbilly, and kong is kong is kong - no new insights. why were all these non-elements worth three hours of my life? if for whatever reason i ever taught a class in editing at an elementary school i would assign students this movie and ask them to make a one hour and 50 minute version. it would undoubtedly take them all of a half hour to do so. what were the filmmaker$ thinking? Expand
  23. 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). 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
  24. GoffyA.
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    How bad can a movie be? In two words: KING KONG.
  25. Jul 3, 2011
    0
    This is my least favorite movie of all time.
    In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and
    This is my least favorite movie of all time.
    In his attempt to make King Kong more like Lord of the Rings, Jackson has made an epic exposition of unbelievable events and stupidity. This movie is at least 1 hour too long and every action scene is less plausible than the last, removing all tension and immersion. There are no likable protagonists, villains or heroes and the plot and character development are more childish than an episode of Sponge Bob.
    I truly hate this pile of crap that King Kong himself could not excrete from his massive anus.
    Expand
  26. Jun 30, 2012
    3
    The more I watch this movie, the crappier it gets. Why? Because half of it is just screaming.. The acting was crap for the most part, I hate to **** talk Peter Jackson, but sorry man, this one was good for its time, but it has died to me.
  27. JohnH.
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    This is just bad. Mr. Jackson has failed us again.
  28. InsanelySane
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action sequences and hollow, shallow attempts at immersing a sense of wonder which made me, I swear on this, feel ill and depressed when the nightmare finally This film.... ...deserves some credit for the sheer amount of work put into the mostly pointless CGI... I cannot think of an appropriate metaphor to describe the torture I had gone through sitting in the cinema - with insulting action sequences and hollow, shallow attempts at immersing a sense of wonder which made me, I swear on this, feel ill and depressed when the nightmare finally ended.. I find it ridiculous how technology excuses much of what should not be allowed to be excused!! - Some vague attempt at emotion used in CGI DOES NOT WARRANT comments that say that this is an emotional film or that it has depth and character. For those who dont pick up on shallowness and allow TOTALLY ILLOGICAL scenarios to unfold without wanting to shriek out in disgust that any sense of reality has been utterly suspended, I challenge you all to give reasons for your satisfaction with this drawn out and melodramatic film. The pain of sitting through a transparent, cliched and sour script where every potential for emotion had to be spelt out and every action explained, killed any sense of mystery or identification with the characters, the time period or the anticipation for adventure.. argh yet again I cant stand writing my own review it gets me so angry!! why do these films have to be so safe and so freakin dumbed down?!?! its sad and perhaps its my fault and I should retreat back to my fantasy world where risk is a necessary means to allowing the imagination to evolve.. Expand
  29. IGiveUp
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and I give up. I truly do. The professional critics had to be bought and paid to give the fabulous reviews they gave. Let me set the record straight. This is a total bomb. A remake with heart and soul. There is little if any meaningful dialogue and the entire movie is without substance. Jack Black is simply awful. Adrian Brody is totally miscast. As for the story it unravels way too long and is quite frankly boring. There is no suspense as we all know the story. And how was KONG the only gorilla on the island when every other species was tenfold. Does it make sense that KONG the master of the island and the only one with intelligence was the last of his species. And how did the natives build the great wall without being eaten alive? And since the natives sacrificed women to KONG to be eaten how come they did nothing to save him when he was knocked out by the mildest form of anesthesia from one small bottle of chloroform in a wide open environment. It wouldn't put us to sleep let alone a 25 foot 4 ton gorilla. As for the small damaged ship and taking KONG back to NYC without him destroying the ship, well pehaps he took in the rays while laying on a chaise lounge with hot babe Naomi Watts by his side? This story was absolutely preposterous. You would have to have the brain of an amoeba to believe any of this crap. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Gobble -Gobble. Expand
  30. ET
    Dec 30, 2005
    2
    This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson seems to have a penchant for extended repetition. I can't rate it a '0' because I stayed the whole way through. It was reasonably well produced. Naomi Watts is easy on the eyes. If it had been tightened up a I could have seen rating it a 7 or 8. A *LOT*, I say. But we all know editing is the hardest part, and if people are going to see it anyway, why bother? Spoiler: In the end, Naomi loses the hairy flare-nosed chimp and ends up with the hairy flare-nosed chump. Ta-da. Expand
  31. RichardE.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being about twice as long as it should and it all adds up to one big mess. The story of Beauty and the Beast has been told many times. Peter Jackson has not done anything worthy of two hundred million dollars of wasted money. This is as bad a film that I have seen in a long long time. The movie isn't even out two weeks and the theaters are half full. It is a disaster at the box office despite the hoopla by idiots who act as if this is an original idea. Expand
  32. perryb
    Jan 10, 2006
    3
    I guess that if you give an infinite number of nerds an infinite number of computer graphics workstations then this is the best that can be hoped for - a film that only a fan boy can love.
  33. Rickie
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Remember the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS? Well, KING KONG is AS BAD AS IT GETS! This was one long drawnout farce of a flick. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. No acting, no directing, no dialogue and just plain out STUPID!
  34. AndyP.
    Jan 3, 2006
    1
    I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his I guess Charles you have to be about 12 years old or else you would not have written the ridiculous review in which you gave this trash a perfect ten? You're excused. Ann loved Kong the way we love our dogs. After all he saved her life on more than one occassion, so wouldn't you too? So what's your point? Did she protest to anyone about bringing him back to NY to face his certain death? NO! Why? Because then it wouldn't be the rip off of the 19311 movie which was great. The acting with all due respect was wooden and superficial. There was no chemistry between Naomi and Adrian. Jack Black better stick to the School Of Rock as he was miscast here. The directing was terrible and the script was lame. Unless you care to explain away all of the inconsistencies in the story? Not a single one of you has attempted to do that because you know it would be impossible to do. The special effects were what they are but was there any new idea seen? No. This was just a video game for youngsters with ADD. If it entertained you that's great. Now the proof that this movie is a turkey is that after two weeks it has lost its number one ranking at the box office. This is from a movie that the critics who were bought and paid for raved about. Obviously word of mouth that this is an awful piece of work has spread on the street. How can this film be out of number one in less than three weeks? And it was replaced by a cartoon that has been out longer than this has. Peter Jackson got a free pass and has now joined George Lucas as a one dimensional character himself. All in all King Kong was terrible and is definitely not worth the price of admission. Avoid. Expand
  35. HoobyDooby
    Jan 8, 2006
    2
    This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts This movie had me completely bored. First off: there's no likeable characters. The Jack Black character gives you the impression that he's insane, like in the scenes where they're running from dinosaurs and he's just sitting their filming it. You don't feel much affection for Kong (unlike the original). He doesn't show that much emotion. And the Naomi Watts character comes off as insane, as she professes to everyone that she LOVES the monkey. When you are in LOVE with a thousand-pound gorilla, people are not going to like your character. So, basically, what we got here is no likeably characters in a story we've heard thousands of times before. If it wasn't for the $200 million is special effects, I would give this a zero. Expand
  36. Alice
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick Most of this film belongs on the floor after being edited. The writing is awful and the story convoluted. Contrary to what others have said, this version of Kong loosely follows the original. The dialogue and the action scenes make no sense. The conflicts on Skull Island are illogical and even if we want to suspend all belief it still is comical in nature. About the only think this flick is good for is a video game with its flashing lights and bells. Jackson bombed. Expand
  37. Hassan
    Jan 8, 2006
    0
    Horrendous and a total waste of 200m. This was a joke. The audience started walking out in the middle. Bad script, bad actoring, and awful directing. Jackson is one trick wonder.
  38. MattiÄ.
    Jan 9, 2006
    3
    This was worse than I thought. The trip in the Skull Iland was very good part of the movie. But all other things were so trash.
  39. HerschelW.
    Feb 6, 2006
    0
    This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was This movie was terrible. A waste of time and money. The screenplay was idiotic. The acting was even worse with Jack Black totally miscast. He is one dimensional and did not fit the role. CGI was okay but not anything spectacular. Adrian Brody did not fit as the hero. Jackson really made an iferrior film that is way too long. The depression had nothing to do with the original Kong and was just wasted filler. The Skull Island action scenes were awful and made no sense. Mutant bugs? C'mon give me a break. Where did the natives disappear too and how did their great Wall protect them? Ridiculous plot. Just a poor remake of Jurassic Park. Avoid. Expand
  40. PaulH.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Jurassic Park. As for the destruction of NY it was laughable. I especially loved the last scene with Naomi Watts in the middle of winter standing with Please tell me I was dreaming. This is so bad that I can't even find the right words to condem it. The first hour was slow and boring and did nothing in developing the characters. The second hour bordered on ridiculous with a remake of Jurassic Park. As for the destruction of NY it was laughable. I especially loved the last scene with Naomi Watts in the middle of winter standing with high heels in a spring dress at the very top of the crown on the Empire State Buidling on her toes with Adrian Brody. One gust of wind and the movie would have had a realistic ending as both would have been blown away. I think Kong committed suicide because he was embarrassed by this sorry excuse for a motion picture. Awful. Expand
  41. Rex
    Dec 19, 2005
    1
    Peter Jackson says, "The original only had one dinosaur, so let's make it two! We need to be bigger, no ginormous compared to the first." The studio says "but three t-rex's will get more people in the seats, make it more . . ."Peter Jackson interjects,
  42. GaryF.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    Are you kidding me? Refund! This is about the lamest alleged blockbuster I have ever seen. It is boring and without dialogue. The actors especially Jack Black are simply awful. And the middle part in Jurassic Park land are you kidding. Invisible machine gun bullets. T-Rex's hanging from a vine doing their impersonation of the WWF and those natives in blackpaint? C'mon give me a Are you kidding me? Refund! This is about the lamest alleged blockbuster I have ever seen. It is boring and without dialogue. The actors especially Jack Black are simply awful. And the middle part in Jurassic Park land are you kidding. Invisible machine gun bullets. T-Rex's hanging from a vine doing their impersonation of the WWF and those natives in blackpaint? C'mon give me a break. The story was totally implausible. Do you think Peter Jackson went to Steven Spielberg and said I can make a moron movie worse than War Of the Freakin Worlds? Let me tell you it is very close to that abomination. People were booing and laughing and then walking out of the theater. And don't bother coming during the first seventy minutes unless of course you need to catch up on your sleep. This is a disaster beyond all imagination. Expand
  43. RichardD.
    Dec 29, 2005
    3
    It was not believable enough and too long.
  44. LarryS.
    Dec 29, 2005
    3
    Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were poorly done considering the technology available. Naomi Watts what were you thinking! Another non stop action movie with nothing to say. Ugggghhhh! A movie Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were poorly done considering the technology available. Naomi Watts what were you thinking! Another non stop action movie with nothing to say. Ugggghhhh! A movie for tweenies!!! Expand
  45. Socrates
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie I've seen does. Jackson shows just how truly literal and thoughtless he is with this film, for here he could have made any number of important statements regarding a slew of problems in the world. Instead, he opts to make a complete remake of the original film, complete with all the racial stereotypes of the time. Entertainment Weekly just said that Jackson is the new Spielberg, and since Spielberg isn't even done yet, I guess we can all be excited for twice as many overbloated, self serious and cranially incapacitated movies each year. Joy. Expand
  46. DavidR.
    Jan 1, 2006
    1
    This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that real art (in the movies) in Holloywood is dead. All we get anymore, so it seems, is noise and excitement. If you want real art, go and see live This movie is an oppressive three hours of cinematic effects, and noise. Just further proof that Hollywood is not only lacking in originality, but is increasingly throwing computer generated effects at the hoi poloi. This is more proof that real art (in the movies) in Holloywood is dead. All we get anymore, so it seems, is noise and excitement. If you want real art, go and see live theater. At least you can see some talent. Expand
  47. WeldonN.
    Jan 2, 2006
    0
    Probably great for ages 6-12. If you are 13 or over, don't go because your snoring will probably disturb the kids.
  48. DunceCap
    Jan 3, 2006
    0
    Fred you don't have an honest opinon. You sound as if you are ten years old so I will cut you some slack. But opinions are like pie holes as everyone has one including me. For my money this movie was the pits. Peter Jackson is definitely in need of some professional counseling if this is the best he can do with a budget of two hundred million dollars. The acting was bad. The Fred you don't have an honest opinon. You sound as if you are ten years old so I will cut you some slack. But opinions are like pie holes as everyone has one including me. For my money this movie was the pits. Peter Jackson is definitely in need of some professional counseling if this is the best he can do with a budget of two hundred million dollars. The acting was bad. The directing even worse. And as for the dialogue what little there was well let's just say it was poor. The CGI was good in spots and horrid in others. Over all this movie was a total bomb. A turkey. Thanksgiving rather than Christmas would have been more appropriate to present this lame turkey with all the stuffing. Way toooo long and boring. Expand
  49. Justin
    Jan 30, 2006
    0
    First 20 minutes were entertaining. The subsequent 2,450 truthfully made me long for the most painful and lengthy suicide imaginable. Any reputable reviewer listed above should be ashamed of themselves for giving this thing any form of praise (Onion AV club, I'm particularly disapointed!). Having $200 million and a vivid imagination for creating mutant bugs does not equal a good First 20 minutes were entertaining. The subsequent 2,450 truthfully made me long for the most painful and lengthy suicide imaginable. Any reputable reviewer listed above should be ashamed of themselves for giving this thing any form of praise (Onion AV club, I'm particularly disapointed!). Having $200 million and a vivid imagination for creating mutant bugs does not equal a good film, please remember that when some asshole decides to remake Godzilla...oh wait, they did that. Expand
  50. SueM
    Jan 4, 2006
    3
    Eh.
  51. RockyL.
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting room floor. The editing was awful. As for the acting, Naomi Watts is certainly easy on the eyes but did anyone see any chemistry with Adrian Brody. I Paul F. said it best when he said the overload of special effects finally made him numb to the experience. And that is part of the problem. Peter Jackson got so excited with his new toys that he forgot to leave some of the CGI on the cutting room floor. The editing was awful. As for the acting, Naomi Watts is certainly easy on the eyes but did anyone see any chemistry with Adrian Brody. I for one did not. As for Jack Black he was simply miscast. He is one dimensional and should have never been given the role. As for the script, Peter Jackson took the basic concept but by the time we get to Skull Island with the illogical action scenes all credibility is lost. By the time we get back to NYC who really cares? The supsense is gone as we all know the big ape is going to climb up the Empire State Building to take his eventual swan dive for hopefully the third and final time. As a judge as he dives into the pool I heard the audience gasp 1.0, 1.5, 0.2, 0.5 and thus my 1 rating. The dialogue was awful, the writing terrible, the length of the movie about an hour too long, and the acting and directing abysmal. Other than that this was the BEST movie I have ever seen. Now I feel like one of these ten year olds who say this should win BEST PICTURE of THE YEAR? Give me a break. Expand
  52. Bill
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    This was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and the dialogue was sappy. If not for the special effects, it could easily be ranked as one of the worst movies of all time. The fact that it is 3.5 hours, when it should have been 90 minutes, puts it in a class all by itself.
  53. Jared
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His remake of King Kong and Jurassic Park was just a farce. There was the Big APE holding Naomi in one hand while fighting three T-Rex's at the same time. I have only one question for Peter Jackson. Your version of King Kong was so childish where was Godzilla and Mothra? That's all that was missing from that ridiculous implausable Skull Island where Jackson lost all credibility. His remake of King Kong and Jurassic Park was just a farce. There was the Big APE holding Naomi in one hand while fighting three T-Rex's at the same time. Preposterous. Then when the Captain arrived swinging on a vine machine gunning spiders without any of the bullets penetrating Adrian Brody and Jack Black well that was just too much. But when the Bats attacked King Kong with two humans standing and watching without being attacked with Adrian catching a BAT by the tail and gently hang gliding Naomi and him down the mountain, well, at that point the audience started laughing. As for getting Kong back to NY without destroying the boat let's not even go there. The NY debacle could not come fast enough as it was a joke. Where was that damn BAT when Kong needed him atop the Empire State Buidling? Preposterous movie without any suspense, believablity, acting or directing. Expand
  54. FedUp
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this trash. The acting, casting, directing and script were sorely lacking. I walked out with several others after the Jurassic Park adventure ride. It was When are these bought and paid for professional critics have to answer for their actions? I work hard for my money. I don't want to throw it away on absolutely worthless junk. There is no point rehashing what others have said about this trash. The acting, casting, directing and script were sorely lacking. I walked out with several others after the Jurassic Park adventure ride. It was as preposterous as the first hour that was crude and just plain boring. There are no words to ever express my outrage that I was played for a sucker by a critic that is paid to report the truth. If any critic wants to take me on one on one point by point be my guest. To give this film a score next to perfect means that the critic had to (A) have been bought and paid for or (B) had a lobotomy and is grossly unable to perform the duties for the paper that hired him or her. Be warned this is a juvenile film of the lowest order. Peter Jackson is a disgrace. Expand
  55. Howard
    Jan 6, 2006
    2
    Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was simply terrible. The directing and meaningful dialogue were nonexistant. All in all if this was made for TV channels would be switching stations in Special Effects were good not great. As for the rest of the flick it was just too awful to be beleived. I love a good fantasy story as much as the next person but the script, the plot holes, the poor choice in casting and the unediting was simply terrible. The directing and meaningful dialogue were nonexistant. All in all if this was made for TV channels would be switching stations in about 20 minutes. Terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson. Expand
  56. DrakeR.
    Jan 9, 2006
    1
    Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are ridiculous. About the only one this trash appeals to is juveniles with attention spans of a gnat. Avoid at all costs. No wonder word of mouth caused it to Quite possibly the biggest bomb next to War Of The Worlds this past year. Peter Jackson should have left about an hour and a half of this film on the cutting room floor. It is an amateur production with laughable action scenes that are ridiculous. About the only one this trash appeals to is juveniles with attention spans of a gnat. Avoid at all costs. No wonder word of mouth caused it to drop out of Number One at the Box Office after only 2 weeks. Bad acting, directing and no dialogue. Other than that and being way tooooo long it was wonderful. Expand
  57. Joe
    Feb 5, 2006
    1
    If you like brainless effects movies you will appreciate the technical qualitiies and the wierd out of this world fantasy overgrown insects that make sporadic appearances in this waste of time remake. Otherwise, don't spend your money on dreck!
  58. DaleW.
    Apr 11, 2006
    3
    What a disappointment - 30 minutes just to get on the boat, and an hour before Kong first appears - and special effects that were surpassed by Jurassic Park well over a decade ago. Peter Jackson owes me three hours of my life back.
  59. 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!
  60. 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 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 Adrien'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
  61. AdrianL.
    Dec 16, 2005
    0
    Are you people mad? This is one of the most boring movies of all time. $200M was spend on GCI as for the acting Wooden Indians would have been better. There is no chemistry and other than King Kong and Jurassic Park there is very little else. Not worthy of your time or money.
  62. GlennP.
    Dec 16, 2005
    1
    This movie was like an endurance test. It was like Jackson was asking the audience "Just how long will you put up with this movie?"... The first hour of this film could have and should have been condensed into 20 minutes. The last 15 minutes of the film are absolutely breathtaking filmmaking, but by the time I got there I was so pissed off I couldn't enjoy it. This movie sucked. and This movie was like an endurance test. It was like Jackson was asking the audience "Just how long will you put up with this movie?"... The first hour of this film could have and should have been condensed into 20 minutes. The last 15 minutes of the film are absolutely breathtaking filmmaking, but by the time I got there I was so pissed off I couldn't enjoy it. This movie sucked. and it will suck at the box office too. I'm willing to wager that some of the reviewers listed MUST have been paid off by General Electric, owner of Universal Pictures. I can't describe how disappointed I was in this film. Expand
  63. PeterJ.
    Dec 17, 2005
    1
    Am I missing something? Seriously, am I seeing the same movie that every critic seems to think is incredible and breathtaking? All I saw was a movie on par with the likes of Mortal Kombat and The Mummy Returns, chock full of blurry lifeless CGI action and an ape with all the emotional weight of one of those goofy invisible alien dogs from Alone in the Dark. Well, at least all the Am I missing something? Seriously, am I seeing the same movie that every critic seems to think is incredible and breathtaking? All I saw was a movie on par with the likes of Mortal Kombat and The Mummy Returns, chock full of blurry lifeless CGI action and an ape with all the emotional weight of one of those goofy invisible alien dogs from Alone in the Dark. Well, at least all the countless licensed video games, toys and "Xtra Hefty" Grab Trash Bags will help to ensure that we'll be seeing another 31 hour long, bloated, self serious "epic" from Jackson in the near future. Expand
  64. LolaA.
    Dec 17, 2005
    2
    CGI special effects were awesome and thus the 2 points. As for the rest of this movie, it was the pits. Way toooooo looong and boring. I fell asleep during the first 70 minutes. They should be selling NO DOZE at the concession stand. And when the action started with a remake of Jurassic Park you had to laugh. It was reminiscent of the old Star Trek in which you knew who was going to die CGI special effects were awesome and thus the 2 points. As for the rest of this movie, it was the pits. Way toooooo looong and boring. I fell asleep during the first 70 minutes. They should be selling NO DOZE at the concession stand. And when the action started with a remake of Jurassic Park you had to laugh. It was reminiscent of the old Star Trek in which you knew who was going to die by the different color uniforms they wore. Well here, the marginal characters were ALPO for the big bad monsters. Ooooooooooh I was so scared. NOT. And the last hour was Peter Jackson playing with old New York of 1933. Great job Peter. Let me know when your horrendous actors even act. As for Jack Black and Adrian Brody they were simply awful. I loved Naomi on top of the Empire State in high heels in the middle of winter without a coat. Such realism? Expand
  65. NancyG.
    Dec 18, 2005
    0
    Very bad! Sentence this one to Cinema Jail with no parole! You'd get more emotion out of playing Halo for 3 hours.
  66. PartyPooper
    Dec 18, 2005
    1
    This was one my most anticipated movies of the year. When the original was made back in 1933 during the depression audiences flocked to it in mass. It was the "Star Wars" of that generation and rightly so. The genius and creativity back then was fantastic. For the special effects in 1933 they used an eighteeen inch puppet as KONG. Turn the clock forward seventy-two years and enter Peter This was one my most anticipated movies of the year. When the original was made back in 1933 during the depression audiences flocked to it in mass. It was the "Star Wars" of that generation and rightly so. The genius and creativity back then was fantastic. For the special effects in 1933 they used an eighteeen inch puppet as KONG. Turn the clock forward seventy-two years and enter Peter Jackson as he decided to make a remake of a remake. That remake in '76 was absolutely laughable. Remember the Empire State Building replaced by the World Trade Center? Peter Jackson is known for his genius with CGI special effects. So what does Peter do? He throws them at the audience ad nauseam but forgets there are other components to a motion picture. He starts by assembling a cast only their mothers could love. Jack Black and Adrian Brody are miscast. He then spends an hour with a slow drawn out introduction dedicated to the GREAT DEPRESSION. In the original no one made any mention of the Depression, but now Jackson decided we had to see it. We didn't learn much but were subjected to this boring stuff for no apparent reason. Yes, Hooverville in Central Park was captured briliantly. And Peter's point is that he had no point. Then we finally arrive at Skull Island or should I say Jurrassic Park. The monsters including the CGI KONG are thrown at us as if Jackson is asking can I top this? By now nothing makes much sense at all. The ruthless natives are there one minute, and poof, they're gone. Where did they go? Well, for that answer we just don't know? After the illogical second act with KONG magically whiffed away to NY on a small damaged boat unventfully, the last act shows us CIRCA NY in 1933. We watch as KONG destroys NYC before taking his swan song exit on cue. And after three hours with absolutely no meaningful dialogue htere's Naomi in a sheer dress with high heels without a coat in the dead of a winter. Oh yes, she's standing atop a two by four circular platform as Adrian Brody joins her. Of course because little else made any sense, the cold and the wind are no problem to Peter Jackson as this dreadful excuse for a movie comes to an end. Now I wish there was some suspense but there can't be. Why? Bbecause it is a remake of a remake and we know the story. I'm sorry but this version is so poor that it would be torture to ever watch it again. That's how bad it is. To enjoy this flick you need to suspend all logic or perhaps had a lobtomy? Avoid at all costs. Expand
  67. MackP.
    Dec 18, 2005
    2
    In a bit of silly characterization, the natives on Skull Island were rolling their eyes as if they were possesed by some overwhelming irrationality. And I can understand. I was rolling my eyes as well. Peter Jackson is indulgent and, frankly, boring. The whole Skull Island action sequences were excruciating to watch. They added nothing to the story. Don't go to see this film. Rent In a bit of silly characterization, the natives on Skull Island were rolling their eyes as if they were possesed by some overwhelming irrationality. And I can understand. I was rolling my eyes as well. Peter Jackson is indulgent and, frankly, boring. The whole Skull Island action sequences were excruciating to watch. They added nothing to the story. Don't go to see this film. Rent it, maybe. Do not support an indulgent and wasteful and bad story teller like Peter Jackson. The best element of the film, its only redeeming quality, is the interaction between Naomi Watts' character and the ape. The critics are crazy and irresponsible to give this film high marks. Expand
  68. GalegraS.
    Dec 19, 2005
    0
    Wow, why remake a classic and destroy it with bad acting, worse dialogue and a dragging pointless plot. So what if there was alot of cool effects? Pretty much anyone can do that now.
  69. StephenF.
    Dec 19, 2005
    2
    He grabbed a bird and held onto it as he fell! hahahahah. No way. What a piece of junk. "beautiful" that was hilarious! The guy swung from a vine with a machine gun. hahahaha.
  70. TedH.
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    That was it? That is the flick that so many critics went bananas for? This is honestly nothing more than a rehashed Jurassic Park presentation, overlong with all of the director's leering shots of... Well... Nothing much at all. Entire sub-plots are lost, the effects in many areas look unfinished, and the dialogue... Goodness, the dialogue. Stick with the original.
  71. NotfamousDave
    Dec 21, 2005
    1
    I made the mistake of taking a date on the first Friday this movie came out. Boy was that a bad idea. An hour into it, the poor woman (3rd date) was looking over at me like I was nuts. Fortunately, by the time we got to the ridiculous brontasaurus stampede and the humongous cockroaches the movie transcended bad and became all-out camp, a total joke. We couldn't stop muttering and I made the mistake of taking a date on the first Friday this movie came out. Boy was that a bad idea. An hour into it, the poor woman (3rd date) was looking over at me like I was nuts. Fortunately, by the time we got to the ridiculous brontasaurus stampede and the humongous cockroaches the movie transcended bad and became all-out camp, a total joke. We couldn't stop muttering and laughing for the remaining couple hours. We made the most of it, but this is one of the worst movies of all time, I think. Expand
  72. StevenS.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    Well, let's get this right out of the way first thing. Peter Jackson is one of the most untalented, overrated directors around. You'd think that after hits like The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and the upcoming Munich he'd have learned that to try and rip off other, more superior directors just doesn't work. That 200- million he was given to make this movie could have Well, let's get this right out of the way first thing. Peter Jackson is one of the most untalented, overrated directors around. You'd think that after hits like The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and the upcoming Munich he'd have learned that to try and rip off other, more superior directors just doesn't work. That 200- million he was given to make this movie could have really made an incredible work of art had it fallen into the hands of a more visionary, talented director... just saying. My advice: stay far away from the smell of rotten bananas and gorilla butt that's wafting out of the thater right now and rent some real works of art, like Jurassic Park, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or ET. Or wait and go see Munich when it comes to theaters... that's gonna be an awesome one! Collapse
  73. KingBong
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    Peter Jackson is completely untalented, plain and simple. I swear almost ANYONE, you, me, any other director working today (even Uwe Boll!) could make the same, if not better, movie than this if given 2 batrillion kajillion bucks or whatever he was given. This is the same old big budget blockbuster tripe, where everything is generic and seems to have been done thousands of times before. Peter Jackson is completely untalented, plain and simple. I swear almost ANYONE, you, me, any other director working today (even Uwe Boll!) could make the same, if not better, movie than this if given 2 batrillion kajillion bucks or whatever he was given. This is the same old big budget blockbuster tripe, where everything is generic and seems to have been done thousands of times before. There's nothing distinctive in this movie except, of course, for the bad acting, pacing, action, and logic. It's too bad... had this not been done in the digital era (where bad special effects are only nauseating and jerky, and not silly and charming), not taken itself so damn seriously, and most of all wasn't a 3 mind crushing hours long, this could make a fine addition next to Plan Nine, Bride of the Monster and other classics of laughably, wonderfully bad cinema. Too bad it's not, and this is just merely godawful. Avoid, obviously. Expand
  74. steve
    Dec 22, 2005
    3
    About 75 min too long. almost every scene was too long and generally repetitive. boring. great FX. completely realistic giant gorilla. yet still boring and filled with characters i didn't care about. i almost left early.
  75. BillnTed
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    Wow. People are saying this remake is imaginative and original? The fact that it's a REMAKE aside, this movie is taken from scraps of every stupid film Jackson seems to have been able to think of, from Jurassic Park to his own Lord of the Rings trilogy. Jackson is the most overrated director around right now (since some people are finally on to Spielberg).
  76. BenjitheGreat
    Dec 23, 2005
    2
    I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue sucks, and the scenes are pointless. Take for instance the beginning shots of depression-era New York City. I can't for the life of me think of I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue sucks, and the scenes are pointless. Take for instance the beginning shots of depression-era New York City. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason for this sequence of annoying shots to be here except for Peter Jackson to show off behind the camera and play around with his 200 million budget. Then when we finally do get to the island and things start to get interesting, it's already too late to regain faith in the film. The audience during this film was laughing and hooting after about an hour until the end of the film. Although this usually annoys me during a movie i cant say I really blame them in this case. It shames me to say that I have lost faith in Peter Jackson as an honest filmaker after this tragedy, as I am a fan of his previous work. Expand
  77. Wendy
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    This movie was an abomintion. It was awful. Peter Jackson has lost touch with reality if he thinks this was good. Truly awful. Stay far away. The audience was laughing and walking out.
  78. LadyLiberty
    Dec 25, 2005
    0
    Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't bad enough he totally miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. The last hour you just can't wait for the Big Ape to jump off of the Empire State Building. There's no dialogue of any consequence and Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is unbelievable climbing up the steps to the top of the building in the dead of winter in a shear dress and high heel shoes. And yes, if you still buy this garbage, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you. Expand
  79. BobbieSocks
    Dec 25, 2005
    0
    This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to remember. Jackson stay home in New Zealand because if this is all you can turn out with a budget of two-hundred million you are in deep trouble. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Expand
  80. ScottE.
    Dec 26, 2005
    3
    I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any better anytime soon. I have to admit that the dinosaur battles were viscerally exciting, but every other scene on the island seemed insulting. The part with the bugs was especially repulsive and head-scratchingly unnecessary. Why were we forced to see such an unoriginal movie? Only after the implausible transfer of Kong to New York does this movie actually pick up pace and start to redeem itself. At that point, it's too little, too late. Everyone in the theater was captivated by the Empire State Building sequence but not much else. Bottom Line: The movie dragged when Kong/Watts were not in the scene. No amount of CGI can save this self-indulgent film, no matter how much the critics praise this superficially bloated bust of a remake. Expand
  81. DonN.
    Dec 27, 2005
    2
    This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 tons, stepping & sliding across the ice on a pond in Central Park without breaking the ice. Save your money! Expand
  82. DannyD.
    Dec 28, 2005
    3
    Simply too much of a good thing. The original was able to tell the same story in under 2 hours. Peter Jackson should have slimmed down the movie instead of himself.
  83. david
    Dec 28, 2005
    1
    Everything i wanted to say was said by Steven N. Great review! Every one of those points were right on. There are movies you just have fun with and say "its just a movie". but the action scenes on this one was sooooo bad that i could not stand it.
  84. StacyR.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    A total bore. Worst of all, the bore goes on for three hours. Nothing in this movie is unique or hasn't been seen before countless times in other faux-adventure tales. Rent Jurassic Park or the original King Kong for something that won't put you to sleep.
  85. WarrenL.
    Dec 30, 2005
    0
    Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Secondly, Jack Black with his one dimensional stare was simply awful. After the first boring act is over with get to Skull Island aka Jurassic Park. Did I actually see natives in black paint? And the stampeding dinosaurs shown the same loop three different times. C'mon. Then for your entertainment pleasure watch as Kong fights not one, not two but three T-Rex's all at the same time. And if that wasn't enought the vampire bats attacking Kong in his lair but not our hero's was over the top. But then not to be outdone wasn't it a nice touch with the Captain swinging on a vine while shooting the spiders off of our hero's without one bullet even grazing them? And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help. Expand
  86. MallardD.
    Dec 30, 2005
    0
    This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even happen: seeing Kong land on Joe Black as he hits the street after falling from the ESB. All in all a King Kong pile of crap. Expand
  87. RalphieBoy
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    King Krap is more like it!
  88. Horace
    Jan 10, 2006
    0
    Awful and laughable. A waste of my time.
  89. JillH.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Recently, Ebert gave 0 stars to Wolf Creek because he found it dehumanizing that people would wish to see people cruelly killed. Yet in King Kong, a movie he and so many others hailed as a masterpiece, we are supposed to cheer for the killer, a monstrous ape that kills A LOT of innocent people in this 3 hour long snooze fest. Humanizing, indeed.
  90. Ted
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    What an absolute disaster...
  91. Numby
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and bells and whistles. It has no intelligent dialogue, impossible to believe action scenes that are comical and only appeal to juveniles with an IQ of So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and bells and whistles. It has no intelligent dialogue, impossible to believe action scenes that are comical and only appeal to juveniles with an IQ of less than 85. Most of this trailer trash belonged on the cutting room floor as it is way too long, but to people like Sly this was one hell of a movie. All I can say is Sly I am glad that you enjoyed it. Have you tried a kalaidescope because the pretty colors can do the same for you for less than the cost of a ticket? Kong is ridiculous with horrible directing and wooden stiff acting. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. Expand
  92. JembleC.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Horrendous.
  93. SybelzJ
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    What he said. Scandalously bad. All these 10/10's are further evidence that metacritic is full of corrupt publicists and PR companies doing what they do best, which is deceive the public. For shame.
  94. Haden
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    This is an amateur production not worthy of your time nor money. This should have come out on April 1st. It's a joke.
  95. Durago
    Jan 12, 2006
    1
    Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in the editing process as the movie was too long. The CGI was good but when combined with the poor dialogue did not create any suspense but rather we Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in the editing process as the movie was too long. The CGI was good but when combined with the poor dialogue did not create any suspense but rather we kept waiting for the Big Climatic Dive that we knew was coming. With all the money he spent Jackson should have realized that his version was over the top and obtained some help. Instead, this is an amateur production. In less than a month this hyped up blockbuster event has fizzled to a crawl. Word of mouth will doom recouping the 200M invested. At best the studio will only break even as GROSS sales of 150M to date is extremely disappointing. Just a terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson. Let's hope he learned from his mistake? Expand
  96. GaborA.
    Jan 13, 2006
    3
    While other good fantasy epics build up to one climactic moment King Kong nails you with a twenty million dollar sequence in the fist third. But the movie has so much left to go so it tries to out do itself over and over. Soon we're not watchin fantasy, but over the top hollywood preposterousness. So when the amusement ride tries to slow donw to get some emotional scenes out of the While other good fantasy epics build up to one climactic moment King Kong nails you with a twenty million dollar sequence in the fist third. But the movie has so much left to go so it tries to out do itself over and over. Soon we're not watchin fantasy, but over the top hollywood preposterousness. So when the amusement ride tries to slow donw to get some emotional scenes out of the way instead of feeling genuine they also feel ridiculous. What I'm trying to say is that it doesnt work. At all. Expand
  97. LeeG.
    Jan 13, 2006
    1
    Way too long, cheesy, bad dialogue, and the special effects for the most part weren't great. the scene with kong fighting the dinosuars in the trees was the only good part. other than that there's no need to watch this. the ice dancing scene at the end was embarrassing.
  98. ChristineP.
    Jan 14, 2006
    3
    King Kong, more like King Long! To drawn out and takes too long to get to the point. A lot of stuff should have been edited out. I was happy when it was over so I could leave!
  99. TheWhiskeyMan
    Jan 18, 2006
    2
    Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to King Kong's lair there is some very improbable events. After a while it becomes totally predictable like in the original Star Trek Days where you Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to King Kong's lair there is some very improbable events. After a while it becomes totally predictable like in the original Star Trek Days where you can tell by the uniform who is going to buy the farm? By the time the movie finally gets us back to NYC the film has lost all its steam. I was looking at my watch hoping, praying for it to end as there was no suspense and it just fell apart. The rave reviews are certainly not deserving unless you are an adolescent unfamiliar with the story. If you want to see a great movie see the 1933 original. It is two hours shorter and ten times better. Peter Jackson did not use his 200M wisely on that you can be certain. Expand
  100. Dracula
    Jan 18, 2006
    0
    Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the crap Peter Jackson fed us with this tedious bore of a turkey. Dracula and the Wolfman v. King Kong. Frankenstein can take on the Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the crap Peter Jackson fed us with this tedious bore of a turkey. Dracula and the Wolfman v. King Kong. Frankenstein can take on the winner. Yuk! Expand
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.