User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1263 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. MollyT.
    Jan 8, 2006
    5
    You know i thought this had some good acting by Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts. But this movie was very 'lets put these characters in worst case senerio moments and give them more luck than any Irish man could meret.' I found this movie very unrealistic.
  2. Queenie
    Jan 9, 2006
    0
    K = Krapola I = Idiotic N = Nonsensical G = Grating K = Kindergarden O = Obnoxious N = Numbing G = Garbage.
  3. TomD.
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Absolutely worh your money. Yes, slightly overlong, but you might as well complain that Tchaikovsky used string instruments too often. If you're looking for a film that is a quick and punishing monster flick, you're better off reviewing the original. If, instead, you want to see great performances, stunning visual effects and a polished story and plot that leave you feeling Absolutely worh your money. Yes, slightly overlong, but you might as well complain that Tchaikovsky used string instruments too often. If you're looking for a film that is a quick and punishing monster flick, you're better off reviewing the original. If, instead, you want to see great performances, stunning visual effects and a polished story and plot that leave you feeling satisfied but still wanting more, then this would be your film. I hope it makes a shitload of money - when held up against the lesser and weaker Narnia film, it certainly deserves to. Expand
  4. jamesbondage
    Jan 9, 2006
    8
    A very impressive movie that proves, at times, there can be too much of a good thing. The acting was good, and was impressed by Jack Black but they could have cut a few of the action sequences. They tended to go on a little long. But to the people who hated it, just be glad it was Jackson and not Michael Bay who re-made Kong, or there would have been zero character development and would A very impressive movie that proves, at times, there can be too much of a good thing. The acting was good, and was impressed by Jack Black but they could have cut a few of the action sequences. They tended to go on a little long. But to the people who hated it, just be glad it was Jackson and not Michael Bay who re-made Kong, or there would have been zero character development and would have been a huge steaming pile of monkey crap. Expand
  5. Bombito
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Very, very Goooooooooood movie!, just for poeple who seriously loves Cimena.
  6. masoudb.
    Jan 9, 2006
    6
    Not that impressed.
  7. Monserratthenice
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Please!. Dont hate this movie for being so good!, dont be afraid !, it wont win best picture at Oscars, but some yes!!, maybe 4 for technical, but for me its the best of the year!.
  8. MarkosT.
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Few words... Great and Fantastic !
  9. SaboCatchKong
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Critics and me are agree, this movie is one of the best of 2005, the ride is unforgettable in the Skull island, kong ( andy serkis ), excelent again like Gollum in LOTR, Naomi good enough in her role ! , Excelent movie, only recommended for real movie lovers.
  10. AdalR.
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Hey!, que traen tantos amargados!, una pelicula como esta no merece menos de 6, es buenisisma mejor que la original en todos sus aspectos, presume de buena hasta en el guión, aunque con ciertas y aparentes fallas, resultan innecesarias mas explicaciones obvias ?. Le quedó de lujo al Director Peter. OK, aunque algunos envidiosos ya le temen, excelente pelicula, muy Hey!, que traen tantos amargados!, una pelicula como esta no merece menos de 6, es buenisisma mejor que la original en todos sus aspectos, presume de buena hasta en el guión, aunque con ciertas y aparentes fallas, resultan innecesarias mas explicaciones obvias ?. Le quedó de lujo al Director Peter. OK, aunque algunos envidiosos ya le temen, excelente pelicula, muy recomendable amigos. Expand
  11. SlyK.
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Stunning and Spectacular ! is the movie. Fool of criteria those who hate it. Poor of them , is only fantasy and a big ape !, Dont be so serious , just relax and anjoy an amazing world of creativity that this incredible director Jackson is able to do for everyone. Got it ?. The movie is simply brilliant and made with intelligence.
  12. Sam
    Feb 21, 2006
    10
    For all the people bickering about Adrian Brody being miscast, think about this. What is Jack Driscoll's job? Is it finding mummies, saving the world, destroying our enemies? No, it's simply being a script writer, and he's perfect as that. Now for the rest of the movie, in one short sentence, there are movies, and then there is the epic that is King Kong.
  13. 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
  14. JoziC.
    Mar 31, 2006
    10
    One of the best movies from Jackson. I liked the dinosaurs fighting King Kong. [***SPOILERS***] I like how Kong discarded the girls who were not Anne. I especially enjoyed the ending - I cried.
  15. TimH.
    Mar 5, 2006
    9
    This is a great movie, no question. The special effects are almost always convincing (save for a corny looking brotosaurus stampede), and it has a deep emotional wieght. Also, the soundtrack is very well done, and it gets stuck in your head. However, it's just TOO FRICKING LONG.... It jumps around from subject to subject, sometimes with no rhyme or reason. This and some of the This is a great movie, no question. The special effects are almost always convincing (save for a corny looking brotosaurus stampede), and it has a deep emotional wieght. Also, the soundtrack is very well done, and it gets stuck in your head. However, it's just TOO FRICKING LONG.... It jumps around from subject to subject, sometimes with no rhyme or reason. This and some of the cornier special effects dock a point from the rating. Overall, King Kong is a slightly flawed gem. Go see it. (And fans of the original, keep your eyes peeled for homages in the costumes, props, music, ect.) Expand
  16. Andrew
    Apr 1, 2006
    10
    Was it not Oscar Wilde that said "talent borrows, genius steals". This film is pure genius, but the humour is the defining edge. Pure tongue in cheek!
  17. DWP102589
    Apr 1, 2006
    10
    Peter Jackson is quite the perfectionist wit his movies, and King Kong is no exception to this.
  18. ChrisU.
    Apr 16, 2006
    6
    I am completely surprised that this movie has garnered such praise. Yes, the visual effects (particularly Kong) are amazing. If for no other reason, see this movie because of the effects. But even then there are times when the dinosaurs and humans that are running around or beneath them (and drop-kicking them in some scenes) don't appear to be existing in the same area. They instead I am completely surprised that this movie has garnered such praise. Yes, the visual effects (particularly Kong) are amazing. If for no other reason, see this movie because of the effects. But even then there are times when the dinosaurs and humans that are running around or beneath them (and drop-kicking them in some scenes) don't appear to be existing in the same area. They instead look like they have been layered in (which they have) on screen and the end product ends up looking more silly than convincing. Unfortunately, the movie just becomes FAR too outlandish as the rescue party makes their way deeper into the jungles of Skull Island. I mean I understand that one must consider to let a few logical things slide in a movie like this, but watch the fight between Kong and the Tyrannosaurus Rexes or how Bruce Baxter swings in like Tarzan and saves the surviving rescue party members. There is no possible way either of those events, or many others in this three hour epic for that matter, would have transpired even remotely close to what we saw on screen. Couple that with sappy dialoge between much of the crew members (well I'll just say it...pretty much the entire cast) and Jack Black absolutely falling on his face attempting to play a role that requires much more emotional depth and acting range than he is capable of, and this movie becomes bogged down in its own grandiosity. To bad, because it's visually stunning and shows flashes of brilliance from director Peter Jackson (the scenes with the natives of Skull Island are downright scary). Ultimately this film is only held up by the fact that Kong and his environment looked so real, even beautiful. As far as dialogue, acting, and plot goes, this film collapses under its own weight. Expand
  19. B.Miller
    Apr 26, 2006
    6
    I was really hoping for much more from Peter Jackson. While some parts were brilliant the filIm just didn't absorb me into the story. Just becuse fantastic special effects can be done relatively easily these days, there is a point when they are overdone. There are just too many occassions when the action didn't seem plausible or real. This sounds odd when talking about about a I was really hoping for much more from Peter Jackson. While some parts were brilliant the filIm just didn't absorb me into the story. Just becuse fantastic special effects can be done relatively easily these days, there is a point when they are overdone. There are just too many occassions when the action didn't seem plausible or real. This sounds odd when talking about about a giant gorilla on an uncharted island but if an audience wants to believe that part, why spoil the fantasy with unrealistic fight sequences and other feats that defy physics or any credible reality? It's as if the budget was so bloated on this movie that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at it. Perhaps if the budget was tighter then some of the silly stuff might never have been made. And, possibly, a better movie may have emerged. Expand
  20. 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.
  21. 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!
  22. ChristineT.
    May 22, 2006
    10
    Awesome movie! I love the love story coz it felt deep. Also, I'm a romantic at heart.
  23. LeeC.
    May 5, 2006
    8
    Extremely Great Movie.
  24. MattO
    Jan 28, 2007
    10
    I hate to give it a 100% score, but to score it anything less would be wrong. What Peter Jackson was able to do with the Lord of the Rings books, he was able to do with an undisputed movie classic. Bringing to light the beauty, wonder, power, and the "Beast" or the story do to a more modern interpretation, Jackson truly captured the true story of what King Kong was about. This beast of I hate to give it a 100% score, but to score it anything less would be wrong. What Peter Jackson was able to do with the Lord of the Rings books, he was able to do with an undisputed movie classic. Bringing to light the beauty, wonder, power, and the "Beast" or the story do to a more modern interpretation, Jackson truly captured the true story of what King Kong was about. This beast of brute strength that has seen only conflict and turmoil is able to be "handled" by Watts character who provides him the meaning of being loved or wanted. And in the same concept Kong was able to provide Namoni's character with something she always wanted but never have, love, a love that would always be there, and die for her. And that is what the original film tried to show, the story how a power, savage force can be swooned by love and beauty. And that is what Peter Jackson was able to do better then what the original could. Great movie for couple to do see. Expand
  25. DanB.
    Feb 11, 2007
    8
    Film's too long by far. But if the end gets you, it'll get you good (though I could've written the last line better ).
  26. GregA.
    Aug 12, 2007
    9
    Just watched this on DVD last night and thought it was fantastic - only wished I had seen it on the big screen. Previous to that I was a bit wary of this film due to the length of it, but I was wrong, I didn't feel it was drawn out at all - you may question the slow bits with Naomi and Kong but without it the purpose to the movie would be lost. It is a couple years old now, but if Just watched this on DVD last night and thought it was fantastic - only wished I had seen it on the big screen. Previous to that I was a bit wary of this film due to the length of it, but I was wrong, I didn't feel it was drawn out at all - you may question the slow bits with Naomi and Kong but without it the purpose to the movie would be lost. It is a couple years old now, but if you haven't seen it and want to see some great special effects coupled with a solid storyline I highly recommend it. Expand
  27. JayH.
    Jun 14, 2009
    8
    I lives up to all the hype. This is one hugely entertaining film. Naomi Watts is great and the rest of the cast is fine as well. The special effects are some of the best I have ever seen. It hardly seemed three hours plus because the film was immensely engrossing. Peter Jackson did a great job. The sets, sound and editing are all first rate. The period detail of 1933 is fantastic. This is I lives up to all the hype. This is one hugely entertaining film. Naomi Watts is great and the rest of the cast is fine as well. The special effects are some of the best I have ever seen. It hardly seemed three hours plus because the film was immensely engrossing. Peter Jackson did a great job. The sets, sound and editing are all first rate. The period detail of 1933 is fantastic. This is brilliant film making and has everything a great movie should have. Expand
  28. 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.
  29. NCoste
    Dec 12, 2005
    6
    Too looooooooooog in parts, especially on the island. It get tiring after a while and I got very impatient for the plot to move on. It could have been a better movie if they spent $50 mil less on special effects and cut the movie by a half hour. That said it is still worthwhile for the good parts--especially the relationship between Kong and The Beauty.
  30. Jacobp.
    Dec 12, 2005
    10
    The best monster movie since 1933.
  31. PaulB.
    Dec 13, 2005
    10
    Best Movie I have ever seen Period.....and Bob P youv'e got to be kidding me its only a Movie Duhh.
  32. JohnsonR.
    Dec 13, 2005
    10
    Amazing and awesome! all i can say is that this is the greatest movie ever made.
  33. DavidEZ
    Dec 13, 2005
    10
    Monumental.
  34. Kharagh
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    WoW ! An incredible movie experience!
  35. Spongeee
    Dec 14, 2005
    0
    Crap! Racist Crap!! Horrible film making!
  36. SpanxMcB
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This movie was amazing! It sweeps you away.
  37. IkeE.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Peter Jackson is the best Director ever! This movie is amazing, excellent effects and a great story.
  38. JesseM.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This movie was amazing. The best movie of the YEAR. The first hour was a draaagggggg though. After that it's awesome. It was easily worth the money.
  39. Tonydannie
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    This Film was amazing! I prepared myself and watched the original 1930's version before The midnight premiere on Dec 13. As I watched this old Black and White Film, With it's jerky special effects, I began to Love it. Although The Film used Stop Motion animation I was amazed not at the effects But the skill they had to resort to at the time to create a sweeping action adventure This Film was amazing! I prepared myself and watched the original 1930's version before The midnight premiere on Dec 13. As I watched this old Black and White Film, With it's jerky special effects, I began to Love it. Although The Film used Stop Motion animation I was amazed not at the effects But the skill they had to resort to at the time to create a sweeping action adventure film. Now over 70 years later. Peter Jackson Uses Computer Technology to bring His retelling of this Classic movie to life. And It works!!! Kong Has a Personality (Andy Serkis actually who not only acts out Kongs Movements, He is also our heroes cook) And much more freedom then the old 1930's Kong. Peter Jackson Once agan delivered an Incredible film.And the reason why this film works for me is that he (Jackson) brought with him the same,if not more, Passion he had when he made the Now famous Lord Of the Rings Trilogy. Here is a man that when you hear him talk about the film he cant help but mention how much he loved the 1930's original. And He remains Loyal to the Original. 3 times loyal actually those who have seen both the original and Jacksons version would know what I mean when i say Three times! And I do not mean the length of the film. People complained It was to long (my wife for example) I say It was not long enough. just a bit longer!! But I loved this film. And I love the Original more due to Jackson's omages to it through out his version. This Film was a great Ride. Now stop reading my ramblings and go see this flick!! Expand
  40. SeanL.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    I feel obligated to post a comment because of one particularly dumb review. In his/her review, "Fantasy" writes: The brutality of the natives, which appeared racist, is not suitable for young children or preteens. Well it's a good thing it appeared racist because that's what King Kong is about: racism! It has long been considered an allegory for the degradation of blacks, so if I feel obligated to post a comment because of one particularly dumb review. In his/her review, "Fantasy" writes: The brutality of the natives, which appeared racist, is not suitable for young children or preteens. Well it's a good thing it appeared racist because that's what King Kong is about: racism! It has long been considered an allegory for the degradation of blacks, so if it came off as racist to you, then Peter Jackson did a good job. I can't say I empathize with the preteens and children either; the movie is rated PG-13 for "frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images." Expand
  41. MozzM.
    Dec 14, 2005
    10
    Absolutely Stunning Filmmaking. The Film will be the classic Kong of the 21st Century, not only does it pay homage to the original, it gives it a heart, it illuminates it, and stands proudly next to it as one of the best movies of all time.
  42. pushbutton
    Dec 14, 2005
    6
    An exercise for Peter Jackson's ego. The monkey looks good enough, but the film is too long and filled with plot devices and character developments that fail to engage the audience or move the story along.
  43. 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
  44. ShaneC
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    Aventurous, magical, romantic, if just a trifle overdone - a masterpiece of modern cinema nonetheless.
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. ElizabethW.
    Dec 15, 2005
    2
    Horrid, boring and longwinded. Talk about being overhped? Wow this was overdone even larger than KONG himself. Very disappointing.
  48. JudyT.
    Dec 15, 2005
    4
    Too ridiculous for words. A movie for 13 year old boys. I was hoping that Ann would throw herself off the Empire State Building so that she could avoid another cheesy close up. Any body can make aCGI character, look at the Hulk but you have to breathe more than life into it. You have to get the audience into the movie and Pete fails to do that with this story.
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Adam
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    Movie magic. It's long and overstuffed, sure, but it swept me along with it as no other CG action movie ever has. Every shot has emotion or sinew or both, in spades. The stampeding brontosaurs were neat, then ridiculous, then pure slapstick genius (made me kind of queasy though).
  53. CoreyR.
    Dec 15, 2005
    9
    Yes, it's too long. Yes, the segue between the 2nd and 3rd acts is too abrupt. But what Jackson accomplishes is nothing short of magical; he gives a special effect the death scene most actors would kill for, and pulls it off with a grace and dignity that no actor could pull off. There is no denying it, Jackson is a genius filmmaker.
  54. JeremyS.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    This movie will appeal to an adult at all of his/her ages through life. It really has it all. The cinematography is stunning and exhilarating.
  55. LukeS.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Overwhelming in every sense of the word. See it NOW!!!
  56. ChaseP.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    I loved this movie!!! After the first 30 minutes the movie bagan to pick up speed and nothing slowed it down. This on is a keeper!!
  57. Spartacus
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    Why are so many people here racist? You PC idiots, It's a film! With Heart of Darkness as a ref! If you people knew anything about real racism, you'd cry yourself to sleep.
  58. ConorL.
    Dec 15, 2005
    10
    I was absolutely stunned by this movie. it must surely appeal to every age of human possible from grandma to wee baby boy. when you catch yourself with your legs up infront of your face hiding from the action and half an hour later melting into the sombre eyes of the female lead.... you know this movie ticks all the boxes. film of my year.
  59. JackD.
    Dec 16, 2005
    10
    All these bad reviews!!! Go ahead, make a better movie, you guys couldn't even make a movie as good (or bad) as Uwe Boll, because if you could you wouldn't be sitting around complaining about it on your PC. You are all a waste. Don't get me wrong, I don't like most Hollywood blockbusters (Independance Day or what have you), they are awful. But if you really think Peter All these bad reviews!!! Go ahead, make a better movie, you guys couldn't even make a movie as good (or bad) as Uwe Boll, because if you could you wouldn't be sitting around complaining about it on your PC. You are all a waste. Don't get me wrong, I don't like most Hollywood blockbusters (Independance Day or what have you), they are awful. But if you really think Peter Jackson is a hack, watch Heavenly Creatures. And if you think LOTR is bad, well several Oscars and many other awards given by people who do other things besides complain about movies on the computer seem to think otherwise. Expand
  60. Alex
    Dec 16, 2005
    10
    Considering the films that critics have been raving over lately, I'm surprised King Kong got such great reviews even though Kong wasn't a dead author or a queer cowboy. I guess this movie must be good. It was just pure entertainment.....think about it...did you really expect this movie to explore the forbidden love of beastiality? Come on.....just because a movie is made merely Considering the films that critics have been raving over lately, I'm surprised King Kong got such great reviews even though Kong wasn't a dead author or a queer cowboy. I guess this movie must be good. It was just pure entertainment.....think about it...did you really expect this movie to explore the forbidden love of beastiality? Come on.....just because a movie is made merely to tell an entertaining story doesn't mean it's shallow and over-hyped....P.S. I didn't even realize the movie was so long until i got up after the closing credits rolled and i realized my legs were asleep. If Pete Jackson can make me forget that I even have legs, I'd say he's a master of the craft. Expand
  61. SheilaM.
    Dec 16, 2005
    5
    Pointless, long-winded and tiresome remake that replaces all the charm of the 1933 original with an orgy of indulgent, redundant CGI "magic". Jack D, you just summed up the redundancy of internet 'reviews' by telling people who didn't like KONG 2005 to 'Go ahead! make a better movie...". You mean, i can't voice an honest opinion of this movie until someone gives Pointless, long-winded and tiresome remake that replaces all the charm of the 1933 original with an orgy of indulgent, redundant CGI "magic". Jack D, you just summed up the redundancy of internet 'reviews' by telling people who didn't like KONG 2005 to 'Go ahead! make a better movie...". You mean, i can't voice an honest opinion of this movie until someone gives me $200 million dollars to see if I can do better? Using the same logic, you shouldn't criticize INDEPENDENT DAY unless you make a better movie. good luck! Expand
  62. LanceM.
    Dec 16, 2005
    8
    Great remake of a classic movie. Peter Jackson has once again shown that he has an eye for the story as well as action. Would definitely see it again.
  63. ChrisV.
    Dec 16, 2005
    4
    Some of the movie is amazing to see but most of it is either silly, stupid or unnecessary. Even some of the special effects were bad, especially the dinosaur chase scene where its pretty easy to see when the men were replaced with cgi characters. There are subplots that slow the story, especially the one about the 18 boy learning about manhood. How did that fit in and why did we have to Some of the movie is amazing to see but most of it is either silly, stupid or unnecessary. Even some of the special effects were bad, especially the dinosaur chase scene where its pretty easy to see when the men were replaced with cgi characters. There are subplots that slow the story, especially the one about the 18 boy learning about manhood. How did that fit in and why did we have to sit through at least 20 minutes of that nonsense. I don't know if Peter Jackson has been to the top of the Empire State Building in the winter but I have and you wouldn't want to be up there in just a flimsy dress. Has Mr. Jackson heard of whiplash? Naomi Watts should have been dead 5 minutes after Kong grabbed her and started running. That would have saved us 90 minutes of torture. The only two redeeming things about this film are Jack Black and the last 20 minutes which are breathtaking even if silly. Expand
  64. TracyB.
    Dec 16, 2005
    7
    Visually stunning, moving in arts but the story was streched to long. Should have been cut by 1 hour, at least 30 minutes. I really wanted to love it but the length minimized the impact.
  65. 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
  66. BakracM.
    Dec 16, 2005
    9
    Great movie almost perfect!
  67. Zach
    Dec 16, 2005
    8
    I saw this movie last night and was surprised how good it was. I was expecting it would be long and boring like those LOTR movies Jackson was behind, but this was good. It's worth it to see King Kong fighting the T'Rexes alone. Tons of action, really fun to see.
  68. ChrisE.
    Dec 16, 2005
    10
    I wonder if those of you who gave this a low rating saw the same film I did. Yes, it was a bit long (Jackson is not one to do things in a hurry) but it was magical. This is why we go to the movies. The T-Rex fight (not to spoil anything) was one of the best action sequences put to film. Maybe none of it was "there" but still. This film is fun, sad, sacry, funny...eveything a film should I wonder if those of you who gave this a low rating saw the same film I did. Yes, it was a bit long (Jackson is not one to do things in a hurry) but it was magical. This is why we go to the movies. The T-Rex fight (not to spoil anything) was one of the best action sequences put to film. Maybe none of it was "there" but still. This film is fun, sad, sacry, funny...eveything a film should be. There is a difference between movies and films. Movies are put out for a buck, good or bad, they have no real value (i.e. Spider-Man, Wedding Crashers). Films mean something and make you feel something (i.e. American Beauty) This is the very definition (at least MY very definition) of a film. Expand
  69. GeoffB.
    Dec 16, 2005
    6
    We have 200 million to spend! Let's see, we'll spend a fair bit on the screenplay?...... nah! On actors? ....whatever. On CGI?.....oh, yes indeedy! I fear that Peter Jackson went to the dark side and relied heavily on CGI, attempting to mask the fact that his movie has no soul. God help us if he turns into another George Lucas, offering us high-tech banality.
  70. 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
  71. TonyB.
    Dec 17, 2005
    9
    Totally enjoyed it. A few minor things could have been changed (mixing dinosaurs and people running together, and any ofthe people surviving was a bit of a stretch, and the same with those pesky insects). The close ups of Naomi were beautiful, BTW. If you go to movies to be entertained, I can't think of any movie that could have done it better. I enjoyed it at least as much as the Totally enjoyed it. A few minor things could have been changed (mixing dinosaurs and people running together, and any ofthe people surviving was a bit of a stretch, and the same with those pesky insects). The close ups of Naomi were beautiful, BTW. If you go to movies to be entertained, I can't think of any movie that could have done it better. I enjoyed it at least as much as the original. The only changes I would have liked to have seen would have been a little less of the first hour, and a little more of scenes in NY at the end. Expand
  72. RoboRocker
    Dec 17, 2005
    5
    No, it's not a masterpiece of a film. No it doesn't deserve a 10...anyone who would give it such a high vote is simply amused by the simplest illusions. I agree the FXs are nice, but even that has it's share of problems. There are times when it looks too CGI in scenes where, frankly, they didn't even need to use CGI to begin with. Also, I couldn't help but see No, it's not a masterpiece of a film. No it doesn't deserve a 10...anyone who would give it such a high vote is simply amused by the simplest illusions. I agree the FXs are nice, but even that has it's share of problems. There are times when it looks too CGI in scenes where, frankly, they didn't even need to use CGI to begin with. Also, I couldn't help but see exposure differences between some of the CGI and real objects. To the point of wondering if this was farmed out to the lowest bidder. I don't feel this movie is ground-breaking in visuals, but they do use a lot of mock computer animated bling bling to get your attention. Kong leaps around at times as though he's a frog. A terrible oversight on the part of the animators. This flick is ok at best, but don't go believing any reviews that suggest it's a masterpiece. Expand
  73. PhilS.
    Dec 17, 2005
    4
    One of the whiniest, cheesiest movies of it's genre. Stunningly realistic animation is the only positive aspect of the film. The action sequences are too numerous, too long, and just plain boring. The non-action sequences are laughably sentimental.
  74. AnthonyB.
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    Hooo! What more I can say. That was spectacularly breathtaking movie! King Kong got it all. Horror, romance, comedy, adventure....they are all mixed in one movie. Seems that, it was another trilogy by none other than trilogy master, Sir Peter Jackson! Best part was the scenes in the Island. That was soooo chilling and it was making your breath to stop. Audience yelling and screaming and Hooo! What more I can say. That was spectacularly breathtaking movie! King Kong got it all. Horror, romance, comedy, adventure....they are all mixed in one movie. Seems that, it was another trilogy by none other than trilogy master, Sir Peter Jackson! Best part was the scenes in the Island. That was soooo chilling and it was making your breath to stop. Audience yelling and screaming and suddenly bursting to laugh. Two times crying scene, epical in style. Thats it! A must see movie! I love Peter Jackson films! The best so far in the History of World Entertainment . Expand
  75. J.N.
    Dec 17, 2005
    6
    A bit too long, a bit too much CGI, a bit too much a lot of things. This movie, although entertaining and emotional, makes the old saying "too much of a good thing" very true. Although much of the special effects were very well used, some parts, like with the dinosaurs falling on top of each other and the giant leeches, you just have to laugh. Enjoyable, but no masterpiece.
  76. 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
  77. JeremyD.
    Dec 17, 2005
    9
    Excellent movie. An homage to Hollywood really.
  78. DarrelRhea
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    Delightfully over the top, and then some. This movie is just plain fun!
  79. JeethJ.
    Dec 17, 2005
    9
    The movie was great.....especially the visuals and the expressions of kong......excellent stuff by peter jackson.
  80. 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.
  81. FenceSitter
    Dec 17, 2005
    10
    Highly enjoyable, great performance from Andy Serkis.
  82. Stephen
    Dec 18, 2005
    5
    My goodness this was a long film. They could have easily taken 30-60 minutes out of the film in editing and made the end product much better. The first two hours in Skull Island just seemed to drag on forever. Many of the scenes were unnecessary and seemingly put in to display the amazing visual effects. Things start to pick up only after they arrive back in NY. Everything from that point My goodness this was a long film. They could have easily taken 30-60 minutes out of the film in editing and made the end product much better. The first two hours in Skull Island just seemed to drag on forever. Many of the scenes were unnecessary and seemingly put in to display the amazing visual effects. Things start to pick up only after they arrive back in NY. Everything from that point forward is film making at its best. Expand
  83. ChrisM.
    Dec 18, 2005
    9
    If you didn't like it, I feel bad for you.
  84. AndyC.
    Dec 18, 2005
    9
    The only reason this film does not gain a perfect ten is that it is, at the end of the day, a remake. Most of the audience know the end, but what a ride they have on the way! We've had so many years of soulless CGI blockbusters; here the effects are used for a reason. The middle section is the most exciting and fun film I've seen for a long time. In fact I haven't had that The only reason this film does not gain a perfect ten is that it is, at the end of the day, a remake. Most of the audience know the end, but what a ride they have on the way! We've had so many years of soulless CGI blockbusters; here the effects are used for a reason. The middle section is the most exciting and fun film I've seen for a long time. In fact I haven't had that much celluloid fun since Raiders of the Lost Ark. Perhaps I need to get out more? I took my ten year old daughter to see this, who has never seen the original. She thoroughly enjoyed every minute. However, she was dry eyed at the end! I suspect the running time of the movie dilutes the impact of Kong's demise; deep down somewhere we are quite relieved to see him go. For my own part I blubbed like a baby. I always laugh when I see so much deep analysis of a film like this. It's the story of a 25 foot tall gorilla that falls in love with a girl, whilst tearing merry hell out of jungle monsters and New York. With that in mind it delivers everything for which you could wish. Expand
  85. LucyR.
    Dec 18, 2005
    4
    So here we are, with another underwhelming remake of a classic movie, from another high profile director. No, this isn't Spielberg's War of the ZzzzZZZzzz, this is King Kong by Lucas 2.0. The dialogue is weak. The plot points from time to time make little sense. Worst of all, the flick is just too long. What could have been cut? Let's not forget we already have a perfect 90 So here we are, with another underwhelming remake of a classic movie, from another high profile director. No, this isn't Spielberg's War of the ZzzzZZZzzz, this is King Kong by Lucas 2.0. The dialogue is weak. The plot points from time to time make little sense. Worst of all, the flick is just too long. What could have been cut? Let's not forget we already have a perfect 90 minute cut of the story. The flick's first act just doesn't work. For any other movie it would have been fantastic, but with the knowledge of Kong just right around the corner (as seen in countless trailers, unlike how Spielberg hid the shark / dinosaurs / aliens), it just all falls apart. Pass. Expand
  86. JonahG.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    I thought that this was the best major release of the year. Jackson is able to create a tension and passion between Watts and Kong that would is almost impossible. The only detractor from the movie is Adrian Brody, who's character seems lost, as if its role is not fully understood by the writer or the actor. This is a fault that can be forgiven for this is a truly great movie which I thought that this was the best major release of the year. Jackson is able to create a tension and passion between Watts and Kong that would is almost impossible. The only detractor from the movie is Adrian Brody, who's character seems lost, as if its role is not fully understood by the writer or the actor. This is a fault that can be forgiven for this is a truly great movie which is able to weave a romantic storyline with incredible action sequences seamlessly. Expand
  87. 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.
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. EllisVanG.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    Great Movie.. Just ask Good as the Lord of The Rings Series. Peter jackson is a Movie Director god!
  91. ArnieG.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    Easily the best movie so far of the 21st century.
  92. GregS.
    Dec 18, 2005
    6
    What a disappointment. Even the 1933 version had a better story line. Sure the effects are amazing, but shouldn't they be? Terrible waste of energy. Bring back Jessica and Fay.
  93. BitBurn
    Dec 18, 2005
    9
    It's hard too believe that this movie received scores lower than 6, I mean, come on people! Sure, romance is not for everybody but the special effects alone are worth a 6, minimum!
  94. AdamB
    Dec 18, 2005
    9
    Other movies can have dinosaurs besides Jurrasic Park people. Just like to make that clear for those who don't get the dinosaur part. Yes Peter Jackson is known for taking his time with a film and King Kong takes its time. It takes that extra minute or two with scenes to fully flesh them out, and they are well worth it. A great love story, some dialogue wooden, but overlooked in the Other movies can have dinosaurs besides Jurrasic Park people. Just like to make that clear for those who don't get the dinosaur part. Yes Peter Jackson is known for taking his time with a film and King Kong takes its time. It takes that extra minute or two with scenes to fully flesh them out, and they are well worth it. A great love story, some dialogue wooden, but overlooked in the grand scheme of things. Kong is amazing to look at and a nonstop thrill ride once you hit the Island. Some points in the plot like how they got kong to new york and why Naomi wasn't cold don't matter! I guess it's not realistic because Naomi didn't shiver or fall off at the top of the Empire State Building, but the movie is about a big ape who fights dinosaurs. Scary, funny, and an adrenline rush, Kong delivers on every level. A instant classic. And don't look for racism where isn't any. Expand
  95. JerryC.
    Dec 18, 2005
    10
    I loved this movie going experience. I had cut way back on theatre going preferring my at home big screen & surround sound. However, this movie needs to be seen on a big screen at least once. The first hour was a little slow but still well done. Once the action started look out! It was incredible!!
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. Lucas
    Dec 19, 2005
    8
    Once again, here is a case of "what you bring to the movies is what you'll get out of them". If you are a racist, you'll see racist imagery in "King Kong" and chances are you find racism EVERYWHERE because you are a paranoid psycho. If you suffer from impatience (or ADD), then the movie is too long, etc. As for the racism comment, I'd much rather enjoy a flight-o-fancy like Once again, here is a case of "what you bring to the movies is what you'll get out of them". If you are a racist, you'll see racist imagery in "King Kong" and chances are you find racism EVERYWHERE because you are a paranoid psycho. If you suffer from impatience (or ADD), then the movie is too long, etc. As for the racism comment, I'd much rather enjoy a flight-o-fancy like "Kong" than another no-talent gang-banger-gone-rapper-gone-pseudoactor, any day! It's hilarious that certain people can find racism in a movie like "King Kong" yet, say absolutely nothing about the idiotic stereotypes found in hip-hop gang banger movies and video games...that's just my fifty-cents worth! Expand
  99. Connor
    Dec 19, 2005
    10
    Anyone who would give less than an 8 is insane, this move far surpasses the other ones in many different ways. For one I thought I got to know the characters beter in this one than the other ones. Another the acting was so much better than the other ones, And personally I felt that the 3 hours and 7 min. flow by, because I felt like I was in the movie following the characters paths and Anyone who would give less than an 8 is insane, this move far surpasses the other ones in many different ways. For one I thought I got to know the characters beter in this one than the other ones. Another the acting was so much better than the other ones, And personally I felt that the 3 hours and 7 min. flow by, because I felt like I was in the movie following the characters paths and getting to know them, thats why i give it a 10. Expand
  100. RussellP.
    Dec 19, 2005
    5
    Way too long. The length of this film makes it lose some of it s flavor. The King Kong CG was incredible, but some of the other CG stunk. And, while a 25 foot gorilla is hard to believe, there are some things in the movie that are way out there (like humans punching dinosaurs in the face and jungle vines holding the weight of a t-rex). I felt frustrated more than amazed after watching Way too long. The length of this film makes it lose some of it s flavor. The King Kong CG was incredible, but some of the other CG stunk. And, while a 25 foot gorilla is hard to believe, there are some things in the movie that are way out there (like humans punching dinosaurs in the face and jungle vines holding the weight of a t-rex). I felt frustrated more than amazed after watching this film. It needed to be about 45 minutes shorter. It drags. 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.